Looking-Glass Selves

In defining oneself, one should, in my view, always begin with the general and then move to the specific. In other words, discuss oneself deductively, not inductively. For instance, I would define myself as a critical sociologist, an advocacy journalist, and a radical historian. Critical sociology is the general term. From it, I can say I am a sociologist of religion, a social theorist, a public sociologist, and a clinical sociologist. Similarly, advocacy journalism is the general term. From it, I can refer to my focus on radical journalism or critical journalism. (That last term has so many usages, including referring to critical theory, that it is probably best avoided.) Finally, radical history is the general term. From it, I can refer to new cultural history (Foucault, etc.), to social history, to intellectual history, to a variety of Marxist approaches, and, regarding time period, to contemporary history. The advantage of this approach is that it allows the other person to immedia...

Here are two quotations from the inimitable Aleister Crowley, the originator of the system of Thelemic Magick. In both of them, Crowley asserts that he is a nominalist. I request that you read them carefully. I will comment afterwards. In philosophy I was a realist of the Cabbalistic school. In 1900 I left England for Mexico, and later the Far East, Ceylon, India, Burma, Baltistan, Egypt and France. It is idle there to detail the corresponding progress of my thought; and passing through a stage of Hinduism, I had discarded all deities as unimportant, and in philosophy was an uncompromising nominalist. I had arrived at what I may describe as the position of an orthodox Buddhist; but with the following reservations. I cannot deny that certain phenomena do accompany the use of certain rituals; I only deny the usefulness of such methods to the White Adept. I consider Hindu methods of meditation as possibly useful to the beginner and should not therefore recommend them to be discar...