 |
 |
*My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination. * Can you explain to me how attainment of an 'ijaza from Al-Azhar or Najaf or conferral of teaching rights by traditional institutions such as ones in Nepal or elsewhere is not an indicator of a certain approach to knowledge, acquisition, analysis and dissemination? Is indicators of a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination only valid and legitimate within the loci of Western secular cultural contexts whereby all others from elsewhere are not? I am sorry, but the insistence of Segal and his generally patronizing condescensions are indicative of a highly culturally hegemonic (and very racist) approach to what is scholarship. N On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear N**** > > I may be out of step with others on this list, but to my mind the purpose > of JISC lists such as this one is to facilitate academic discussion. It > would be possible to mount a carefully reasoned argument against the > necessity of attaining a PhD as a pre-requisite for valid or valuable > academic scholarship. However, insults and unsupported claims about the > motivations or personal qualities of other list members is simply unhelpful > and impolite. Impassioned debate and a rigorous and frank exchange of views > is a good thing and seems wholly appropriate to this list, but sniping > personal attacks just reflect badly on the person posting them.**** > > ** ** > > My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s > ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and > dissemination. It is not an indicator of intellectual acuity, understanding > or wisdom. That said, academia does not make any such claims as to the > import of the completion of a doctorate and for all that it may lack > doctoral study does develop a number of useful skills. A PhD does not > guarantee the veracity of your claims (and I don’t think that academia > suggests that it does), but it does demonstrate that you have some basic > training in the skills associated with scholarship. There are a myriad of > problems with the approach to doctoral study in many Universities and with > some of the ideological assumptions that underpin much of the discourse in > the humanities and social sciences. However, those problems themselves are > best addressed by the deployment of the sort of reasoning and analysis that > PhD study in a reputable institution provides. **** > > ** ** > > Of course, I am in the process of completing my draft thesis and if > unsuccessful I may well decide that doctorates are not so important after > all J**** > > ** ** > > C J Sharp**** > > Head of Learning & Teaching Services **** > > Room 0.27 - Registry**** > > University of East Anglia**** > > Norwich Research Park**** > > NORWICH NR4 7TJ**** > > [log in to unmask] **** > > Office: 01603 597374**** > > Mob: 07795 666 465**** > > This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the > intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy > or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on > its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please > inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you > for your co-operation.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal > *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:33 AM > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career**** > > ** ** > > Dear Robert Segal, > > Your elitist Ivory Tower, territorial knee-jerk buffoonery proves my > point. Believe in your own hype all you like. > > Good day! > > N**** > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. < > [log in to unmask]> wrote:**** > > April 23 > > Dear N, > > Somehow I have never come upon your name in any academic discussion of > either theories of myth or theories of religion. > > I doubt that you are in any position to assess my work. By > professionalism I mean exactly the training that entitles one to evaluate > the work of others in one's field. Evaluations can still be unfair and > even uninformed, but at least they have behind them the attainment of the > credentials that others recognize. Maybe you will divulge your own. > > May I suggest that you ask around to find out what is meant by not only a > non sequitur but also an ad hominem argument. You really don't grasp > either. If someone says of a group, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY'RE > COMMUNISTS, that is an ad hominem argument, though there are qualifications > that would need to be taken into account to make the argument altogether ad > hominem. I will spare you those qualifications. > > If you were a trained expert in either theories of myth or theories of > religion, I would definitely want to know to what deficiencies in your > publications you are referring. But you are not. Your criticisms of > me, which you are most welcome to state publicly, would be on a par with > Karen Armstrong's criticism of translations of the Bible or Homer or the > Koran. > > You are the one who is arrogant, and you have yet to tell us on what your > presumed authority rests. > > > Robert Segal (Prof.) > > PS WITH WHOEVER should be WITH WHOMEVER**** > > > ________________________________________ > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [ > [log in to unmask]]**** > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:24 AM**** > > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career > > Dear Professor Segal,**** > > What you call ad hominem (which it wasn't, because I was speaking in > generalities) are points of fact about the politicized industry you belong > to, and they have been commented on by more than just me. But your > condescending and patronizing tone of institutional superiority, with your > credential-thumping, also speaks volumes for itself, wherever or with > whoever you have hob-knobbed with during your career. > > But if you want ad hom, I'll give it to you: to me your scholarship is > completely mediocre, at best, and your published writings have never > impressed me very much. > > My credentials are intact and I have academic training. But smug, arrogant > people in the Academy who insist on their professional territorialism and > patronize the way you do always get my goat, and so I set them straight. > Think of it as a kosmic balancing mechanism of sorts to remind people like > you that you are not all that and so maybe you should get at the top of > your game! > > N**** > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > April 23 > > Dear N., > > I feared that what has already come to pass would do so--not on the part > of Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, whose gracious reply preceded your second > one, but on your part. > > Your ad hominem attacks on me are more silly than insulting. Your claim > that I have built my career exploiting non-Westerners is fantasy. > Sticking to what one knows is one criterion of scholarship. Scholarship > and ignorance are mutually exclusive. > > To begin with, what are YOUR credentials? > > What do YOU know about the study of myth--the example I cited? I > claimed that Armstrong knows nothing about the study of myth and does not > seem to recognize that she would need a PhD to be able to justify the > pronouncements tbat she makes. Are you challenging my assessment of her > work? If so, do tell us on what grounds. > > What do you know about the study of religion, my overlapping field of > expertise? > > Of course, one can master things on one's own. And a PhD is merely > necessary, not sufficient, for scholarship. There are plenty of PhDs who > are not talented. But a PhD is what scholarship requires--and not just in > the US or the UK. > > I do grant some exceptions. For example, folklore has traditionally > attracted some persons who are not academics. But try getting a job in > folklore today without a PhD. > > Karen Armstrong writes for Western audiences. > > I have participated in academic conferences in places like South Korea, > Japan, India, and Israel. Are at least some of them sufficiently > non-Western for you? You would find that they strive to emulate the > intellectual standards of the West in many fields, including the arts. > The conference in Jammu, India, at which I was the kick-off speaker, > duplicated the conduct of any Western conference (except that the food and > the conversation were much better). The result of colonialism? > Whatever the source, the West has long set the standard to which academics > aspire. Wonder why so many budding academics seek degrees from the US and > the UK and Western Europe? > > I trust that you know the annual world rankings of universities. > Universities in China, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other places are > committed to achieving excellence--as measured by "Western" criteria. Have > they been brainwashed--or enlightened? > > Your reaction to my innocent claim evinces a view of the West and of the > world as a whole that is decades out of date. > > And you still confuse an analogy with a non sequitur. > > You are welcome to reply, but I doubt that I will do so in turn. > > Robert Segal (Prof.) > > > ________________________________________**** > > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]**** > > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:48 PM**** > > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career**** > > Dear Professor Segal, > > Your very much culturally located notions of what constitutes > scholarship, and a bona fide scholar, is only accepted as legitimate within > the limited confines of your cultural Anglo-European contextual cloister, > that is, the elitism and professional territorialism of your own Ivory > Tower industry in the West. The rest of the world, fortunately, does > operate completely yet by the stultifying impositions of such uniquely > arrogant expressions of intellectual colonialism as how you have > articulated the matter below. > > There are institutions in the world - such as those in Qom in Iran or > Najaf in Iraq or in Nepal or in Japan or elsewhere - with very much > sophisticated intellectual traditions of great antiquity that do not grant > Western Ph.Ds, and many of the scholars produced by these very older > institutions produce thinkers and scholars who can write and > intellectualize concentric circles around the creme de la creme of what the > Western Ivory Tower has ever produced. Of course, later on many such > figures from non-Western institutions of learning become topics of study > where good people such as yourself build your Western academic careers > writing about them, raising funds and lobbying assorted foundations for > research grants to publish their papers and writings, etc. > > Be that as it may, if you cannot see the vacuous illogicality of your > comparison of a Western Ph.D in the humanities/social sciences to a pilot's > license, then what can one say. But please note that your career or > department is not an aircraft so kindly do not condescend or insult > intelligences of those who know the score. > > Good day! > > N**** > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote: > April 22**** > > Dear N. W. Azal, > > I don't want to get involved in another long exchange that will simply > anger persons on the list. > > I was saying what is obvious: not that one must be a scholar but that to > be a scholar, one must have a PhD. What you call IVORY TOWER ELITISM, I > call professionalism. And by the way, the more prestigious the university > that grants one a PhD, the more scholarly one is assumed to be. > > Armstrong has not needed a doctorate to sell books, but her books are not > scholarly, and no academic would assign anything she has written to even a > first-year course on myth, on religion, on the Bible, or on Islam. > Whether she recognizes that her stuff is sub-academic, I don't know. > Maybe she does, and does not care. Certainly her many admiring readers do > not know or care about her missing credentials. There are scores of > writers on myth, not least Joseph Campbell, who have hardly suffered > because they are nonacademics. > > I don't catch the non sequitur (the correct spelling) in my statement. I > may be wrong, but I am not thereby illogical. > > > Robert > ________________________________________**** > > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]**** > > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:15 PM**** > > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>>**** > > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career > > Writers without academic credentials are dismissed as popularizers or > worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become a pilot without a > license. > > And that is the most poignant expression of Ivory Tower elitism, if there > ever was, with an non sequitor of an example for the ages to boot!**** > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A. < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>> > wrote: > April 22 > > > Dear Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, > > If I may offer two cents (or pence): if you wish to enter the academic > world, you need a PhD. Writers without academic credentials are > dismissed as popularizers or worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting > to become a pilot without a license. > > Karen Armstrong is the proverbial exception that proves the rule. > Undeniably, she makes a healthy living from her books. But she is a > joke. She has never done any research in any of the areas in which she > has published--with, I suppose, the exception of her autobiography, which I > wouldn't read even if I were immortal. She has no conception of > scholarship. She thinks that she can write on the Bible without > knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. She has written, I believe, on > Islam--without, I bet, even being to able to identify the Arabic alphabet. > She lists fewer sources in her bibliographies than first-year students at > accredited universities would be expected to list in their essays. > > My own field is theories of myth, and I reviewed her SHORT HISTORY OF MYTH > for the Jungian journal, itself far from academic, SPRING. I ended my > review by calling her book the worst book on myth that I have ever read. > She knows nothing about the topic. > > I know nothing about you and would not have uttered a peep had you know > cited Armstrong as an example of what you might be seeking. Obviously, > you are free to ignore all that I have said. > > There are academics who write for nonacademic audiences. My own MYTH > appears in Oxford's VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION series, which operates out of > the trade division and which is marketed to lay persons. But the authors > of its own 200 or so volumes are experts in their fields. > > > With best wishes, > > Robert (Segal) > > Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies > University of Aberdeen > > > ________________________________________**** > > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>>>] On Behalf Of OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] > >>>]**** > > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:19 PM**** > > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]><mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>>>**** > > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Looking for a publisher for > translation of al-Buni's Great Sun of Gnoses > > Thanks, Peter. > > I'm developing a strategy to explore the possibility of earning a living > from scholarly writing which uses the full academic framework, one way of > describing the cultural identity that marks an academic work. > > A writer who seems to have done this is Karen Armstrong but her career > benefits from a peculiar confluence of factors- the sensationalism of her > move from cloister to public life in her search for religious meaning, as > described in her autobiographical Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral > Stair, her autobiographies giving graphic form to her religious and > philosophical struggles in the context of her life's vicissitudes, > bringing the metaphysical issues she engages with closer to the reader, > her presence on TV, a list of books that study religious history in terms > of her conception of religious meaning, a teaching appointment and > newspaper writing. > > How helpful would it be to adapt a related approach- making the subject of > one's writing accessible to the reader in terms of its touching an intimate > nerve in the depths of efforts at understanding that shape human life? > > How helpful would it be to adapt online media for developing and > stimulating a market for scholarly writing? > > I have been struck by the interest shown by readers in various general > interest online groups and on Facebook in some of my more ambitious essays. > I have even got input from these sources on one or two of those essays > that I have integrated into the draft of the essay. Someone once asked > whether there was a book where a particular essay I posted on Facebook can > be found. > > In enticing a reader to part with their money, various factors are at > play. Scholarly books are among the best on any subject. Publication by a > scholarly focused publishing house is often an imprimatur of high quality, > at times the highest quality. Some of the best books on the Hindu and > Buddhist phenomenon of Tantra , some of these books demonstrating par > excellence the erotic dimension of Tantra that Western enthusiasts seem to > have found so fascinating, are in scholarly works, perhaps more so than in > trade publications. The only translation known to me of Abhinavagupta's > famous erotic mysticism in Chapter 29 of his Tantraloka is the book< > http://www.scribd.com/doc/54134989/John-R-Dupuche-Abhinavagupta-The-Kula-Ritual> > that came out of John Dupuche's PhD. > > Perhaps one could offer a smorgasbord of works, meticulous, rich in ideas, > imaginative appeal and communicative strategies, from the dialogue to the > essay, rigorously argued and yet possibly anchored in what can be seen as > universally intimate to the self. Advertise widely using online and > possibly offline outlets. Cultivate a presence on various social networks > that whets people appetites for one's work. Give workshops and introduce > and or sell one's books at such gatherings, among other strategies. > > I had once thought I would use self publishing but it does not motivate me > any more, because it seems too narrowly focused for me. I prefer the > professionalism and strong book list of an academic publisher and the scope > of a trade publisher. > > thanks > > oluwatoyin vincent adepoju > > > The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No > SC013683. > > > > The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No > SC013683.**** > > ** ** >