On 27 March 2010 23:28, nagasiva yronwode, YIPPIE Director
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> hi Jake,
>
> Jake Stratton-Kent <[log in to unmask]>:
>> ...thinking like an occultist is not out of place
>> on this list.
>
> my impression is that the thought of occultists is
> so diverse that it might be difficult to predict. in
> part, it would seem to depend on what the occultist
> expected in terms of reasoning to conclusion. I've
> occasionally seen mention made here of logics employed
> within magic, for example, which would not be possible
> for academics to take seriously *as convincing argument*.
not where I was going; an idea doesn't have to be part of academic
thinking to be part of its area of study. It is as appropriate for a
given academic to be able to recognise a Stoic idea as an Attic vase;
and a specialised academic might even make a vase with appropriate
tools and materials. Understanding how a concept 'works' in context ,
and seeing further ramifications would be 'thinking like an
occultist', and enlarging understanding of a subject. Obviously there
has to be a philosophy or theory about which a certain amount is
known, and that possesses some reasonable consistency in a given time
or place. This will usually involve a previous historical period
rather than an NRM. ;)
>> Occultism has theoretical and practical considerations
>
> and modalities, i notice. at times these modalities
> are symbolic or associative, rather than relying
> upon strict rational deduction.
yes, even the philosophical forms involve that, but there will be
recognisable features derived from such an 'intuitive dialectic' which
enable academic discussion. Naturally an academic could distinguish
'aesthetic empathy' or induction on a personal level from deduction on
a professional level. ;)
>> which academics should be able to address via the
>> empathic method.
>
> I've seen mentions of 'etics' and 'emics' and 'empathic'
> and i'm not sure that i'm keeping them straight, but if
> you mean that academics can be empathic in terms of noting
> the practical advantage or displayed character of magic,
> without necessarily agreeing as to the same interpretation
> of effect or consequence, then i quite agree that this
> would be essential and an important area of overlap.
that's more or less where I was going, particularly the 'displayed
character'. If there's a bunch of Fates on a vertical axis with Ananke
we can assume some Platonist influence. One might be attached to or
responsive to this as a 'Helleno-pagan', but as an academic simply
identify the characteristic. Both however could be aware of the ideas
and sphere of experience these images implied.
>> It is these that primarily supply an arena for discussion
>> between academics and occultists, where the willingness
>> exists.
>
> I see some others also. the tendency for reflectiveness
> on the part of occultists (e.g. to construct what is called
> a 'Magical Record' or a documentation of avenues explored)
> makes at least a sociological and/or anthropological study
> possible from both sides (or the middle, in the case of
> participant-observers, academic occultists).
indeed, though - personally speaking - there'd have to be considerable
commitment and enthusiasm for both 'sides' to make that attractive.
I'm more interested in understanding how a magician thinks, as a goal,
than making that thought secondary to the means of understanding.
That's partly a matter of where my background lies of course, rather
than 'how things have to be'.
ALWays
Jake
|