As an occult-oriented scholar, working in the states, I'd have to say I've seen more serious opportunities for accredited scholarship presented in Europe and the UK than anywhere in the US.
--Damien
On shaded wings drift
FireDark discoveries
Soul Architecture.
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Marie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Marie <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic and empiricism
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:40 AM
Hello,
Do you find the attitude towards esoteric studies
varies a lot country to country? I'm in England and I don't see much serious
interest here. Opportunities for academic study are very scarce and I think you
have to have a degree in psychology first.
If science is interested, how do you deal with the
sociopolitical short-sightedness?
Marie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:00
PM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic
and empiricism
Sorry - went to Marie and not the list
Marie,
The good thing about atheism is that you (and I) can
actually represent it in other terms than Dawkins. Very
nice.
Regarding power, you misrepresent what I wrote: *Everybody*
wields and is effected by ideological matters and power struggles, so it is
definitely not a one-way street. If anything, both scientists and "magicians"
etc. seems to be pressured by economic and political arguments from an
entirely different sector than both, namely the sociopolitical sphere, which
includes the most powerful magic of all, popularist short-term thinking.
FNORD.
I don't know who "they" are, but it seems a sizeable group
of academics see esoteric studies as anything but a joke. But I see historical
studies and qualitative studies of esotericists and texts as more viable than
e.g. criticized statistical studies on psi power, a position I seem to
co-inhabit with Jake.
Best,
Jesper.
From: Society for The Academic Study of
Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Marie
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:44 PM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:
[ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic and empiricism
Hello again,
I do not support or reject Uri Geller, I know
very little about him apart from the bits I quoted earlier. I just got the
feeling that he had been conveniently, and universally disposed of, on the
basis of one cock up.
I don't like the way Richard Dawkins is
trying to define atheism in his terms. We only have one thing in common
- not believing in a god - we can't be made into a collective movement based
on the 'one thing none of us can do'.
"And of course all idealist philosophizing in these
matters should remember to reconnect to politics and power that infringe
upon or even determine religious and scientific claims anyway" by Jasper.
Regarding this power; who influences who? It
isn't completely a one way street is it? What interest do they have in
reinforcing the notion that esoteric studies are a joke? Are they not human,
are merely just too human?
Marie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:13
PM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC]
magic and empiricism
I believe that Empiricism and Magic are strongly related
though it is not the same to say that Magic IS the same as Science. In my
anthropology thesis in which I have explored Samael Aun Weor's
gnosticism in Argentina, I came across with a strong notion of
empiricism as a way of "proving by yourself" the effects of the
exercises suggested by these teachings.
I wrote about this issue
and pointed out as part of post-postmodernist worldview in which there
might occured some kind of "massification of the scientific methodology"
helped by the autonomic and human potential movement from the second half
of 20th century. The whole hypothesis was based in that the supposedly
"disenchantment of the world" in the first half of the 20th century might
leaded up to these autonomy movements in which was involved and boosted
the process of rationalization and individualization pointed out by
Durkheim and Weber.
Sebastian
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:21 AM, kaostar <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
sorry this went to just Marie first go, not whole
list
from SSOTBME, Lionel Snell, one of the
*best* books i've ever read about how
to compare science and magic
science hates the fleeting singularity, it revolves around
test-repaet
validity, and magic cannot then be scientific, or often
open to scientific
testing as for the most part it involves one-offs
(that is my clumsy precis,
not a quote - the book is far more
elegant)
Randi is as dogmatic and (oddly enough 'religious'-
about his scepticism) as
any pro-psychic powers spokesperson, or as
Richard Dawkins is that there is no
god.
I've spoken to Mr
Geller on the phone and he's among the people i'd put on a
list of
'those who have got something really special' who i've met. Robert
Lenkiewicz the (late) artist and probable magician was another. But
how to
define that and do anything with it within a scientific
framework? Hard - and
i'm a trained scientist; started out life in
biomedics, which is test, retest,
support hypothesis stuff...
Dave E
--
"Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of
your selfishness. Listen to it carefully".
-Richard Bach, The
Messiah's Handbook.
Ilusions-
|