On 2 July 2010 09:48, Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> while I'm revisiting the subject, I think there's also something to be said
> about the opportunity often missed when that amateur is well practiced in
> magic, which can provide insights that are not necessarily going to pass
> peer review. since they look at historical issues in a certain kind of
> exacting light, going to the historical for practical purposes and trying to
> get things magically right, there are many ways that they can teach us to
> pay attention to the text. making these folks feel defensive about their
> lack of academic credentials is a mistake, is all I'm saying. not that the
> peer review has this effect, or that we should write off any published work
> simply because it's conservatively produced.
sorry if I landed you in something Ted, wasn't my intention. I used to
feel my lack of academic training was a problem, nowadays I'm not so
sure. I benefit from studying academic sources, as does my work
hopefully (both the practice and my writing). However, for my purposes
at least, the tightrope between academia and magic here seems to serve
academic strictures rather better than the needs of an informed
occultist. If that's how it works, I'm probably better out of academia
than in it.
Jake
http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
|