Sent: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:30:13 +0200
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs
>
Well, I missed this one the first time
around:
>
>Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "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unpublished."
>
Come on, why is that necessary? Sweeping statements are
simply not true, whether about peer reviewed scholarship as monumentally bad or
the "true experts on the margins" struggling to give us
"serious" studies. Yes, some really good amateurs exist, and some
really obsessed ones too. Some lazy academics exist, and some really brilliant
ones. But most work that passes peer review has merit. Definitely, some is
garbage, but I guess that describes pet projects published on lulu.com as
well.
>
The peer review institution is not foolproof or perfect,
and it has a conservative effect. But at least it is an attempt at gatekeeping
quality control, quite useful when seen in terms of information
overflow.
>
In the same vein, when Jake writes:
>
>"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 difference between focused and general studies might
have a lot to do with the history of religious studies and history of
esotericism. 50 years ago, a lot of phenomenological and psychological synthesis
was presented as scholarship. Nowadays, many generalists stay away from these
integrative projects as they tend to push a religious agenda, ignore important
differences between traditions or cultures and ignore political and economical
implications in and consequences of religious rhetoric. Perhaps the reason why
"focused" groups enjoy comparison and synthesis is exactly because
they are focused - they know one thing and make a lot of assumptions about other
things, facilitating a comparative and interpretive approach. I for one find
that "harmonisation" and "practical needs" belong outside
academic contexts unless carefully circumscribed by therapeutic or artistic
interests; and then it is not history
anymore.
>
Best,
>
Jesper
Petersen.
>
>
-----Original
Message-----
>
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Jake
Stratton-Kent
>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:01
AM
>
To:
[log in to unmask]
>
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and
Amateurs
>
On 30 June 2010 20:26,
>
> 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 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/