Jesse Futterman 12/17/2015 Writing the Essay II professor Lisa Lipscomb



Download 201.77 Kb.
Date05.05.2018
Size201.77 Kb.
Jesse Futterman 12/17/2015

Writing the Essay II Professor Lisa Lipscomb


A Genealogical Account of Occult Belief in History and Modernity
What truths are to be said about belief, a category, which, prima facie, appears as immaterial and beyond the grounding scope of science. The project that this essay undertakes is one that traces historical accounts of occult belief and practice in an attempt to draw concrete and theoretical linkages to the modern image of the occult believer. This essay will begin by highlighting two competing historical arguments that address the development of belief as they appeared throughout the 16th and 17th century. The first of these arguments posits a conjoined development of occult belief and scientific thinking, while the second illustrates a strongly partitioned evolution of the two categories. In light of these contrasting arguments, this essay will work to establish an integrated framework for understanding the occult in history by formulating a rubric that incorporates distinctive characteristics constitutive of occult belief. Monochord of Microscopic Harmony (2015), an illustration done by Robert Fludd will aid my project in mapping out features representative of occult belief. These findings of the past will then be used to orient discussions of occult belief in the present, and ultimately come to justify that there do in fact exist commonalities and linkages between subjects of the occult during the 16th and 17th century, and subjects of the occult in modernity (18th century and on). This will be done by way of analysis of occult practices, and through the inclusion of various thinkers such as C.G. Jung’s interpretation of occult séance featured in his work, Psychology and the Occult (2008), and, Robert Galbreath’s rethinking of “modern occultism,” as told in, Explaining Modern Occultsim (1983). In moving away from history, but always within range, the second move of this essay is thus to formulate a cohesive definition of modern occultism, with the intention of using such a definition as a means of identifying characteristics of the subjects of occult belief in an effort to gauge shared qualities amongst believers. In order for a definition of modern occultism to be sound, due attention will be given to the nature and ratiocination of the subjects. The goal is to set in place a layered and dynamic definition of modern occultism, one that informs the reader of specific occult practices and characteristics; effectively, supplying the reader with a broader understanding of how modern occultism functions in a modern temporality. In sum, this essay will explore the occult form of belief at two main levels, which run as follows: first, to use accounts of history as a foundation for outlining the beginnings of occult belief. Second, to bring the historical form of occult belief into contact with qualities of the occult in the modern era in order to construct a layered definition of modern occultism. These levels will seek to institute a fuller comprehension of occult belief and the subjects involved by diffusing the common pretensions associated with the occult as irrational. By this account, examination of occult belief will commence beyond what shadows conceal its inner workings.

Prior to historical analysis of any kind, it is paramount to introduce the methodological structure by which this essay abides. In his book entitled, The Paranormal (2011), Erich Goode offers “four very different approaches to study paranormal beliefs” (41), that is, methods conducive to the investigation of belief, the content of which, pertains to phenomena supposedly beyond the explanatory scope of empirical science. Considering the fact that this essay deals directly with said phenomena, i.e., occult belief, a category that falls under the common definition of the paranormal: “that which is beyond or surpasses scientific explanation”(9), “or cannot be explained by routine, ordinary, known, or recognized scientific laws or natural forces”(19), it is necessary to adopt a means of engaging with the occult as paranormal phenomena, in a manner alternative to those supplied by empirical science. This essay, in concert with Goode’s methodology, and in contrast to common definitions, “understand[s] Paranormalism to be a socially constructed phenomenon, regarded in a certain way by a definable set of social actors”(9). The study of occult belief in this essay will be framed in accordance with this definition of paranormal phenomenon as “socially constructed”, and more specifically, will employ Goode’s notion of “the radical constructionist position”(47). Goode’s words summarize the methodological technique particular to this essay, which,

…looks at the customs, norms, beliefs, and values of the members of societies around the world: the symbolic interactionist adopts the theory that the meaning of a phenomenon is created by members of a society or social circle; the social constructionist argues that we ought to study how people define reality, not whether those definitions of reality are valid or invalid.

(46)


Thus, this essay will not make evaluative claims about the beliefs and accounts of the subjects involved, instead the reality of interest is the reality put forth by the discourse, images, and symbolic representations carried out by those involved in the occult. The intention is not to disprove the truth as it appears in the occult, but to make intelligible the structure and kind of truth communicated in the form of occult belief. Furthermore, I will assess the groundwork that supports the theoretical and concrete tenants of occult belief by paying attention to, works, characteristics and practices exhibited by believers. In short, I am devoted to outlining occult belief insofar as those beliefs are instantiated in praxis. However, unlike Goode’s assertion that the ‘radical constructionist’ is one who is privy to think, “everything is relative” (49), this essay will instead situate occult belief in a fashion that is genealogical. What do I mean by genealogical? I study occult belief as a “socially constructed” phenomenon, but will take the ‘radical constructionist position’ that ‘everything is relative’ a step further by placing the historical image of occult belief in such a way that it makes contact with occult belief in modernity, on account of shared characteristics sustained over time. In the context of a genealogy, I argue that the modern occult believer stands as an amalgamation of qualities derived from the occult past, and qualities of modern occultism, united under a category of belief. In short, this essay will achieve two outcomes: illustrate the makeup of occult belief, and demonstrate the fact that this form of belief has endured throughout history.

The word, occult appears in this essay frequently. I think it wise to first articulate how I understand this word to be used. In Galbreath’s piece (1983), he includes the classic definition of “occult”, as he writes,

The basic meaning of ‘occult’ from its Latin root occulere (to cover, hide, conceal), is ‘hidden,’ ‘concealed,’ ‘secret,’ no longer in the general sense of anything hidden from sight but, rather, denoting particular practices, belief systems, and phenomena that are considered to be in some sense mysterious to ordinary understanding.

(15)


Galbreath goes on to mention the primary aim of occult practice, which shares a resemblance to its Latin root insofar as the occult believer’s goal is to uncover that which is ‘hidden,’ ‘concealed’ and, ‘secret’. As I describe events pertaining to occult belief, it is paramount to keep this definition in mind in a way that is divorced from any presupposed notions of occult. This includes a common understanding that the occult, and belief in the occult, stand as irrational. Instead, I recommended that the reader evaluate the validity of these negative judgments at the conclusion of this essay.

Alas, without further informatory delay, this genealogical account begins with a 16th century conflict between a scientist and an occult believer! Contrary to the popular notion that the occult and science exist independently, I posit that the historical developments of both science, and what is temporarily classified as, non-science (religion, magic, witchcraft, etc.), did not come from a past free of interaction and overlap (Galbreath, 12). In fact, the very business of natural philosophy, as argued by Frances Yates in her essay, “The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science” (1967), operated within a framework where early practices of the occult, such as astrology, “exemplif[y] that changed attitude of man to the cosmos which was the necessary preliminary to the rise of science” (255). Many of the thinkers throughout this time period anchored their philosophical works in the presupposition that God is the creator of the universe and all things within the universe, meaning that the existence of a divine being is the precondition for all life that follows. Furthermore, to study nature, as was the task of natural philosophy, is to study the divine creation of God, most often termed, “Nature.” This theme runs rampant throughout the history of philosophy during the 16th and 17th centuries, with many minds seeking to take up the job of rationalizing and explaining Nature, and God. Therefore, the project of natural philosophy is one based on belief; that is to say, belief in a divine, infinite, all-wise creator of the universe, who sits worthy of elucidation. This claim does not warrant much criticism in the field of philosophy or philology. These thinkers instead differ at the level of explanation, and as it occurred often, many of the disputes revolve around what natural philosophy reveals about the world, considering the not so clean distinction between occult practices, such as astrology and, what Brian Vickers terms in his introduction to Occult and Scientific Mentalities (1984), “experimental science” (2). In this piece, he writes that practices now commonly taken to be of the scientific category, that is, “of experiment, empirical observation, quantification, mathematical analysis, as seen in such sciences as physics, statistics, dynamics, mechanics, astronomy, mathematics, optics” (2), needed a long time to evolve into the institutions of science as seen today. Keeping this lengthy unfolding in mind, my analysis of the historical separation between occult belief, and scientific thinking can be shown by brining into focus one particular practice common to thinkers of this time, what I call, divine interpretation, in order to centralize a topical discourse between two seemingly opposite viewpoints. In this way, differences and similarities will become clear as each camp outlines their interpretations of the divine, and the act of creation. This exposé will later come to embody the overarching divide between occult belief and scientific thinking, a divide posited by Robert S. Westman, in his essay, “Nature, Art, and Psyche: Jung, Pauli, and the Kepler–Fludd Polemic” (1984). In his work, Westman frames the debate around what can be referred to as, divine interpretation: Robert Fludd, a 16th century English painter and German astronomer, Johannes Kepler, engaged in the task of expounding on the topic of creation as it was depicted in Genesis of the Old and New Testaments. Additionally, in continuation with the topic of Genesis, each thinker proposes further explications on the ordering of the universe, and much of the body of work produced by Kepler and Fludd, in one way or another, pertain to this issue. It is precisely at the level of explanation where differences in interpretative form become apparent. The difference between explanatory styles is especially intriguing considering the two were historical contemporaries, and kept a running correspondence throughout their working lives. As Westman notes, this “polemic” concerned “opposing mentalities and world pictures; scientific and nonscientific, modern and pre-modern, quantitative and qualitative modes of knowing”, and that “both were trying systematically to construct accounts, albeit radically different, that would relate the invisible, insensible realm of being to perception” (180). That is to say, if the business of natural philosophy is to uncover what unseen properties exist in nature, then the dispute between Fludd and Kepler is one that stands for two distinct modes of uncovering; the former presented a stance conditioned by occult belief, while the latter occupied a station of scientific thinking.

I now examine the work of Robert Fludd in order to begin my classification of subjects within occult belief. As a painter, Fludd contested that there was something attainable about the universe through the act of painting itself, in addition to the contests of paintings. Most notably, for a painter to construct a human body is to, as Westman writes, span “the link between the theoretical and the practical aspects of visual representation, embodying, as it were, the elements of geometry and the principles of symmetria”(184). In other words, the activity of painting human beings, in Fludd’s eyes, is to strike upon a universal congruity latent in the human form, which grants the painter access to the fundamental and underlying aspects of the cosmos. In this way, the human body appears as an exemplar, model, or a proportional constitution representative of the make-up of the heavens. In a word, to learn the construction of the human body is to uncover the construction of the cosmos, which are situated in a place not readily accessible to the everyday, layman observer. For Fludd, painting is analogues to using a telescope. Taking this status a step further, Westman articulates how Fludd also used painting a means of cognizing Genesis,



The Creation of the world, the creation of every individual being is like the act of painting. The principles of Light and Dark become the explanatory principles of all reality; the unity of God comes from his act of joining Light and Dark, just as the painter transcends language when he brings distant objects close or makes invisible entities visible. (194)

Figure 1: "Monochord of Microcosmic Harmony" (Fludd, 1617-1621)
Painting is a practice in which Fludd comes to actualize or ground his beliefs regarding the origin of the universe onto a tangible medium. In line with Fludd, a telling inference becomes available: that humans are not granted knowledge of ‘The principles of Light and Dark’ a priori, but must be involved in the process of uncovering the underlying ‘principles’ existent in nature if they are to understand reality. Imbued with an investigative and explanatory quality, Fludd’s works appear as maps depicting the congruity between humans, nature, and the cosmos.

Consider the following work done by Fludd, entitled, Monochords of Microcosmic Harmony, Figure 1, depicting the image of a man occupying the space between light and dark, seen, and unseen. Along the bottom right quadrant of the second outer ring, the text reads, “Via Solis”, or “the way to the sun” in Latin. The meaning and placement of this phrase, along with the imagery positioned in relation to this phrase, imply a passing through from dark to light, or day to night. Further, the anatomical figure is set along a xy-axis, conveying Fludd’s emphasis on the order and proportion of the human figure in accordance with the division of the cosmos. This image also suggests that Fludd valued what order existed in the dark portion of the universe, giving the impression that he finds meaning in the occult, or that which hides from everyday perception. From an analytic perspective, the significance of this image lies in the fact that it functions as a sample of Fludd’s epistemological take on divine interpretation. It is not simply an article of loose symbolism, or a rough sketching, but this piece stands as source of knowledge, telling of how the shape of the human body is proportional to the shape universe. This work depicts objective reality, not strictly founded on the investigative findings of an empirical science like astronomy, but a manifestation of Fludd’s interpretation of how the world is structured. It operates as evidence, along with the many other works done by Fludd. His insistence on this matter, that his works exhibit the underlying structure of reality, is a point of contestation.

Johannes Kepler is the figure that stands in opposition to Fludd, and the point of their conflict will bring forth discernable characteristics in line with Fludd’s occult belief, and Kepler’s scientific rationalism. Simply put, these figures fundamentally differed in their method of attaining truth within reality. Fludd generated images of reality based on the presupposition that the human figure bears a strong resemblance to the outside world, so much so that this congruity is transferable to the canvas by uncovering the hidden order of the universe. In created images and in hidden objects within nature, there are aspects that appropriately come to represent the inner being of the human subject. This directs Fludd’s attention to the importance of discovering the human dimensions latent in the occult, or the hidden. In contrast, Kepler takes images to be projections of the human subject, manifestations of our idealized qualities. Thus, Kepler takes Fludd’s work to be a projection of his inner thoughts, and not, a means of accessing a hidden reality. Consider now Kepler’s language in discussing the power, or lack thereof, in symbolic representation included in Westman’s essay,

For nothing is proved by symbols; things already known are merely fitted [to them]; unless by sure reasons it can be demonstrated that they are not merely symbolic but are descriptions of the ways in which the two things are connected and of the causes of these connections. (205)


Kepler’s contention with Fludd stems from a relation between picture and subject. For Fludd, a picture, or object extended in space, corresponds to the inner make up of humans. However, in the mind of Kepler, the subject projects interpretation onto the picture or object in the world, and can only gather empirical information about the object. The important difference is that the subject, by viewing an object extended in space, does not come to learn anything about their interiority. Through this conflict, arise characteristics particular to occult belief. In Kepler’s own words, ‘proved by symbols’, marks a distinct feature of occult belief and its use of symbolism. The fact that Fludd employs symbolism in his work to uncover truths about the universe is troubling for Kepler, but it does shed light on my project of isolating characteristics of occult belief. For this analysis, I postulate a rubric comprised of three key features. Occult practice first seeks to illuminate what is unseen to the common observer, that is, to make clear what is hidden. Second, the contents of what is uncovered and consequently communicated through a given medium carry in them messages of truth and meaning for the performer, or the one uncovering. Last, these beliefs necessitate further action on behalf of the believer, in sum; belief in the occult motivates further behaviors that affirm the belief in the unseen and meaningful. This rubric is what ties together the practice of painting for Robert Fludd in the 16th century. First, painting is a tool used to uncover the secret ordering of the universe. Second, the painting itself represents a truth about the universe, and works as a piece of meaningful evidence. Last, the presence of the first two criteria, condition further works done by Fludd, many of which follow a similar form. In light of this, I assert that Robert Fludd stands as a subject of occult belief in a historical temporality, insofar as his actions and work are concordant with aspects featured in the rubric. These characteristics will aid my investigation of occult belief in modernity. I will now show that aspects of this rubric are what structure belief in the form of a séance, as seen in Jung’s case study subject. I will present Jung’s work in support of my argument of a dynamic definition of modern occultism by reconstructing the main points of his case study within, Psychology and the Occult (2008). Upon elucidating these points, which center around a girl that embodies the occult believer actively engaged in the séance, I articulate and borrow key features within Galbreath’s working definition of modern occultism (1983, 12) into my own.

Jung’s case study, entitled, A Case of Somnambulism in a Girl with Poor Inheritance (Spiritualistic Medium), is one of many examples of a mental phenomenon closely associated with occult belief. It follows Jung’s visits to a girl called, S.W., between the years of 1899 and 1900, within the temporality of what I consider modernity, in which he attended a number of séances held at the girl’s home. It is worth noting that Jung approaches this case study, informed by a psychology background, thus many of his conclusions are of a diagnostic nature. For instance, he takes it that, S.W. suffers from a psychological disorder called, “somnambulism”: he writes, “If by somnambulism we understand a state of systematic partial wakefulness, we must when discussing this ailment also consider those isolated attacks of amnesia which are occasionally observed” (13). Somnambulism is sleepwalking: ‘a state of systematic partial wakefulness’ places the subject of this ‘state’ between slumber and ‘wakefulness’. Subjects manifesting this condition often experience the correlated effects of ‘amnesia’, preventing full or any recollection of their actions during the somnambulistic bout (18). Jung recommends his view on the possible causes of this illness, insisting that it is the result of prolonged, “mental overwork” (20), and, “nervous exhaustion” (21). However, Jung realizes that he cannot account for all possible causes in his diagnosis, but attunes to the observable behaviors of patients within this category. A further characteristic of persons with somnambulism is a tendency to hallucinate. A person exhibiting such symptoms often senses objects, people, sounds, and, voices that are not intelligible to the non-somnambulistic observer. Yet, Jung boldly extends the influence of this illness to cultural figures. He writes, “Persons with habitual hallucinations, and also those who are inspired, exhibit these states; they draw the attention of the crowd to themselves, now as poets or artists, now as saviors, prophets, or founders of new sects”(21). In this claim, Jung signals the social effect of persons with somnambulism. His point that, “they draw the attention of the crowd” through the performance of their ‘ailment,’ is proof of, in some cases, a certain aptitude to practice their illness. I take this aptitude to be the underlying motivations behind, S.W.’s willingness to hold séances, and this practice stands as a characteristic of occult belief. Granted, I do not in any way share a similar view as Jung in his claim that somnambulism is the cause for these behaviors, it is included as to highlight the psychological background from which he is writing (22). I am not interested in the psychological constitution of subjects of the occult, instead my focus is on the nature of their actions and performances, as well as what discernable content these performances are meant to convey.



Once again, I propose that in Jung’s patient, S.W. there exist characteristics particular to a category of persons that fall under the banner of modern occultism. Furthermore, I take the séance as an explicit practice of occult belief, and how occult practices of this nature share a common intention. Consider now Jung’s interpretation of S.W.’s séances. She conducts each séance in a performative manner, in front of curious observers from all backgrounds. The performance usually takes place at her home. The general purpose of each séance is to communicate with the spirit realm, with S.W. acting as the medium between the world of the living and the after-lives of the dead. Her communications, as Jung describes, are in the shape of, “Premonitions, forebodings, unaccountable moods, and rapidly changing fancies” (27). Jung writes that when S.W. communicates with the spirits, it is as if her body and mind are under the control of the spirits themselves. He uses the term, “attacks” (27) to describe such an occurrence. The spirits speak through S.W., and during an attack she “[speaks] with altered voice and diction” (25), as Jung explains. Additionally, the spirits influence her bodily movements, as Jung reports, S.W. was always animated and lively during her communications, in contrast to her unvaried personality in times of rest. Her abilities allow her to respond to the messages of the dead, yet sometimes their contact goes unwarranted, resulting in her feeling upset. Jung reports her words during an unwelcomed visit, “I don’t want to, not now, let them come another time, they seem to think I’m there only for them” (27). The visits have a toll on S.W.’s physical health, and, “drained the strength from her” (27) frequently. At the physiological level, the attacks harshly effect S.W., but I am interested in what impressions are felt mentally. To do this, I now turn to Jung’s record of the content particular to S.W.’s séances.

S.W., as Jung describes, often employs various techniques and tools in her communication with the dead. For instance he tells of “The ‘psychograph,’ for which an overturned tumbler was used, the two fingers of the right hand being placed upon, moved with lightening speed from letter to letter” (32). Use of such objects tells of an organized practice and method to her performance. Jung recalls of an instance where S.W. was carrying out a communication using the abovementioned technique, known as, autowriting (34), in which the spirits will pass messages from beyond by controlling her body. As they gain control, S.W. moves the tumbler, in this case a shot glass, over letters one at a time, which eventually make up a sentence, and later, complete phrases. There is no consistency to this practice, as sometimes the messages are unintelligible, and sometimes clear as day. To add, her performances are repeatedly comprised of religious themes, tantamount to the religious feelings experienced by S.W. during her work. This conditions her attitude towards her work, as Jung explains of “The absolute naturalness of the performance was amazing” (35). Because S.W.’s performances take on a religious theme, she feels as though acts of this kind are no different prom prayer. As time went on, and Jung attended more and more séances, he began to draw certain conclusions. He writes, “The spirits brought her strange revelations about the world forces and the Beyond” (48); or, in S.W.’s words, bring her to “that space between the stars which people think is empty, but which really contains countless spirit worlds” (41). In these telling accounts, there are linkages crucial to my project of classifying the occult believer. First, is that S.W.’s séances are intentioned to communicate messages from the spirit world, or “the Beyond”. This makes her project one of uncovering what is unseen to the laymen. Second, that messages are of a religious tone, so much that S.W. feels a certain piety in her work, thus making the messages and the practice meaningful to this degree. Last, when these spirits communicate to her, she often experiences tem as an attack on her physical being. Not to mention the “absolute naturalness of the performance”, in other words, the commonsensical view of her own performance prompts her to continue. Each of these three observations justifies the following claim: that Jung’s description of S.W., determines the linkages between occult beliefs across time. This connection rests on the importance of practice as a means to express inner belief, whether it be painting, as in the case of Fludd, or a séance, as in Jung’s case study; whichever manner, the principles underlying each practice signal commonalities within occult belief. Consider the rubric once more: first, occult practice seeks to illuminate what is unseen to the common observer and scientific inquiry. Second that the contents of what is being uncovered and communicated through a given medium carry in them messages of truth and meaning for the performer. Finally, that these beliefs necessitate further action on behalf of the believer, in sum, belief in the occult motivates further behaviors that affirm the belief in the occult as unseen and meaningful. The connection between Fludd and S.W., is genealogical, as demonstrated in their commonalities stretched across a span of 282 years. They each carry out their respective practice under a collective assumption that there is meaning to be found in the unseen. This is what binds them together, and it is what allows for a definition of modern occultism to in fact, encompass a time period of 282 years. This affinity for the occult, unquestionably signals an affinity amongst believers. This is what I mean by genealogical, that each subject within this form of belief shares a common lineage across time and space.

My main point, to which the previous section is directed, is to institute a more expansive comprehension of the occult and the subjects involved by pointing to practice, and performance as outward expressions of an inner belief in the unseen and meaningful. To further explain how an apparently unseen, or abstract belief can motivate one to act, consider the following: some children believe there is a monster in their bedroom closet, to the point where they are afraid, and cannot sleep. Their insistence that this monster exists may prompt them to hide under the covers, or ask their parents to check the closet nightly. It is common for children to feel this, but we do not regard this fear as irrational, and further, we do not condemn the parent for checking the closet despite the fact that they know there is no monster. Insofar as the belief incites a feeling of fear in the child, followed by an action or practice of hiding or telling mom and dad, we must understand that the monster is real for the child, for it gives rise to concrete movement, the effects of which are real and not hidden. The intention of this example is not to liken the occult believer to a child; this would defeat the purpose of my work. My target is to bring into view an alternate means of understanding the occult. Action and the beliefs that motivate such actions are instantiated through tangible performances. In the case of Fludd, painting marked this inner belief. For S.W., the séance served as an expression of this belief. What is to be had in condemning the validity of a belief if it inspires believers to act in reality? For them, the belief is real to the point where non-believers may feel the palpable consequences of these actions, to the point where believers use instruments to gauge and interpret the world, and by these reasons, perhaps there exist commonalities between the two camps of occultism and empirical science. This is not to say that the two are the same, but to perhaps necessitate a negotiation of how one views the other.

If the developments between occult practice and scientific inquiry did not occur in isolation, and considering that the two share a link in their early forms under a shared belief in God, then, as it has been shown in the case of Fludd, and S.W., it is conceivable to think of a genealogy existing between occult belief and science. This connection does not warrant a claim that science ought to reconsider its own empiricism, but it does imply a tether between subjects of occult belief and subjects of science that reaches deeper than the battle of who is right and who is wrong. Michael Shermer writes in the closing pages of his book, The Believing Brain (2011), that “[humans] are more capable than any other species of self-deception and illusion, of fooling ourselves even while we are trying to avoid being fooled by nature” (344). He creates, what I take as a false dichotomy, between fools and non-fools. That is, believers in non-empirical ‘truths’ and those convinced of facts within a scientific framework. Shermer is quick to undermine and polarize what ought to be a commonality; that despite the methods we use to understand the universe, along with the different outcomes we incur, a mutual lineage nonetheless persists. In my view it is the will to comprehend the world around us, a will that is manifested in all different forms and practices, and a will that connects thinkers of today with thinkers of old. This will is the substance constitutive of my genealogical construction of occult belief; it is what pushes me to study a world permeated with undiscovered and unknown corners. For this reason I hold a joint desire to uncover what is hidden with Fludd, and S.W., and while my practice is that of philosophy, we nevertheless stand on common ground.
Works Cited
Fludd, Robert. Monochord of Microcosmic Harmony. Digital image. The Planetary System. N.p., 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Galbreath, Robert. “Explaining Modern Occultism.” The Occult in America: New Historical Perspectives. By Howard Kerr and Charles L. Crow. Chicago: U of Illinois, 1983. Pp. 12-37. Print.


Goode, Erich. “Looking at Paranormalism.” The Paranormal. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2011. Pp 41-58. Print.
Jung, C.G. Psychology and the Occult. 1970. London: Routledge Classics, 2008. Print.
Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain. New York: Times Books, 2011. Print.
Vickars, Brian, ed. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984. Print.
Westman, Robert S. "Nature, Art, and Psyche: Jung, Pauli, and the Kepler–Fludd Polemic." 5. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Ed. Brian Vickers. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984. 177-229. Print.
Yates, Frances. “The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science.” Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance. Ed. Charles S. Singleton. Baltimore: 1967. Pp. 255-274. Print.






Share with your friends:


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2019
send message

    Main page