Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01200)

At 11:10 AM 5/21/96 -0400, you wrote:

>My very first contact with the history of occultism was in the reading
>room of the British Museum Library, where I read such ancients as
>Cornelius Agrippa in the original published editions.  All such
>literature was classified by the library under one heading:
>
>Occult Science.
>
>Which is almost a statement of empirical definition in itself.  Now, if
>we can possibly agree that occultism (which *includes* modern theosophy)
>is a subject which requires the scientific approach (as in the TI
>statement) then maybe we could begin to get somewhere.  Do I see a
>flying pig *landing*?
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>
>Alan: "Occultism" has the potential to be a "science" and perhaps even an
unusual combination of "hard" and "soft" science. But when it becomes so it
will hardly be "occulted" any longer. But as long as "occultism" is
approached as religion it's hopeless. Today most occultism and I think it
safe to assume your experience echoes mine, is simply fatuous
will-to-believe or "faith". And because of that,most of it's sheer nonsense.
I don't see a flying pig landing, but it may actually be laboring to "take off".

alexis