Jake,
The list is meant to be an inclusive bringing together of academics (many of whom are also practitioners, but not exclusively) and practitioners (many of who have published authoritative boks and articles in the field) and seems to work pretty well with this mix. Many feel this bi-culturalism (being academics and practitioners) keenly which is always why answers will refer to emics and etics, etc. ... I would have to say that Paganism in both academic and practitioner discourses acts an umbrella for both monist and polytheistic forms of spirituality and that makes definition and comparison sometimes problematic. I might be getting away from your original question, but have a look at Dennis Carpenter's definitional work on Paganism in Lewis' 'Modern Witchcraft and Magical Religion'. Dimensions of Paganisms such a mono, duo- and polytheism, or magic-using v non-magic using, make an all encompassing definition of Pagan (which would include heathenism), never mind comparison, difficult to say the least. Given this perhaps people have not answered because they see Pagan Monism v Heathen polytheism a false opposition on these terms.
Dave
Dr Dave Green
Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM):
http://www.sasm.co.uk
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jake Stratton-Kent
Sent: 26 March 2010 13:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
First of all, thanks for answering.
On 26 March 2010 13:00, Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Jake.
>
> I must admit I am a bit confused as to which posts you are addressing
> with your latest mails -
understood, if I understand correctly an earlier post of mine led to this current discussion, but I am sat on the sidelines waiting for another post to be answered. Being somewhat frustrated by this, I decided to join in with this one.
I subscribe to other message boards and mailing lists
> with purely academic participants, so I am definitely for a list that
> is open for discussion between academic and practitioner approaches; I
> have a feeling this is the general sentiment?
that was my impression also, but to a very large degree it seems the practitioners are only wearing their academic hats. Not having such headgear of my own I'm still wondering whether or not this list is where I belong, on balance so far I'd say it isn't, which is unfortunate as my occult interests are usually better served by academics than occultists.
> But when you say "So I propose, thinking like an occultist is not out
> of place on this list. Occultism has theoretical and practical
> considerations which academics should be able to address via the
> empathic method", my answer as an academic would be yes, "emic"
> thinking and empathic re-reading is important (which is why I
> subscribe to the list, for ex.), but it is not an answer in itself,
> hence the "etic" theoretical reframing of a given study (when I write
> articles).
it is not an answer in itself, hence my analogy of the 'arguing from historical evidence' like an academic historian in regard to Hannibal, while *also* trying to understand him in his own terms. More relevant than proposing he didn't attack Rome because of a traumatic incident in his relationship with his father or whatever.
>And if "thinking like an occultist" means reproducing biased
>dichotomies as academic analysis, I hope other scholars will point out
>that something is missing.
I'm assuming it is the New Age topic you mean by 'biassed dichotomies', as I have no idea what else it might refer to. So, no I'm not talking about pro and anti New Age attitudes as representative of occult thought which folks need to be considering. Nor did I think my initial comment really amounted to anything like a position requiring political correction.
What I'm wondering is why my question about monist elements in pagan philosophy is apparently of no interest to academics here; even though they apparently have *some* basis for distinguishing paganism from polytheism. I did preface my question with an apology should I be going over old ground for established list members. I hope potential comments about Neoplatonist philosophy don't automatically involve 'biassed dichotomies', especially as I included an invitation to contrast it or compare it with Indian philosophy relevant to 'pagan monism vs heathen polytheism'.
So, sorry to confuse you, but I'm equally confused that the current discussion about inclusiveness arising from my earlier post has effectively excluded me! ;)
ALWays
Jake
|