thank you for all your contributions to this thread. 
I'm very grateful for the diversity of opinion and 
perspective brought to bear on the subject. I've
selected some comments to which to reply here.


Susan Greenwood:
> ...how magic has played a significant role in [Toyin's]
> academic work.

I understood Toyin to ask for reflections on how magic might
intersect with academic work. there were some very
interesting examples, as by Susan (channelling) and others.
I guess the pragmatic details of conventional folk magic
practice are so well known that intersections of the type
Toyin asked about might be said to be limited strictly to one's

	* familiarity with the language or principles of magic;
	
	* ability to apply these principles, or utilize this
	  language to construct helpful spells or talismans.

so, for example, the first thing to do in analyzing
logically the implementation of magic of this type within
such a context is to describe in as much detail as possible
the various regions of the behaviour or endeavour, because
it is within this overarching framework that magic might be
employed to change circumstances toward one's desired ends.

in the context of academia, for example, one's social status
and relationships, investigative explorations (whether in
expressive capacity and projects, delving into cultural
contexts, bookstacks, etc.), and development (as in terms of
understanding and insight, relation to the topic, etc.) may
all become regions for the application of magic, really by
any conception.

having ascertained this arena, one may thereafter undertake
to effect any portion of it: from affecting the way one is
seen and how one is accepted in one's institution or others;
to the success that one has in encountering the people,
books, or processes that one needs to get where one seeks to
go; to direct effects upon insights and understandings from
great figures one contacts, or by application of magical
tools to enhance this.

particularly, one might put Success or Domination powders
upon one's paperwork which one turns into one's superiors so
as to get them to favour you; one may shake hands with the
person in charge of hiring and firing positions toward which
one aims with a treated Influence oil; one may place one's
targetted department chair into one's Honey Jar spell; one
may construct for oneself a Talisman of Bookfinding; one may
make a small Wand of Influence and carry this with one as
one ventures into a community to study its magics; one may
dress one's head with Wisdom oil, obtain and use the grave
dirt of an admired student or academic of magic such as
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Francis, Barrett, Marcel Mauss, 
Eliphas Levi, Frazer, etc.

Susan Greenwood:
> ...combining magical insights with an analytical frame
> of mind.

there's no good reason for these to be incompatible. if they
were, then i would wonder about the potency or overall value
of the magic producing the insights.

Susan Greenwood mentions:
> [her book]...written during one hot summer while I was
> channelling my ancestor...

excellent. superordinary sources for information can
be impressive vectors of unusual understanding. where
they are oblique to conventional academic critiques,
however, i do not think we should expect them to be
taken any more seriously than from any other source.
this seems to have been Jesper Petersen's point.

Susan Greenwood:
> ...magical knowing, using imagination and intuition,
> is not only a legitimate form of knowledge but also a
> creative part of being human...

the latter is assuredly true. the former is not very
well-founded, however. the means of obtaining knowledge
should *not* factor into an evaluation of its content. we
should be able to use conventional means to evaluate it, and
if we find it to be worthless, then whether it is derived
from magic, or from dreams, or revelations from gods, it
ought be of no overall import as it may be approached 
by academia.

to ask after its derivation may help us in fact to give it a
proper evaluation, but that source should not be the final
criterion as such. as practitioners of magic, we may even
have personal interest in going out of our way to discover 
the viability of information obtained via magical means 
(through ordinary evaluative methods), because we may have 
some confidence in the process or means used to obtain it.

Jesper Aagaard Petersen:
> ...we shouldn't conflate the research situation and
> the communication of this research situation. ...
> the context of discovery and the context of
> validation are two different pies.

this is effectively what i have said above and i agree
strongly with you. this is, to my mind, one of the things
that sets religion and science (and to an extent, magic
and science) apart from one another: the source of data
plays a heavy role of emphasis within the former, whereas
in scientific contexts, testing, peer review, and many
other very important factors are brought to bear on an
evaluation of the data *after* it is obtained.

Susan Greenwood:
> ...the tools of analysis we have to research magic
> tend to render the essence of the magical
> experience invisible.

I don't know how to evaluate the essence of a magical
experience. it sounds very important subjectively.
perhaps part of the reason that it is invisible is
that the tools we tend to use to evaluate are not so
easily able to deal with experiences and their essences.

Susan Greenwood:
> In my book The Anthropology of Magic I have argued
> that science and magic form two different types of
> knowledge,

I will be looking over your book very carefully and do
appreciate an opportunity to discuss its ideas here. my
understanding is that magic is a technology, and one of the
possible outcomes of its production is information. as such,
magic is not itself information, but a means of obtaining
it. science is also a means of obtaining information, though
more readily reliable on account of its rigours and the
testing that goes into refining and testing that knowledge.

I would use science to evaluate and test the knowledge
that magic may be used to produce, for example, and NOT
the reverse.

Susan Greenwood:
> and that one (magic) should not be reducible to the
> other (science). 

a fascinating topic really, insofar as there are 
occult disciplines, some of which are considered magic
(as is alchemy for example) from which scientific
disciplines (i.e. chemistry) have been derived. I see
no reason that one might not reduce the one (alchemy)
to the other (chemistry) for purpose. with divination
and sciences derived from this (e.g. astronomy's
derivation from astrology) i also see no problem.

Susan Greenwood:
> I have developed a theoretical model that enables
> the bringing together of both magical and scientific
> knowledge in such a way that values the qualities of
> both and enables the experience of magic to become 
> visible as a creative and imaginative source of insight.
> It is this aspect of magic that has been difficult to
> examine using conventional academic analysis.

this is excellent, Susan, and commendable. I am VERY
happy that people are treating magic in this manner,
and bringing all that may be seen into greater clarity.
thank you very much for making that effort and putting
it out there for everyone to examine at least by proxy.

Susan Greenwood:
> ...'revisioning science so that magic can be
> considered as a legitimate form of knowledge.'

as above, i don't think i really understand the basis
by which a technology may be considered a form of
knowledge. probably this results from my tendency to
see magic in terms of practice primarily and as a
specific means of influencing very specific things.

when i want to identify magic, i look for specific
things (symbolism, specific principles which may be
employed in spellcraft or ritual craft, etc.).

jason winslade:
> ...magic as a cultural and historical discourse
> can certainly be studied and incorporated into
> academic work in a critical and discursive fashion.

I don't understand this. I'm sure that the ways that
the term 'magic' is being used here extend beyond
what i tend to accept as a usable framework in my
attempts to understand it on the ground level, as
compared to something more conceptual or poetic. 

I hope that i can catch glimpses of your meaning 
in subsequent discussions here and appreciate them.

Gerhard Mayer (to Jesper):
> In your statement, you use the concept of magic
> as a "technique" e.g. for the purpose of "personal
> quest". Susan called magic in her Email a "type of
> knowledge".

these are very important discernments.

Gerhard Mayer:
> In her "Anthropology of Magic Facebook page"

thanks for focusing this page, also.

Gerhard Mayer:
> she deals with magic "as an aspect of consciousness".
> A lot more conceptualizations of magic can be found,
> and there is often a lack of clarity in the
> differentiation of the use of these concepts implying
> different things. This leads to a lot of
> misunderstandings and to the failure of gaining a
> widely accepted academic definition of magic.

it doesn't help that in expository works on the topic,
occultists explode the significance of the terms in their
usage, such as when Crowley or someone influenced by him
begins to speak of magic being 'any volitional act'. next,
blowing your nose becomes magic (cf. "Magick in Theory and
Practice", esp. pertaining to 'the Magical Link' therein).

it is on the one hand valuable to distinguish usages for
the purpose of practicing or understanding the dynamics
and principles of magic (say, in its relation to will, and
vectors of influence), and quite another to talk about
examining magic as a discipline, its practice as separate
from other ordinary activities, etc.

Gerhard Mayer:
> ...Lionel Snell... defines magic as a form of
> consciousness activity, i.e. as a particular
> form of data processing without referring to
> concrete contents....

I'm not sure i really understand the value of doing
that yet from the perspective of coming to understand
magic as a distinguishable phenomenon.

Gerhard Mayer:
> To me, it is essential for the scientific study 
> of magic to reflect carefully one's own
> conceptualization of magic as well as the
> insider/outsider problem in the study of
> new religion groups.

absolutely essential. in such a study one must be
completely clear what template or perspective of the
subject is being brought to bear on the specific
people or culture under observation.

Jesper Aagaard Petersen:
> ...performance, ritual, or art can be critical, 
> discursive, or dialogic, but is it the central
> interest of these epistemologies? If so, there
> is no reason to distinguish any techniques,
> and I for one would like to keep art, science
> and religion seperate....

I agree here as to the discerned convention of
focus within the disciplines in question. they have
their own domains, and science is that of knowledge
of a particular type with a specific standard of
reliability. 

perhaps we may observe something valuable socially in that
we divide up 'soft' and 'hard' sciences, and that some do
not receive the same level of prestige as others. this calls
into question the contents of knowledge presented within
these soft sciences in a manner not completely unlike how
the contents of knowledge derived from occult arts may be
skeptically and critically rejected merely on account of
the method of their derivation.

Kathryn Evans: 
> ...it is folly for one Discipline to claim the
> right of defining the methodology of another
> Discipline.

how inspiringly strident. you seem to be making the point
that there is NO hierarchy of knowledge. I doubt you would
dispute that physics is the basis of chemistry, or that
both, with thermodynamics, are the basis of astrophysics. 
is this comparable in that the more fundamental, in some
way, 'define the methodology' of those which may be said 
to be based upon them? it's a thorny issue.

Kathryn Evans:
> There is no one right way to study esotericism, 
> no mutual language of 'academese' to be found.
> Different Disciplines speak different languages.
> Rather than denigrate the methodology of "other"
> Disciplines, we must learn to listen with respect
> to those different languages.

I join with you in emphasizing the value of broadening
vision when studying esoteric processes and phenomena.

any interest in restricting a competitive urge to champion
study methods may be misplaced, however. I want someone to
say "This is the best way to study this phenomena!" and
explain why. I don't think that coming to the conclusion
(for what reason?) that there is *no* one right way to study
esotericism is valuable. let them compete and battle with
one another, i say, and let's see who is most convincing. :)

Kathryn Evans:
> ...until we acknowledge the legitimacy of each others'
> Disciplines, we have little to say that is globally 
> relevant, and we serve only to propagandize the
> superiority of our own small turf.

I would rather start with the *illegitimacy* of each of the
disciplines in terms of the production of knowledge, and
respectfully allow them to try to demonstrate their
validity, legitimacy, authority, and convincingness, before
skeptical but open-minded students. starting off by
*proclaiming* the (equal) legitimacy of their knowledge
strikes me as a risky error made far too many times in the
history of religions.

Kathryn Evans:
> ...The polarity of "science" versus "religion" 
> is irrelevant...."

in general, i am agreed here (the polarization between these
social factions is all too great), but when it comes to the
discussion and evaluation of *knowledge*, this is false.
religion has demonstrated its flaws in this regard far too
often, and this is particularly true in a consideration of
technology (a class of which i consider magic to be).

Jesper Aagaard Petersen:
> ...what I am talking about is not the right way to
> study esotericism (or religion), but the way to
> validate findings and actually communicate this study. 
> ...we shouldn't conflate the research situation and
> the communication of this research situation.

precisely. this is a valuable emphasis. let everyone
study however they please. compare and contrast their
methodologies of study, and evaluate the data, their
information, knowledge, about their study subjects
against one another for quality, coherence, and,
i would emphasize, for *utility*. what works? why?

Jesper Aagaard Petersen:
> ...every discipline also buys into the general
> justification framework of academia itself; 
> journals and conferences with peer review,
> footnotes, consistency, coherence in argument etc. 

and yet i have seen a widening gulf between religious
and secular academic standards, cultures, knowledge,
and what is presumed established as primary, known,
or conventional bases from which to critique, challenge,
and discuss knowledge. within religious contexts, some
aspects of knowledge are unquestionable, for example.
one would have to dispute religious contexts *as*
academic to ignore these differences, i think.

Jesper Aagaard Petersen:
> ...tolerance and respect should not put an end to
> critical discussion within and between disciplines. 
> Because of the same framework, criticism is
> possible and indeed necessary for academic
> knowledge to expand and deepen.

completely agreed. this is why i have tried to focus on
common conventions of observation and significance in
language both to describe the phenomena of magic and also
for the construction of magical tools, events, spells,
rites, etc.   

that framework and criticism, in order to develop into 
a working knowledge of the field, must have something 
stable against which to prop itself. once one ventures 
too far into polemics and poetry without evaluatable 
standards, it becomes hard to justify these kinds of 
comparisons, cross-discipline. for purpose of practice, 
this is not in any way a problem, but in terms of a 
clarifying study of technique and form of a phenomenon 
in focus, it begins to erect very difficult 
socio-cultural barriers, blurring boundaries 
of discipline, and overlapping fields in 
confusing complexity.

thanks again for this inspiring discussion.

nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
  YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
-----------------------------------------------------
  *Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
   and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------