 |
 |
Excellent point James; Speaking personally I would love to see more of the beautiful symbols of the Catholic Church in public, and more symbols of Judaism, and of Neo-Paganism such as pentacles and hexagrams. Not even the local metaphysical store can sell pentacles and hexagrams, because "they are exclusionary." The owner has to keep it "like Disneyland." And this is not a harmless state of affairs, as the creator of the exquisitely sculpted statue of "Sweet Jesus" (out of chocolate) found out--the New York show closed because of death threats. There was also the recent White House stunt of the Magician who appeared to perform levitation/flying which he allegedly learned from some East Indian "Magicians" in Holland. I assume this was staged by politicians: the oldest trick in the book and one used during the European witch hunts--propaganda via visual mockery. Flying witches are drawn like a fake or taboo trick, whereas Church saints are depicted in ecstatic levitation. The propaganda was aimed perhaps at Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who has an ashram in Holland, and at other "Magicians" who might deign to teach non-State-approved traditions. Maharishi's U.S. university MIU/ now MUM, teaches the flying technique, and the White House stunt is not what it looks like. He has put on public flying demonstrations occasionally, and I believe there is a video of it still available through the University Bookstore. The U.S. is assumed in the popular imagination to be predominately Protestant, and certainly Christian, meaning Catholic or Protestant. But I agree with the proposition of European colleagues, that Europe has always been religiously diverse. And so has the U.S. That's why it is unfortunate that perhaps in public education it is still best not to "play with fire" by teaching esoteric practice alongside theory, or even esoteric theory at all. As an Independent Scholar, not a university professor, it doesn't fall to me to equalize the playing field in public education. Politics is not what inte rests me as regards esoteric studies, but it is a cause for concern which is the reason for my query of those who are professors. All Best, Kathryn ----- Original Message ----- From: "James John Bell" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Esoterism in the Classroom Kathryn, Not meaning to throw a wrench into your "State actively appropriates the Church because of political power" which I agree with, it just doesn't appear to be adorned with the culture and symbols of the "Catholic Church" which I have always wondered about. Author Jonathan Kirsch in God Against the Gods points out that from a cultural perspective, it is paganism and pagan culture which is very dominant in the United States both within academia and the State: "OClassical paganism,¹ then, was the official religion of a civilization that is recalled and honored today in classical texts that are studied in our universities, the statuary that fills our museums and the architectural styles that grace our monuments and public buildings." There are 23 very large Zodiacs in public government buildings in Washington, D.C. and many more Zodiacs on monuments and room interiors honoring and enshrining non-Christian beliefs. A cultural anthropologist studying the art and architecture of the US capitol would not see the "ten commandments" displayed, they would see a pagan Roman Empire theme quoted everywhere. James John Bell SmartMeme http://www.smartmeme.com On 11/5/07 1:14 PM, "Kathryn" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thank you Sabina, particularly for this point, "a skilled instructor can > take a class discussion into the arena of personal spiritual experience." > > But why then did you reply just to me personally, and not to the SASM list? > Is this arena in effect taboo . . . i.e., it's understood that we don't > discuss the issue of subjective spiritual experiences in Academia? That > arena can be undertaken in the privacy of a skilled instructor's classroom, > but is not appropriate for public discussion? > > Perhaps the issue for Academics in the U.S. to consider is whether or not > there is a functional separation of Church and State in Academia at all. > What seems to happen is that the State actively appropriates the Church > because of political power among religious organizations. So functionally, > U.S. Academia embodies the State Churches. For instance, the Catholic Church > is widespread and wealthy, so Church members can financially fund public > university programs as was done at UCSB. There is supposedly "no demand" for > a program in esotericism. In actuality, there is "no supply" of money or > political support from "minority" Churches. In actuality, the State decides > what Church programs are funded/embodied in Academia and thereby > perpetuated. > > My concern is that PRACTICE of something as humanly fundamental as spiritual > technique/experience is by and large taboo in something as important as > public education. > > All Best, > > Kathryn > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sabina Magliocco" <[log in to unmask]> > To: "Kathryn" <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:19 AM > Subject: RE: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Esoterism in the Classroom > > > Hi Kathryn, > > For those of us teaching in state institutions in the United States, where > the separation of church and state is constitutionally mandated, it's tricky > to teach esoterism, magic and spirituality from anything besides an > outsider's perspective. Even relatively non-religious exercises such as > meditation have been protested by students as a form of imposing a religious > belief or praxis. At the same time, that doesn't mean that spirit must be > stripped out of the equation. The whole point of teaching anthropology and > folklore is to help outsiders of any tradition understand what it's like to > be an insider -- to give them a sense (in the full range of the word) of > what a tradition is like. There are wonderful academic texts available > which present spiritual and esoteric material through the use of narrative > insider's voices; these give students a picture of how the practice of > tradition *feels*, as well as why it is practiced and the context in which > it exists. A skilled instructor can take a class discussion into the arena > of personal spiritual experience, allowing students to share their own > experiences and compare them with those in the text and with one another. > > Two additional points. One is that there are academic theorists whose > writings push the boundaries between spirit and intellect: I'm thinking here > of David Hufford, whose work posits that some spiritual beliefs arise from > somatic experiences that are common to all humankind; Andrew Newberg and > Eugene D'Aquili, who work on the neurobiological basis for spiritual > experiences; and Edith Turner, whose well-known article on ritual forces us > to consider how it alters our physical perceptions of reality, as well as > our social ones. I have found the use of these in classes on magic, > spirituality and esoterism to be quite helpful. > > My second point is that we need to carefully consider whether the teaching > of spiritual techniques in the academy is even appropriate. Unlike music, > for which there exist some relatively objective measures of assessment, the > attainment of spiritual skill has a much more subjective quality. Even > experienced esoterists can differ greatly in their judgment of an > individual's spiritual development. In a university environment that is > increasingly outcomes-based, the introduction of this set of skills would > only cause greater difficulty and confusion. > > Best, > Sabina > > Sabina Magliocco > Professor and Chair > Department of Anthropology > California State University - Northridge > 18111 Nordhoff St. > Northridge, CA 91330-8244 > > "Burning the candle at both ends lights up my life." > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathryn > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:53 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] > > This thread brings to mind my interest in hearing how professors teaching > about Magic and other esoteric disciplines handle the object/subject > polarity: do you teach esotericism as an objective artifact as if you were > teaching it from outside any worldview your students and you yourself > inhabit; or do you teach it as a subjective experience that your students > and yourself, as living human beings, naturally inhabit? > > What do you offer the student who comes to Academia not only for > Intellectual skill, but also for Spiritual skill? Does separation of Church > and State by definition mean separation of Spirit and Intellect in Academia? > > My concern is that Music, for instance, is taught by expert musicians and > studied by students learning to perfect their practice of musical > instruments. Even professors teaching Music Theory are themselves practicing > musicians to some degree. Many styles of Music are taught in Academia; > classical, jazz, world music . . . . > > Magic and other esoteric disciplines of course can be taught theoretically > as Folklore, Literature, History, Religion. But why is esotericism not also > taught as a practice, where the Academic learns to perfect their practice in > the instrument of choice; Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Magic, Sufism, Christianity, > Buddhism, Alchemy, Zoroastrianism, Astrology . . . ? > > Is the "Academic Study of Magic" by definition confined to Intellectual > theory, separate from Spiritual experience? > > Kathryn LaFevers Evans > Independent Scholar > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "jacqueline simpson" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:25 AM > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Fairies > > >> Many scholars, right back into the 19th century, have >> tried to work out how far the concept 'fairy' overlaps >> with that of the dead. Problem is, fairies play all >> sorts of different roles in different societies -- and >> so do ghosts, so one can really only discuss the >> relationship piecemeal. >> >> For instance, take the idea of the 'guardian spirit of >> the farm'. In the Orkneys and Shetlands, this entity >> has the name 'hogboon', which is pretty obviously >> derived from the Norse for 'mound-dweller'. This might >> simply refer to fairies as such (in many countries >> they are imagined as living inside hillocks), or more >> interestingly it might specifically refer to the >> spirit of the first settler in that place, living on >> inside his burial mound and keeping a benevolent eye >> on his descendants. >> >> Or again, there are one or two 'house guardians' who >> are quite definitely stated in the local tradition to >> have been ghosts; the Cold Lad of Hinton for one, and >> the German Hinzelmann for another. But by and large >> and on the whole, the house and farm guardians (hobs, >> pixies, cobbolds, tomtes, lutins etc etc) don't look >> or behave like the dead. >> >> Purkiss's analysis of particular tales and beliefs is >> often very revealing, but it would be dangerous to >> extrapolate from that into broad general theories. >> >> As for why a society which already has the concept >> 'ghost' would also go in for 'fairies', this will >> surely depend on what types of function and activity >> the concept 'ghost' does and does not cover. To put it >> crudely, if your 'ghosts' are always benevolent, or >> always too ethereal to interact with the living, then >> you will need some other supernantural being to take >> the blame for life's little nastinesses, from losing >> your way in the woods to having a mentally defective >> baby. If on the other hand your ghosts are always >> sinister and scary, the fairies can take on the role >> of playful little things, treasure guardians, bringers >> of *good* luck, etc. At the end of that path, we get >> the Tooth Fairy and Santa's Little Helpers. >> >> Jacqueline >> >> >> >> >> --- Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Harry, >>> >>>>> Is she saying that fairies are just a human >>> metaphor for the dead? Or is >>>>> she saying they are the dead in folklore? >>> Harry Roth<< >>> >>> What's the difference? Can you clarify for me? >>> Purkiss is certainly saying >>> that fairies are a human metaphor for the general >>> dead, as well as for >>> things people don't want to know about or admit like >>> neonatal death, women >>> dying in childbed, infanticide, incest, disabled >>> children. This is also >>> explored in "The Good People" by Peter Narvaez (ed) >>> (Kentucky University >>> Press 1991). In Angela Bourke's "The Burning of >>> Bridget Cleary" fairies are >>> also the dead (in Ireland in the late 19th century). >>> So whether that's >>> 'folklore' or 'human metaphors' I'm not quite sure I >>> understand the >>> difference. Is it the difference between beliveing >>> something (from the >>> inside) and analysing that belief, from the outisde? >>> >>> ~Caroline. >>> >>> >>>> Caroline Tully wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dianne Purkiss in "At the Bottom of the Garden: A >>> Dark History of Fairies, >>>>> Hobgoblins and Other Troublesome Things" (New York >>> University Press. 2000) >>>>> would say that fairies *were* the dead. Do you >>> agree with that? >>> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try > it >> now. >> http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/