Friday, February 27, 2015

"Recently, upon discovering that ancient Iranian conceptions and practices concerning the retention of seminal essences were uncannily similar to those in late classical Greece and among early sexual hygienists in China (Daryaee 2000), I brought this information to the attention of several of the most noted authorities on sex in ancient China. Their responses were uniformly dismaying, consisting essentially of the following sentiments: (a) I know next to nothing about Greece; (b) I am ignorant of Iran; (c) I do not care about origins and influences; (d) I care only about my research on certain aspects of early China. It is difficult to imagine that one could be aware of the multiple startling correspondences among Iranian, Greek, and Chinese practitioners of sexual meditation during a comparable time frame and not be at least curious about how this remarkable concatenation of highly specific extraordinary ideas and techniques occurred. Such, however, is indeed the case for the majority of scholars. This is what may be referred to as “blindered scholarship,” a mode of inquiry that one encounters at every turn in academe.

 - Victor H. Mair

in-depth vs correlativity in methodology

No comments:

Post a Comment