Dear Ted,
Please help me to understand  the following:

- pejorative terms like "exclusionary" (I've never used this word in my life, nor, at any time, did I have a pejorative intent in anything I wrote. What gives you this impression?)
- the straw man version (ditto)
- don't misplace my frustration with the refusal to answer my question as stated with unnecessary defensiveness. (I truly don't understand this sentence)
- Why shouldn't you be interested in presenting a serious alternative to what you see as the problems with my problem? (I did. Unless you consider the alternative I presented not to be serious)
- you are accusing me of bad faith (where?)
- I haven't seen anything that offers a genuine alternative (what is not genuine about the approaches that both Angela and I raised? I even included a citation from a respected scholar, that led to a full exposure of the alternative(s).)
- I don't think that it's appropriate to characterize Robert's as an extreme position (personally, and I speak only for myself, I didn't. I thought it was actually fairly typical of modern academia, despite respectfully disagreeing, for reasons that I did outline, albeit briefly.)
-Robert's point is a logical one (indeed, within certain parameters, but flawed within certain others, which I have named).
 - but it is being interpreted as representing all the worst things about superstition and the violence and domination of religion (this may only be my impression, but I think it was his tone that did that, not his position).
- and I am being accused of somehow encouraging all that. (I haven't accused you of anything at all. If you think I have then you are mistaken.)


"Accuse" is a strong, charged word, and I don't see how it is conducive to any kind of discussion. If it is, then please enlighten me. I could equally have responded differently, and said that you are putting words in my mouth and "accusing" me of "accusing" you. Would that help the discussion or would it turn into a slanging match? And what purpose would that have?

When I first read your response just now, I honestly thought you must have confused me with somebody else. You're quoting expressions I really haven't ever used!  Did you perhaps miss one of my posts? I mean that in all earnesty... it's the only way I can explain the crossed wires I'm currently seeing.

 If you really are referring to my two longish posts, then although I would be most keen to discuss the relative methodological advantages and disadvantages, given that methodology is a particular bugbear of mine,  I truly cannot do so when you are so clearly misunderstanding both my intent and my words.

I'll try again, one last time. I started based on the premise that what Robert, and presumably you are saying, boils down to a either-or belief+respect pattern. In other words, if one believes in religion X, to the exclusion of all others, then one can not be said to respect those other religions because they are not sufficiently respect-worthy to evince belief. (Pardon my clumsy wording, it's 5 am this side of the world).

Have I understood correctly?
If I have, then please explain to me how these two concepts (belief/respect) are mutually exclusive, in your view.
If I have not, then please explain to me what you did mean, in basic terms.

 

Sasha Chaitow
PhDc Western Esotericism
EXESESO University of Exeter

Phoenix Rising Academy Director

Personal Website & Gallery: http://sashanonserviat.phoenixrising.org.gr/
Professional Profile:http://sashanonserviat.phoenixrising.org.gr/?page_id=4

---

From: Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 3:12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...

Sasha, while I appreciate your polite tone I do not think you are giving my problem a fair
treatment when you use pejorative terms like "exclusionary" or say that the straw man
version, which I'm saying doesn't represent my position accurately, is "not useful." It's
interesting if you have a methodological disagreement, and I don't mean to lump your more
reasoned critique in with those who are accusing me of "Christian violence," but don't
misplace my frustration with the refusal to answer my question as stated with unnecessary
defensiveness. I'm not really interested in responding to attacks I'm interested in the problem.
I have mean a good faith effort to express the problem, but my responses to these attacks
being colored by this frustration shouldn't be confused with constant defensiveness.
If I've mistakenly presented something overly mechanistic I am suprised, because I am
trying to explain why I'm interested in the complexity of this problems and hoping to gain
insight into how to come to a more sensitive and useful approach. When you tell me that
what I consider genuine work and serious questions is "not useful" I have wonder about
the seriousness of your response. Why shouldn't you be interested in presenting a serious
alternative to what you see as the problems with my problem? If you have a methodological
bone to pick with "my approach" it seems like an odd strategy to dismiss it out of hand.

I can understand why you would have a methodological problem with these cartoonish,
clearly pathological versions of the model that Robert offered. But correctly understood,
I don't think he's doing what you're saying he's doing. I don't have a problem with critique
of the mistakes in approaching religion that you're talking about, obviously that's the reason
I'm asking people to state their principled methodologies and I very much appreciate your
input. What I don't understand is that you are accusing me of bad faith but saying that you're
not attacking me. I don't mean to be defensive, I'm just responding to what you're saying here.
When I say that I think it's interesting that folks who claim to "respect all beliefs" are rabidly
attacking the kind of belief that Robert is referring to, I'm talking about a different issue than
the original problem of "respect," so I apologize if I've confused you.

I'm not trying to turn any miscommunications into grudges, and I very much appreciate
all the polite replies. I don't personally know how I feel about this problem, but I don't
think that it's appropriate to characterize Robert's as an extreme position. I haven't
seen anything that offers a genuine alternative that meets the demands of Robert's
question, although I'm open to methodological approaches.

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, sasha chaitow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Ted,

Could you please clarify where, in anything I said, did I once imply, that anything you said was pathological, and where, apart from my general laconic statement with regard to the tone of this thread, which was not directed at you, I was pejorative?

Is it not possible that I was expressing a differing opinion, as is customary within civilised academic debate?
You are protesting that some people (apparently myself included) are reading a "pathology" into your question and misrepresenting it. But I am seeing you misreading what I wrote, and what Jason wrote, and we can't hold a civilised discussion like that.

You wrote: "Forgive me if I take this as an attack, but what would you call it?"

I would call it a series of miscommunications in which some people used overly charged language and other people went on the defensive, and despite a few voices calling for calm, it had the result of turning this into a circus. That's not personal, it's a general view of this whole thread. What is pathological is this constant defensiveness, from whichever quarters it appears.

Beyond interpreting what Jason or anyone else may or may not have meant, I am dealing with the point you raised. Please try to see that.

I am saying that from an academic viewpoint I think there is an inherent methodological flaw in Prof. Segal's approach, and I attempted, without turning it into a fullblown treatise, to explain why. This is not a personal attack, it is an intellectual disagreement, and such intellectual debates can (when removed from personal name-calling) be extremely fruitful.

I do believe, as do many colleagues, that the extant categorisation of disciplines and methodologies is flawed, and interdisciplinary methodologies such as those currently in use and development within the field of Western Esotericism, explain why that is the case.  I'm not accusing anyone of being pathological and I feel that as a term it is misplaced altogether in this argument.

One of the main reasons they are flawed is because they are based on a mechanistic view of what are living, human, traditions, and that mechanistic approach cannot do justice to its subject. I don't pretend to be an expert on current R.S. methodology, but as a scholar of esotericism I cannot accept that living traditions can be reduced to their component parts as can cells and molecules - and even that's debatable. I speak not as a relativist (apparently also pathological according to some views),  but as a historian of ideas who always has to keep culture and specific circumstances in mind, and I refer you to Arthur Versluis' excellent article on methodology: http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIV/Methods.htm for an explanation of why this should be so. Yes, it belongs to a slightly different field. But don't all fields have things to learn from each other? Are these dividing lines between disciplines set in stone? If they are. can someone tell me why?

I am saying that I feel your and Prof. Segal's approaches to the concepts of both "belief" and "respect" are reflecting this mechanistic approach, and that it does not seem to be either accurate nor useful. That is an intellectual disagreement, not an attack, nor a "labelling" as a pathology.

I don't care if we're discussing Wicca vs. Christianity or Siberian shamanism vs. the Cthulu current. What I care about is that this seems to have been approached in a way not conducive to reaching any useful conclusions. You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but it would be nice to see some evidence and deductive reasoning rather than this ongoing backbiting (again, meant generally).

And with the best will in the world, this started with a throwaway remark followed by a snarky comment. You made an excellent effort to view it from another perspective, but are now becoming defensive without reason. Nobody's attacking you, but intellectual disagreement is necessary in any debate, IMHO. And when communicating in a medium where it's so easy to misunderstand one another, it's also good to give each other the benefit of the doubt before taking offence.

Other than that, yes, absolutely, we can agree to disagree. I can respect that.

 Sasha Chaitow
PhDc Western Esotericism
EXESESO University of Exeter

Phoenix Rising Academy Director

Personal Website & Gallery: http://sashanonserviat.phoenixrising.org.gr/
Professional Profile:http://sashanonserviat.phoenixrising.org.gr/?page_id=4

---

From: Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]

Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 1:20:23 AM

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...

Sasha + others

Thanks for your conciliatory efforts. I don't think that these polemical attacks
which view Robert's view as pathological are really the kind of material for
an innocent academic approach. I'm asking these questions because I'd like
to hear a rigorous answer, but I'm not seeing much that addressing my problem.
I don't think I'm asking a bad question, but I am seeing my question being misrepresented.
My concern is not to defend some exlusionary definition of belief, and I don't think you
or anybody else is being fair when you use pejorative terms like that without understanding
my issue. I am saying that, without making belief or logical a pathologically "exclusionary"
thing, don't we run into some problems if we see religious faith in a way that fails to meet
the demands of a model like Robert's? I'm not saying anybody is doing anything wrong by
believing the way they believe, but I worry that the people who are saying Robert's model is
simply a pathology are not truly giving it the serious attention, i.e. respect, it deserves. I'm all
for more sophisticated epistemological approaches, but these appeals to binary deconstruction
are not convincing me to abandon academic approaches like logic. Robert's point is a logical
one, but it is being interpreted as representing all the worst things about superstition and the
violence and domination of religion, and I am being accused of somehow encouraging all that.
Forgive me if I take this as an attack, but what would you call it? My point is that this is hardly
what I'd call respect for the "spiritual choices" of another. Outside of the problem that started
this thread, why is it that this theoretical discussion has led to so many such accusations?

I don't think Robert's original observation in any way encourages the kind of exclusionary
and pathological thinking that these nasties replies are accusing him of. I guess we'll have
to "agree to disagree" about that but surely you'll understand if I don't feel my position is
being respected if the only response is that I'm pathological.

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, janet ifimust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thank you for the reference! That sounds remarkably useful.  I suspect that I won't suggest it as reading for students struggling with concepts of reflexivity and social constructivism/constructionism.  But I shall be (appropriately enough) tempted to do so....

On 8 February 2011 22:11, D E <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

sorry i missed it Jason, have been trying to do five things at once here, with minimal success

 

excellent book on the area, Uncle Ramseys Little Book of Demons (Ramsey Dukes aka Lionel Snell) from 3-4 years back, deals with how as humans we are social creatures, so personifying inanminate objects as demons (like cars, photocpiers) we understand how they interact with us better

 

--
Dr. Janet Goodall
Research Fellow
Institute of Education
University of Warwick
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/aboutus/

---

Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.