When enrolling in a course for college credit, I do so in hopes of broadening my base of knowledge, thus enrichening my intellect and providing avenues for further exploration in both academic and aesthetic fields. The possibility that my overall attitude will be affected is omnipresent, but I do not go about seeking to transform myself in this manner. That is a primarily emotional, rather than intellectual, process. Therefore I do not expect any barrage of academicism, however formidable, to significantly alter my perceptions and opinions regarding anything, including the specific topic covered in the course itself. Much less do I anticipate a radical paradigm shift to occur in my psyche as a result of class study!

Objections to the above statements on the grounds that one cannot help but be changed in the process of absorbing new information result from a confusion between emotion and intellect. For the purposes of discussion, let us assume that the human psyche is divided into two antithetical parts: the "rational" and the "emotional." This is not an arbitrary assumption on my part, but one that is widely acknowedged as true by philosophers and psychologists throughout history. (Perhaps the most poetic expression of this duality is found in Nietszche's Apollo-Dionysus dichotomy.) Since the entire milieu of academic discourse is by nature intellectual, it is clear that class study is directed toward illuminating the rational part of the soul. The educational process is, under ideal conditions, very important to the development of the mental faculties. However, it does not ordinarily direct itself toward issues of value judgment, which fall under the category of emotional response. The nature of emotional response is conditioned by life experiences, but only by those situations highly charged enough to alter one's physiological state. The classroom is rarely a place where such situations arise.

Indeed, the process of intellectual development would most likely be hindered, not helped, by emotional involvement. The sole exceptions to this would be intellectual enthusiasm and love of knowledge. Even then, the emotional excitement would be mild, and merely a by-product of discovery of new vistas for rational exploration. Perhaps, however, there are some instructors and courses of study which do specifically address themselves to "changing people's minds." The nature of this final examination topic hints that the Anthropology of Magic, Witchcraft and Sorcery is just such a course, and the professor expects at least some people enrolled in the class to undergo an attitudinal shift. Otherwise, why even bring up the topic?

In my opinion, very few (if any) students will be significantly changed by taking this course. This is due not only to the overall tendency to separate intellect from emotion, but to the very nature of the material at hand. The human being's obstinacy to maintain a fixed view even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is legendary, especially regarding religion and metaphysics.

I feel confident in stating that nearly all art students who enroll in a class about magic do so not to make a systematic study of comparative religion, but to validate their own interests and beliefs. Thus we end up with a room full of people already committed to a world-view that embraces metaphysics. At the very least, the majority of students will show a predisposition toward belief in divination, possession, parapsychology, or whatever. The possibility of a skeptic or two enrolling for the purpose of devaluating the beliefs of the majority must also be taken into account, but, of course, these skeptical objections will have little or no effect, owing to the aforementioned resistance to change found in the human mind.

This is, unfortunately, characteristic of a vast social phenomenon in the West which has culminated in an irreconcilable split between those who are willing to believe in what cannot be proved, and those who are not. At perhaps its most conscious level, the problem manifests itself in the philosophical feud between existentialists and logical positivists. Long ago, they simply stopped talking to each other.

Worse than this, however, is the laizzes-faire attitude taken by those who refuse to grapple with the questions of metaphysics. The popular Occidental response to clashes among beliefs is to hold none of them sacred. Since all beliefs lay claim to Truth, and the individual is constantly bombarded with conflicting views, more and more people are opting for the easy way out -- "whatever turns you on is OK, as long as you don't foist it on me." Needless to say, this deprives the individual of any psycho-spiritual values he may have possessed, and results in moral laxity and dehumanization. Even the extreme viewpoints of fundamentalists and militant aetheists are preferable to this creeping psychic malaise, provided that their extremism does not result in disaster.

Return to Essays by Aaron Ross.

MUSIC     LINKS     DIGITAL GALLERY MULTIMEDIA     VIDEO ART     INTERNET RADIO RESUME     TEACHING     WRITING HOME