 |
 |
On 30 June 2010 20:26, Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 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 grad students" or unpublished, and as a result we don't get to read or hear 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/