I wrote:
> for your reading pleasure, welcoming comment.
> -------------------------------------
> A Brief Reflection of
> Ethnomusicology into Ethnomagicology
> and the Spectrum of Observation
> -------------------------------------
these are my comments extending to ethno*magic*ology.
> it was toward and away from universals that almost
> every multi-cultural study i've encountered has
> reached, and i loved the debates on this, no
> matter the context. ....
this is toward what i pointed with my reference
previously about the Laws of Magic as proposed
by Frazer and extended by Bonewits and gamers.
Nettl adjusted toward magic (NATM):
> "...seeking universals suggests two approaches --
> a search for specific features that [magics]
> ('a' [magic] being a [formula of symbolic elements],
> a system of ideas, or a complex of events) have in
> common, and the discovery of a conceptual framework
> for analysis broad enough to subsume all imaginable
> differences."
I think that this is also likely true for magic.
> that all cultures have music (should we also be
> presuming that all cultures have magic? maybe so).
in a preliminary study of a culture, presuming that
a culture has magics is a good starting point. we
should also begin to construct generalizations
about what it will look like. this extends very
far beyond notions of 'considering any volitional
action to be magick', which is totally unworkable
from an investigative standpoint (though possibly
valuable from the perspective of a practitioner).
NATM:
> * observing what the people do, going
> to [magical] events, gatherings,
> buying [magical] paraphernalia, etc.
I've attended these events, such as within the
Neopagan (Pagan) world: sabbats and esbats, for
example; or in the more New Age community: ritual
spells intending very benefic results; or in
Satanic cursings. the paraphernalia were both
the tools used to effect magic as well as the
accoutrements facilitating it by dramatic or
ornamented decoration.
NATM:
> "have certain traits in order to be acceptable
> {as [magic]}, but some of them need be present
> only in the mainstream of the repertory."
I encountered this quite a bit in my examination of
differing social groups. some eshewed magic as a
term and/or as an activity, some engaged it only
within a certain meaning to them, etc.
NATM:
> "The idea of preconceived structure, of [magic]
> being something created by people who know what they
> are doing... is tied to the more formal definition
> of [magic] as a science."
this one i had to read about or travel a bit to find
more formally: experts in magic, those whose social role
it was considered to do magic for hire, for example, or
to instruct it at least. amongst the Thelemites i also
found those who advocated its actual *supplanting of
science* (a kind of inversion of what was going on at
the time in the academic spheres in the aftermath of
people like Thorndike; more below).
NATM:
> "The absence of a general term for [magic] doesn't
> necessarily mean that there's no [magic] concept,
> but the way in which terms appear in discourse
> about [magic] may tell us about the configuration
> of the concept."
the closest example of this i could find within my
SF Bay Area zone was the repeated reference to Roman
Catholic Mass and how the Transubstantiation was
'really magic(k)' though the '(Roman Catholic) Church
wouldn't ever admit it'. I spoke with Catholics about
this, who thought it funny. eventually i saw both
their points, and evaluated it as 'licensed' and
'unlicensed' magical activity.
> ...language is likely to vary,
I don't mean here just from one language to another, but
from within one religious group to another, within one
community to another. the term 'magic' takes on other,
sometimes more nefarious meanings to them.
for example, the Rosicrucians (at least my AMORCian
locals) were apparently quite concerned about the
term "magic"'s usage in their midst, by report of
friends who attended their meetings who were also
part of my initiatic *magical* order.
> people may or may not find that the practice or
> reporting on magic is acceptable (in a comparison
> with music, for instance),
are there vows of secrecy surrounding MUSIC?
> and that cultures will likely differ, based on
> the origins of our terms, with their means of
> reference.
this of course applies not only to different
subcultures but also to different cultures
anywhere, distinguished by language, locale, etc.
> there is an added dimension in relation to magic in
> that magic is by many within the scientific establishment
> *as* a precursor to (at least some) science (such as that
> of alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy), yet
> ultimately, as Susan and others have indicated, this
> does seem to lead to antagonistic attitudes.
Crowley attempted to take this in other directions, and
in rather rudimentary ways, from what i could tell, within
his 'Magick in Theory and Practice' and his use of terms
of mathematics. I have attempted to extend this somewhat
in my own writings here:
Liber Scire
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/lscire.tn.txt
and have never fully completed it as yet by extending to
it the 'Artistic Method', though i've collected much data
as a basis for it. I think it may be valuable for the
practitioner, but am not aware of how it might be of
value to the investigator.
NATM:
> "Although a society has a word roughly translable as
> [magic], that word may include things we in Western
> urban society, despite our own loose definition, do
> not include as [magical], and it ay specifically
> exclude other phenomena that we regard as [magic]."
I wonder whether the concepts of 'folk music' and 'folk
magic' still have valuable delimiters and standards.
there are heavy arguments in musical contexts as to the
artificiality of folk music, especially past a certain
point in time and proliferation of cultural data, as
well as collection methods. where folk *magic* is
concerned in some cases there are similarly large
organizations providing magica materia to the
interested public, so we should ask and provide
good answers for 'what makes it "folk"?'
NATM:
> "...each society has its unique conception of
> [magic] and a terminology to reflect the conception."
how long will this last in the days of the internet?
NATM:
> "...the value of [magic] in a society may be a major
> factor in determining the breadth of its definition
> of music.
this will become a focus of attention where 'magic' is
a forbidden subject of study, something possibly equated
to 'heresy' or 'satanism' within some Christian nations,
etc.
NATM:
> "...the widely held view of [magic] as merely a kind
> of [ritual] is a basis of operations too narrow for
> acceptance by [ethnomagicologists].
I want to explode these pseudouniversals of spellcraft
out of the confines of Transmutation and Neopagan rite
(as merely a type of religious act) and have a free
examination of kitchenwitch nonritual magicrafting. it
is fine to explore magic as Susan has, as long as we
are not taking it as the universal and can put it in
its proper perspective. having lived for a long time
within the Neopagan subculture i've seen a rejection
of actuality/legitimacy of spellcraft outside of
Circles (and have moved to other realms to cover it).
I've been reading quite a bit about the religion/magic
controversy and how it has not been helped by those
such as Frazer and his successors. it's intriguing,
but not resolved that i can tell. Harry Potter may
have helped some. :) surely the fact that both Susan
Greenwood and Yvonne Chireau have come up with quite
similar conclusions about the concept is important.
NATM:
> "Members of Western society often define [magic]
> with specific reference only to the [ritual one
> engages] and to their [formula of materia magica].
> But [ethnomagicologists] have reason to define
> [magic] more broadly. ....
I look forward to continuing this kind of a
substitution with Merriam's work and seeing how
far it may be applicable to Greenwood also. that's
the only thing that concerned me so far about what
i saw in Susan's text: at times she seemed to lend
weight to generalizations i found untenable, and
her findings ought be valuable to compare and
contrast through time and across cultures, the
types of magics we can encounter, and document.
too many times in less formal and more public
venues i saw people ostensibly studying the
subject of magic talk about it within
extremely narrow confines.
NATM:
> "Defining the concept of [magic] is basic to any
> understanding and study of the subject, but it
> is not, after all, the ultimate aim of the
> [ethnomagicologist].
now what i was attempting to do previously in this
forum is to float ideas which struck me as having
possible value in terms of working models/termsets.
it's quite possible that none will suffice.
NATM:
> " The task is more properly
> one of studying the definitions provided by the
> world's [magical] cultures in order to shed light
> on their way of conceiving of music. ... When
> {[ethnomagicologists]} find that a '[magical]'
> [ritual] is considered [religion],
> [ethnomagicologists] nevertheless include it in
> their area of study. When the concept of [magic]
> does not appear to exist in a culture, or when
> it is extremely restricted so that certain
> phenomena considered to be [magic] by the
> [ethnomagicologist]'s own culture fall outside it,
> these phenomena are accepted as [magic] too. When
> a society includes in its purview of [magic]
> something that Western [ethnomagicologists] do
> not recognize as [magic], they also accept this
> for study, perhaps with certain reservations."
this is a helpful stipulation for all who study the
subject, and i hope a part of the modern approach.
nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
-----------------------------------------------------
*Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------
|
