Robert,
Yes, please feel free to e-mail me: [log in to unmask]
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
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Segal, Professor Robert A. [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 March 2010 19:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Frazer's Sympathetic Magic - Any Thoughts?
March 10
Dear All,
I don't know how to contact the administrators of this list except by this message, which may go to everyone on the list. I would love to ask some very basic questions about setting up a list--which, be assured, would not be on magic but instead on myth. Is there a moderator I can contact?
Many thanks.
Best wishes,
Robert Segal
Professor of Religious Studies
University of Aberdeen
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of mandrake [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Frazer's Sympathetic Magic - Any Thoughts?
Dr Leo Ruickbie wrote:
Take your point, may be something to salvage from the ruins but
would also say just because Harvard psychologists still quoting him is
not always a good thing -
the example I posted (on sacred prostitution) or indeed margaret
murrey's ideas -
shows that it can take years to undo the harm done by bad theory /
research -
the tenacity of the magick / religion division being a case in point - imo.
its not really based on research of actual (ancient) magical activity -
But agree the mechanics of some magical activity connected with
correspondences is
important and is there in the ancient practice,
especially if extended to word play, puns etc
Mogg Morgan
Dr Leo Ruickbie wrote:
> Thanks for all your replies so far. While Frazer certainly got a few
> things wrong, that's not to say he got everything wrong. His analysis
> of magic as based upon sympathy according to two principles, one of
> similarity and one of contact, was rather efficient. The recent work
> of Pronin, Wegner, etc., hasn't really gone beyond that except to
> couch the whole thing in more psychological and sophisticated language
> - and even such esteemed Princeton and Harvard psychologists are still
> citing Frazer. While we may want to leave well alone, it's not
> possible if we are to engage with all aspects of current theorising
> about magic. Susan's work certainly provides an insight into current
> anthroplogical directions, but does it explain magic better than
> Frazer? Does anyone? Don't take this as some sort of championing of
> Frazer, it's not, I'm just interested in your thoughts on the debate.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Leo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr Leo Ruickbie, PhD, MA, BA (Hons), AKC
> Author of /Witchcraft Out of the Shadows/ (Robert Hale, 2004)
>
> "/Witchcraft Out of the Shadows/ is an engaging book which
> deserves to be the benchmark for all future analyses of the
> Craft." - Alan Richardson
>
> And /Faustus: The Life and Times of a Renaissance Magician/ (The
> History Press, 2009)
>
> "Dr Ruickbie has re-evaluated and contextualised the sources of
> the Faust tradition from a position of authority. The result is a
> work of meticulous scholarship that can be read as a gripping
> page-turner." - Professor Osman Durrani
>
> For more information visit www.witchology.com <http://www.witchology.com>
>
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were detected
This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were found
|