On 2 July 2010 09:30, Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>.>Jake writes:
>
>>"When they are more general this element is much diminished: materials from
>> different periods are distinguished >rather than harmonised; historical and
>> cultural distinctions override the practical need for synthesis. This can
>> >have a distinct numbing effect on well informed non-academics gathering
>> materials or presenting a case for a >particular approach."
>
> This difference between focused and general studies might have a lot to do
> with the history of religious studies and history of esotericism. 50 years
> ago, a lot of phenomenological and psychological synthesis was presented as
> scholarship. Nowadays, many generalists stay away from these integrative
> projects as they tend to push a religious agenda, ignore important
> differences between traditions or cultures and ignore political and
> economical implications in and consequences of religious rhetoric. Perhaps
> the reason why "focused" groups enjoy comparison and synthesis is exactly
> because they are focused - they know one thing and make a lot of assumptions
> about other things, facilitating a comparative and interpretive approach. I
> for one find that "harmonisation" and "practical needs" belong outside
> academic contexts unless carefully circumscribed by therapeutic or artistic
> interests; and then it is not history anymore.
sure but when these qualities aren't present it isn't Magic either.
I'm not here to study academia, but to hear what sympathetic academics
say about magic. If it has to always be analysis of the past, and
never serve its progress in the present or future even on an informal
basis, then I am probably wasting my time here, as I am increasingly
suspecting.
ALWays
Jake
|