Hello,
I see the problem. I was using the word esoteric as a catch all word, instead of saying weird s***. I imagine MAGIC isn't a catch all word either and I certainly wouldn't use it in public. Esoteric in the historical and ethnographical sense sounds interesting but I'm not ready for that yet.
I have experienced either telepathy or precognition several times, so in order to understand this phenomena, I am studying epistemology, psychology (Jung and Julian Jaynes), time and metaphysics. Is there a catch all for this, other than the dreaded word PSYCHIC? Are my interests too wide to be incorporated into an academic discipline, is that why I can't find one? Then again, do I need one, my DIY approach isn't structured but I have freedom.
Marie
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesper Aagaard Petersen
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic and empiricism
Hello Marie,
Perhaps we are talking past each other here. When I am talking about studies of esotericism, I am referring to the historical and ethnographical study of esoteric texts, groups and practices. This is different from parapsychology and studies on psi, healing and so on. The latter is rooted in psychology, whereas the former belongs in the humanities and (to an extent) social science. This is in no way to insult your intelligence, but to clear up a possible misunderstanding.
While it does differ from country to country, the past 10 years has seen a significant increase in studies of esotericism both in institutions and online. Departments/programmes of varying sizes studying esotericism exist in Amsterdam, Exeter and Paris. Almost all major conferences today have a panel or two on esotericism in some form, and they seem to be popular. Specialized journals and book series have appeared (like Aries and Brill books). In addition, if we include the last 20 years with New Age studies and studies on paganism (broadly speaking), and even the sociological engagement with NRMs within western esoteric traditions with some 30 years behind it, there seems to be a professionalized cadre of institutions and scholars working in the field. In addition, the "massification" of esotericism has made the study more legitimate.
This is definitely not the same as a multitude of job opportunities or broader schorlarly interest, as Dave E has clearly shown in another thread on academics and "amateurs". My "sizeable group" is virtual, judging from my contacts online, and while they are hardworking people, they seem to be on the receiving side when it comes to academic power. But I know of at least a good handful of people with good positions; both professors, research fellows and lecturers do exist, and some of them are young. This might be a European (or even Scandinavian) phenomenon, and it might go the other way in the future, but there seems to be some institutional footholds, even if comparably small (take Islamic studies for example).
Now, the study of esotericism has little communication with scientists and even the media. Skeptics and sympathetic scientists seem much more popular because of their engagement on matters of truth and metaphysics. Here we move into a very politicized field, but I would say that populism actually do spawn some funds for inquiries of this kind, at least in Europe, because of the relative popularity of wellness spirituality and potential-raising thinking.
Best,
Jesper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 5:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic and empiricism
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 -----
From: Jesper Aagaard Petersen
To: [log in to unmask]
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 -----
From: Sebastián
To: [log in to unmask]
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]> 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-
