Christopher I. Lehrich wrote:
> Al Billings wrote:
>
>> I just finished my first paper for this yesterday and I wound up
>> discussing and summarizing Faivre's definition with some elaboration
>> from Hanegraaff and Henrik Bogdan (who derives his definition from a
>> union of their work). Looking at the papers from conferences that I
>> have and other materials, everything I've read so far is using
>> Faivre's definition as its basis. Is there an alternative being
>> proposed by others that I've just missed? I have figured that I would
>> get stuck using it (which isn't necessarily a problem) because it
>> looked to be the accepted model used.
>
> Stuck, yes, unless there are better options. Here's the question: are
> you discussing this definition because you want to develop a better
> classificatory approach to something, or because you're covering
> background?
The latter. I'm trying to fit my interests and proposed work into the
overall structure of current studies in Western Esotericism. It may also
happen that I have to fight an uphill battle with at least one member of
my thesis community so I need to have a decent methodology to work
within. How does one go about speaking about the esoteric content of the
Golden Dawn without a larger discussion of esotericism in England,
Europe, or the English speaking world? It has to have a context of some
sort.
>> My thesis work is going to focus on some aspect of the Golden Dawn
>> material. I had a specific thesis question in mind but I've been
>> reconsidering it because of issues with source material. I've
>> considered focusing on the group ritual aspects or perhaps some of
>> the personal ritual aspects of the work individual Golden Dawn
>> magicians engaged in but I haven't found a lot of academic work that
>> gives me a framework to work within in either space. Bogdan's book on
>> ritual initiation is one of the few.
>
> Now obviously I don't know what you're doing in this thesis, but (and
> this gets at your later question) why do you need Faivre's system?
> Let's think it through. The point, explicitly, of Faivre's 6-part
> structure is to define what esotericism "really" is. Does this really
> matter for a close study of the Golden Dawn? I mean, suppose from
> Faivre's definitions it turns out that the Golden Dawn isn't
> esotericism. So what? To my way of thinking, the obvious thing to do
> is to analyze and explain the Golden Dawn rituals. If you draw on
> theoretical frameworks, the obvious ones (at this distance anyway)
> would seem to come from scholarship on ritual.
True. Other than Catherine Bell's book, which I have, is there anything
you recommend in the scholarship on ritual that might be relevant?
> If you bring up and analyze Faivre's classifications at any length,
> you presumably intend to challenge or develop those classifications.
> Otherwise why bring it up? In dissertations, of course, it's
> traditional to bring out a laundry-list of previous scholarship, and
> maybe that's what you have in mind. But if you're not getting mileage
> out of the definition, by which I mean neither challenging it nor
> using it to open up a comparative approach to the material (that being
> the only effect of such a system), you're going to need to cut this
> when preparing it for a book.
Well, I did need to fit my work, for example, into a larger whole. The
Golden Dawn doesn't exist in a vacumn but is an outgrowth of a number of
earlier and co-existing realms of thought and organizations. Masonry is
one part of that. Kabbalah in the English speaking world is another.
I also need to do a certain amount of justification that shows that my
area of interest and discussion is a valid field of study. Pointing to
the work of other scholars in related areas and as part of a larger
study of Western Esotericism does a bit towards this end.
> For all I know, you are in fact leveling a significant challenge to
> Faivre. I intend no criticism in either case. But the point is that
> the only reason to bring up a theoretical framework is if it gets you
> mileage: either it alters your method of analysis or it is to some
> degree the object of analysis.
>
> If you care, the opening of chapter 4 of my Agrippa book has a chunk
> on Faivre's definition.
I've seen your book listed but since the cheapest price I've seen it
for is $83, I have not picked it up and my university library doesn't
have a copy of it.
Al
|