Hi Jake,
Don't leave SASM; from my viewpoint, which is also skewed more towards
practitioner than academic, this discussion has come up before and will
continue to come up simply because the list is intended for both
practitioners and academics. Only a month or so ago Jesper kindly redirected
my frustration with the failings of academic discourse, explaining that
"it's not perfect, but it's the best we've got."
Like yourself, I've proposed new answers to Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples'
"puzzling" turn away from Natural Magic to mainstream Catholicism. I've
committed my work and reputation, as you have, to possible motives that
previous Lefevre scholars were not able or willing to embrace--either
personally or professionally.
Contemporary scholars of Magic need to trust this different approach that
comes naturally to us simply by virtue of having been raised in a very
different cultural mindset. Academics are always re-writing history; that's
our job---to look at the facts with a fresh gaze, one that brings with it
intriguing new insights about human nature throughout time. I don't feel
it's necessary to qualify our viewpoints as "occult," "esoteric," or
"intuitive." Our insights are products of our whole being taken together. No
apology is required for being who we are, or for thinking as we do.
Kathryn
Kathryn LaFevers Evans
Independent Researcher
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Green" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
Jake,
The list is meant to be an inclusive bringing together of academics (many of
whom are also practitioners, but not exclusively) and practitioners (many of
who have published authoritative boks and articles in the field) and seems
to work pretty well with this mix. Many feel this bi-culturalism (being
academics and practitioners) keenly which is always why answers will refer
to emics and etics, etc. ... I would have to say that Paganism in both
academic and practitioner discourses acts an umbrella for both monist and
polytheistic forms of spirituality and that makes definition and comparison
sometimes problematic. I might be getting away from your original question,
but have a look at Dennis Carpenter's definitional work on Paganism in
Lewis' 'Modern Witchcraft and Magical Religion'. Dimensions of Paganisms
such a mono, duo- and polytheism, or magic-using v non-magic using, make an
all encompassing definition of Pagan (which would include heathenism), never
mind comparison, difficult to say the least. Given this perhaps people have
not answered because they see Pagan Monism v Heathen polytheism a false
opposition on these terms.
Dave
Dr Dave Green
Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM):
http://www.sasm.co.uk
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jake Stratton-Kent
Sent: 26 March 2010 13:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
First of all, thanks for answering.
On 26 March 2010 13:00, Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Jake.
>
> I must admit I am a bit confused as to which posts you are addressing
> with your latest mails -
understood, if I understand correctly an earlier post of mine led to this
current discussion, but I am sat on the sidelines waiting for another post
to be answered. Being somewhat frustrated by this, I decided to join in with
this one.
I subscribe to other message boards and mailing lists
> with purely academic participants, so I am definitely for a list that
> is open for discussion between academic and practitioner approaches; I
> have a feeling this is the general sentiment?
that was my impression also, but to a very large degree it seems the
practitioners are only wearing their academic hats. Not having such headgear
of my own I'm still wondering whether or not this list is where I belong, on
balance so far I'd say it isn't, which is unfortunate as my occult interests
are usually better served by academics than occultists.
> But when you say "So I propose, thinking like an occultist is not out
> of place on this list. Occultism has theoretical and practical
> considerations which academics should be able to address via the
> empathic method", my answer as an academic would be yes, "emic"
> thinking and empathic re-reading is important (which is why I
> subscribe to the list, for ex.), but it is not an answer in itself,
> hence the "etic" theoretical reframing of a given study (when I write
> articles).
it is not an answer in itself, hence my analogy of the 'arguing from
historical evidence' like an academic historian in regard to Hannibal, while
*also* trying to understand him in his own terms. More relevant than
proposing he didn't attack Rome because of a traumatic incident in his
relationship with his father or whatever.
>And if "thinking like an occultist" means reproducing biased
>dichotomies as academic analysis, I hope other scholars will point out
>that something is missing.
I'm assuming it is the New Age topic you mean by 'biassed dichotomies', as I
have no idea what else it might refer to. So, no I'm not talking about pro
and anti New Age attitudes as representative of occult thought which folks
need to be considering. Nor did I think my initial comment really amounted
to anything like a position requiring political correction.
What I'm wondering is why my question about monist elements in pagan
philosophy is apparently of no interest to academics here; even though they
apparently have *some* basis for distinguishing paganism from polytheism. I
did preface my question with an apology should I be going over old ground
for established list members. I hope potential comments about Neoplatonist
philosophy don't automatically involve 'biassed dichotomies', especially as
I included an invitation to contrast it or compare it with Indian philosophy
relevant to 'pagan monism vs heathen polytheism'.
So, sorry to confuse you, but I'm equally confused that the current
discussion about inclusiveness arising from my earlier post has effectively
excluded me! ;)
ALWays
Jake
|