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