 |
 |
*amazing: * > > Who can name the Official naturalist on the Beagle scientific voyage to the > Galapagos? > > It wasn't Charles Darwin. He was employed a gentleman dinner companion to > the ship's captain- a job often given to educated gentlemen to broaden their > life experience, and to keep the captain sane on a long voyage with some > engaging chat over a meal. Since he only worked for 2 hours a night at that > role, in his spare time CD did some biology fieldwork, and from that we have > Evolutionary Theory > > that's a useful one to offer to people who claim that university-tenured > academics have prime and sole rights to do research > > : ) > > Dave E > > > *---------- Original Message -----------* > From: Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:37:28 +0200 > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs > > > Dave (and others), > > > > well said! Although I would call work academic based on communicative > merits, not methodology or intention, I definitely agree that it has nothing > to do with location, labels or buildings. When it comes to > education, degrees and titles, I am a little more ambivalent. On the one > hand, we shouldn't exclude people solely on the basis of lacking these > elements; on the other, they have something to say. > > > > I mean, some of the students I teach (the lazy ones) have absolutely > nothing to back up any titles they eventually get, even though they attended > university. On the other hand, the passionate "amateur" (as in lover of the > subject) probably knows more than me, even without professional > schooling. Nevertheless, when marking and grading papers I see a development > in reflection and construction of arguments in the good students that is > ideally what a degree or title is about, again reflected in the good article > or monograph. To read a book or think critically is not exclusively > academic; but it is one of the ways to read and think. Regarding the > unaffiliated, they are probably unlucky and could do the job as well as the > tenured staff (or they chose to be independent). > > > > Oh, and when I was spreading a diluted meme earlier on mostly useless > work, I was talking about the university sector as a whole, not > esotericism/magic/religious studies. > > > > Best, > > > > Jesper. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *kaostar > > *Sent:* Friday, July 02, 2010 11:57 AM > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > > *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs > > > > > > maybe we need to look at a clarification of the language in use to > describe ourselves? > > > > 'amateur' scholar is hugely value-laden and carries baggage from the 19th > century, of Imperial well-to-do travellers doing a little writing about > 'colourful natives' as they flit from social engagement to social engagement > while on a world tour, etc- it is also an implied negative judgment of > quality; 'amateur' being seen as far less good than 'professional' perhaps? > Some of the amateur schoalrship done in the 19th C was pretty poor if not > utterly damaging, so let's try to find a better term to put some clear > ground between us and them (and then). There is less of a distinction in > practitioenr circles, since amateur magicians tend not to last very long : ) > > > > > 'independent scholar' is perhaps a little better, but also still carries > some historical hint of the person involved being wealthy enough to be able > to do personal research, again harking back to British Imperialist times. > I've worn IS on a badge at a few conferences (as most events have this > desire to label peole!) and it is is untrue for probably 99.5% of us indys- > nowadays it tends to mean 'poor as a church mouse and i do what research i > can to fit around the day job, which does not give me financial support > directly to attend conferences in my chosen field' > > > > the distinction being made is not of quality, but of institutional > affiliation, so perhaps 'unafilliated researcher' might be less provocative > a term? > > > > And 'academic' has huge connotations. One can do really good academic > work without ever having been linked to a university, it is a state of mind, > a stance, a chosen method, not a matter of geography or who pays your > wages. Professional standard work done academically well is what matters, > not whether it has a university name linked to it when published or > otherwise publicised > > > > and in this field in particular, epsecially at conferences, people are > often (too)interested in who's a researcher, who's a practitioner and who's > both, so i tend to hand some arcane symbol or other round my neck to save > the first few minutes of each conversation > > > > just my 5p worth > > > > Dave E > > > > *---------- Original Message -----------* > > From: Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:04:30 +0200 > > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs > > > > > Ted, > > > > > > I agree, although I think it is an unfair match to compare Dodds with > Davis, for example! But yes, we definitely shouldn't denigrate the amateur > or make practicing magicians defensive about lacking something they clearly > do not need. My point is the other way around: I would like to read about > and study magic without defending my lack of practical engagement. And > perhaps an advocacy for genre or context dependece: not every intention > needs to be met in every study. > > > > > > And yes, "mostly useless" is a better term than "garbage", because it > reflects the problems with publish or perish-academia that is producing > technically sound but somewhat ... superfluous articles by the dozen. Not > that any of us ever wrote one of those. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Jesper. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Ted Hand > > > *Sent:* Friday, July 02, 2010 10:49 AM > > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > > > *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs > > > > > > > > > I think I spoke too hastily, in an effort to defend the amateur rather > than tear down the professional. when I used the word "most." I don't mean > to make sweeping, useless statements about all academic work being bad. I > actually like much of the academic stuff on magic that I read, especially > the recent stuff, and I read a lot of it. It's all I can do to restrain > myself from shoving bibliographies down peoples throats, I'm so immersed in > and enthusiastic about academic studies of magic and esotericism. > > > > > > But if you read too much of what's being published in the humanities, > especially in a subject like literature, it can be disillusioning. Then > there's all the very serious stuff that gets magic absolutely wrong due to > rationalist bias, etc. Plenty of bad scholarship looks good, and amateurs > should take comfort in that. McLean, Peterson, Karr, even guys like P.L. > Wilson or Erik Davis ring more true when discussing magic than say E.R. > Dodds, although I wouldn't kick his Proclus commentary out of bed. I don't > have any issue with the peer review process or with good work. My point is > that given the large amount of mostly useless scholarship being produced -- > that follows all the rules, technically has nothing wrong with it, sorta > makes a contribution etc. -- we shouldn't automatically denigrate the > potential contribution of an amateur. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Jesper Aagaard Petersen < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > >> > > Well, I missed this one the first time around: >> > > >Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "And most of the "academic" >> stuff that passes peer review is garbage these >days. It's ironic and >> disappointing that many of the most serious researchers in these areas >> aren't getting any >respect because they're "lowly grad students" or >> unpublished." >> > > Come on, why is that necessary? Sweeping statements are simply not >> true, whether about peer reviewed scholarship as monumentally bad or the >> "true experts on the margins" struggling to give us "serious" studies. Yes, >> some really good amateurs exist, and some really obsessed ones too. Some >> lazy academics exist, and some really brilliant ones. But most work that >> passes peer review has merit. Definitely, some is garbage, but I guess that >> describes pet projects published on lulu.com as well. >> > > The peer review institution is not foolproof or perfect, and it has a >> conservative effect. But at least it is an attempt at gatekeeping quality >> control, quite useful when seen in terms of information overflow. >> > > >> > > In the same vein, when 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. >> > > Best, >> > > Jesper Petersen. >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ >> mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] >> On Behalf Of Jake Stratton-Kent >> > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:01 AM >> > > To: [log in to unmask] >> > > Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs >> > > >> > > On 30 June 2010 20:26, >> > > >> > > > We're lucky to be living at a time where accessible high quality >> > > > research in english on these difficult esoteric subjects is >> beginning >> > > > to hit the academic shelves in large quantities. It's getting to be >> a >> > > > lot easier to point to places where one can actually find >> information >> > > > on these topics. I'm hoping that in my humble work as an MA student >> >> > > > I've become familiar enough with all these new publications and >> > > > directions in study that I can point to places to go. >> > > <snip> >> > > >> > > > Amateur or "uneducated" scholars have often made some of the most >> > > > important contributions, especially in the recondite places we want >> to >> > > > learn things about. , and as a >> > > >> > > > result we don't get to read or hear about their work. >> > > > >> > > > Like Adam McLean, Peterson and Karr are hardworking, make valuable >> > > > contributions, and the quality of their stuff is generally pretty >> > > > good. I just wish they published more in the way of formal studies. >> >> > > > Karr's bibliographies are fine introductions to the scholarship in >> > > > English, at least for "beginners" in the subject. (i.e. anybody who >> >> > > > doesn't have a PhD in Jewish Studies) They certainly deserve >> respect >> > > > and know how to point to legit academic stuff. It would be cool if >> > > > somebody hired them to do more independent research in their style. >> > > >> > > speaking as an 'amateur' in print, I find academic information very >> useful and have done for a long time. This began with my interest in the >> Lunar Mansions, which had fallen out of use in contemporary magic but were >> examined by the Warburg Institute etc. Much the same remains true of >> Greco-Roman influences on the Western tradition, the best - almost only - >> places to look are in academia. It is not so terribly difficult to refine >> this information into forms usable on a personal level in modern magic, not >> as difficult as getting modern occultists to realise its significance and >> ring the changes. >> > > On the other hand, in my experience again, I find academic >> discussions online present certain features worth mentioning. When they are >> focussed - for example on neo-Platonism - they manage to address >> contemporary practice and integrate subsequent developments (say Jungian >> approaches to the soul/psyche) and materials from other cultures (say Kriya >> Yoga). 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 is >> particularly frustrating when the implication is that a forum is 'occult >> friendly', whereas a 'focussed' study is not expected to accommodate itself >> but is often more accessible. >> > > Paradoxically, in the case of focussed groups, it is usually enough >> for the 'amateur' just to sit back and listen, while the general forums are >> more likely to elicit a response without providing the same degree of >> satisfaction. >> > > Jake >> > > http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/ > > > > > > > > > *------- End of Original Message -------* > > > > > *------- End of Original Message -------* >