I think there is room in academic writing for the kind of intuition and gnosis that Peter Kingsley writes about (below).  In the fields of anthropology and folkloristics, it can be found in the works of Edith Turner, Jean-Guy Goulet, Bruce Grindal, and David Hufford, among others. It must exist, however, alongside a more scholarly, analytical and fact-based stance.  In my own work on modern Paganisms, I have striven for that balance.  The ethnological discipines in particular have been affected by the post-modern critique, which has brought about much more reflexivity in the way that scholars engage with their material.  Broadside criticism of academic writing as detatched and disdainful of lived religion demonstrates ignorance of this fundamental shift in perspective.

I think Amy Hale hit the nail on the head when she wrote about the anti-intellectualism that often prevails in some esoteric and magical circles.  Some groups like to define themselves in opposition to something, and in those cases, academia comes to stand for the negative pole against which they contrast themselves -- whether or not the fields or scholars in question actually "oppose" them in any substantial way.  This has come to a head over issues of authenticity, where scholarly histories (e.g. Hutton's _Triumph of the Moon [1999]) come to be popularly interpreted as attempts to challenge the legitimacy of esoteric movements.  Here's where scholarly and popular ideas really clash: in the academic realm, tracing the history of a movement and finding that it is of more recent origin than previously believed, or that its history does not match its sacred narrative of creation, is not tantamount to de-legitimizing it.  If it were so, then all modern social and religious institutions would by definition be illegitimate.

Most academics view notions such as legitimacy and authenticity as cultural constructs: shared ideas that everyone agrees to agree upon, generally supported by a dominant ideology.  Clearly, many people outside of the academy do not share this view.

It might help if we think of these two arenas as co-existing knowledge realms.  We all participate in various knowledge realms in society: in some, we are experts with insider knowledge, while in others, we participate on a much more informal level.  To take Dave E's cooking analogy, most of us are not chefs, yet good home cooks can produce some excellent meals and exchange recipes with enthusiasm and success.  This does not make our knowledge "wrong" or somehow "less than" that of professional chefs -- just different. 

Best,

Sabina Magliocco
Professor
Department of Anthropology
California State University - Northridge
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Angela Voss [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 5:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Rv: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academic Writing 2

Dear Ana

I understand exactly what you are saying. Peter Kingsley is an old friend of mine, and he represents that rare breed, the gnostic scholar.  I would like to share with this list a paragraph in Jeffrey Kripal's book 'Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom', where he outlines the kind of perspective I think you are talking about.  It is certainly the perspective I try to cultivate. In the metaphor established so thoroughly by Iain McGilchrist, it 'has a foot in both brain hemispheres' and is therefore unitive, holistic and transformative:

“[These] scholars ... possess unusual powers of imagination, receptivity, discipline, and experience that allow them to enter religious worlds in a different way. For these scholars, academic method and personal experience cannot be so easily separated. “Objectivity” is transcended not in a shallow subjectivism that yields little more than private experience (however profound and personally meaningful), but in an interpersonal communion with the object of their study that produces, among other things, powerful insights into the nature of religion that stand the test of time and withstand the criticisms and researches of the larger academic community. There is something genuinely mystical about the work of such scholars, for their interpretations and writings issue from a peculiar kind of “hermeneutical union”. They do not so much process religious data as unite with sacred realities, whether in the imagination, the hidden depths of the soul, or the very fabric of the psychophysical selves. Here in such moments, the hermeneutical understandings and insights of such scholars clearly transgress the boundaries of academic study or speculation. In their subjective poles, these understandings become personally transformative; in their objecti ve poles, they produce genuine insights into the nature of the phenomena under study. These are types of understanding that are at once passionate and critical, personal and objective, religious and academic. Such forms of knowledge are not simply academic, although they are that as well, and rigorously so. But they are also transformative, and sometimes sotierological. In a word, the knowledge of such a historian of religions approaches a kind of gnosis.”

bw
Angela

Dr Angela Voss
10 Arnold Road
Chartham
Canterbury CT4 7QL

07787 434958
01227 732457
www.cosmology-divination.com<http://www.cosmology-divination.com/>
www.phoenixrising.org.gr<http://www.phoenixrising.org.gr/>

________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Odrade Atreed [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 12:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Rv: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academic Writing 2

Dear caroline and kaostar,

I am sorry, but I disagree. Perhaps the problem is not that pagans do not understand the way of academic research. Perhaps is the way back.

I will try to explain my position.

First of all, you talk about the success of Da Vinci Code and Holy Grail´s novels. I don´t think it is relevant here. Every writer knows, as Sol Stein has explained really well, that to attract the mass attention you have to
write something which is different from reality, more desirable or terrible, but something which the reader want to be into. You create fantasy, because reality is more plain, but from a "realistical point of view".

Now, about why pagans prefer Whitmore to Hutton. I cannot explain this particular point, because I am not pagan but I think my case is not very different from pagans, so I will explain myself to ilustrate the point. I am philosopher, five years degree and two years master and doing a thesis about pragmatism. But, primary, I am a magician and astrologer, with ten years practice on my back. And I prefer Reality from Peter Kignsley, an unofficial vision of Parmenides to the official philosophical theories about Parmenides. And, I have to say in my own discredit that I haven´t confirmed the afirmations of Kingsley, although I subscribe his vision. I suspect if I were a Pagan I would prefer Whitmore to Hutton.

So, what is happening to a pragmatic philosopher educated in the Academic Language to prefer a not academic text to an academic one?

Well, is part of the training we receive. There are different resources to understand the world. One of them is reason, other is the written texts. These are very well used by academics and I wouldn´t deny it.

But, as a magician, I have been trained to use imagination to achieve vision and to follow intuition to get knowledge. Most of the time this is nonsense, specially at the beginning of the training. You have a lot of visions which express what you want to get, or the self illusions about yourself. As time pass you are more prepared to appart those things and try to get the knowledge that trascends what you, as an individual person, are or need. Those visions give knowledge, and a kind of knowledge it is impossible to deny. You don´t get to this point because you are a believer, but because you have checked it in ways which are very difficult and extensive to explain now. At certain point you are sure of the epistemological value of this bit of knowledge. I suspect the deep roots of Witchcraft  in the past of humanity is part of this revelation, so if there is no written proofs of this, then Witches will wait until it appeares. If an academic study reveals this, then they will be very proud of academic research.

What is the problem with my assumption, that If academic world does not understand what kind of knowledge I am talking about, then you, as academic, will think I am talking about religion and faith. So, in my opinion, if you get to this conclussion, you are misunderstanding me.

I wait this will be clear. Thank you for helping me to clarify my possition.

Ana B. González.




De: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Para: [log in to unmask]
Enviado: viernes 16 de septiembre de 2011 12:40
Asunto: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academic Writing 2

Thanks Caroline. Maybe that is something constructive the list members could do from this? Devise a one or two page document under creative commons to clarify how we do research and what makes it academic. Then post it everywhere. Send it to pagan magazines blog it etc and do what we can to make it go viral.

Dave E
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
From: Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Society for The Academic Study of Magic <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:19:33 +1000
To: <[log in to unmask]>
ReplyTo: Society for The Academic Study of Magic <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academic Writing 2

But then again.. I am not saying that non-academics can’t possibly do research or write good books.... No. I guess my interest is in what_passes_ for history, or archaeology, amidst the general public and how they often do not have the knowledge to know how to question such material, or even that they should.

~Caroline.