 |
 |
An impressive program in this field is the MA and PhD in Cosmology and Divination at the University of Ken<http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/thrs/postgraduate/cosmology/index.html>t.This program is strengthened by the possibility of taking course offerings from the MA in the Study of Mysticism and Religious Experienc<http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/thrs/postgraduate/mysticism/index.html>e in the same faculty and related studies in myth in the literature department.An interesting aspect of the Cosmology MA is the attempt to develop the integration of subjective and critical perspectives relevant,in my view, to a reflexive practice of esotericism, in terms of a Learning Journal,a graded,written, but also verbally publicly presented course requirement in which the student records their responses to their exposure to the course in terms of a broad range of criteria the student may choose,from poetry and divinatory readings, to narrative,dreams and synchronicity,and a critical examination of this response.The organizers of the course might not describe themselves as teaching the practice of esotericism rather than its study but they seem to be using esoteric techniques as central to their pedagogy. Jesper is correct in describing the momentum driving the institutionalization of Western esotericism,but rather than his tentative summation that "there seems to be a professionalized cadre of institutions and scholars working in the field", it is clear that that a professional academic nucleus has developed in this field, a nucleus describable in terms of key concepts, academic appointments and the scholars who, through those appointments, contribute in a definite, definable way to defining the field through the perspectives demonstrated over time by their contributions , a history of ideas, journals, professional associations, among other academic and extra-academic contexts Jesper describes as shaping the field. * * As far as I know,t*he institutional development of the field can be described in terms of three major geographical poles: England,the Netherlands and France.* * thanks* *toyin* * * On 9 July 2010 16:29, Kathryn Evans <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Actually Marie, if you "stick around for awhile" on the listserv, you'll > find that many of us are "practitioners" of esotericism and/or magic as well > as scholars of said. It's a hospitable group, but because it's structured as > a Society for the ACADEMIC Study of Magic, members are in the process of > continually refining and defining legitimate ways to study, speak about, and > teach magic within the Academy. > > I would also disagree with limiting the definition of Psychology as a > discipline to exclude Esotericism. There are many differing opinions among > list members about *how *to study and teach Esotericism and/or Magic in > the Academy. More pertinent to your frustration is that there are many > opinions here about *why* Esotericism or Esoteric Studies should be taught > in Academia and to what purposes can the discipline be aimed: a holistic > development of the student?, or strictly intellectual knowledge? Factions > will never agree on that, but the reality is that those who have > the Professorships in Academia, who teach Esotericism no matter in which of > the many disciplines it belongs in, are the ones who decide > definitively how and why they themselves will teach Esotericism. There is > some collective agreement involved because of institutionalization, but the > broader discussion will probably continue for a good while because > the academic fields of Esoteric Studies, Esotericism, Magic are so young. > > A key to the argument is that you can't teach (read preach) belief in the > public Academy. For example, private Catholic universities very likely teach > belief and practice of Catholicism to their students. Students would expect > that. Whereas, in a public university, we would want to teach about > Esotericism as objectively as possible, and not in a way that implies, "This > is Truth." Students would not expect the latter. > > Jesper and I have discussed this before on the SASM listserv, agreeing > wholeheartedly that our best effort at objective academic discourse in > Academia is not perfect, but it's the best we've got. > > Hope this helps, > > Kathryn > > *Silence is the jewel of the Lotus* > ** > Kathryn LaFevers Evans > Independent Researcher > 705 W. Heather St. > Ojai, CA 93023 > USA & Chickasaw Nation > cell 805.212.6216 > [log in to unmask] > http://independent.academia.edu/KathrynLaFeversEvans > http://www.esswe.org/member_detail.php?member_id=171&ref=1 > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Marie <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 7:17 AM > *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] magic and empiricism > > 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 <[log in to unmask]> > *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 <[log in to unmask]> > *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 <[log in to unmask]> > *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 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael_Aun_Weor>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- > >