It may not be a case of being initiated into occult societies, or studying
occult subjects, but of _practising_ occult arts. At least with ceremonial
magic(k) for example, one is expected to study and practise it. But maybe
that's not the case for being an "occultist", maybe that's a broader,
vaguer(?) category.
Caroline Tully.
Centre for Classics and Archaeology
University of Melbourne
Australia
http://classics-archaeology.unimelb.edu.au/
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh
Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2014 8:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] British
writers who are occultists
Absolutely. Unless someone was on the membership roll of some society or
other a determination as to whether or not one is an occultist is very
problematic. Not the least because of the question of how one defines 'an
occultist'. In Wheatley's case for example, he wrote many books with occult
themes, for which he would have had to do research on occult matters. This
raises the question of whether those who study the occult are by default
occultists, or if there is some necessary commitment to be made before one
is considered a 'real' occultist? Must one be initiated into some tradition
before one may claim the moniker or are self initiates also occultists?
Regards,
Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of Social Sciences
University of Tasmania
On 23/07/2014 2:46 PM, Nick Campion wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that to be an occultist or not to be an occultist are
not binary poles, and that there are multiple ways in which one might be
considered an occultist.
>
> Nick
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ted Hand
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 18 July 2014 04:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] SV: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] British
> writers who are occultists
>
> I guess my point is that Lovecraft although clearly not a believer
certainly appreciated how the occult functions, if you like. There was a
reality to it that while not numinous was powerful in other senses. Which
puts him in a tradition of readers making their own use of occult sources. I
don't think he must be an occultist or initiate to be understood as an
occult writer in some sense. That said I don't think he had chaos magic in
mind...
>
> On Jul 17, 2014 8:25 PM, "M. S. Spencer"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> That should be addressed to Leigh, not Lee. apologies.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM, M. S. Spencer
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Lee,
>
> Grant does not suggest that Lovecraft was an active Occultist in the sense
of one who is consciously practing "occult science" or performing ritual,
nor does he suggest that Lovecraft "believed" in the occult. To suggest
otherwise implies one has not read Grant, or is otherwise motivated to
misrepresent his work. Grant was very aware of Lovecraft's materialism and
atheism. He even directly addresses it several times in the Trilogies.
>
> ~M
>
>
> As long ago as 1987 I published "H.P. Lovecraft as Occultist': An
Exploration" (essay in four parts, Shadowplay, Australia; in two parts,
Dagon, UK) which refutes any suggestion (as made by Kenneth Grant and
others) that Lovecraft believed in occultism or practised it any way save
that of employing occult motifs in his fictional work.
>
|