Thoughts... Sophies and Ologies. What is to be done?

[wolven7]

I think the thing that I like the most about those 7 Question memes is the Asking a Question portion, though thinking of music that makes me think of you runs a close second.

I'm trying to figure if what I'm doing, or planning on doing is different from theology. And, if not, then what is the problem, exactly? As I've said before, it seems that it is only in areas of religous significance that we do not put into practice that which we "Academically Study." Psychology is used to better understand the human mind, and put into practice what we find. Philosophy is used to better understand ethical, metaphysical, and epistemological questions, seeking to better answer them, and make the world "better." Then there's maths, sciences, applied sciences, and alll that jazz...

But then we come to Religion, which has been neatly sectioned off into Believers and Academics. Academics may believe, but their belief must not inform their research. Do we ask metaphysicians studying free will not to talk about or try to prove their views on compatibalism, determinism, or free will? Do we ask quantum physicists not to search for the elusive Higgs Boson? No. But, if your beliefs inform your research into religion, then you're a theologian, with all attendant stigma, to the rest of academia.

Yes, I believe that occult phenomena can be investigated for their effects in the world, and can be dissected in terms of understanding what the phenomena mean, and what they can do for us, under the right conditions. Yes, I believe that the understanding and investigation of magic and occult phenomena should be regulated, at least in terms of teaching people how to learn about what they can do, and to think about what they will do, with that knowledge. How is this different from other things, in the world, except that people don't belive in magic, anymore, while others do?

Hm. Let's compare the psychological efficacy of belief in magic and religion, as discussed in the works of Freud and Jung, with the psychological efficacy of believing in a world of order and science. Psychologically, they are equivalent, in that they cause a sense of well-being, and can change the way in which the holder of those beliefs engages the world, and those in it.

I have a meeting for which I need to get ready. Good day.

Comments

Off Topic

[hametsunosaturn.livejournal.com]

You weren't online and this line just made me think of you:

"Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 'Journals,' 1836

Re: Off Topic

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Wow. Thank you.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

The only problem I can see here is your department(s)' seeming allergic reaction to the concept of theology as opposed to 'religious studies'. Like I said before, your immersion and involvement in the concept makes them nervous. The pansies.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's because religious studies still sees itself as a relatively new and "ill-used" discipline, just recently separated from the vast majority of theological and anthropological work.

Anything that smells like reconnecting that is like showing a lit match to an animal rescued from a wildfire.