Greetings,
You seem to be privileging rationality. I would like to make what I feel
is an important distinction. Rationality is that which passes the test
of the rational. Irrationality is that which fails the test of the
rational. This leaves the, often forgotten, category of arationality,
into which fall those things that are outside of the category of the
rational. Our society presently privileges the rational above the
arational, which it labels irrational. This is, IMHO a big mistake.
Humans are not entirely rational creatures. So why does science insist
on only using rational tools to investigate humans? I think that one
reason is power. Using only one tool to examine a thing is like having a
religion with only one god. It allows one to declare that there is only
one way to look at the universe. This allows the development of a
centralised power structure and creates a category of exclusion to be
applied to those who don't agree with one. "Those who do not accept
logic as the only arbiter are irrational. We can exclude them". "Those
who do not accept our one god as the only god are evil. We can exclude
them". A group of people who do not wish to accept a single way of
looking at the universe, who privilege their own experiences over a
single tool system, and who can do things that cannot be replicated by
every other person in every other situation are very scary to those
wishing to maintain a centralised power base. Just try defending an
arational position and you will see what I mean...
I would like to suggest that it is often the case that logic is used as
a tool to justify belief, here Augustine comes to mind.
Finally you are doing a thing that scientists and sciencismists often do
as a way of denying the arational. That is, applying a rule of
scientific thinking to a not entirely scientific thing. Science tries to
argue that every operation must work exactly the same way for totally
different people, in totally different times and places in order to be
valid. This was one of the reasons the work of people like Rhine was
derided by the academy. He offered evidence that some people had a
positive effect on ESP experiments and others a negative. He
demonstrated that the beliefs one held when entering into an experiment
effected the outcome. Sadly science resists this new data.
Regards,
Morgan Leigh
Caelum Rainieri wrote:
> I think that belief is inserted where logic fails. Unless one can offer
> a logical argument which proves the existence of a deity or provide a
> specific set of magical practices that will reproduce an identical
> result when performed by different people, what is left but faith and/or
> belief?
>
> Caelum
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 6/11/08, Sabina Magliocco /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>
> From: Sabina Magliocco <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] [magic practice/religion
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 4:00 PM
>
> It's interesting
> that an assumption is being made here that religion
> necessarily involves belief, even "creed without question," to use
> Josephine's term. Much current anthropological and folkloristic thinking
> about the nature of religion sees it as practice-based, rather than based on
> belief or faith. The idea that faith is a central part of religion is really
> one that originates with Christianity, and even then does not become paramount
> until the Reformation.
>
> Belief itself is notoriously difficult to quantify or even describe. It is not
> uniform within any single community, and can change over the course of an
> individual's lifetime as well. In short, it is contextual, emerging in
> response to certain socio-cultural factors.
>
> Given this, one could argue that any kind of practice with deities is religious
> in nature, whether belief is involved or not.
>
> BB,
> Sabina
>
> Sabina Magliocco
> Professor and
> Chair
> Department of Anthropology
> California State University - Northridge
> 18111 Nordhoff St.
> Northridge, CA 91330-8244
>
> "Burning the candle at both ends lights up my life."
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Josephine Cavopol
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] [magic practice/religion
>
> > But I think it is fair to say that humanity's religious
> > quest is
> > reflected in other contemporary movements - including GD,
> > Freemasonry and
> > i would have thought, even Dion Fortune grouping?>>>>>>
>
> well yes, and no. The GD was not set up as a religion, but it did strive to
> understand Divinity and work with deity, but not in a religious structure.
> Where as the OTO mass that was
> quoted, and then subsequent creed was without
> question built as a religious expression.
>
> I also think it is important to differentiate between religion ( as a
> construct) and working with deities. The GD ( and Dion fortunes group) had no
> creed, and did not rely on faith. It was a method of ritual pattern making that
> was used for a variety of reasons including working with Deities.
>
> Im not saying that either is better than the other, just that there seems to be
> many different ways to approach magic, and I find that interesting. I may not
> agree with certain appraches, but that does not mean that I dont have an
> interest from a research, curiosity or learning point of view.
>
> >
>
> > btw I assume discussion of (pagan) Theology is ok with the
> > moderators
> > for an academic list??>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I should hope so Mogg, otherwise, what is the point of the list?
>
> Best
> wishes, Josephine
>
>
|