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.
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.
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]>
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-