From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: ALCHEMY -- AND STUDENT CLUBS
Summary: Theoretical framework ?  We don't need no stinkin' ...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  6 APR 92 11:33:12    


As written in the organizaton's constitution, it sounds very worthwhile to me.
The value, from my perspective, would hinge on what Tagi referred to as
the 'theoretical framework.'  It has been very specifically stipulated as
'science,' which is a cultural activity with a somewhat specific set of 
criterion of value.  It is very easy to either; get lost in the
content of elaborate belief systems and lose the required detached
perspective for study; or to be unable to become involved enough to
understand the symbols of the system within its proper context.

Typically, 'occultists' get too involved, 'skeptics' are not involved
enough, and 'scholars' can't make up their minds about it.  :)

 Tagi Mordred Nagashiva at Tagi@cup.portal.com writes...

>Not only the 'mechanics' but the theoretics from which these arts developed
>are a necessary ingredient to understanding them.  If you don't get the
>idea-construct within which this is considered reasonable, then you will
>not be able to construct your own experiments accurately.

If Tagi means by this that it is neccessary to study a system of belief 
(religion, magic, alchemy, mythology, Elizabethan drama, etc.) from
both a detached perspective and one of greater involvement, in order
to fully appreciate it, then I absolutely agree.

>Make sure that you study Symbology, if you want to add some depth to all of
>the above-mentioned.  In your studies, don't worry about where the trails
>may lead.  You'd be surprised what connections there are between the
>'disciplines'.  It is not as separate and distinct as you may have been told.

This is where I disagree.  The nature of 'symbology' is that we can find
the patterns we set out to find, and the value of the study becomes
rationalized.  Especially from the perspective of science, which the
organization's charter clearly stipulates as their criteria.  

If it referred to philosophy in general, the leeway for criterion of value
would be significantly more flexible.

Most symbolism is a matter of convention,
and the symbols have little meaning to someone not trained to understand
the meanings.  Some symbolism is 'archetypal,' in some sense, in that 
we can find similar patterns in interpretation in people from diverse 
cultures and backgrounds.  

I would say that there is value (topsychology and anthrlpology and so on) in 
the study of the use of the 'ineffable' symbolism in some Romantic poetry, 
Surrealist art, Symbolist art, and various representations of [traditional 
magic] and [alchemy] even if you don't make the leap from science to mysticism 
or semi-mysticism or the assumption of a higher reality or Platonic world of 
forms of some sort.  

>As Todd mentioned, those things may not all have the same things in common.
>You might be surprised by what they DO have in common, however - a theoretical
>framework which has been forgotten by our schools and ignored by 'scholars'.

What framework is that, exactly, and what specific phenomena require its
adoption for studying symbolism ?  What value does it add to the study ?

It seems to me that between psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, 
philosophy, intellectual history, hermeneutics, and all the rest, that there 
are sufficient theoretical frameworks to study any phenonomena of human 
behavior and determine the value of ancient belief systems for today.

A framework for showing how certain belief systems might be correlated with 
each other seems to fall well within one or more of the existing disciplines.  

And if someone writes a paper on their findings within a legitimate
existing theoretical framework, then maybe someone besides Llewellyn Press
will publish it.  :)

>Invoke me under my stars!  Love is the law, love under will.
> 
>Yours in equestrian pluropractix,

Yours in pedestrian pragmatics.  :)

>Tagi
					todd