 |
 |
Oh Caroline I do hope I haven't offended you. I just think a secular take on a non secular thing is perhaps not the best way to go. Regards, Morgan Leigh PhD Candidate School of Sociology and Social Work University of Tasmania On 31/03/2011 5:43 PM, Caroline Tully wrote: > What if, as a practitioner-insider myself, I just wanted to look at the GD > from a secular angle after twenty-plus years of interpreting it through a > supernatural angle? > > ~Caroline. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh > Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2011 5:35 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Wallis Budge / Liber Resh > > If the society you are studying maintains that the supernatural is real > it seems an odd choice to not mention it. It is, as you say, not one's > own belief or lack thereof that is the question, rather that of the > society, or persons, being discussed. > > One important part of archaeology is the science. If one is doing > science, one is necessarily limited to physical evidence. Another part > is to examine the possible meanings of those physical things for those > to whom they belonged. To do this one needs to consider the known > beliefs and motivations of those under scrutiny. When the purpose of > one's paper is such, to deliberately omit an important, perhaps the most > important, known aspect of the motivations of those involved can only be > censorship. However this attitude is common in much of academia today. > > Regards, > > Morgan Leigh > PhD Candidate > School of Sociology and Social Work > University of Tasmania > > > > On 29/03/2011 11:18 AM, Caroline Tully wrote: >> Yes, I'm not denying that at all, but you aren't supposed to use >> *supernatural* evidence in academic research - at least not in > archaeology. >> So yeah, absolutely, that's exactly what they did, or thought they were >> doing, but I can't utilise that from an "I believe it" perspective in >> archaeology... well, I suppose I could, with qualification and >> explanation... but I chose not to in this instance. I was specifically >> trying to analyse their activities from a secular Egyptological viewpoint. >> People have been incorporating the supernatural evidence in writing about >> the GD for years, but I was deliberately _not_ incorporating it. I don't >> know how other disciplines besides archaeology deal with "supernatural" or >> religious evidence, but at Melbourne Uni, it is discouraged from coming > from >> a belief angle, at least in publicly read material like that. Yes, I could >> turn it around and write it from a belief angle - the GD's belief - and I >> thought I did that really, I thought it was evident that _they_ (the GD) >> believed in the reality of the Egyptian gods, but that in my article such >> evidence was not incorporated because it was supernatural evidence. >> >> ~Caroline. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh >> Sent: Tuesday, 29 March 2011 9:08 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Wallis Budge / Liber Resh >> >> Greetings, >> Having just recently read your Walk Like an Egyptian paper and this >> thread I'd like to suggest that perhaps the reason that the GD >> privileged Egyptian gods and that AC's take on Egypt was different from >> the archaeological work was that they had a source of information that >> was different from the archeological. That is, that both the GD and AC >> had made contact with the Egyptian gods and had first hand info that >> wasn't bound to the same motivations as the Egyptology of the time. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Morgan Leigh >> PhD Candidate >> School of Sociology and Social Work >> University of Tasmania >> >> >> On 27/03/2011 11:59 AM, Caroline Tully wrote: >>> Hi Mogg, >>> >>> >>>>> You mean hung out in the British Library which was them part of the >> BM?<< >>> >>> Yes, well actually I mean the Reading Room of the BM. >>> >>>>> Not sure that's the same a direct work with the Egyptologists there - >>> surely there would be something more concrete - rather than the same > vague >>> rumours and chinese whispers.<< >>> >>> That's right, it's not the same. I'm just saying its likely, or at least >>> possible. >>> >>>>> It's a bit like the statement that Mathers worked as a curator or >> whatever >>> at the Horniman - if you ask them they have no record of that although >> they >>> are aware of his friendship with the founder?<< >>> >>> That's interesting,. I've only heard of that in Mary Greer, so whatever >> her >>> source is for that, I guess that's the source. >>> >>>>> Its funny how something so recent has so little documentation - makes >> you >>> wonder about the relationship between older research and its evidence > base >> : >>> )<< >>> >>> Well, if documentation does exist (about the GD and BM), I'm sure someone >>> diligent could go find it - if it was findable. >>> >>>>> I agree with your article about the authority of Egypt for GD/AC etc - >> but >>> does it ever go further - and why is there such a discrepency between the >>> Egyptological knowledge of the time and some of the Crowleyian liturgy?<< >>> >>> You mean why is Crowley's take different to scholarly Egyptology >> (admitting >>> that some of that scholarly Egyptology wasn't that great)? I think > Crowley >>> would have felt free to adapt Egyptian material to his purposes and also, >> I >>> think he used a Kabbalistic structure as his base, his 'map', and fitted >>> things into that, for example, the "Four-ness" of say Liber Resh fitting >>> into the Tetragrammaton. He would have favoured 4's (Tetragrammaton), 7s >>> (planets, excluding the later-discovered ones, even though he included >>> Neptune in his Astrology book), 12s - the Zodiac etc... >>> >>>>> I suspect that Crowley thought the Egyptians meant it to be a nice even >>> four and rectified the rite as he did for Liber Samech.<< >>> >>> Big YEP there. >>> >>> ~Caroline. >> --