Ty Falk wrote:
> I can dig this, but hey, since when has lack of understanding on a
> subject ever stopped anyone from researching it?
I haven't found this to generally be the
case amongst academics, I think partly
because in academia people are trained
to focus on a single area of research
and therefore get to know it pretty
well. Also, in academia it is far too
easy to be spied out as being a moron by
others in one's field. However, amongst
non-academic writers on occult topics, I
have found blow-hardism to be the rule
instead of the exception. The fad
nowadays in such writing on the occult
is to use footnotes to lend a bogus air
of legitimacy, but from what I have
seen, these footnotes are usually just
referencing more dreck. It seems that
pulling things out of one's behind,
plagiarizing, being ahistorical, and
reinterpreting history to abide by one's
cherished and always unexamined
preconceived ideas are the leitmotifs of
non-academic "research" in the occult.
Those who don't write that way are
wonderful, but they are rare. That is
why I have nearly given up reading any
non-academic books on occult subjects.
There are too many would-be experts who
don't know jack about magic, can't
reason, can't argue, and can't even
spell, too many wackos who haunt social
networking sites attacking anyone who
disagrees with their received wisdom,
too much Lulu. Etc.
Harry Roth
|