My final comment for sure:
You read everything as racist. I was asking, as I would of anyone who claims that some pet figure was ignored in a book or article, just what was being missed. This response happens repeatedly and has nothing to do with race or geography. Of course, no book or article is exhaustive, and reviewers and referees often point out what might have been included. I do this myself. But what the distinctive POSITION that the excluded figure holds is the real issue. I cannot put this point any more clearly, and I am sorry that you have yet to grasp it.
The associates of yours who tell you that my work is unimpressive hold what endowed professorships in what top universities. And you yourself? Why not tell us all exactly what book or article I have written that fails to meet your standards and exactly why not? I await your professional assessment.
In any other discussion list with which I am familiar, ad hominem invective like yours would not be posted.
I have in fact been exceedingly restrained, but I am not intimidated by stale, embittered, unproven attacks on anyone who refuses to accept some p c position that has long ceased to be trendy. I deal in arguments and evidence.
Goodbye.
Robert Segal
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Can non-europeans think (link)
I have checked your cv. You don't impress me at all. And given your history of acerbic, caustic responses to people whenever they questioned you on important matters, you are not a man of honor to debate anything with; nor as far as I know are you taken all that seriously by scholars who are actually working in the field whom I know -- despite what you may believe about yourself otherwise.
As for your accusation about racism: given your documented ethnocentric and Islamophobic statements made on this list to me and others, take a look in the mirror. This pompous and ignorant statement also demonstrates the issue quite well and merely reinforces what I said in general previously, "...tell us just what was novel in any of the non-Western writers on magic you were touting..."
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Check my cv. I don't answer to you.
At the same time you continually misread things. I didn't claim expertise on my part but on the part of the editors of DEFINING MAGIC. But then the publisher asked me for an endorsement, so that I guess that I am seen by some as having some expertise.
You were asked by me weeks ago to tell us just what was novel in any of the non-Western writers on magic you were touting. Still working on that information? Your statements that non-Westerners were shamefully being overlooked was your sole argument--an ad hominem argument, and one ultimately racist itself, that carries no weight among scholars. So I replied more than once to you.
I have no interest in any more exchanges with you.
RS
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Can non-europeans think (link)
But debating on the basis of knowledge is, to use a rather out-of-date line, what separates the men from the boys.
Indeed. But could I ask what you have actually written about magic on any serious level which places you among the men and not the boys?
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
Jan. 26
Dear Mogg,
The Presocratics versus Homeric gods? Plato versus Homeric gods? The Stoics saving Homeric gods only through allegory?
I appreciate your prior message, which was most cordial.
I love debating. That is being scholarly, not unscholarly. But debating on the basis of knowledge is, to use a rather out-of-date line, what separates the men from the boys.
Best,
Robert
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of mandrake [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Can non-europeans think (link)
Dear Friends
It is not unscholarly to debate and ask questions.
Although in your latest one too many for me - although
one caught my eye -
the conflict "religion versus science":
There is no conflict between pagan religion and science
but there was a conflict in Europe between Christian religion and
(pagan?) science ?
(I note that some openly Christian astronomers and historians of science
have been trying to argue the opposite)
senebty
Mogg Morgan
> Jan. 26
>
> Dear Nick,
>
> Many thanks for your fast reply.
>
> Obviously, I agree with you.
>
> I know well Christian polemics against Greco-Roman pagans and vice versa. I wonder what our experts, whose academic credentials are obscure, think of Justin Martyr, who was beheaded by Rome for his polemics against pagan philosophers.
>
> It does not take a specialist to be aware of divisions within the "European" realm. Since, as you note, "Abrahamic" includes Islam, what do our authorities make of the Crusades? An intra-mural squabble? What do they make of religious persecutions throughout the history of "Europe"? What of the conflict between religion and science? What of philosophical conflicts--for example, between materialism and idealism?
>
> Yes, the list could be most useful if it were scholarly. I especially like the publicizing of publications and of conferences that might otherwise pass me by. And subscribers who ask for references or other guides--this is what the list should be doing.
>
>
> Best,
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
|
