Hmmm... I'm sure I won't be the only one to comment on this, but I
think this statement requires a profound explication of what is meant
by "secular" and "non-secular." Otherwise, there's no reason for us to
do anything besides confessional research, no?
Cheers,
Garth D. Reese, MLIS, PhD
Associate Professor
Head, Special Collections & Archives
University of Idaho Library
850 Rayburn St.
Moscow, ID 83844-2351
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Oh Caroline I do hope I haven't offended you. I just think a secular
> take on a non secular thing is perhaps not the best way to go.
>
> Regards,
>
> Morgan Leigh
> PhD Candidate
> School of Sociology and Social Work
> University of Tasmania
>
> On 31/03/2011 5:43 PM, Caroline Tully wrote:
>> What if, as a practitioner-insider myself, I just wanted to look at the GD
>> from a secular angle after twenty-plus years of interpreting it through a
>> supernatural angle?
>>
>> ~Caroline.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2011 5:35 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Wallis Budge / Liber Resh
>>
>> If the society you are studying maintains that the supernatural is real
>> it seems an odd choice to not mention it. It is, as you say, not one's
>> own belief or lack thereof that is the question, rather that of the
>> society, or persons, being discussed.
>>
>> One important part of archaeology is the science. If one is doing
>> science, one is necessarily limited to physical evidence. Another part
>> is to examine the possible meanings of those physical things for those
>> to whom they belonged. To do this one needs to consider the known
>> beliefs and motivations of those under scrutiny. When the purpose of
>> one's paper is such, to deliberately omit an important, perhaps the most
>> important, known aspect of the motivations of those involved can only be
>> censorship. However this attitude is common in much of academia today.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Morgan Leigh
>> PhD Candidate
>> School of Sociology and Social Work
>> University of Tasmania
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/03/2011 11:18 AM, Caroline Tully wrote:
>>> Yes, I'm not denying that at all, but you aren't supposed to use
>>> *supernatural* evidence in academic research - at least not in
>> archaeology.
>>> So yeah, absolutely, that's exactly what they did, or thought they were
>>> doing, but I can't utilise that from an "I believe it" perspective in
>>> archaeology... well, I suppose I could, with qualification and
>>> explanation... but I chose not to in this instance. I was specifically
>>> trying to analyse their activities from a secular Egyptological viewpoint.
>>> People have been incorporating the supernatural evidence in writing about
>>> the GD for years, but I was deliberately _not_ incorporating it. I don't
>>> know how other disciplines besides archaeology deal with "supernatural" or
>>> religious evidence, but at Melbourne Uni, it is discouraged from coming
>> from
>>> a belief angle, at least in publicly read material like that. Yes, I could
>>> turn it around and write it from a belief angle - the GD's belief - and I
>>> thought I did that really, I thought it was evident that _they_ (the GD)
>>> believed in the reality of the Egyptian gods, but that in my article such
>>> evidence was not incorporated because it was supernatural evidence.
>>>
>>> ~Caroline.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 29 March 2011 9:08 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Wallis Budge / Liber Resh
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Having just recently read your Walk Like an Egyptian paper and this
>>> thread I'd like to suggest that perhaps the reason that the GD
>>> privileged Egyptian gods and that AC's take on Egypt was different from
>>> the archaeological work was that they had a source of information that
>>> was different from the archeological. That is, that both the GD and AC
>>> had made contact with the Egyptian gods and had first hand info that
>>> wasn't bound to the same motivations as the Egyptology of the time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Morgan Leigh
>>> PhD Candidate
>>> School of Sociology and Social Work
>>> University of Tasmania
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/03/2011 11:59 AM, Caroline Tully wrote:
>>>> Hi Mogg,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You mean hung out in the British Library which was them part of the
>>> BM?<<
>>>>
>>>> Yes, well actually I mean the Reading Room of the BM.
>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure that's the same a direct work with the Egyptologists there -
>>>> surely there would be something more concrete - rather than the same
>> vague
>>>> rumours and chinese whispers.<<
>>>>
>>>> That's right, it's not the same. I'm just saying its likely, or at least
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's a bit like the statement that Mathers worked as a curator or
>>> whatever
>>>> at the Horniman - if you ask them they have no record of that although
>>> they
>>>> are aware of his friendship with the founder?<<
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting,. I've only heard of that in Mary Greer, so whatever
>>> her
>>>> source is for that, I guess that's the source.
>>>>
>>>>>> Its funny how something so recent has so little documentation - makes
>>> you
>>>> wonder about the relationship between older research and its evidence
>> base
>>> :
>>>> )<<
>>>>
>>>> Well, if documentation does exist (about the GD and BM), I'm sure someone
>>>> diligent could go find it - if it was findable.
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with your article about the authority of Egypt for GD/AC etc -
>>> but
>>>> does it ever go further - and why is there such a discrepency between the
>>>> Egyptological knowledge of the time and some of the Crowleyian liturgy?<<
>>>>
>>>> You mean why is Crowley's take different to scholarly Egyptology
>>> (admitting
>>>> that some of that scholarly Egyptology wasn't that great)? I think
>> Crowley
>>>> would have felt free to adapt Egyptian material to his purposes and also,
>>> I
>>>> think he used a Kabbalistic structure as his base, his 'map', and fitted
>>>> things into that, for example, the "Four-ness" of say Liber Resh fitting
>>>> into the Tetragrammaton. He would have favoured 4's (Tetragrammaton), 7s
>>>> (planets, excluding the later-discovered ones, even though he included
>>>> Neptune in his Astrology book), 12s - the Zodiac etc...
>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that Crowley thought the Egyptians meant it to be a nice even
>>>> four and rectified the rite as he did for Liber Samech.<<
>>>>
>>>> Big YEP there.
>>>>
>>>> ~Caroline.
>>>
>
> --
>
|