tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78366644550225397942024-03-12T20:22:52.776-07:00Three Shouts on a HilltopUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-82224755072686687322015-04-08T17:48:00.000-07:002015-04-08T17:48:18.917-07:00History, Myth and Genocide: Real and Imagined; Or The Pagan Problem with PatrickBeen working on this particular piece for some time, but it is finally ready to go, and here it is. The third and final installment of my "St. Patrick's Day Trilogy". If you ever need to provide or "prove" to some obstinate, black armband wearing Pagan, that the psudeo-history of the "real" meaning of St. Patrick's Day is bullshit, this is it.<br />
<br />
Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gaolnaofa.org/website-updates/new-article-history-myth-and-genocide-real-and-imagined-or-the-pagan-problem-with-patrick/">http://www.gaolnaofa.org/website-updates/new-article-history-myth-and-genocide-real-and-imagined-or-the-pagan-problem-with-patrick/</a><br />
<br />
-Gorm.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-1588624168534230842015-04-06T15:42:00.001-07:002015-04-06T15:42:31.478-07:00Why the resurrection doesn't matter to this polytheistI'm not a Christian.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-66414802580926999242015-02-01T16:42:00.000-08:002015-02-01T16:42:50.690-08:00"Our" Values: Mythology, Media and IdentityA few days ago I had a very interesting conversation with a coworker of mine. A few months back we had gotten to talking about the sorts of television shows we both liked, and one of the recommendations I suggested to him was "Vikings". Now, I thoroughly enjoy the show, am particularly cognizant of how the depictions line up with historic accounts as well as the saga's upon which many of the characters are drawn from, and am particularly fond of the fact that the show hints at the reality of the gods, if heavily reliant on a few specific sources. Anyway, he had finally gotten around to watching a few of the episodes; mostly from season 2 as he had caught them during a weekend "Vikings" marathon. He said that he was really liking the show and the only things that sort of bothered him were the few instances that he dubbed "fantastic".<br />
<br />
I inquired to what he was talking about, and he mentioned some particular things: that the Seer has no eyes and that a prophecy which had been made in an earlier episode comes to fruition. He argued that these elements pulled him out of the show as they were simply too fantastic for a series based on "history" was supposed to be. He further explained that another show he enjoyed, "Game of Thrones" establishes itself as firmly in the realm of fantasy because in the very first episode a white walker is shown. In "Vikings", these problematic, fantastical bits are interspersed and occasional, and this bothered him. Now, he was able to see past some of the historic inaccuricies (i.e. that Ragnar Lothbrok was not involved in the raid of Lindisfarne), justifying it by creative license, but he was really hung up on the overtly fantastic things.<br />
<br />
My first response was to try and explain that the worldview presented in the show is supposed to be reflective of the pre-Christian Norse cultures, and that such things were present in the Saga's, one of the major sources of the show (as well as some particular sources, i.e. Adam of Bremen). These elements were part of the saga literature, and what is more part of the worldview of these people during the period this show is supposed to represent. Still, it was all too "Game of Thronesy", and really shouldn't have been part of something which was supposed to be historical.<br />
<br />
So I brought up an example of a historical film to use as a comparison: Braveheart. My associate had no issues with Braveheart, even though a ridiculous degree of artistic licence was taken, particularly the depiction of Princess Isabella. In the film she is portrayed as a rather fetching adult, who among other things sleeps with William Wallace, conceiving the child who would become Edward III. What a great plot twist, and what a way to give Edward longshanks his comeuppance. Except that at the time of Wallace's death, Isabella was nine, and had yet to set foot in England. I came up with another example, this time less an issue of a historians quibble, but rather a popular depiction of a fantastic act within a none the less within the context of a historic film: Moses parting the Red Sea, as depicted in, lets say "Prince of Egypt". My friend countered with, "well that's part of our perception; that's something which is something everyone grew up with and recognizes."<br />
<br />
To conclude this conversation, I made the following case: So you are perfectly fine with awesome miracles being depicted, like a lone person parting a massive body of water, and still understanding the film as historic? You are also fine with egregious artistic licence being taken which significantly alters known history, and still cut the film some slack? But a prophecy being made about a child being born a monster (i.e. having a deformed pupil) and coming true, or a man having no eyes, is beyond the pale of credulity? Yes apparently, and my associate provided the reasoning in his response to my inquiry about cinematic depictions of Moses; he identified that story as "his" or "ours", in a collective sense. The story of Moses is part of "our" collective mythology and purported history. There is good reason that the producers of "The Bible" TV miniseries some years ago had the tagline "The story of all of us" accompany it, they knew it was true, and that it would resonate with their audiences, western TV viewership.<br />
<br />
True, at least, in the sense that a considerable majority of people would agree with such an idea. For all the secularist and church-state barriers, culturally "we" are Christian. Or if this is too much of an absolute statement, then it would be more accurate to say that the religious perspective which informs western culture, and what is "normal", is a Christian one. <strong>And, you know, birds go tweet</strong>. It is a remarkably obvious realization, at least when you are coming at it from outside such a perspective. It isn't as if my associate is particularly devout or pious; he does not attend regular church or religious services, and to top it all of he does not really identify as a Christian. Yet, when confronted with something from outside of established standards of "familiar miracles", even when exceptionally banal in comparison, it has to be removed from the realm of history and relegated to the realm of fantasy, where such depictions are acceptable.<br />
<br />
The adage that "my religion is someone else's mythology" is not a new concept, but it remains an apt observation. It is a realization which many who come from a religious perspective outside the mainstream understand early on, but within the mainstream it is a radical concept. It did not, even for a second, occur to my colleague that perhaps this was not a fantastic element added as an embellishment for dramatic flare, but rather an actual historic occurrence. Now, I am absolutely <strong>not</strong> advocating for either a literalistic interpretation of Saga literature (or any other mythic account) or for the historic veracity of this particular event. I bring this idea up to illustrate the insidious cultural double standard endemic in western thought about religion and myth. Where one perspective is taken at face value, even for granted, but others are weird, oh and probably made up.<br />
<br />
I think there is great value in representing the worldview of the given group one is presenting as accurately as possible. Vikings, if nothing else, does this very well for a historical drama in 2015 (not withstanding <a href="http://www.medievalists.net/2014/07/06/viking-human-sacrifices-hollywood-vs-reality/" target="_blank">some sanitizing elements</a>, relating to human sacrifice), and despite my colleagues disapproval, it is something which makes it <strong>more</strong>, and not less, accurate. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-71662214462713289382015-01-19T21:47:00.003-08:002015-01-19T21:47:51.599-08:00The Canard of "Pagan Fundamentalism" or Reconstructionists are meanies<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I came across a recent blog post on a rather heavily trafficked Pagan webPortal decrying "Pagan Fundamentalists", speaking out against these fiendish ne'erdowells who seem more at home with the likes of Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell than <i>Cathbad</i> or <i>Amergin</i>. I have had disagreements with this particular blogger in the past (won't link to her blog, but its pretty easy to find), and so such proclamations and prescriptions are not terribly surprising. Of note is the list of fundamentalist "tells", or if ___________, you may be a Pagan fundamentalist,</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They are listed as follows:</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 30px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px 0px 15px;">
<li style="line-height: 20px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">The belief that your engagement with deity–worship, perception and gnosis, interpretation of texts, magical work, etc.–is the correct form of engagement, and other forms are not only incorrect, but offensive to the deity and harmful to the practitioner;</li>
<li style="line-height: 20px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">The belief that this form of engagement must be followed to the letter, with no aberrations or lapses, and must be kept pure no matter what;</li>
<li style="line-height: 20px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">The belief that your role in religion is one of subservience, and you have no choice in the matter–that deities are your masters, and bad things will happen to you if you don’t obey them;</li>
<li style="line-height: 20px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; position: static; word-wrap: break-word;">The belief that gods do not evolve alongside human civilization; rather, they reached maturity at the time their myths were recorded, and it is your duty as a practitioner to adapt your worldview to their recorded sensibilities, no matter how archaic, irrelevant, or just plain wrong those sensibilities may seem;</li>
<li style="line-height: 20px; list-style-type: square; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">The belief that the age of myth-making is long over, and you are bound to the texts, stories, and practices that the deities revealed to your ancestors, which are perfect and complete.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">The list reads, if not as a laundry list of recon-strawmen, pretty close to it (fleshed out by the rest of the blog), but lets look at each of them individually.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">"<b>There is only one right way, and it is my way, and you are doin' it wrong!</b>"</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">If this comes across as a rejection of the very basic concept of orthopraxy, then congratulations you have a foundational understanding of a great deal of ancient, polytheistic religion. Orthopraxy (</span><i style="line-height: 20px;">orthopraxis</i><span style="line-height: 20px;">) is the concept that correct action (specifically in a ritualized context) is key in ones correspondences and interactions with the gods, far more so than correct belief (or orthodoxy). I personally have no problem with folks being creative and doing whatever it is they feel speaks to them on a spiritual level (all forms of cultural appropriation not withstanding). </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Where I draw the line, however, is when it comes to making the leap from personal practice to broader conclusions or claims which are supposedly drawn from cultural continuums or customs. This is the essential theme which is going to run throughout this particular post, but it is important enough to bear repetition. </span><b style="line-height: 20px;">If you are going to be worshiping deities from a specific culture, than it is wise and respectful to understand that culture, and how those deities were worshiped in that culture.</b><span style="line-height: 20px;"> Despite what an infuriatingly high number of Pagans (and far less so with folks who identify as polytheists) seem to think, the gods are not generic, universal* forms and it is disrespectful to treat them as plug and play components of ones ritual or magical practice. Likewise it is problematic to adopt elements of a given cultural perspective, while ignoring the context or functionality of that particular element. Folkways and rituals are not neutral techniques do be divested of cultural trappings so that they may be utilized as "spiritual technologies". </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">For folks of my ilk, that is to say polytheists who recognize that the gods and spirits of place are real beings, what you do and where you do it are vitally important. The places we live and the spaces we occupy are all shared with those beings; being aware and respectful of this is a foundational component of GRP and a number of other traditions. To not be concerned with the possibility of offending the gods or spirits of place shows a decidedly impious approach to worship and ritual. While I can appreciate the concern of "my way or the highway" forms of religion, the proviso which is missing from such accusations is that orthopraxy matters. Orthopraxy is not (or ought not be, outliers and all that) decided upon the basis of "I think this, so this is right!" but "Consensus teaches, tradition teaches". </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Which, again, is not to say that deference is automatically given to something because it is held to be traditional, but because there is a good reason to do so. There is a reason that traditional folkways have endured, and that is because they reinforce the worldview they stem from. The best traditions are based on sound foundations of ethics and ethos. Values like reciprocity, hospitality, honour and respect are all virtues which stem from communal perspectives where the community comes before the individual. This is anathema to modern, western and particularly American proclivities when it comes to the individual and the group. So, perhaps, this is why folks who do not see the value in a community based ethos but on individual gnosis alone have such a hard time with understanding the basis of orthopraxy and confuse and conflate it with self righteous spirituality.</span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><b>"We have no room for your filthy ritual contamination!"</b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">This is really just piggybacking for the sake of being a pedant, but all too often this concept of "pure, untainted ritual" is yet another favourite recon-strawman. I've yet to encounter polytheistic folks who are under the delusion that they are practicing some pure, unbroken line of ritualized devotion where syncretism has never happened (neoWiccans or Wiccanesque folks on the other hand...).</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">What I understand the complaint to be is that when folks try their best to understand ritual from within a given cultural context, and to reproduce that as much as possible (because they want to honour the gods of that culture in that cultures own ways), that they are being elitist. Further, and this seems to be where things begin to get stuck in peoples craws, when it is pointed out that folks who incorporate non-cultural elements into those rituals, are doing so, then those elites turn into fundamentalists! Buh, buh buh! (dramatic groundhog).</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Here's the thing, if one accepts that gods or rituals belong to specific cultures or traditions, and one also wishes to promulgate this via religious expression, and that orthopraxy is a key element of those traditions they wish to continue, than of course those same people would balk at others who simply add elements because they think it works better or they like it more. Obviously this ties into the divergence of the significance and role that tradition plays within those perspectives. Yet to label the former as fundamentalist because they are trying to remain faithful to their customs and ways is remarkably crass, if not outright stupid. Of course religions where orthopraxy is foundational will have adherents who get hung up on "doing it right". This again gets back to the idea of respect, particularly of cultural ways and values.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">"<b>Bow down before the one you serve, you're gonna get what you deserve</b>"</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Oddly enough, this is one point where I, mostly, agree with the author. Not that this particular perspective is indicative of "Pagan fundamentalism" because, as I will elaborate below, the accusation which forms the crux of this response, is nothing more than a fallacious application of the "perennial philosophy", albeit in a slightly inverted manner. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Where I would say that I agree, is that the idea that you are a slave to the gods, and have no agency in your dealings with them, is a remarkably stupid one. Of course, I have recently <b><a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2015/01/our-values-grp-focused-gods-and-knowing.html" target="_blank">belaboured this particular point</a>, </b>so I need not repeat it here. The only caveat being that I fully acknowledge that there may be polytheistic religions where utter subservience to the gods was (is) a thing; doesn't change my sentiments on it. So w</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">hile I reject utterly the idea of humans being nothing more than the playthings of the gods, I fully acknowledge</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"> that there are certainly malefic spirits and deities, that one can fail to honour ones obligations to the gods and that consequences follow from this. Likewise, there are examples from the lore of the consequences of violating ritual or personal prohibitions (aka </span><i style="line-height: 20px;">geasa</i><span style="line-height: 20px;">) and so one ought to take the utmost care and diligence to be aware and take care. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">"<b>Everyone knows the gods obtained perfection in 173 CE!</b>"</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">This point, and the next one, are significant to this whole endevour as this is the context whereby I first came across this particular blogger. Insomuch as the argument is yet again a strawman, and misses the subtle nuances of how reconstructionism works. To avoid repetition, in this section I will be speaking to "the sensibilities of the gods in relation to their temporal contexts", and in the next section address the centrality of mythology.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Acknowledging that the cultures in which the gods revealed themselves were vastly different from the age we live in now is obvious to all but the most delusional member of the SCA (and even then, the fact that "anachronism" is in the label is a good tell). In general terms, one will not find GRP's advocating for the return of: slavery, bovine based economies, trial by ordeal, cattle raids, peat based primary household heating sources, prayer/poem based medicine or human sacrifice. Nor would those same people argue for social or economic policy based on those elements of Iron Age Ireland. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">You may find, however, that structural aspects of the way in which the cosmos was held to be related to human society, and the very basis of how and why one ought to worship the gods would be of some significance to people in the modern age seeking to worship those same gods. Worldview, an understanding of the cosmological basis of the world, not even of the how, but most definitely of the</span><b style="line-height: 20px;"> why</b><span style="line-height: 20px;">. How a particular worldview developed and the perceptual filters one necessarily has to adopt, to understand what our experiences, our lives mean, is vitally important.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">This is the point that so many Pagans miss or do not understand; for a reconstructionist the worship of the gods is predicated upon the culture within which the god(s) revealed themselves or were discovered. The culture ultimately comes from how a given group, in a given geographic area, with a specific language and history came to understand their world and themselves. Religion at its best and most natural is a component of ones being and a key component of the self. It is not something which can meaningfully be compartmentalized, only to be brought out every other Tuesday, between 3 and 5 pm. It is part of a whole, of ones worldview. If ones worldview is predicated upon a reconstruction of a given, pre-</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">(or contemporaneous)</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">Christian culture, than one will necessarily try their best to understand the nature of the gods in that context. We do so because we recognize that we are part of a cultural continuum; lost, fragmented and scattered though some of it may be. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">The values we hold the gods as often embodying are those values which, while perhaps not timeless, are none the less valuable, especially in a modern context where we feel they may be underrepresented, ignored or rejected outright. Values like those I mentioned above: honour, justice, truth, wisdom, hospitality, courage and pride may not mesh well with other, more "modern" values, but this does not mean they are not worth striving for.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">To the point about the gods "being unchanging", I would certainly make the case that the perception of time an immortal being has would necessarily be different from one who has a relatively short lifespan. I do not think the concept of "the gods reaching maturity" is particularly apt. Rather this argument is a dodge by those who make claims based upon UPG who then try to make emphatic statements, as mouthpieces of the gods no less, which are supposed to be held as meaningful for anyone other than the individual... Or in another way</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">"<b>Your Fanon has no place alongside Canon</b>"</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">The accusation of mythic literalism is the last arrow in the quiver of this particular blogger, if not stated outright, it is heavily implied. This too is another common criticism or attack against reconstructionism, to the point where there is a clever pejorative term for it, "lore whore". "Fundamentalist Pagans" obviously share their literalistic bibliophilia with their monotheistic counterparts. Except that they don't, not really, at all.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">If one were to examine the sort of recommend reads/ readings list common to the webpages of reconstructionists, one will always find collections or resources of the myths of the given culture being reconstructed. What one will not find, however, are instructions explaining how the lore is the primary basis upon which we are to reconstruct or religions. Let me repeat that, in case you missed it: </span><b style="line-height: 20px;">the lore is NOT the primary basis upon which we develop our religions.</b><span style="line-height: 20px;"> Seems kind of counter intuitive, but this is because as dilligent recons, we've spent time learning and studying the historic, linguistic and cultural context of how the lore came to be in the first place. The lore, typically speaking from a GRP/CR and Asatruar/Heathen perspective, has many problematic elements, being Christianized along a gradient ranging from veneer to solid, chief among them. I have said it before, here and elsewhere, the mythic texts are NOT SACRED.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Rather, the gods the myths tell us about, are what is to be considered sacred. One can certainly start off with the lore, but you will soon run into a great deal of questions or have a perspective which is informed by something other than the culture the myths sprung from, and come to a lot of weak conclusions. This is why studying the culture and history is so vital, because you understand what the meaning behind the stories is, to what purpose were the stories transcribed and recorded. Understanding with what functions the gods are associated with, what role (and generally this is varied) did they play within the cosmological framework of that culture? The myths are certainly the best source we have on trying to understand the nature of the gods or at least key elements of their nature, but they are not perfect. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">What they do provide, however, accompanied with a firm understanding of the history, archaeology, cultural and social elements, is a means of fortifying ourselves against delusion. They act, in a sense, as a series of checks and balances with which to check our UPG against. They can do this, because they represent the inherited wisdom and introspection of the cultures from which they were spawned. They are the sources by which we have any knowledge of the gods at all, and so they are provided a placement of importance and honour.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">We come now to the keystone of my whole piece, the turn-about question that reconstructionists ought to be asking:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><b>If the cultural context in which these particular gods exist does not matter, if the ways with which our ancestors traditionally worshiped these gods does not matter, if the values our ancestors held to through their worship of these gods does not matter, and if the stories told of these gods do not matter, then why do you cling to a god from this culture at all?</b></span></span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">If you are coming at this from the perspective that the gods are just universal archetypes, obscured through cultural filters, would it not be better to remove the trappings altogether and worship the gods as they really are? If you genuinely believe that your experiences of the gods are more authentic or authoritative than what is reflected in the combined and collected knowledge of the gods as depicted in the mythic texts, then upon what basis do you reason that your experience is of any such mythic god at all? Finally, if your experience of the god(s) is inverse or anathema to the depiction within a given mythic narrative, which is also contradicted by the more generalized cultural function of said deity, upon what basis are you judging that this is the same god? There are many other questions which could be asked, but it would be rather repetitive. Suffice to say that I personally find lists, like the one above, incredulous, to say the least.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">When it comes right down to it, the idea of "Pagan fundamentalism" is nonsensical, at least the way in which such a slur is usually wielded. It is generally predicated upon an inversion of the "All gods are one God" platitude, the so called perennial philosophy of religion. In this case though, the generalization is "All religions have fundamentalists", which is as apt as the perennial approach. Which is not at all.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">The sort of fundamentalism being slung here is not to be confused with the historic fundamentalist movement among Protestant Christianity, but rather a general sense of "My religion is the only right, only true religion, and all others are necessarily wrong, evil, etc." Now, to try and make the argument more cogent in a Pagan/polytheistic context, the phrasing is not as harsh, absolute or universal. Instead of "my religion is the only right one", it morphs into "my religion is the only right way to worship ________", which of course changes what fundamentalism in this context means. Which steals power from the concept to the point where it becomes meaningless.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Acknowledging orthopraxy, that things ought to be done a certain way for reasons j,k,l, in a ritualized context, within a given tradition, is no more fundamentalist that a Catholic expecting to receive the host as part of a Catholic Mass. It just so happens that some folks feel that gods belong to cultures and are not universal. Therefore it is reasonable to worship them in keeping with traditional ways and forms. Likewise, when a given component is divorced from its cultural context, and held to be universal, then it looses a great deal of the meaning and power it had because of its place within that context. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">I do not think that any of these perspectives, nor the rebuttals to the points raised above engender fundamentalism in my perspective or practice. Others, though, may disagree.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thoughts?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-Gorm.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="line-height: 20px;">*</b><span style="line-height: 20px;"> When I say universal in this context, I am referring to the term in the sense of cutting across cultural and temporal boundaries and not in the sense of widespread worship within a specific cultural, geographic and temporal context.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-68482171474240448832015-01-12T19:46:00.000-08:002015-01-12T19:46:13.221-08:00"Our" Values (GRP Focused): The gods and "knowing our place"I have in the past, distant though it may be, discussed issues relating to the concept of agency; how much freedom do we have to enact our will upon the cosmos? Today, I would like to come at the idea of agency from a different angle, and explore how our agency affects and is affected by that of the <i>tri na naomah</i>. How much control do we have when we interact with the gods, ancestors and spirits of place? How much control do the gods, ancestors and spirits of place have upon us? When we have this figured out, or as much as we can figure it out, what do we do with this information, and where do we go from here?<br />
<br />
Many polytheist bloggers, tumblrs, and assorted others, have put forward the idea that humans are at the mercy of the gods, in all things. Concepts like morality are relegated solely to human affairs, for the gods have no time for puny human "feels"; so expecting or advocating for things like "consent" are right out. The gods make you dance as their divine marionettes. and maybe if you're lucky, you'll learn something from the experience. Oh, and if this isn't your experience, you're probably doing it wrong; best run back to "safe", empty religions, lest the "reality of the gods" destroy your fragile mind.<br />
<br />
This is, by the way, bullshit. At least when it comes to all the evidence we have about how the Gaels coexisted and worshiped their gods. So if you're more interested in being a divine whipping boy, maybe you should just ignore the rest of what I have to say; Go read other folks who have deemed thralldom as their <b style="font-style: italic;">raison d'etre</b>, who have abandoned their own wills, to be subsumed by what they (earnestly believe) is the will of the god(s) they serve. Frankly when one goes down that path, the reading becomes really creepy and moves off into self flagellating delusion more at home with groups like the Stylites than pre-Christians, but seek at your own peril. Honestly, it goes from fan squeeing to cult vibe at breakneck speed. Tl:dr, google "god slave" and "god spouse", though you'll probably regret it. <strong>I sure did!</strong><br />
<br />
No, our ancestors had a rather different approach when it came to establishing how we "dealt" with the gods, we fought them. We fought them long and we fought them hard, for every inch of land we came to occupy. We entreated with other gods, powerful goddesses the gods themselves were also beholden to. We took the power of the gods and made it our own, turned it to our own devices and used it to win our place in the world. We had to fight the gods themselves to legitimize our own existence, and we won. If that isn't a crystal clear precedent for the concept of human agency when it comes to the gods, then nothing is.<br />
<br />
Now, with that said, we ought to take some other things into consideration, and primarily I want to discuss the issue of enhumeraziation. Enhumerization is a literary trope where something that is great and powerful, is reduced in greatness and power. In the case of the medieval (and later) Irish literature, this is most obviously observed when we examine the Mythic, Ulster and Fenian Cycles, but is present too when we examine folktale and tradition that relates to the<i> aes sidhe</i>. The argument being that the gods which the pre-Christian's worshiped, were not actually gods (because those didn't actually exist, being monotheists and all) and were instead a successive series of semi-divine races who sought for the rulership of Ireland, culminating with the ascent and victory of mortal man. This is important to keep in mind, because the point can be made (and laboured) that the preceding paragraph about "our" ancestors is far more reflective of a Christianized world view, and actually has very little to do with a pre-Christian perspective. <br />
<br />
Such is the perilous nature of trying to reverse engineer mythic texts compiled by Christian scribes to get a peek at earlier views, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and defend this particular bit. The reason it is not so far fetched to understand humans as being able to go toe to toe with the gods, mythically speaking, is because of patterns. Throughout the Mythological Cycle, Ireland is settled in a series of "waves" or "invasions", hence why one of the greatest collections of this cycle is referred to as "The Book of Invasions". Things don't really get interesting until (IMO) until the Tuatha De Dannan show up, and we see the first real example of divine inversion occur. I don't want to get too deep into the text, but one of the key elements of the TDD strategy for the overthrow of the Fomorians during the "Second Battle of Moytura" is to seek out the aid of sovereignty goddesses as well as subsuming the very power and fury of the Fomorians themselves (as Lugh is able to do). Through these means are the TDD able to secure victory and win the rulership of Ireland.<br />
<br />
The subsequent "Invasion" of the Mileseans, while not a mirror image of the previous epoch, involves very similar concepts. The favour of the goddess of sovereignty are secured, the land itself is invoked, and there is even the utilization of a poem with likely cosmogenic overtones, all to secure a toehold and then victory over the Tuatha De Dannan. Of course, it doesn't go exactly as the Mileseans want, and they eventually have to entreat with the gods to once again secure the fecundity of the land itself with them. So does this mean that the ancestors of the Gaels saw themselves as equal to or even more powerful than the gods they worshipped? Unlikely, but I suppose a literal reading of the myths could produce such a conclusion.<br />
<br />
Here then is where parsing out which bits are enhumerized and which are not becomes very important to our understanding and ability to draw conclusions about pre-Christian world view. I do not, for example, hold to the idea that the gods can be killed (or that the ancients believed other than their gods were remarkably powerful and immortal), at least not in any sort of meaningful way. Understanding the purpose of a given mythic narrative and the lessons contained within are crucial, but taking them as being reflective of the real nature of the gods (at least in relation to mortality) is to buy into the enhumerization of the mythic pre-Gaelic peoples as being semi-divine or simply magically gifted mortals. Likewise, to hold that not only could the gods be killed, but that humans were capable of doing so, would surely undercut the potency of any such beings being held as, well gods, in any meaningful way. We need to examine what the purpose of a given story is, and not just what the story in and of itself is narrating.<br />
<br />
When, for example, I read about Lugh being killed by <em><span style="color: black;">Mac Cuill, </span><span style="color: black;">Mac Cecht</span></em><span style="color: black;"> and </span><span style="color: black;"><em>Mac Gréine</em>, I do not take it to then mean that the worship of Lugh is pointless because he is dead. Nor do I take it to mean that the story where he dies is pointless and without purpose. Nor do I take this as an example of apotheosis, where a historic personage named Lugh was freed from his mortal body and became deified by a later historic cultus. I accept, first and foremost that this is a story told from a specific narrative tradition, serving a purpose intend by the author for their audience. I accept that this also explains why Lugh doesn't show up during the Milesian invasion to stand against the Gaelic invaders. I accept that this does not explain how Lugh later goes on to father Cuchulain. I accept that Lugh is still very much "alive" in whatever manner it is that gods exist. I accept all of this because I understand that <b>Myth is not History and that a literal reading of the mythic texts is incredibly stupid. </b></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: black;">The myths teach us, they instruct us, they inspire us and intrigue us. They are the best window we have into an earlier time, and while they are not opaque they are more translucent than clear. The light comes trough, but it is muddied, distorted and befuddled by layers of filtering installed by those standing between then and now. We ourselves necessarily come with our own perceptual filters and so we need to recognize our own biases as readily as we do of the sources we glean information from. Which brings me back to the point of this rambling post, Our present conceptions of how the past, how older and more ancient worldviews worked are necessarily affected by our perception of modern world views. Something is not good or valuable simple because it is held to be ancient; conversely something is not bad or worthless simply because it is held to be modern. There are many, many things that are worth our while to restore and revive as best we can; but there are many, many things which have been relegated to the rubbish pit of history, and there it ought to stay. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;">This conversation is happening, and we who find ourselves doing our best as reconstructionists, as polytheists (devotional, ritual, or otherwise) need to decide which elements belong where. Not everything is worth saving or reviving, and this is certainly something which consciously needs to be addressed. It is sometimes said (and always critically), of reconstructionists, that we are slightly more academic members of groups like the SCA, that we seek to return society and culture to a pre-Christian ideal (and this implied idealism is also held as a critique) reminiscent of the Iron Age. Which is of course nonsense. No GRP I know of is actively seeking to abandon technology or modernity; considering how central the internet has been to its growth this seems remarkably hypocritical, and so it would be. If anyone were calling for it, that is. What I am getting at is that GRP (and like minded reconstructionist methodologies and lifeways) are fully aware that we are moderns, that we do not live in the Iron Age and what is more, we do not <b>want</b> to live in the Iron Age. We seek the gods of our ancestral forebearers, we seek to honour and worship them in culturally appropriate ways and we see the mythological tradition we have as one of the more accessible, if deceptively so, means of coming to such an understanding. This does not mean that the misogyny, the brutality or the utter disregard for life (to name but a few highly problematic elements) present in the texts are something we ought to be embodying or transposing in our lives today, simply because they are there and so are more "raw and real" than some idyllic, sanitized and modern version.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;">Which, again, is not to say that we ignore or do not address these problematic aspects; studying the period tends to rip away any illusions of some bygone golden age we are so desperately trying to restore. It means that we recognize what has come before, and that it wasn't all love and light, but this too can be taken to unhealthy extremes. By advocating for the return of something because the advocate perceives it at being "anti-modern" or "an affront to modernity", does not mean that such advocacy is right. If something was practiced in the ancient world, but is "an affront to modern sensibilities", then we ought to consider its centrality in the ancient world, how relevant it was and how necessary its restoration would be to aid in modern reconstructionist efforts. Not everything needs to be rejected or accepted out of hand, such a dichotomy would be patently false, yet some things ought to be left behind because they are so at odds with "modern sensibilities" that they are justifiably treated thus.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;">This categorical "refuse heap" is not limited to outdated social, political or economic practices, but to theological and spiritual concepts too. What is more, and to the point of this piece, what may seem like a rejection based on "modern or sanitized" sensibilities is actually a projection of some imagined "way it was, and way it should still be" onto the past. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;">The gods are beyond us in so many ways; their power, wisdom and grasp of reality exponentially greater than ours. Yet despite all of this, anecdotally speaking, they appear to seek us out as often as we seek them. The gods want our worship and devotion. The gods want our client-ship for their patronage. The gods have judged us, have and continue to challenge us. and they have found us worthy. If the myths speak to one theme, one melody of theological and philosophical import, throughout, it is that <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2010/08/fantastic-thoughts.html">humans can stand up.</a>.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;"><b>We have stared out into the harshness of our world, in all its ugliness and horror, stared into the faces of the gods themselves, full of wrath and ruin, and we have stood firm.</b></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: black;">We have struggled bitterly and savagely fought for our place in the world, for our right to exist. We have done so without the gods, in the face of the gods, with the gods throwing everything they had at us, and we are still here. This was when things were done the hard way, when we failed to see the value of cooperation and hospitality, forsook harmony and sough out out enmity with our divine predecessors. We struggled, and earned our place, but it was tangential, ephemeral and fragile; we lived, but we did not flourish. It was through mutual understanding, cooperation and respect that we came to worship the gods, as was their due. The wise realized that while we had the resolve to stand firm, that there was as yet something greater to be had. By accepting the reality of <i>firenne</i>, how to properly and respectfully come to know and honour the gods, were our lives made better. At times these bonds were tried and tested, bent yet never broken (at least not until the coming of the men of the bells, but this is another story and another matter for another time).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;">We are not, nor were we ever, slaves to our gods and we would bring unimaginable dishonour and shame upon ourselves, to say nothing of the ancestors, to relinquish the very agency that allowed us to earn the respect and favour of the gods we worship and devote our lives to. In closing, I leave you with one of my most repeated, yet all time favourite quotes:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20.7900009155273px;">"If you approach the Celtic gods with the attitude of 'I'm not worthy', they're going to respond, 'Well, come back when you are."</span></blockquote>
-Gorm.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-37858635628666659332014-12-07T13:05:00.001-08:002014-12-07T13:05:53.752-08:00Marginalized voices and generational consequencesWhen we, and in particular the "we" I am referring to are those who enjoy a great degree of cultural, social and economic privilege, are confronted with the voices of those "others": the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the less privileged (and this is a very wide spectrum, cutting across a number of groups), what are we supposed to do? <br />
<br />
It is soon told...<br />
__________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
A very long time ago, in Ireland, there lived a man of great means, and his name was <em>Cruinniuc</em>. Now <em>Cruinniuc</em> had been married, but his wife had died unexpectedly, leaving him a widower to raise his children alone. One night, also quite unexpectedly, a woman arrived at <em>Cruinniuc's</em> house and took to performing the same duties as his wife would have, all without saying a word. That same night, they laid down together and she was with him ever after that. Her name was <em>Macha</em>, and so long as she dwelt within <em>Cruinniuc's</em> home, he flourished and became even wealthier.<br />
<br />
Now, after this arrangement had gone on for some time, <em>Macha</em> was with child, and it came to pass that a great meeting of the people of Ulster was called. <em>Cruinniuc</em> informed <em>Macha</em>, now his wife, that he had every intention of going. Now she spoke against his going, but upon his insistence she relented, only cautioning him to not speak of her to anyone. The day was as boisterous and splendid as any fair had been, with races, games, combats and other tournaments; the horses on display were as fair as the people themselves.<br />
<br />
As the day drew on, <em>Conchobar</em>, the king of Ulster, had his own magnificent chariot brought forward, with his two swift steeds pulling it along. Now the uproar from the assemblage was fierce, and the crowd exclaimed that, "never before, nor ever after shall there be two horses who were swifter of foot or splendid in appearance!" <em>Cruinniuc</em> exclaimed, "My wife is faster!"<br />
<br />
The king demanded that <em>Cruinniuc</em> be held, and his wife be summoned to race against his own horses. Messengers were dispatched to <em>Cruinniuc's</em> household and made demands of her to attend to the king and the assembly. <em>Macha </em>protested that her husband had made an unwise boast, and that she was yet with child, due at any moment; but the messengers told her that if she would not attend her husband would be put to death. So she went with the messengers.<br />
<br />
Despite her condition, <em>Macha</em> was paraded in front of the assembly and once more told, that despite her protests of being ready to deliver her child, if she refused to compete against the kings horses, her husband would be put to death. <em>Conchobar</em> had his men draw their swords and began to advance upon <em>Cruinniuc</em>. Desperate, <em>Macha</em> at last appealed to the crowd, exclaiming, "Help Me! For a mother has borne each of you! Give me but a short respite, that I may have my child, and I shall compete for you!" But <em>Conchobar</em> would not relent, and so <em>Mach</em>a made ready to race the horses, ere her labour pains came upon her.<br />
<br />
Macha admonished the assembly, crying, "Shame upon you all, who show so little regard to me. Infamy shall you have for your pitiless deeds!" <em>Conchobar </em>asked her what her name was, and she replied "<em>Macha!</em> And so this plain shall so be named ever after!" With that the race began and <em>Macha</em> beat the horses of the king so swiftly, that with a cry she delivered a son and a daughter, ere <em>Conchobar's</em> horses cross the line. And so to this day that place is named <em>Emain Macha</em>.<br />
<br />
Now, all who were present at the assembly were assailed by her cries, each growing as weak as a woman in labour. <em>Macha</em> then cried out to the assembly a final time, "For your pitiless deeds, and the dishonour shown me, whenever your people are in dire need, these pangs shall come upon you for five days and four nights, and weak and helpless as a woman in labour shall you be, for nine generations hence!" Ere <em>Macha</em> died, and her children were given to <em>Cruinniuc</em>, who for his stupidity was now twice widowed, and much aggrieved.<br />
<br />
Thus it was, until the time of <em>Forc</em>, son of <em>Dallan</em>, son of<em> Mainech</em>, son of <em>Lugaid</em>, whenever the people of Ulster were at their greatest need, the pangs came upon them. So were the people made to suffer for the indignities suffered upon <em>Macha</em>.<br />
<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
This tale is known as <em>Noínden Uliad</em>, or "The Debility of the Ulstermen", and often appears as a pre-tale <em>(remscela</em>) of <em>the </em><span lang="mga" xml:lang="mga"><em>Táin Bó Cúailnge</em>. As a pre-tale, the primary function of the tale is to provide an explanation as to how the Ulstermen came to suffer the "curse of Macha", setting a very dire and dramatic context for <em>CúChulain </em>to single handedly stymie the invasion of the united provinces of Ireland under <em>Medb</em> and <em>Ailill</em>, as the men of Ulster suffer through the curse.</span><br />
<span lang="mga" xml:lang="mga"></span><br />
<span lang="mga" xml:lang="mga">The wonderful thing about stories, however, is that they can certainly have more than one function or interpretation. The greatest of stories will have the ability to produce within an audience, even one removed from the original context by centuries, emotions and pathos. Myths matter because they are windows into the periods and cultures they spring from yet have the power to be meaningful to us in the present day. </span><br />
<br />
Contained within this fairly short story, is a dearth of meaning, and several moral lessons. <em>Macha</em> is generally held to be from the otherworld, if not a personification of the goddess of the same name (though this depends on how one looks at it). Her odd mannerisms and ability also belie an origin in the otherworld or from the <em>sidhe</em>, so we are made aware that she has some power behind her warnings and threats. Yet she remains a victim; she remains marginalized because those she encounters do not have the "gods eye view" of the events in the story, and so she is to them but a pregnant woman. Her protestations go unheeded and her cries for help fall upon deaf ears, yet because of the love she has for her husband, she continues on knowing that she will suffer because of it. <em>Cruinniuc</em> is almost a non-entity in the story, but he is the catalyst which drives the action, and it is his carelessness which starts the tragic chain of events. <em>Conchobar</em>, as a figure in Irish myth is rather enigmatic, and a lot more complex than he seems at first blush, but in this story he is simply the king who feels his honour is being sullied, and so because the dictates of the law and society (the crowds at the assembly) demand it, he forces the events to unfold as they will. <br />
<br />
So we have the King, the wealthy landowner, the gathered people of Ulster, <em>Macha</em>, a tragic series of events and finally an unforeseen outcome which reverberates for nine generations. So why did this happen? It happened because no one who had any power <strong>listened</strong> to <em>Macha</em>. Her husband failed to heed her warnings, because his pride got the better of him and he was careless. The King dismissed her calls for delay, because he had to enforce "the law". The crowd ignored her pleas for mercy, because they did not want to second guess the king. No one listened, and everyone suffered because of it. Not one voice among them asked for pity, called for mercy or tried to understand; rather they utterly ignored <em>Macha's</em> circumstances, or knew but did not care. Yet these actions did not just effect those involved, but remained in effect for generations afterwards.<br />
<br />
I think of all the arguments I've heard explaining away all the anger and fear which is today being expressed, and I can't help but see parallels to <em>Macha's</em> circumstances. <br />
<ul>
<li><em>Macha</em>'s husband broke the law, if he hadn't spoken out of turn, none of this would have happened. </li>
<li><em>Macha</em> should have made a better choice when it came to husbands.</li>
<li><em>Conchobar</em> had the right and the duty to uphold the law, even if that law unfavourably effected <em>Macha</em> more so than other people.</li>
<li>Having a pregnant woman race against the kings horses was an appropriate response, we weren't there so we can't "armchair" quarterback the kings decisions.</li>
<li><em>Conchobar's</em> job was really stressful, we need to understand he felt his sovereignty was threatened.</li>
<li>The problem wasn't that forcing a pregnant woman to race against horses was horrible, but that <em>Macha's</em> husband made poor choices.</li>
<li>The crowd had no obligation to listen to <em>Macha's</em> pleas, because she chose to associate with a law breaker.</li>
<li><em>Macha</em>'s curse was unjustified, her anger not merited, because she brought these events on herself.</li>
<li><em>Macha's</em> anger and screaming did nothing to solve the problem.</li>
<li>The Ultonians can't understand why she would curse her own community, but because she did, have no obligation to take her cries seriously.</li>
<li>It was the Ultonians who were the real victims here.</li>
</ul>
When those of us who find ourselves in positions of power, of privilege and influence are confronted with the voices and protestations of those who are less so, of those who are marginalized, <strong>we need to listen</strong>. We need to hold our tongues, open our ears and really listen to what it is being told to us, even if it makes us uncomfortable. We need to hold our tongues because while we may "think" we have an idea why things that happen are, why people may be angry or upset, we need to listen and try our best to understand. We need to avoid making pronouncements which are informed by how <strong>we</strong> believe things are while simultaneously ignoring what is being said to us. We need to acknowledge that we who are privileged have a responsibility to do what we can, especially if we make proclamations extolling justice and morality. We need to understand that law is not the same thing as ethics, and unjust laws or laws that unfavourably target marginalized communities are unethical.<br />
<br />
This is necessary because events do not happen in a vacuum, and unforeseen consequences can have a lasting impact far greater than we can even imagine. If we fail to stand up for what is just, for what is right, how can we claim to speak about justice? If we do not try and heal the hurts which have been passed on and systemically reinforced for generations, how can healing occur?. If we turn yet another blind eye and deaf ear to the injustice which occurs right in front of us, then nothing will ever change.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-50194110400004527732014-12-03T18:04:00.000-08:002014-12-03T18:04:57.095-08:00"Our" Values: Subversion, Paradigms and the need to change them<div style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; text-align: center;">
<!-- start of lyrics -->My lover's got humour<br />
She's the giggle at a funeral<br />
Knows everybody's disapproval<br />
I should've worshiped her sooner<br />
<br />
If the heavens ever did speak<br />
She's the last true mouthpiece<br />
Every Sunday's getting more bleak<br />
A fresh poison each week<br />
<br />
'We were born sick,' you heard them say it<br />
<br />
My Church offers no absolutes.<br />
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'<br />
The only heaven I'll be sent to<br />
Is when I'm alone with you—<br />
<br />
I was born sick,<br />
But I love it<br />
Command me to be well<br />
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.<br />
<br />
<i>[Chorus 2x:]</i><br />
Take me to church<br />
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies<br />
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife<br />
Offer me that deathless death<br />
Good God, let me give you my life<br />
<br />
If I'm a pagan of the good times<br />
My lover's the sunlight<br />
To keep the Goddess on my side<br />
She demands a sacrifice<br />
<br />
Drain the whole sea<br />
Get something shiny<br />
Something meaty for the main course<br />
That's a fine looking high horse<br />
What you got in the stable?<br />
We've a lot of starving faithful<br />
<br />
That looks tasty<br />
That looks plenty<br />
This is hungry work<br />
<br />
<i>[Chorus 2x:]</i><br />
Take me to church<br />
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies<br />
I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife<br />
Offer me my deathless death<br />
Good God, let me give you my life<br />
<br />
No Masters or Kings<br />
When the Ritual begins<br />
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin<br />
<br />
In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene<br />
Only then I am Human<br />
Only then I am Clean<br />
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.<br />
<br />
<i>[Chorus 2x:]</i><br />
Take me to church<br />
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies<br />
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife<br />
Offer me that deathless death<br />
Good God, let me give you my life <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Above are the lyrics to the song "Take me to church" by the artist Hozier. Presently, in my city anyway, it is getting a lot of radio play; to its credit it is a rather catchy song and Hozier is a skilled lyricist and vocalist...</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>So what does this have to do with anything?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Recently some folks who either read this blog, my<a href="http://gorm-sionnach.tumblr.com/"> tumblr </a>, and a host of other related blogs and tumblrs, have been talking about developing resources to help those who are now polytheists identify and address theological baggage from their days as monotheists. The goal being to help them more fully adopt a polytheistic world view. I intend to help as much as I can.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So in this effort I thought it would be useful to examine a [currently] popular song which is steeped in religious imagery, and to illustrate just how ingrained and pervasive certain theological concepts are in our culture. First, though, a little background on the artist and the song.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Hozier</b><b></b><br />
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.39px;">Andrew Hozier-Byrne (aka Hozier)</span></span> is an Irish musician from Bray in Co. Wicklow, and "Take me to Church" is his debut single from his first album. The song itself, according to Hozier: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
“If I was to speak candidly about it,” he said, of how a relationship
influenced his writing, “I found the experience of falling in love or
being in love was death – a death of everything. You kind of watch
yourself die in a wonderful way and you experience for the briefest
moment – if you do believe somebody and you see for a moment yourself
though their eyes – everything you believed about yourself is gone.”(1)</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What is missing from this particular statement about the song "Take me to Church", is why he chose to use blatantly [Christian] religious language and imagery in describing these sentiments and emotions. The most obvious would be the often used "sex as a religious experience" trope, which is clearly utilized in the song, but within there is also a very visible degree of subversion and inversion. The themes and common phrases which in a [Christian] religious context would have well defined and understood meanings are turned to double entendre.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In an interview about the music video which was made to promote the song, Hozier had this to say (emphasis my own): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
... the video “references the recent increase of organised
attacks and torturing of homosexuals in Russia, which is subsequent to a
long, hateful, and oppressive political campaign against the LGBT
community. <b>The song was always about humanity at its most natural, and
how that is undermined ceaselessly by religious organisations and those
who would have us believe they act in its interests.</b> What has been seen
growing in Russia is no less than nightmarish, I proposed bringing these
themes into the story and Brendan liked the idea.”(2)</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So a song that was written by a straight man, about his own experiences in heterosexual love/relationships, had lyrical content which when paired with a visual narrative about a homosexual couple facing oppression, blended seamlessly. That's pretty nifty in an of itself, but the sentiment expressed in the visualized version of the song also provides some clarity about why the subversion was so important to the song writer. Hozeir has a rather dim view of organized religion, and the institutions which symbiotically thrive because of it. Returning to the earlier article (again, emphasis mine):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
In March of this year, an interviewer in New York Magazine probed
whether there was a personal reason that Hozier was outspoken against
homophobia, “No, and I don’t think there needs to be,” he answered, “To
me, it’s not even a gay issue or a civil rights issue, it’s a human
rights issue, and it should offend us all. It’s just simple. Either
somebody has equal rights, or they don’t. and certainly in the Irish
constitution, marriage is genderless. There’s no mention of a man and a
woman.<b> I didn’t even have that many close LGBT friends or anything like
that, but I suppose it was growing up and becoming aware of how you are
in a cultural landscape that is blatantly homophobic… you turn around
and say ‘why did I grow up in a homophobic place? Why did I grow up in a
misogynistic place?’</b> <b>You grow up and recognise that in an educated
secular society, there’s no excuse for ignorance.</b> you have to recognise
in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or
homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that
society, you should challenge it. You owe it to the betterment of
society.” (3)</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Hozier understood that the social and cultural context within which he grew up prioritized a specific set of values, which were homophobic and misogynistic. One of the chief cultural architects of this perspective, in Hozier's opinion, is the Church (and in this context the Roman Catholic Church). Yet, there is no indication that Hozier himself was particularly devout, so such sentiments and observations are coming from within a society that Hozier understands as being secular, but is nonetheless beholden to cultural and social values which are religious in origin and nature. So the secular constitution, which makes no distinction of who can be legally married, which as Hozier himself says is "genderless", remains beholden to cultural values which originate with the distinctly religious nature of the society in which they developed, and so same sex marriage remains prohibited despite the secular values which are supposed to be guaranteed by such a document.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In protest then, through the recognition of the impact that distinctly religious institutions have upon his own culture, Hozier crafted a song which utilizes the very language of "religion", and subverts it to his own purposes, advocating for the values he feels ought to be argued for: "...you have to recognize in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that society, you should challenge it."(4) As many musicians before him, subversion of established meaning, was his "weapon of choice". Yet, and here is where my real point begins to emerge, subversion in and of itself necessarily reinforces the existing cultural power structure. That subversion via pop song can happen necessitates that a wide enough segment of the listening population will understand. Subversion needs a hegemony to counter; so while it can act as a critique of the culture it is subverting, it nonetheless reinforces the structural and cultural language it seeks to subvert.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Lyrical Analysis</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I'm not going to delve too deeply into analyzing the lyrics of the whole song, nor of explaining how they are visually represented in the music video. I do, however, want to explore some of the lyrical devices which are utilized and their subversive meaning. I begin with the chorus:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Take me to church<br />
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies<br />
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife<br />
Offer me that deathless death<br />
Good God, let me give you my life</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So the first line, and the title of the song, really underscores my point in all of this. "It is well understood what "church" is, what "going to church" entails in our culture. The term "church" refers specifically to Christian religious structures, and "going to church" refers of course to attending a service (which elsewhere in the song is Sunday, again relevant to Christian tradition) at such a structure. In the context of the song, however, "take me to church" is used as a double entendre for sexual congress. Worshiping like a dog, denotes a subservient - dominant power dynamic, which could entail whimpering, begging, etc.. The second half is a bit more difficult to interpret with any certainty. There is no indication in the song itself what, precisely, "shrine of your lies" is supposed to represent. On a purely speculative basis, <b>I have no idea.</b> The third line refers to the admission of sin and the expected punitive measures associated with confession/ absolution, again reinforcing the power dynamic already established, with the woman he is singing about acting as the "priestess". The sharpening of the knife likely also corresponds to the following two lines (and some later parts of the song), and the idea of love being a "deathless death", which nonetheless requires a death to occur. Now the final line does refer to "God", except the phrase is used as an exclamation to emphasize the desire of the singer to "give you my life", which again is either about letting him love her, or having sexual congress, as opposed to speaking to the Christian God.</div>
<br />
'We were born sick,' you heard them say it<br />
<br />
My Church offers no absolutes.<br />
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'<br />
The only heaven I'll be sent to<br />
Is when I'm alone with you—<br />
<br />
I was born sick,<br />
But I love it<br />
Command me to be well<br />
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
These lines precede the first two repetitions of the chorus, but contain a lot of subversion of established concepts and theological principles. "We were born sick, you heard them say it", refers to the theological concept of "original sin" and that man's nature is fallen. The proclamation that his church, "offers no absolutes" is a critical reference to the typical orthodoxy found in Christian churches, and a rejection of that precept. Later on the line "I was born sick, but I love it", again subverts the concept of "being born into sin", to refer to being "love sick".</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<br />
No Masters or Kings<br />
When the Ritual begins<br />
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin<br />
<br />
In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene<br />
Only then I am Human<br />
Only then I am Clean<br />
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The juxtaposition of "no sweeter innocence" to "our gentle sin" is of course deliberate, yet retains some sense of the "gentle sin", being sexual congress, as having some degree of depravity. The closing lines are very interesting as they essentially make the case that it is only through these "sins" and associated "rituals" that the singer is in fact absolved of said sin and made fully human, or complete.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Cultural influences</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I have no idea of Hozier's education, how much knowledge he has of matters of theology, mythology or cultural studies. From my own analysis, however, there are at least two very interesting parallels that can be made with reference to the song in and of itself, as well as the theme of the song (or one of the themes.)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The idea of sex as a sacred, ritualized and humanizing act is something which is reinforced throughout the song, but particularly towards the end. This concept is rather ancient, and one of the best mythic examples is contained within the narrative of "the Epic of Gilgamesh", where the titular hero's friend, Enkidu, is originally a "wild man", and it is only after he is brought to Shamhat, who engages with him in sexual congress for seven days, that he is finally "civilized", and made fully human. (5) Again, I have no idea if this had any bearing whatsoever on Hozier's writing of the lyrics, but it was too similar to pass up.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In a broader sense, which again ties into the religious themes of the song, the way in which the singer is speaking about his lover is very reminiscent of the "Song of Songs" as found in the Old Testament and <i>Tanakh. </i>The "song of songs" at its core is about a singing dialogue between two lovers, albeit later allegorical interpretations have the content being about God's love for either Israel, or Christ's love for the Church. It would be fitting then for Hozier to have seemingly returned the "Song of Songs" (or a new version of it) to its original meaning. Again, purely speculative on my part, but since this particular bit of Abrahamic scripture would be known (and much more so than Gilgamesh) to someone who grew up in "the Church", and given the use of subversion, it is not unlikely.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>How Subversion reinforces cultural hegemony</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Subversion as a means of offering or altering the established cultural or social narrative, seeks to undermine the established meaning of words and symbols through the introduction of alternative meanings of those words or symbols.This can be a very useful and effective tool when it comes to cultural criticism and examination, because it has the ability to be understood within the very cultural context it is in turn critiquing. None the less, its effectiveness to enact change is limited precisely because it relies on the existing structural framework of the culture to make sense and still reach a wide enough audience to have any sort of impact. Let me give an example of what I mean:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This particular element, I would go as far to call it a trope or cliche, is found throughout the lyrics of the song, and it involves the inversion of the concept of "sin". A sin in Christian theology is some action (or thought) that occurs in ignorance, indifference or defiance of the Christian god. In the song the idea of the "sin" or "sickness" being sung about is love and/or sexual congress, which in many Christian doctrines is in and of itself something which can only occur within specific, sanctified, contexts and remains problematic to a large degree. The inherent "dirtiness" of "sex" is something which is very easily observed in a larger Western cultural context. Within the song, however, sexual congress is made into a purifying and holy act, enabling the singer to become "fully human". In this way is the concept of sin subverted. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The limitation of course is that it necessarily acknowledges the existence of something called "sin", and so is beholden to the worldview where it developed and is promulgated. Which is fine, really, when one seeks to retain that cultural perspective, but perhaps becoming more aware of it. Removing or subverting the cloying prejudices engendered by the structural cultural institutions (like organized religion) to speak to the possibility of a better state of affairs. However, for those who seek to foster and promulgate a different cultural world view, this is not enough.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<b>Change</b><br />
<br />
I would certainly make the case that for polytheism to be presented as a meaningful theological perspective, it necessarily has to be done so from a position which acts as if it is a meaningful perspective. Polytheism cannot be properly understood or defended if the position one comes from is one which (again necessarily) holds polytheism to be impossible, i.e. monotheism. Polytheism has to be understood from within a worldview where the gods are many, otherwise what will be described is some bastardization which will present the gods as something other than gods. They will be reduced (angels, giants, demons), excused (delusions) or ignored (being substituted for money, power, etc.) because they can not logically be existent in a monotheistic context and still be gods. Which is not to say that a monotheist cannot write about polytheism and its gods, because we'd be pretty bankrupt scholastically if this were the case. Rather, you will find that most books of mythology, and the best ones, speak about the gods from the perspective of those who worshiped them, and not the author themselves (albeit this too happens often enough, particularly when issues of folklore and tradition are recorded via more "civilized" [read Victorian] folklorists.)<br />
<br />
So, what has to occur is that we need to begin to understand theological concepts through the eyes of a polytheist, and if they can not be, then we need to develop (or restore) additional concepts. We also need to be able to identify those theological "holdovers" which remain from previous perspectives, which again is not to say that everything from the older perspective needs to be discarded. Only those elements which have no place within the new context, and these can range from considerably large theological conceptions: original sin, man's fallen nature (which again may depend on cultural context), Salvation, God/Satan (or other such dichotomies), heaven/hell (also dependent on cultural context), ethical frameworks, etc., to more subtle things: The gestures you use to accompany prayer, which "cuss" words, or "punctuated exclamations" you utilize, cosmological reorientation (if, for example if the realms of the dead are cthonic and not celestial), and other linguistic and symbolic adjustments which no longer make sense.<br />
<br />
The goal, ultimately, should be the internalization of the polytheistic worldview, even to the point that if you were to smash your thumb with a hammer, you would automatically shout something other than "God damn it!". It seems rather "small" to focus on something so, well small but it is a necessary development to fully embrace a new world view and leave the old one behind. Which is not to say that you need to then vociferously and zealously reject other peoples own views. I can fully appreciate the pathos and emotion which is conveyed in a song like "take me to church", I can understand what it is the singer is singing about; I simply do not share the same conceptual/theological framework that he does, but what is more I understand why.<br />
<br />
When you begin to understand something from your own perspective, then you can begin to appreciate how necessary such a change is.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
____________________________________________________________________________</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
1. "Hozier: An Interview", Irish Times. <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2014/09%20/20/hozier/">http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2014/09 /20/hozier/</a> (accessed 11/23/2014)<a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2014/09%20/20/hozier/"></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
2. "Video Premiere: Hozier - Take Me To Church", State. <a href="http://state.ie/features/video-premiere-hozier-take-me-to-church">http://state.ie/features/video-premiere-hozier-take-me-to-church</a> (accessed 11/23/2014)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
3. see 1.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
4. ibid..</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-29581306855992162452014-12-02T08:05:00.002-08:002014-12-02T08:05:15.998-08:00"Our" Values SeriesIn conjunction with some recent discussion on tumblr, I have taken it upon myself to write a series of blogs which will speak to and about many theological and ethical issues, with a polytheistic outlook in mind.<br />
<br />
For anyone who has read this blog, or its companion tumblr, you will be very much aware of the fact that I am a Gaelic Reconstructionist Polytheist. My rationalization and understanding of things like ethics and theology are then, necessarily informed by the cultural filters engendered by being a GRP. Keeping this in mind, I have sometimes out of necessity, but more often out of curiosity, researched quite a bit into other polytheistic worldviews: Hellenic, Roman and Heathen in particular. I intend to write as broadly as possible about polytheism as a distinct "system", and while I will have to rely on preexisting theological concepts and terms, I will do my best to speak in general and not cultural terms.<br />
<br />
As this will be broad, there will almost certainly be gross generalizations and broad, sweeping claims. I fully acknowledge that there will be a lot of exceptions, be they individual or cultural, to such statements. Yet I do believe that there is enough of a theological framework common among polytheism as a theological position, that such generalizations can be made and still be true, most of the time.<br />
<br />
Again, if I do speak to something which seems strange or incorrect based on your own understanding, by all means let me know so it can be addressed.<br />
<br />
With that said, I really do think that speaking about "Our" values can be something that is useful, especially as polytheism slowly creeps its way back into the world. Very often the criticism labeled against many in the modern polytheistic (and Pagan) community is that we spend all of our time speaking about what is absent from our religions, rather than what is entailed. Unfortunately, this is something which HAS to happen, because the very language that has developed to discuss theology, has been geared towards monotheism as the default (and in a binary way, default is on, off is atheism).<br />
<br />
Many of the following blogs will be discussing precisely these issues, theological concepts, which are part of the discussion of religion and religious identity. These will be addressed, discussed and then shown how they may apply, or are inapplicable, to discussions of polytheism. Showing how much a concept does not fit is as important as showing what concepts do, because it then provides a means to discuss "Our" perspective with those who do not share it. It also allows us to examine and define our own approaches and perspectives.<br />
<br />
Wish me luck!<br />
<br />
Gorm.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-40547287559251702702014-09-30T07:05:00.000-07:002014-09-30T07:05:13.335-07:00A good life is the best defenceA friend of mine, well maybe that's too strong a word at this time, how about an associate of mine, a nice guy I knew in high school who ran in the same social group, is a Christian. Always has been, always will be. So, he is still grouped among "friends" on my Facebook, and often enough he would post typically Christian things: scriptural passages from the Bible, how a particular passage was reflected in his own experience that day, praise and thanks to his god, extolling how great his god is, and every now and then links to blogs or articles by like minded Christian bloggers. Which is how I happened upon a testimonial, a story, by a Preacher, called "Will God Protect My Children?" ( I won't link to it, I have standards after all, but you can find it easily enough).<br />
<br />
The tale is prefaced by briefly recounting a misspent youth of a somewhat debauched nature (or enough so that our stalwart preacher was wallowing, if not participating), with his then atheist comrade. Being a good Christian, his duty to convert his chum was ever present, but was relatively unsuccessful, and flash forward some years. The atheist friend is at a similar point in his life, but something is missing: family, friends, gainful employment and material security are not enough. No, there is a hole in this mans being, and our Preacher knows that it is Christ shaped. Everything is primed for the conversion, to score that big W for Jesus.<br />
<br />
Next come the feeble, halfhearted attempts to explain away why this atheist friend dislikes Christianity: Christians are legalistic moralizers. Bang "Grace theology" slays that one. Next, Christians are naive and can't really hold up to intellectual scrutiny (just what sort of atheist is this guy, anyway?). Poof, drop some books which repeat the ontological argument. Finally, the man is ready to relent; the I need something deeper atheist has relented and he's coming down, ready to make Jesus his personal lord and savior. Suddenly and without warning, he is confronted with the grim reality of death. Not death, in and of itself, but loss, grief; our Preacher's sister had died unexpectedly. The tragedy reverberated through the family, touching everyone in the way that only grief can. The liminal Christian is now overcome with doubt with fear; for if the Christian god could take away the sister of such a devout family, what hope was there for his own children? The preacher then goes on to talk of three "typical" Christian responses, but himself makes the case that "His will be done" and you hope for the best. You become a Christian because it is true, not because you get stuff (like divine protection, prosperity or security). Which is a refreshing answer, if rehashed and simply fallen from favour. We never do find out if the liminal Christian took the plunge, though I would suspect he did.<br />
<br />
So why do I care?<br />
<br />
I care because, despite the message of "I don't know what [the Christian] god's will is", at the end of the day the take away message from this whole piece is still "don't doubt, trust Jesus". Despite the admission of not having all the answers, "Jesus is still THE answer". I accept that this story, and the figures in it are real enough, but they could just as easily sprung from the pen or keystrokes of a preacher. The necessary tropes, the framework for conversion narrative is all here, you can almost feel the thin, neon pink paper of the tract between your fingers. Let's do a quick run through of the <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2012/08/were-here-not-for-long-time-but-good.html">conversion narrative</a> flags our "atheist" has activated:<br />
<br />
1. Previous life of (youthful) debauchery. Check<br />
2. Seemingly happy life beset by absence. Check<br />
3. Current worldview no longer enough. Check<br />
4. Life altering event (like having children). Check<br />
5. Faithful friend who is among the faithful. Check<br />
6. Religion [our convert it converting too] so much more than he thought it was. Check<br />
7. Conversion. Check<br />
<br />
The most significant difference from your typical conversion narrative is that it is not the conversion, in and of itself, which changed the man's life. No, his life from appearance seemed to be pretty good. He was happily married, with children, stable employment and martial security; true our "atheist" is presented as having had a youth of excess, but that seems to be just that, in his past. His life is not in danger and he is not suffering through any sort of physical or financial crisis. No his crisis is existential, one of seeking for some way out of his ennui; seeking the profound with no idea where to begin on his own, but he has this one Christian friend who is also a preacher...<br />
<br />
Proselytization, the promotion of ones religion with the goal of winning converts, is and remains an act of disrespect, hostility and depredation. Even a cursory examination of conversion narratives, like the one I outline above, would support this assertion. It is an act of well intentioned arrogance which seeks to find and exploit weakness. Whether it is a weakness of physicality (i.e. substance abuse or addiction), a weakness of character (i.e. criminality) and even a weakness of mind (i.e. existential questioning), it does not change the fact that it is exploitative and opportunistic. As the Preacher stated in his blog:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.3999996185303px;">He’s thinking about bigger, more profound things. I’m teaching about bigger, more profound things."</span></span></blockquote>
Which is not to say that seeking out meaning, asking those questions of profundity, are necessarily bad or necessarily make you vulnerable to people hocking (easy) answers; only that they can leave you vulnerable. If something is missing and you have been culturally conditioned to recognize the spiritual or philosophical authority of a given group of people, and they are also "friends" with you, and they have been making subtle suggestions about what questions to ask, and where to find answers, well if you happen to find yourself being swayed by such arguments, it isn't exactly shocking. Coupled with that the fear, the gnawing fear about the future and what may be, and then won't somebody please think of the children!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Truly, parenthood has produced far more cowards than war ever could.</b></blockquote>
I do not wish to speak down to, nor minimize the very real anxiety that parents necessarily feel about their children. I hope to be a parent myself one of these days, and expect much fear and anxiety to come. Except that I hope, I believe, that my courage will be sufficient to allay my fears. That my sincerity in my ethics will outweigh my hypocrisy, that I will not abandon everything I believe in because they will be "<a href="http://gorm-sionnach.tumblr.com/post/92008381878/cowardice-and-the-other-sides-of-virtue-ethics">MY KIDS!!!</a>".<br />
<br />
I do wish, however, to bring this discussion full circle and at long last bring in the title of this post. We can observe that the "atheist" (an this seems as good a time as any, but I sincerely doubt just how much of an atheist this fellow could have been, if his mind was so easily swayed by reading a couple of apologetic monographs coupled with gentle pastoral cajoling) appears to have a nice enough life, all things considered. Yet, it is always worth the time to remind ourselves that enjoyment of life is not the same thing as "the good life", because clearly this man believed his life, his worldview was insufficient. There was something missing, and in this case it was profundity and meaning; a spiritual and philosophical void that needed to be filled, and how lucky to have a "friend" who could help him with that.<br />
<br />
I propose then, that in the case of missionizing and proselytizing, the single best defense is to already have a good life. Yeah, you will say, and the best defense against poverty is to already be wealthy, and against sickness to be healthy. Thank you Capt. Obvious! You would be right to point out such obvious truisms, but hear me out. What I mean in this idea, is that proselytizers prey upon the perception of weakness, of deficiency. Seeking out any and all means of penetrating their target's defenses and attacking their self. They need to find that hole in your "being", and then they need to convince you to fill it with Jesus.<br />
<br />
Proselytizing is the only real tool that such folks have at their disposal in this day and age to gain converts, and they have a formula and the means to carry out their missionizing efforts. The keystone to the whole scheme, however, is that there needs to be a "chink in the armour" which they can exploit. Without it, well they have nothing. How are you going to sell someone on the necessity of Christ who already has a fully developed worldview that does not involve him? How can a weakness be exploited if there isn't one? Enter fear, malaise and doubt.<br />
<br />
I've linked above to a much older post of mine where I examine some examples of "Ex-Pagan" conversion narratives and the one thread which links them all together is that in the mind of the converted, their current worldview was lacking in some respect. It failed to deliver, was revealed to be empty or could not offer what the ex-member expected it to. The fault was not in the <a href="http://gorm-sionnach.tumblr.com/post/97968453368/its-a-good-life-if-you-dont-weaken">ex-member</a>, of course, but in the religion (gods, ritual, lack of community, etc.). It could not fill the Jesus shaped hole because... well because what they were trying to fill it with was not Jesus shaped. This is where the juggernaut of cultural force comes into play, and here in North America, Christianity remains the default setting for "religion". Most of the folks who are "ex-Pagans" had previously been Christians or had some manner of Christian up bringing, and so their expectation of how other religions, other gods ought to work, was skewed from the beginning.If the filters and biases of the previous worldview are not replaced by something else, by an internal adoption of the new world view, then the malaise and creeping pessimism will fester until they crawl, walk or run back into the arms of where they used to be.<br />
<br />
Superficiality, it turns out, is what the key exploit is in cases of "ex-Pagan" conversion narratives. Even among those who have been immersed in, promoted by, and made a name for themselves as "BNP's", none of this will produce immunity from something which, by its very nature, is insidious. If you have a Jesus shaped hole in your being, ain't nothing other than Jesus gonna fill it. No matter how sure you are in your outward convictions, no matter how often you lie to yourself and state otherwise, if you fail to internalize a non-Christian world view, you will fail at being a non-Christian. I'm not saying that it is an easy thing to do, only that it is necessary.<br />
<br />
It is necessary because for those who have no part of the Christian perspective on divinity, afterlife and ethics, no matter how compelling the argument for, there is nothing a proselytizer can offer (except, perhaps, a personal relationship with Jesus). What I am getting at is that if there is no weakness in your worldview to exploit, the arguments and tactics will fail because they are not enough on their own; the proselytizer needs that "in". If you have a meaningful relationship with the gods, if you live a life of honour and morality, if you are aware of your faults and have a means to address and improve upon them, then what could the proselytizer "sell" you that you do not already have? You will be offered theological arguments that are designed to appeal to the default setting, but so what? You reject the most basic of assumptions that will be offered (monotheism, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, ethics, etc), so there is no intellectual, spiritual or emotional argument to compel you when your perspective is held to be sufficient.<br />
<br />
Which is not to say, then, that polytheists are necessarily without flaws or weaknesses. The gods know I have many, and I am certain that you all may as well. This isn't about some self aggrandized, self perfection that only we special snowflakes can obtain. This is about having an intrinsic perspective which informs our thoughts and beliefs, and allows us to understand why we believe what we do, and further, how this can then relate to other peoples perspectives. It may be easier for me than it has (or will be) for others because I've never had that Jesus shaped hole. I was never a Christian, nor were my parents, or immediate family (until well after I had begun forming my own opinions about things), and so those creeping doubts and longings never occurred, and in this respect I am lucky.<br />
<br />
What we need then is to instill in ourselves, in our communities, a sense that our worldview is worthy of existing, of being maintained and then passed onto our descendents. But saying it, shouting it at the top of our lungs will amount to nothing, if we do not <b>believe</b> it and if we do not <b>act</b> upon it. We need to instill that our gods have a place in our lives, that our ancestors are worthy of reverence and our interactions with the spirits of place are necessary. That such views inform and instruct our actions, that our lives are lived and lived well. For when it comes to standing firm against proselytizers, those who would knowingly exploit the vulnerable, a good life is the best defense.<br />
<br />
-Gorm. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-49405997658473229402014-09-02T16:31:00.000-07:002014-09-02T16:31:19.512-07:00Only a fool...
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Not so long ago I wrote about </span><a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.com/2014/07/gods-behaving-badly.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">morality, the gods and their behaviours in the lore</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">. I
concluded my examination and analysis of the mythic texts with a rather
forceful entreaty that the gods had earned my trust and I had no reason to
doubt their fidelity. I like to think myself as someone who is not a fool and
so I also provided a caveat. This proviso was that
my unequivocal statement was based upon my reading of the lore and
personal devotion relating to the gods of Irish myth and culture alone. I stand
by that statement, but so too do I stand by my caveat, because when it comes
right down to it:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "inherit","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA;"></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "inherit","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA;">Only a fool would
trust Odin</span><span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "inherit","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA;">For his plans may
be for the best</span><span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "inherit","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA;">But what is best
may not be for you</span><span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";">If you value a long life<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";">Grímnir is best avoided<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";">Honour and glory are his reward<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";">But they are bought at a heavy price</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit","serif";"></span> </div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I say this with the utmost respect and gravity, and my
intention here is not to impugn the gods, to cast aspersions upon Their persons
or to belittle those who are devoted to them. Rather, it is simply through a
desire to understand Their natures and tendencies that theology and herumenics
can be developed in a polytheistic context. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Not all gods have
YOUR best interest at heart</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is made mention in the short stanza above, but it calls
for a nuanced comprehension. Providing that the gods we are talking about are limited
to those with which human endeavor coincide (i.e. gods that represent war,
justice, agriculture, art, magic, love, law, government, sovereignty, child
birth, the dead, etc.), because those with functions or associations outside
the realm of human endeavor will more often than not ignore humans (and those
gods who are malicious are best entreated with or avoided). Therefore I limit
my scope to those whose business relates to our own, and it is in this context
that a more nuanced appreciation is needed. For while the gods may seek to aid
in our actions where our functions or desires overlap, this does not mean that
they always will, or that our need outweighs Theirs. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If you want to be a warrior, par excellence; seeking battle,
bloodshed and above all victory, then few gods will be as well suited to your endeavors
as would Odin. Odin is a god of many names (over 200) and a considerable number
of those epithets relate directly to his function as a god of war and battle.
Yet there was always a purpose to war, a reason that he would incite hatred in
the hearts of men and urge them to battle:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZIyJ5WcW9UE/VAZRPY67T5I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/qs7tCjXkpsI/s1600/OdinWantsYOU-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZIyJ5WcW9UE/VAZRPY67T5I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/qs7tCjXkpsI/s1600/OdinWantsYOU-2.jpg" height="320" width="261" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://audsartblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/odin-wants-you-for-valhalla.html"><span style="color: #0563c1; font-family: Calibri;">From "Auda's Art Blog"</span></a><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">More often than not, being one of “Odin’s Chosen” was as
much a blessing as a curse; a life of fame and glory bought with blood and
untimely death. This motif of glory and honour in exchange for a short life is
one of the more common threads among the heroic literature of several
Indo-European cultures and can be seen also in Irish and Greek sources. The All-Fathers
motivation, however, is considerably different than those heroes desire for
honour, he needs an army. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">While the exact nature of where and how the concept of
Ragnarök came into being, if its conception was wholly pre-Christian or mingled
with Christian eschatology is debatable, what is not is that the mythic lore
has been framed with this most awesome of inevitabilities. As such, it could
certainly be argued that Odin’s entire motivation for causing war and strife is
to collect the valorous dead and mold them into a fighting force to stand with
him on the last day. In this light, Valhalla is best understood as a temporary
reprieve and not as a final, paradisiacal “heaven”. Only death and slaughter
await those whom Odin chooses, but by their valour and sacrifice is a future
made possible. Often enough Odin would cause weapons to fail, provide disastrous
military advice or other such nefarious ploys in order to ensure those he
needed died in combat.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">So while I believe the All Father is worthy or respect and
devotion (even if I do not worship him personally), it behooves us to recognize
that beings with a “long view” perspective of things will inevitably have their
own agendas and purposes. So too is it worth realizing that even when our
desires or needs overlap with Theirs, that we may be supported by those same
gods in our efforts, our ends may be the price we pay for that support.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-1096438791440398572014-08-15T16:50:00.001-07:002014-08-15T16:50:56.015-07:00"Our" Lady of Sorrows<div class="post_title">
This was not the first time she had witnessed this, nor would it be her last; yet something moved within her, profoundly. True, so much time had passed between where she was now, and where she had been, that the pain had become a dull ache, but still she remembered. There had been so much blood that she had at first believed that it could not all have belonged to him, but as the grim reality of the situation donned on her, as she held her son’s pale, still cooling hand, she broke.</div>
<div class="post_body">
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
Everything had stopped and what was going on around her no longer mattered. She did not care that her husband was standing by her side, that her in-laws were but a few feet away or that her friends had gathered around her. There was only the pain, there was only her voice. Her cry split the very air through which it moved; a resonant wail that echoed into the valley floor, spread across the lake and into the sky above. The sound was suffocating, her moan became a roar.<br />
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
Her body began to revolt against her, her eyes streamed as though her being had been up to this point, nothing but tears. Her throat burned, as if her lungs had become great furnaces and each piercing wail that escape her lips was a dagger, carving away as they passed. Her legs had long ago given out, and she felt as if she were rooted to the earth upon which her crumpled body had fallen in despair. Her fists had clenched to tightly that her nails had dug deep, torn through the worn flesh and her hands streamed nearly as much as her eyes.<br />
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
Men, women and children fell dead at the sound, cattle miscarried and many of the horses bolted from their camp in sheer terror at this otherworldy wailing, tumbling into the lake, mad with fear. The skies began to grow dark, the earth seemed to be slowly undulating under foot and the lake seemed to be growing more turbulent, frothing and bubbling in unison with this stricken mother. Those around her, who had been struck dumb by her cry, took notice and realized that if something was not done they would all perish.<br />
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
He would never again speak to her, never again laugh or cry, never again be held in her embrace. Her tall, handsome and strong son had been laid low, felled in the prime of his youth; stolen from her. Stolen from her by whom she knew not. Stolen from her for no reason she could then understand. Stolen so recently that she could still hear his laughter echoing in her ears. Now, her once proud son, her most precious possession, was gone.<br />
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
They looked around at one another, still paralyzed by the sheer force of her wail. The sky had gone from a deep black to a burning red. The sun appeared a sickly, misshapen disc and its warmth now seemed a mere memory. Her tears and her blood had begun to mingle with the rising waters of the lake, which was steadily approaching in small waves. They realized that if something were not done, if this uncanny shrieking was not stopped, they would all of them be no better off than her poor son. The fear of their impending doom spurred a fire in all of them, and the fetters which had frozen them in place shattered.<br />
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
The pain was there, and her head was swimming from her strain, but it was staring to fade. Her voice began to crack, her lungs that had burned like a need fire was now burning out. Her body ached and her bosom heaved, the pain was being dowsed with the loss of sensation; numbness began to creep along her limbs. But she would not be stymied, and as her own guilt for failing to protect him welled within her chest, the pain redoubled and the flames roared back to life.<br />
<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
They sprang upon her, shook her, struck her, cried out to her, only to be drowned out by her lamentations. Nothing they did was of any avail; no shouts could quiet her, no arms could hold her, not twenty of their strongest could move her. Her grief was weighing her down, as if she shared the same roots as the mountains. Realizing that no force could stop her, that no reason would reach her, they broke and fled for their lives.<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
Alone she was left, with no company but her poor, dead son, his head resting on her lap. The streams that had issued forth from her eyes had washed away the ichor that had caked his clothing, discoloured his gleaming hands and obscured his shining face. His wound, that had streamed with the same fury as his mothers tears, was so small it was hard to believe that it such a thing had killed her hale, boastful, splendid son. But he was still, he was quiet as no boy should be, and with her son in her arms, she finally relented.<br />
She screamed.<br />
<br />
Then all went dark, all sensation ceased and all that came after was quiet and silence. Her body was spent, her very soul a hairs breadth away from joining with that of her son, she collapsed. She dreamed of him then; of her bright, happy, joyous boy. She watched him leaping through the air as he dashed through the fields, climbing over hill and rock, and diving into the deepest of pools, a bundle of lightning in boys’ clothes. Then he stopped, he aged suddenly into a fine, handsome young man and he turned to look at her; he said something her ears did not hear and with a final wave of his hand, stepped through a sudden mist, and was gone.<br />
<br />
After that, she remembered very little until long after he had been laid to rest. The pain she felt on that first, terrible day had eventually subsided. The pain became numbness, numbness became sadness, sadness became a deep grief, grief that gripped her heart as she had gripped the earth. Yet, little by little, the grip loosened on her heart. Light slowly flittered its way back into her life and while she would not, could not ever truly be whole again, she discovered that joy had stealthily creeped back into her life.<br />
<br />
This was all so long ago, ages it seemed now. Much had happened before, and much had happened still after. Yet her she was again, surrounded by those with whom she shared a terrible kinship, for they like her, had also known the pain of death and loss. Yet, in the end, this made her stronger; strong enough even that she could now be a source of strength for those who needed her. For those to whom it seems as if time has stopped and life itself had come to an end, who ask how this could have happened and how do I go on?<br />
<br />
For all of us who mourn, for all of us who grieve, for all who question why; she is there. She offers no easy answers, no platitudes, no quick fix. She cannot turn back the capricious nature of fortune, nor take away the pain of loss; she had no power over those claimed by death. Yet tall she stands, strong she remains, and a balm for the soul is her gift. She, above all others, understands the sorrow, knows full well the feeling and remembers the hurt.<br />
<br />
In her compassion, may we find consolation.<br />
In her wisdom, may we find meaning.<br />
In her courage, may we find our own.<br />
<br />
-Gorm</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-17782668008999118412014-07-27T07:17:00.000-07:002014-07-27T12:22:48.898-07:00Theodicy (or coming to terms with the existence of tragedy)<div sab="905">
<div sab="906">
<div sab="1776">
<div sab="1777">
<strong sab="1778">(I had originally started to write this a few weeks ago, but lost my focus. A personal loss has brought this topic screaming back, so if you come across bracketed, bolded text that is more recent.)</strong></div>
<div sab="1779">
<br /></div>
<div sab="1780">
Of all the "big questions" which religion is supposed to be able to answer (or at least provide some guidance) second only to "Why am I here?" is "Why do bad things happen to good people?". This is the single question which, perhaps more than any other, allows us to discover the very boundaries of our beliefs, the limit of our faith and the depth with which we trust. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="906">
<div sab="908">
<div sab="1779">
<div sab="1784">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="907">
<div sab="910">
<div sab="1782">
<div sab="1788">
Who do we lose, that it becomes unbearable?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="908">
<div sab="912">
<div sab="1785">
<div sab="1792">
What depth of grief can one person be expected to experience? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="909">
<div sab="914">
<div sab="1788">
<div sab="1796">
How much tragedy can befall someone before their once unshakable trust in the gods entropy's into nihilism?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="910">
<div sab="916">
<div sab="1791">
<div sab="1800">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="911">
<div sab="918">
<div sab="1794">
<div sab="1804">
Today, this morning to be precise, as I listened to the usual channel on my AM dial as I drove my wife to work, it seemed that the top stories were categorically grim:</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="912">
<div sab="920">
<div sab="1797">
<div sab="1808">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="913">
<div sab="922">
<div sab="1800">
<div sab="1812">
A man estranged from his wife, murdering her and another adult, four children and an attempted fifth.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="914">
<div sab="924">
<div sab="1803">
<div sab="1816">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="915">
<div sab="926">
<div sab="1806">
<div sab="1820">
Another man who had in past days, murdered his two small children and then killed himself, finalized by setting the car they had occupied alight.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="916">
<div sab="928">
<div sab="1809">
<div sab="1824">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="917">
<div sab="930">
<div sab="1812">
<div sab="1828">
A reminder that a small child had been neglected to death, by his own grandparents.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="918">
<div sab="932">
<div sab="1815">
<div sab="1832">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="919">
<div sab="934">
<div sab="1818">
<div sab="1836">
As I said, categorically grim.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="936">
<div sab="1821">
<div sab="1840">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="921">
<div sab="938">
<div sab="1824">
<div sab="1844">
I though of a friend who had experienced great loss, suddenly, without warning; at a time of unbridled joy and hope for a future that will never be.</div>
<div sab="1845">
<br /></div>
<div sab="1846">
<strong sab="1847">(I think of my friend, his life cut tragically short, the grief of his family and my friend who was much closer that I was</strong>.<strong sab="1848">)</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="922">
<div sab="940">
<div sab="1827">
<div sab="1852">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="923">
<div sab="942">
<div sab="1830">
<div sab="1856">
I thought of all those who walk through the doors of my place of business, all being touched by death and loss and the grief that clings to your very being.</div>
<div sab="1857">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="925">
<div sab="946">
<div sab="1836">
<div sab="1861">
And then I thought of the gods.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="926">
<div sab="948">
<div sab="1839">
<div sab="1865">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="927">
<div sab="950">
<div sab="1842">
<div sab="1869">
As I said before, the question of tragedy and ill fortune, of hardship and suffering is an old one. There are many answers, and some shed a little more light than others.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="928">
<div sab="952">
<div sab="1845">
<div sab="1873">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1845">
<div sab="1875">
<strong sab="1876"><u sab="1877">Cultural/Religious Examples</u></strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="929">
<div sab="954">
<div sab="1848">
<div sab="1881">
Job, the paragon, the avatar of the good man wronged by a god, his god. Never having done wrong, never having said a word against his fate, is answered by even greater suffering and loss. When he finally comes face to face (or a tornado) with his god, and asks him why he has allowed such suffering to befall him, he is strong armed into silence and supplication.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="930">
<div sab="956">
<div sab="1851">
<div sab="1885">
<strong sab="931">The lord works in mysterious ways</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="932">
<div sab="959">
<div sab="1855">
<div sab="1890">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="933">
<div sab="961">
<div sab="1858">
<div sab="1894">
Heracles, being the ultimate antitheses of everything Hera represents, is cursed and sent into a mad rage. In his maddened fury he murders his son and daughter (in some versions, so too his wife). He is eventually cured of his madness, but realizing what he has done, flees. As penitence for his crime, he is forced to serve the king Eurystheus (often described as an archrival of Heracles) and performs his Twelve Labours.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="934">
<div sab="963">
<div sab="1861">
<div sab="1898">
<strong sab="935">Mortals are but the playthings of the gods</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="936">
<div sab="966">
<div sab="1865">
<div sab="1903">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="937">
<div sab="968">
<div sab="1868">
<div sab="1907">
Baldur is beloved of all the Aesir, and through the efforts of his mother, Frigga, he is nigh invincible. The gods make great sport of attempting to harm him, but baleful Loki discovers the one way to lay low the shining god of youth. Malice in his heart, he tricks poor, blind Hod into participating in the sport, and armed with a dart crafted from mistletoe, Baldur is felled.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="938">
<div sab="970">
<div sab="1871">
<div sab="1911">
<strong sab="939">Malice and hatred are bedfellows of tragedy and grief</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="940">
<div sab="973">
<div sab="1875">
<div sab="1916">
<strong sab="941"></strong><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="942">
<div sab="976">
<div sab="1879">
<div sab="1921">
Kisa Gotami had lost her only son, and grief stricken, begged anyone who would listen for a way to restore her son back to life. Finally she was instructed to speak with the Buddha; and he told her that if she could find mustard seeds from household who had never tasted death, he could revive her son. Filled with hope, she returned to her village and asked at every house, yet soon discovered that all had experiences of death. Despondent she returned to the Buddha, and informed him she had failed.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="943">
<div sab="978">
<div sab="1882">
<div sab="1925">
<strong sab="944">Suffering and death are inseparable from this (impermanent) life</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="945">
<div sab="981">
<div sab="1886">
<div sab="1930">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="946">
<div sab="983">
<div sab="1889">
<div sab="1934">
For death has entered the world through the fault of one man, the first man, Adam. For sin is part of human nature, and the wages of sin is death. Yet the strength of sin is the law, and since all fall short of the glory of the Lord, all men are doomed to die. Yet, for the believer, death is not the end; for the corruptible must put on incorruption and the mortal must put on immortality. The price for sin was paid by one man, the perfect man, Jesus.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="947">
<div sab="985">
<div sab="1892">
<div sab="1938">
<strong sab="948">This world was corrupted by sin, and from sin flows tragedy, suffering and death</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="949">
<div sab="988">
<div sab="1896">
<div sab="1943">
<strong sab="950"></strong><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="951">
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1900">
<div sab="1948">
These are well and good, and they may be powerful, even thought provoking ideas and sentiments, but they are necessarily rooted in their own theology and mythology. Their responses, their attitudes and answers all stem from their worldview. So where do we turn?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="952">
<div sab="993">
<div sab="1903">
<div sab="1952">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="953">
<div sab="995">
<div sab="1906">
<div sab="1956">
In this case, as ingrained in western culture as the endurance of Job is, as terrible the murder of Baldur, as transcendent the wisdom of the Buddha or Christ, and as Herculean the struggles of Heracles, the Gaels have 'em beat hands down.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="954">
<div sab="997">
<div sab="1909">
<div sab="1960">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="999">
<div sab="1912">
<div sab="1964">
You will be hard pressed to find a collection of myth and legend as infused with tragedy as the corpus of Gaelic lore. Tragic lives and tragic deaths, love triangles, kin slaying and murderous vengeance, it has it all.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1001">
<div sab="1915">
<div sab="1968">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1915">
<div sab="1970">
<strong sab="1971"><u sab="1972">Gaelic Examples</u></strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1003">
<div sab="1918">
<div sab="1976">
Chief among such tales of woe, are the "Three Sorrows of Storytelling": The exile of the sons of Uisliu, the Fate of the Children of Lir and The Fate of the Sons of Tuireann.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1005">
<div sab="1921">
<div sab="1980">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1007">
<div sab="1924">
<div sab="1984">
The later comes first chronologically, and while I did mention it <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2014/07/gods-behaving-badly.html" sab="1010" target="_blank">not too long ago</a>, a brief summary. <em sab="1986">Lugh's</em> father, <em sab="1987">Cian</em>, is murdered by the three sons of <em sab="1988">Tuireann</em>, <em sab="1989">Brian</em>, <em sab="1990">Iuchar</em> and <em sab="1991">Iucharba</em>, due to strife between their families. <em sab="1992">Lugh</em> discovers their crime, and acting as King, demands they undertake a perilous journey to obtain magical artefacts to aid in the war against the <em sab="1993">Fomorians</em>. The brothers succeed, but through <em sab="1994">Lugh's</em> thirst for revenge, does not to save them from their mortal wounds, and they die. Their father <em sab="1995">Tuireann</em> then dies of a broken heart.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1010">
<div sab="1928">
<div sab="1999">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1930">
<div sab="2002">
The "Fate of the Children of <em sab="2003">Lir</em>" looks at how the goddess <em sab="2004">Aoife</em>, tried to kill her step children because of the love that was showered upon them by her husband, <em sab="2005">Lir</em>. At first she tried to have a servant kill them, but he balked. She then attempted to kill them herself, but lost her courage and instead cursed them into the forms of swans for a period of no less than 900 years.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1932">
<div sab="2008">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1934">
<div sab="2011">
"The Exile of the sons of Uisliu", follows the tragic heroine <em sab="2012">Dierdre</em>, her lover <em sab="2013">Naoise</em> and his two brothers as they evade the wrath of king <em sab="2014">Conchobar</em>, by settling in Scotland. Difficulty and circumstance drive them back to Ireland, and Conchobar tricks them into returning to Ulster, where they are betrayed to their deaths. <em sab="2015">Dierdre</em> survives the assault, and is to be given to the man who slew <em sab="2016">Naoise</em>, but enroute leaps from a chariot and dashes her head against a rock.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1936">
<div sab="2019">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1938">
<div sab="2022">
Yet these tales are not in the least all the tragedy there is to tell, what follows is a brief list of other tragic circumstances in larger narratives, but not necessarily self contained stories:</div>
</div>
</div>
<ul sab="1013">
<li sab="1014"><div sab="1015">
<div sab="1942">
<div sab="2027">
<em sab="2028">Rúadán mac Bres</em>, son of <em sab="2029">Brigid</em>, is killed while spying upon the gods during the events of CMT2, and upon this discovery <em sab="2030">Brigid</em> wails out the first caoine to be heard in Ireland. </div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1016"><div sab="1017">
<div sab="1945">
<div sab="2034">
<em sab="2035">Cúchulain</em> fights and kills his own son, for the honour of the Ulstermen.</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1018"><div sab="1019">
<div sab="1948">
<div sab="2039">
<em sab="2040">Cúchulain</em> is forced to fight and kill his best friend (and arguably lover) Ferdia in single combat, due to the machinations of <em sab="2041">Medb</em> during the <em sab="2042">Táin Bó Cúlaigne</em>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1018"><div sab="1019">
<div sab="1948">
<div sab="2046">
<em sab="2047">Emer</em> dies of a broken heart while she is in the process of burying <em sab="2048">Cú</em></div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1020"><div sab="1021">
<div sab="1951">
<div sab="2052">
<em sab="2053">Diarmuid</em> is gored by a boar fated to kill him, and because of a past transgression, <em sab="2054">Fionn</em> lets him die.</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1022"><div sab="1023">
<div sab="1954">
<div sab="2058">
<em sab="2059">Oisín</em> lives in the otheroworld for ages with his wife <em sab="2060">Niamh</em>, but grows homesick and takes a magical steed back to the mortal realm. He is warned never to dismount, but forgets himself and upon touching down upon the earth, he is instantly aged to blind decrepitude, never to return to <em sab="2061">Niamh</em> again.</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1024"><div sab="1025">
<div sab="1957">
<div sab="2065">
<em sab="2066">Oisín</em> then wanders the countryside, until he is found by St. Patrick, where he is abused until he either dies unrepentant or is baptised.</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1026"><div sab="1027">
<div sab="1028">
<div sab="1961">
<div sab="2071">
<em sab="2072">Caílte</em>, in a parallel/alternate narrative to <em sab="2073">Oisín</em>, is the last of the Fianna, and spends his final days recounting the glorious time of his youth while mourning all that has been lost </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="1026"><div sab="1027">
<div sab="1028">
<div sab="1961">
<div sab="2078">
Characters in many narrative will die literally die because of the sadness of the situation and the resulting "breaking of their heart".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div sab="1029">
<div sab="1964">
<div sab="2081">
This is barely even scratching the surface, but it provides at lest some specific instances of tales within the wider lore to contemplate and explore the subjects of grief, tragedy and loss.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1029">
<div sab="1966">
<div sab="2084">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1029">
<div sab="1968">
<div sab="2087">
So, what are we to do? What does the lore have to say about the problem of theodicy, and why do we suffer as often as we rejoice?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1012">
<div sab="2089">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1012">
<div sab="2091">
<u sab="2092"><strong sab="2093">Sources of Suffering</strong></u></div>
</div>
<div sab="1012">
<div sab="2095">
Simply put, there is no single answer as to the "why" of suffering, at least from a GRP perspective. It is not the theological dilemma that afflicts monotheistic religions; after all polytheism in general does not ascribe the classical "omni's" to its deities. We are not trapped by the need to reconcile the existence of suffering with the existence of the gods, because the gods are not all powerful, ever present, all knowing or all loving. We can accept that suffering happens for a number of reasons:</div>
</div>
<div sab="1012">
<ul sab="2097">
<li sab="2098"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2100">
The capriciousness of circumstance</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="2101"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2103">
The wanton cruelty or carelessness of people </div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="2104"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2106">
The agency of a malefic spirit or deity</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="2107"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2109">
The passage of time</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2111">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2113">
Circumstance, random chance and ill fortune can account for the champions portion of suffering which we are forced to deal with at any given time. For those of us fortunate enough to live in countries which have stable governments, the fear of war and famine is tertiary. Natural disasters, medical emergencies or illness tend to be the more common forms of suffering we are exposed to, as much as these account for destruction and death. </div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2115">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2117">
Wanton cruelty/ Carelessness of those we interact with and are beholden to would be the second most common source of suffering. Whether it be those who wish to do us harm through acts of violence, abuse, economic exploitation, etc. or those who through their callousness or ignorance do so too, much of our suffering can occur at the hands of another. </div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2119">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2121">
If we accept that the <em sab="2122">na trí naomh</em> do have agency, and this agency has some impact upon our lives, then we must also accept that those deities or spirits whose purview is at odds with our own, can have the same impact. I believe that these kinds of occurrences are exceedingly rare, and that other perspectives place far too much emphasis on the power and influence of malefic entities. Yet to discount them all together is to deny a very real aspect of the numinous which is reasonably attested to within folklore and tradition.</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2124">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2126">
Finally, the passage of time, the progression from youth to old age, while related and influenced by the three sources listed above, has elements of its own which merit acknowledgement. As one grows older, the likelihood of those we know dying around us becomes more and more common. Survivor's bare the burden of those who came before them, and those who have been lost along the way; keepers of collective/familial memories become saddled by those experiences and can almost literally be haunted by ghosts from the past.</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2128">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2130">
<strong sab="2131"><u sab="2132">Responses to Suffering</u></strong></div>
<div sab="2133">
<strong sab="2134"></strong><br /></div>
<div sab="2135">
<strong sab="2136">The courage to go on</strong></div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2138">
Sorrow, unabashed and fully embraced grief, are as natural a response to loss as any other human emotion. Grief needs to be understood on a number of levels, but one thing which many people outside the grief counselling (or related) field, ought to know is that grief is, among other things, a physical reaction to loss. The lump in the back of your throat, the loss of appetite, the headache, shortness of breath, inability to stand and of course crying, are all physical responses we can experience when we are confronted with the reality of loss.</div>
<div sab="2139">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2140">
There is no shame in this, it is not weakness, it is not "too much". It is as much a part of life, as dying is, and for too long has it been seen as being weak, emotional and "over the top". Yet ritualized expressions of grief were a regular component of wakes; the practice of keening has gone out of "fashion", but how much this had to do with conceptions of propriety in an anglicised world, and how much it had to do with no longer having any value, is debatable.</div>
<div sab="2141">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2142">
So what grief represents is the coming to terms with your situation, and accepting it for what it is. Recognize the loss, accept the loss and understand that things will necessarily be different from this time on. It is only when the reality of the situation is ignored, when emotions are not processed, but rather suppressed, that complications related to grief arise.</div>
<div sab="2143">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2144">
I think the idea of literally dying of a broken heart or sorrow is a romantic literary device. The purpose of which is either to show the extent of grief over the death or in the case of musicians playing powerfully sorrowful music, their skill. This does not mean that we ought to do the same, rather it can symbolize that not dealing with your feelings of loss can inexorably alter your life in very negative ways. </div>
<div sab="2145">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2146">
A component of accepting the reality of the loss, and finding the strength to go is, is a call to courage in the face of adversity. Life can be horrid, painful and full of sorrow, but this should not prevent us from trying to live as best as we are able to. Our lived will be tinged by sorrow and joy, and not always in equal measure. It may never, truly "get better", but still we are called to stand tall and carry on. </div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2148">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2150">
<strong sab="2151">The gods are not perfect</strong></div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2153">
This is one of those "gotcha" points that many a monotheist likes to harp on about, that they sensibly worship a god which is superlative in all of his capacities. Yet their god, the god of classical monotheism [henceforth GOCM], and these characteristics are the basis of the perennial problem of theodicy. The four characteristics which are touted are the "four o's": omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence. Yet, with the undeniable existence of suffering, all four characteristics can not be inherent in the same being. The rubric generally follows:</div>
</div>
<ul sab="2154">
<li sab="2155"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2157">
If GOCM does not have the power to stop suffering, then omnipotence is lacking</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="2158"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2160">
If GOCM does not know that suffering is occurring, than omniscience is lacking</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="2161"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2163">
If GOCM is not present to stop suffering, than omnipresence is lacking</div>
</div>
</li>
<li sab="2164"><div sab="1971">
<div sab="2166">
If GOCM can prevent suffering, but chooses not to, than omnibenevolence is lacking</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2168">
Many use this as a logical "proof" that GOCM does not exist, I simply think it shows that a tribal war god who has through centuries of hegemonic monotheist theology and philosophy been ascribed characteristics not inherent in the experience of his worshippers. A lofty ideal which falls apart in the face of reality.</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2170">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2172">
Being a polytheist, I can accept that the gods are not perfect, all powerful beings. That there is none the less great mystery of their being, of the extent of their power, the breadth of their knowledge, their localised character and the limits of their compassion. Our morality may be sourced to the gods, but we are not gods and gods are not us. We euhemerise them in the stories we tell each other about them (or have this done for us by scribes), but we should not mistake these stories as a literal history of the gods. </div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2174">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1971">
<div sab="2176">
The myths we have, the lore we pour over and study, are the single best resource we have for trying to understand and relate to the gods, to attempt to know them, but the gods are beyond the literary characters we read about. I can read about the final great battle between the <em sab="2177">Tuatha Dé Danann</em> and the<em sab="2178"> Fomorii</em>, I can have it retold to me how <em sab="2179">Rúadán</em> is killed by his Great Uncle <em sab="2180">Goibnu</em>, and how his mother <em sab="2181">Brigid</em> let out the first keening ever to be heard. I can read this and puzzle at the idea of gods being killed, but that isn't what the story is <strong sab="2182">really</strong> about, intriguing a theological mystery as that may be. No, what the story tells us is that the gods themselves can experience loss and grief, and that we are made that much closer to them by this. That <em sab="2183">Brigid</em> knows the sting of grief, that a goddess of her stature is overwhelmed by emotion, is a great comfort to those of us asking why, of trying to make sense of it all. I know too, that <em sab="2184">Brigid</em> in her grief is also full of compassion and understanding, and that she has the power to mend broken hearts and balm shattered spirits. </div>
</div>
<div sab="2185">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2186">
Both of these ideas, that we have within all of us the courage and the strength to flourish despite the losses and tragedy we must all face and that while the gods are alien and separate from us by their very nature, they understand and relate to our experiences of loss, are how I square the existence of tragedy in my life with my worship and trust of the gods.</div>
<div sab="2187">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2188">
Thoughts?</div>
<div sab="2189">
<br /></div>
<div sab="2190">
-Gorm.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-9516216114550280092014-07-06T17:48:00.003-07:002014-07-06T17:48:43.000-07:00Living in a world without sin<div sab="114">
<div sab="898">
<div sab="899">
<div sab="1250">
<div sab="1239">
<div sab="902">
<div sab="1251">
<div sab="1774">
Continuing with my current tend of exploring values in GRP in a rather roundabout way, we find ourselves having to deal with the concept of sin. Or rather, the lack of sin present in the GRP worldview. This does not mean that actions have no consequences, or that we are not capable of offending the <em sab="899">na trí náomh</em>, only that the repercussions of such actions tend to be immediate and not tallied in some invisible counter to be used against us when we die. In fact, there is no moral component which determines our fate once we die; virtuous or detestable, we all journey to the House of Donn. More on this later, however, let us examine precisely what constitutes sin, its consequences and the overall impact the concept has had upon the discussion of religion as well as the wider culture in the west.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="900">
<div sab="902">
<div sab="1254">
<div sab="1244">
<div sab="908">
<div sab="1258">
<div sab="1782">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="901">
<div sab="904">
<div sab="1257">
<div sab="1248">
<div sab="913">
<div sab="1264">
<div sab="1789">
A sin, according to Abrahamic tradition, is any action (or thought in some traditions) which intentionally violates a rule or law as established by the Abrahamic god (according to such mythologies). In accounts of Temple era Judaism, sins were atoned for by offering an animal sacrifice in the temple, in penance and reconciliation for wrong doing. In later Rabbinical tradition, this atonement and reconciliation for sins would be accomplished through confession (<em sab="902">ashamnu</em>) and the avoidance of such sinful actions in the future.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="903">
<div sab="907">
<div sab="1261">
<div sab="1253">
<div sab="919">
<div sab="1271">
<div sab="1797">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="904">
<div sab="909">
<div sab="1264">
<div sab="1257">
<div sab="924">
<div sab="1277">
<div sab="1804">
In Christian tradition, Sin and how to atone for them depend greatly on the delineation one belongs to. One of the central rites in Catholic doctrine is the rite of contrition/confession, whereby a parishioner is absolved of sin through the acts of confessing to their wrong doing, acknowledging that they have deliberately perpetrated these actions or thoughts, will make some penance for those thoughts/actions and will strive to avoid such thoughts/acts in the future. This is all accomplished via the priest, who is singly ably to absolve their members of sins through apostolic succession. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the means and way is almost identical to that of Catholics, albeit they tend to be a bit more fluid on who is able to hear and absolve their members of sins (including monks and lay people, etc.); albeit only an ordained Priest may provide absolution for sins. I will single out Anglicanism, as it is one of the few Protestant denominations which maintains the tradition of a confessional rite, similar to Catholic confession but more general. Finally, the vast majority of Protestant denominations/ churches do not hold that any sort of intermediary is necessary for the absolution of sins, and this is done through the initial act of contrition (as is common among Pentecostal churches, the process of accepting Christ as their personal saviours) or is incorporated into regular worship services (corporate confession). Many Protestants will also include a confession of their daily sins in the evening prayers. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="114">
<div sab="906">
<div sab="912">
<div sab="1268">
<div sab="1262">
<div sab="930">
<div sab="1284">
<div sab="1812">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="114">
<div sab="908">
<div sab="915">
<div sab="1272">
<div sab="1267">
<div sab="936">
<div sab="1291">
<div sab="1820">
In Islam, sin is again seen as any act or thought which violates the law as established by their god, and seeking forgiveness for sin is known as <em sab="916">istighfar</em>, and is one of the integral components of worship for Muslims. A spirit of admission and contrition is necessary in order for the sin to be forgiven, and if the sin is against another person it often requires their forgiveness as well.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="917">
<div sab="1275">
<div sab="1271">
<div sab="941">
<div sab="1297">
<div sab="1827">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="918">
<div sab="1277">
<div sab="1274">
<div sab="945">
<div sab="1302">
<div sab="1833">
In terms of necessity, the existence of sin in the case of Christianity is the core problem of ones existence, and it is only through the sacrifice of Christ (or through the power given to his representatives through apostolic succession/ tradition) that Christians can establish a spiritual position to reconcile themselves with their god. Yet, in general, the act of contrition and repentance alone are clearly not enough on their own, and theologically make the person of Christ the central figure in their world view. This is of course one of the many intrinsic differences between Christianity and Judaism and Islam. Sin, humanities natural state as being sinful, originated with the progenitor of the human race, Adam. So while the concept that Adam's transgression caused sin to become part of human nature, referred to as original sin in Christian tradition, is a component of the Abrahamic understanding and development of the term, the emphasis given to the single act differs amongst the religions considerably. Having said that, we can certainly appreciate the significance of precedent and its symbolic power, albeit appreciation is not the same as recognition.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="909">
<div sab="920">
<div sab="1280">
<div sab="1278">
<div sab="950">
<div sab="1308">
<div sab="1840">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="910">
<div sab="922">
<div sab="1283">
<div sab="1282">
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1314">
<div sab="1847">
For us, there is no concept of original sin, there is nothing which intrinsically keeps us separated from the gods. Of course the reason we seek out and worship them is very, very different from the Abrahamic approach to the divine. Yet, this is not our cosmology, nor our theology at work. We are not a fallen people and our natural state is not one of depravity. We are meant to live in the here and in the now; our lives are spent not seeking some future eternal reward, but rather for a rewarding life in the present. We accept ourselves and our humanity and seek to do right by the <em sab="1026">Na Tri Naomh,</em> not because we fear some eternal punishment, nor hope for some eternal reward. We choose to do so because it is simply the richest, most beneficial mode of living for us. Now, a caveat is also required, because Judaism's approach to the why of living is quite similar to our own; while there are beliefs about the afterlife, the focus is on living in this world. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="114">
<div sab="912">
<div sab="925">
<div sab="1287">
<div sab="1287">
<div sab="961">
<div sab="1322">
<div sab="1856">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="114">
<div sab="914">
<div sab="928">
<div sab="1291">
<div sab="1292">
<div sab="967">
<div sab="1329">
<div sab="1864">
Sacrifice is offered not as propitiation or extirpation, as payment for some cosmic crime or slight against the gods; sacrifice is offered as an acknowledged price for the maintenance of the world; quite literally. Or rather, there are very good reasons to understand the act of human (and animal) sacrifices as a means of providing to the gods the raw materials with which to stave off the entropic nature of the cosmos. Bruce Lincoln has made the case that when exploring the nature of sacrificial offerings, and in particular that of livestock or rare cases of human beings, IE cultures did so as a reversal of the divine process of giving shape and form to life: </div>
<div sab="1864">
</div>
<div sab="1864">
primordial sacrifice => cosmogony => anthropogny => sacrifice => etc..</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="915">
<div sab="930">
<div sab="1294">
<div sab="1296">
<div sab="972">
<div sab="1335">
<div sab="1871">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="916">
<div sab="932">
<div sab="1297">
<div sab="1300">
<div sab="977">
<div sab="1341">
<div sab="1878">
Which is not to say that the idea of punishment for crimes against the community lacked any sort of religious connotations. While there is little insular literary evidence of it, if we turn to the continent and explore some of the sources pertaining to the mannerism of the Druids and the communities they served we can make some observations. According to Cesar (not the most reliable of witnesses) one of the most feared punitive measures a Druid could inflict upon a criminal, was the prohibition of their participation in the communal acts of sacrifice. So while the crimes or transgressions are not seen as religious in and of themselves, the consequence of being unable to participate in the communal rites an sacrifices was seen as a very serious penalty. What is important to recognize, however, is that the decision was not oracular, was not some divine missive, but rather a decision rendered and enforced by the Druids themselves; a temporal penalty for a temporal crime.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="917">
<div sab="934">
<div sab="1300">
<div sab="1304">
<div sab="982">
<div sab="1347">
<div sab="1885">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="918">
<div sab="936">
<div sab="1303">
<div sab="1308">
<div sab="987">
<div sab="1353">
<div sab="1892">
Now, with this in mind and upon closer examination of many of the contemporary continental accounts from Greek and Roman sources, they certainly believed that the Celts they encountered did in fact offer up sacrifices (animal and especially human) in propitiation of the gods. As payment for victory in some coming battle or for the victory they had already received, they would offer up human sacrifices (usually prisoners of war).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="919">
<div sab="938">
<div sab="1306">
<div sab="1312">
<div sab="992">
<div sab="1359">
<div sab="1899">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="919">
<div sab="942">
<div sab="1309">
<div sab="1316">
<div sab="997">
<div sab="1365">
<div sab="1906">
What it all comes down to is the cosmological and theological framework ones point of view is informed by. The Abrahamic's understanding is that humans are a fallen species; either through their mythic progenitor, their own failings, or a combination of the two; their natural state of being is sinful. They also understand their god as being perfect and the origin of the law codes that inform their understanding of morality. Their failings necessarily make them separate from their god, and so acts of repentance and contrition are mandatory to close this distance called sin. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="919">
<div sab="944">
<div sab="1312">
<div sab="1320">
<div sab="1002">
<div sab="1371">
<div sab="1913">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" sab="1321" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody sab="1322">
<tr sab="1323"><td sab="1324" style="text-align: center;"><div sab="1325">
<div sab="1008">
<div sab="1378">
<div sab="1921">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gq56OObIQac/U3em8pQPxoI/AAAAAAAAAMA/CNT62maoLxE/s1600/rainbowdash.jpg" imageanchor="1" sab="1433" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gq56OObIQac/U3em8pQPxoI/AAAAAAAAAMA/CNT62maoLxE/s1600/rainbowdash.jpg" sab="1434" /></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr sab="1328"><td class="tr-caption" sab="1329" style="text-align: center;"><div sab="1330">
<div sab="1014">
<div sab="1385">
<div sab="1929">
This life chose me; I'm not lost in sin.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div sab="1313">
<div sab="1332">
<div sab="1017">
<div sab="1389">
<div sab="1934">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="919">
<div sab="946">
<div sab="1319">
<div sab="1338">
<div sab="1028">
<div sab="1395">
<div sab="1941">
This is not to say that we are "perfect", that we have no room for improvement or betterment. We struggle, we hurt, we fail, we die; yet all of these things are part of the deal. We are not perfect, because life is not perfect, and I rather think that setting up an impossible ideal as attainable (if only through divine intervention) is just that; impossible. You can feel bad about your shortcomings, but you can choose to wallow in them or overcome them. While the term (and philosophy behind it) are purely Greek, <em sab="1031">eudamonia</em> ("the good life") is something which is attainable, and further does not require any impossible ideals of perfection to achieve. Rather, it requires dedication, effort and the realization that it is something which is a reward in and of itself. As virtue ethics is something which is reflected in the medieval literature and is a component of GRP, utilizing the most robust VE system in western philosophy as a means of informing our own approach to ethics is (in my mind) a reasonable adaptation of a pre-existing model. </div>
</div>
<div sab="1397">
<div sab="1944">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div sab="1398">
<div sab="1946">
The middle way is where virtue lives, and it is through living virtuously that we are able to flourish. We relate to and with the gods through mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationships. Make no mistake, we can offend the gods, we can offend our ancestors and we most certainly can offend the spirits of place. There are countless examples from folklore especially, so most of the "feedback" relates to prohibitions against certain actions or the use of particular items when coming into contact with spirits of place.</div>
<div sab="1946">
</div>
<div sab="1946">
The destruction of a hazel was often avoided as much as possible, the avoidance of fairy mounds during construction projects was common in the 19th century, and the prohibition against the use of cold iron in any capacity when dealing with the fair folk are all examples of the fear with which folk practices reinforce the simplicity by which we could offend. Violations of the laws of hospitality, of bringing dishonour to ones self (and by proxy their family and group), disrespecting or desecrating the graves of the dead are likewise examples of the means by which we may offend our ancestors. The means by which we may offend the gods is a bit trickier, violating the rules of hospitality would be among those which are more obvious, as would be the violation of <em>geasa</em>. Yet none of these acts carry with them the same sort of punitive cost found among those religions which contain dogma relating to sin. Certainly the violation of ones <em>geasa</em> will result in ruination and more often than not death, yet this is once more a temporal (if rather fatal) end. No where do we find evidence of further punishment of payment owed beyond the loss of ones own life or honour; no punishment awaits those who violate their sworn oaths, their <em>geasa</em> or give other offence to the gods once their life ends. </div>
<div sab="1946">
</div>
<div sab="1946">
Whether one has lived a fully flourishing life of virtue, or a craven, cowardly life of vice, their ultimate abode is the same. All of us will travel to the live under the care of the Lord of dusk, in his hallowed halls. This is because our behaviour in this life only matters in this life, because for all we know, this is all we get. I believe quite strongly that I will sit with my lord when my time on the mortal coil ends, but I am not certain. I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating: Never forget that we seek to do right by the <em>na trí naomh</em>, that we uphold <em>dírgas,</em> not because we hope to gain admittance to a paradisiacal hereafter, nor for fear and avoidance of eternal penitence and pain, but because by doing so we are allowed to flourish and be excellent. Our live are meant to be lived as best we can, in the here and now, for the sake of living good lives. We have been given the gift of life, the beauty and the horror, that we may stake out a piece of time and space and say, "We were here, we lived, and this is what we were able to do". If we fear for the future, once we are no longer here to contribute to it, than all we have to fear is leaving behind a legacy of ignominy.</div>
<div sab="1946">
</div>
<div sab="1946">
Live freely, fully and fight to win a place for those who come after us, while we honour those who came before us. We are not a degraded, fallen and callow species vainly begging our gods for their forgiveness for not living up to their unobtainable standards. Our gods ask much of us, but never more than we can bear. We are not a repentant lot, asking and receiving the blessings of a sacrifice we have not asked for, nor earned. Our gods accept our sacrifices, but they are ours, we do not ask someone else to pay them for us. All we can do, all that we would ever be expected to do, is live as best we can.</div>
<div sab="1946">
</div>
<div sab="1946">
Thank the gods we live in a world unburdened by sin.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-37587105133704024732014-07-01T20:14:00.000-07:002014-07-02T19:22:25.436-07:00Gods behaving (badly)<div sab="897">
I stared writing this post several months ago, but only now have gotten around to publishing it. Spurred on by the current discussion among some Pagan/Polytheist bloggers relating to the moral character of the gods, it seemed like a good time to put it out there.</div>
<div sab="898">
<br /></div>
<div sab="899">
Calling them "ethical dilemmas" may be a bit of a stretch, a euphemism on my part. No, perhaps they would more properly be labeled as moral failings. Far be it from me to judge the gods, but if the applicability of ethics is upon a cosmic scale, and the deities are supposed to be held to the same (or similar) standards, then whey they fail, what are we to do? What do we take away from a given moral lapse in a story? It is well understood that the gods are not infallible, but when they are deliberately duplicitous or dodgy in their behaviour, the questioning of the correctness of their actions remains.</div>
<div sab="900">
<br /></div>
<div sab="901">
I have a few arguments about this, but lets look at an example first. The event which always springs to my mind when I ponder these sorts of dilemmas, is the conception of <em>Angus Og</em>. <em>Angus</em>' mother, <em>Boann</em>, is married to <em>Nechtan</em>, but is desired by <em>An Dagda</em>. <em>An Dagda</em> convinces <em>Nechtan</em> to go off on some task, so he can have a tryst with Boann. In order to hide their deceit and the fact that <em>An Dagda</em> has made <em>Nechtan</em> a cuckold, <em>An Dagda</em> freezes the sun in the sky for nine months, allowing <em>Aengus Og</em> to be conceived, gestate and born in a single day. This is the origin of his epithet "<em>Og</em>" or "the young". In any case, the story is aware that what <em>An Dagda</em> is doing is morally questionable, and certainly that his actions are deceitful. In one version, <em>Aengus</em> tricks <em>An Dagda</em> into giving up his home, but in another it is<em> Eclmar</em> (in that same version, the husband of <em>Boann</em> in place of <em>Nechtan</em>) who is tricked out of his home, with the aid of <em>An Dagda</em> too boot!</div>
<div sab="902">
<br /></div>
<div sab="903">
One of the first things to consider, upon examining the story, is what its purpose or intent is. There is a tendency to try and understand everything from an immovable ethical standpoint, and this is not unreasonable. Ethics ought to be constant and applicable in any given situation, otherwise they're simply platitudes of convenience and have no real value. On the other hand, it also needs to be understood that not every tale or story is a morality play, and that the point of a story is not always tied to the morality of the characters within it. </div>
<div sab="904">
<br /></div>
<div sab="905">
One figure of generalized disdain who found in Irish myth (though by no means bound to this regional context) is the cuckold; the husband whose wife (or mistress/concubine) is unfaithful to him. As monogamy has been culturally engrained in our collective consciousness and understanding of social patterns, we moderns may often times feel that the cuckold is a figure not to be mocked but to be pitied; after all he is the wronged party in these sorts of affairs. In a fascinating twist, however, the cuckold in these narratives (the story I shared above, and numerous others) is not to be pitied but mocked, derided and insulted. The precedent established, albeit in a decisively Christianized context, was an episode which occurred during the LGE, where <em>Partholón's</em> wife, <em>Delgnat</em> has a tryst with one of their servants while <em>Partholón</em> is away. Discovering his wife's unfaithfulness, he kills the servant and <em>Delgnat's</em> dog, but is chided by her because it was his fault for leaving her alone. The mythic literature is replete with over and under tones of misogyny, and this argument is essential in later tales where the cuckold is held as responsible for the tryst; if he were a better man, his wife (who like all women are inherently untrustworthy) would not seek out others, or so the logic goes. Rarely is the male agent who participates in the tryst held to be in the wrong.</div>
<div sab="906">
<br /></div>
<div sab="907">
Now, turning back to an earlier point I had made, it is incumbent upon is to consider what the purpose of a given story is. The tale of the conception of <em>Angus Og</em> is not a treatise on the sanctity of monogamous marriages, rather it is an expositional narrative explaining why <em>Angus</em> became known as the<em> Mac Og</em>. There are other aspects to consider as well: the narrative definitely succeeds in exemplifying the sexual prowess and appetite of <em>An Dagda</em>, especially when it comes to tueletary goddeses. It also showcases his magical power, being able to suspend the very movement of the sun for nine months, to mention nothing of his cunning. <em sab="908">Eochaid Ollathair</em> did not earn the epithet of "The Good God" because of his moral virtue, but because of his might and proficiency in all that he did.</div>
<div sab="907">
</div>
<div sab="907">
</div>
<div sab="944">
<span lang="EN-US" sab="945">Another example, and one which many GRP’s take to heart as
having a significant impact on their perception of this god, is the leech <i sab="946" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i>. Of all the gods from the
mythic texts, few illicit such vitriol and disdain from such a significant part
of the GRP community. This relates to the mythic narrative where <i sab="947" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i> features prominently, CMT2. <i sab="948" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nuada</i> having recently lost his hand to
the <i sab="949" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fir Bolg Sreng</i>, has <i sab="950" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i> make him a replacement,
composed of silver. <i sab="951" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i>’s son <i sab="952" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Miach</i>, however, believed that he could
do one better than his father, and literally grew <i sab="953" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nuada</i> a new hand. The fury and violence <i sab="954" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i> rained down upon his son for having the audacity to
surpass his father eventually resulted in <i sab="955" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Miach</i>’s
death. <i sab="956" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Airmed</i>, <i sab="957" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Miach</i>’s sister, buried her brother and from his grave grew all of the
plants which were to be used to heal. <i sab="958" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian
Cecht</i>, still having not been satisfied with his punishment, mixed up the
plants so that their healing properties were confused.</span></div>
<div sab="907">
</div>
<div sab="959">
<span lang="EN-US" sab="960">Many GRP’s utterly reject any sort of veneration of <i sab="961" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i>, and refuse to give him the
slightest obeisance. They see in his story not the slight of the young against
the old, or the origin of healing herbs, but an abusive father exacting his
murderous revenge upon his unfortunate son. Some have through UPG also felt
terribly negative energies and emotions when they have encountered this god.
Now it bears mentioning that within the narrative itself, no punishment is
sought out for or exacted upon <i sab="962" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian Cecht</i>
by any of the other gods; no one except <i sab="963" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Airmed</i>
sheds any tears for her murdered brother, not even the god who benefited the
most from his efforts, <i sab="964" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nuada</i>. Give
that the killing of one’s own family was one of the more serious crimes,
according to Brehon law, it is curious that the narrative remains morally
ambivalent in this case. Of course <i sab="965" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dian
Cecht</i> then goes on to aid the gods in their struggle against the <i sab="966" style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fomorians</i>, and his influence is strong
enough that a medieval tract is attributed to him. So here we are faced with a
story which, within its own context is morally neutral, yet to modern
sensibilities is abhorrent (at least to some). </span></div>
<div sab="907">
</div>
<div sab="967">
<span lang="EN-US" sab="968">The final example I wish to examine is the main drive behind the <em sab="969">Oidheadh Chloinne Tuireann</em> (The fate of the Sons of Tuireann), the revenge of <em sab="970">Lugh</em>. I won't go into too much detail, but<em sab="971"> Lugh's</em> father, <em sab="972">Cian</em> and his two brothers were having a dispute with the three sons of Turieann:<em sab="975"> Brian, Iuchar</em> and <em sab="976">Iucharba.</em> <em sab="977">Cian</em> is murdered by the three brothers and his death is covered up, but eventually <em sab="978">Lugh</em> learns the truth and wishes to have the three put to death. He deliberates and debates with the other gods, eventually agreeing to absolve the brothers if they can recover a number of simple objects; the brothers agree. It is only then that <em sab="979">Lugh</em> reveals that the objects are all legendary items obtained only through great hardship and peril. <em sab="980">Lugh</em> fully expected the task to claim the three Brothers lives, but feigned to offer them some assistance under the guise of preparing for the coming battle with the Fomorians. None the less, the Brothers keep their vow and set off to fetch the items. What follows is a very entertaining series of adventures, and the Brothers obtain all that they seek. <em sab="981">Lugh</em>, his plans for revenge being stymied by the skill of the Brothers, makes them forget a few of the items they had not yet obtained, so that they return with several items which would have later on helped them. Upon remembering that they had yet to obtain a few things, but realizing that without their previous spoils could only do so at the cost of their lives, do so none the less (fyi, the final "thing" there were to obtain, " to give three shouts upon a hilltop" ;D ). Rather reminiscent of the later tale of <em>Diarmuid</em> and <em>Grianne</em>, <em>Lugh</em> has the power to heal the three Brothers, but refuses to do so, and achieves his vengeance. Their father, Tuireann, dies of a broken heart at the loss of his sons.</span></div>
<div sab="967">
<span lang="EN-US" sab="968"></span> </div>
<div sab="967">
<span lang="EN-US" sab="968">The question which remains when all is said and done asks whether Lugh was just, or whether he subverted true justice for the sake of petty revenge? To start with, the tale is considered a "tragedy", one of the "Three Great Sorrows of Storytelling", counted along with the <em>Clann Lir </em>(the children of Lir) and <em>Longes mac n-Uislenn</em> (the exile of the sons of Uisliu). It is a tragedy because we come to like and root for the hard pressed <em>Brian, Iuchar</em> and <em>Iucharba</em>, despite their original transgression, and realize that they are doomed by a more cunning and powerful foe, <em>Lugh</em>. If the tasks they are given are supposed to have any sot of redemptive or secondary quality to them (like obtaining powerful items to aid in the struggle against the Fomorians), it is wholly undermined by <em>Lugh's</em> desire for revenge. If on the other hand, the point of the story is to show just how powerful a ruler (and by proxy deity) <em>Lugh</em> is, and that his devotion to his kin surpasses all other concerns, then message received loud and clear. <em>Cian</em> in his final moments foretells that his killers ..."will pay a price heavier than any which came before, and any which would come after." So in this instance there is the voice of the victim to consider as well, and it should also be noted that the three Brother's never really recant their crimes, never show any sign of remorse or wrong doing; only when they realize that it is their own lives which are on the line, do they become forlorn. On the other hand, <em>Lugh</em> as the administer of justice, through the personage of the king, has a duty to meet out just punishment. Clearly <em>Lugh</em> seeks to subvert the terms of the fine he places upon the three Brothers, and so for this perhaps he is acting duplicitously. </span><br />
<br />
So there you have it, three stories which feature gods acting in arguably less than ethical or honourable ways. What then do we, as devout and pious polytheists take from all of this?<br />
<br />
For starters, we need to understand that while these stories may have pedigree stretching back into the pre-Christian past, they are not whole cloth transliterations of pre-Christian myths. They are at best recreations; euhemerized and embellished for the audience they were scripted for, with a particular purpose in mind. Such is the difficulty with adhering to a literal interpretation of the mythic texts, such as they are. The figures reflected in the tales are just that, literary reflections of deities and other mythic figures; this is why I have, and will continue to argue that the corpus of mythic texts are<strong> not</strong> sacred texts. They are the best, most reliable source we have for trying to understand pre-Christian cosmology and mythology, but they are not in and of themselves those myths.<br />
<br />
Secondly, we need to try and understand the myths from within their own cultural and chronological context. As such, we need to try our best to understand the perspective of the author/ audience they were made for. Only then can we appreciate the subtleties and nuances contained within the narratives, and best grasp what meaning they seek to impart upon our wider experience.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, we need to acknowledge that while we can understand their original context, we are not (nor can we be) restricted to a medieval mindset when it comes to our own, modern, concerns. Myths do tell of specific events and these events have meaning within their own time periods, but this does not mean that they can not have other meanings to us in the present day. It is a very fine line to walk, and we must proceed cautiously lest we fall into the pit of universalism or decontextualization; I understand that in the context of the second story, <em>Dian Cecht</em> is never reprimanded or reproached for his infanticide, but I can still feel terrible that it happened. Understanding something in its original context, does not mean that we have to accept that such a context is still valid.<br />
<br />
Finally we ought to take a step back and consider the theological implications and how our understanding of the gods and of our devotion to them relates to our own experiences, and further how this meshes with the stories written about them. Here we move away from literary criticism and dive deep into theology and worldview. Our gods are not infallible, and for many who come from religions which teach that their deities are, this can be a difficult reality to adjust to. Yet adjust to it we must; for the gods are not paragons of virtue, at least not all of the time. The gods do have emotions, can be duplicitous, are given to capriciousness and perhaps even cruelty. Their goals can and may often times be at odds with our own, and bad, terrible things can happen as a result. Yet we continue to be devout, to leave our offerings and make our sacrifices to them; to pray to them and seek their benedictions and favours, their guidance and strength. Do we do so out of fear, of either angering them or seeking out their curses?<br />
<br />
<strong>Of course not.</strong><br />
<br />
The gods may be flawed, but they are far less so than we. We are beings of a social nature, and so to place ourselves within a hermitage for fear of what may come through our bonds, is to deny our very nature. So while their existence is no guarantee of cohesion or safety, social strictures and systems exist to facilitate these interactions. Never forget that while their morality may differ from ours, as those whose sight is long must, the gods are beholden to the same structures which govern the cosmos; even if they are themselves the craftsmen who established, and the stewards who maintain them. <strong><em>Fír</em></strong> is a concept that applies to we mortals, but so to does it apply to the gods; for they are immanent and a part of this world, not apart and withdrawn from it. I have mentioned it before, but the gods do not<strong> need</strong> our worship or our patronage; they were here before us, they will be here long after our bones have withered. Yet they seek us out as often as we seek them, because they <strong>want</strong> our devotion, they want to help us, to help us succeeded because they benefit from our mutual achievement. If nothing else, remember always that we are better for having the gods, but so too are they better for having us.<br />
<br />
We are not gods, we are human beings. We are not their equal in any capacity, for they are necessarily superlative. Yet they do not seek out our subservience, they do not seek to enslave us nor to oppress us. Certainly for a time we were mutually antagonistic towards one another, but this stymied each community to the detriment of both. Our ancestors had the good sense, and the gods had the compassion to realize that cooperation was better than animosity. <br />
<br />
Can the gods be deceitful? <br />
Can they take away as readily as they give? <br />
Can they place their own needs above our own?<br />
<br />
The answer is yes, but just because they can, does not mean they will. A question was asked by a blogger if it was wise to trust the gods; unabashedly, unequivocally, I say yes. <br />
<br />
I say yes, because trust is something which is earned, and the gods have certainly done that.<br />
I say yes, because trust is the foundation upon which relationships are built.<br />
I say yes, because trust is based upon sound judgement.<br />
<br />
I believe that I have developed the faculties and the knowledge to properly entreat with the gods, to understand what would offend them, and to honour them as much in accord with our ancient forbearers as possible. To uphold the oaths I have sworn and to ensure that I make such oaths only with gods who will honour those oaths. I can only speak to my own experiences an with the gods I worship, and so this limits my above arguments to Gaelic deities. Folks coming from other cultural perspectives, YMMV.<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
<br />
-Gorm<br />
<em><strong></strong></em><br />
<strong><em></em></strong> </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-22432667417522059862014-04-20T19:08:00.000-07:002014-04-21T03:42:19.599-07:00Love is overrated<div sab="893">
<div sab="1370">
<div sab="899">
<div sab="960">
<div sab="905">
<div sab="1240">
</div>
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" sab="1241" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody sab="1242">
<tr sab="1243"><td sab="1244" style="text-align: center;"><div sab="1245">
<a href="http://quotes.wishbowl.org/image-code/love-quotes-03.jpg" imageanchor="1" sab="1313" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://quotes.wishbowl.org/image-code/love-quotes-03.jpg" height="320" sab="1314" width="228" /></a></div>
</td></tr>
<tr sab="1248"><td class="tr-caption" sab="1249" style="text-align: center;"><div sab="1250">
Makes for a nice poster, but no, no it isn't.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div sab="905">
<div sab="1252">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="905">
<div sab="1254">
Love is not the be all and end all of everything, but you could be forgiven for mistaking the concept as a panacea for the universe. From literature to film, television to song, religion to philosophy and everything in between, "love" is popularly represented as the ultimate value' surpassing even life itself. In fact, to be without love is held to be one of the greatest tragedies one can have occur during the course of ones life, and to some extent I agree with such a sentiment. Yet the hyperbole and fervor with which western culture has come to understand and laud "love" is so excessive that other values and pursuits utterly pale in comparison. Honour, Justice, Valour or Wisdom? Fuck all of that shit, all the world needs is love. Well, I beg to differ, but as always a caveat, lest you think me curmudgeonly.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1372">
<div sab="902">
<div sab="964">
<div sab="910">
<div sab="1260">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1374">
<div sab="905">
<div sab="968">
<div sab="915">
<div sab="1266">
I am in love, have been in love and will likely continue to be in love until I die. I am happily married, and in my wedding vows expressed the depths of my commitment and love for my wife. This is not a polemic against the idea of romantic love, or love in general. Rather, my goal is to explore the culture which has been built up around the centrality of love as the singular goal worth striving for in ones life, and argue that for GRP's this model is untenable and other values are just as, if not more important than love. Remember that love is important, just over rated.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1376">
<div sab="908">
<div sab="972">
<div sab="920">
<div sab="1272">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1378">
<div sab="911">
<div sab="976">
<div sab="925">
<div sab="1278">
Popular fiction is the flagship for so many of a societies' values, of its aspirations and dreams, that it is difficult to find a more staunch proponent of love as the be all and end all of human endeavour. I realize, as a matter of course, that outliers in both forms of media exist, but they remain outliers; exceptions to the rule remain just that, exceptions. While it is encouraging to see satirical and critical examinations of this cultural obsession with love, they have remained ineffectual in shifting any paradigms beyond sub genre and subculture (even the disparate counter cultures that have arisen have accepted love as a central value, if slightly redefined to buck the mainstream).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1380">
<div sab="914">
<div sab="980">
<div sab="930">
<div sab="1284">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1382">
<div sab="917">
<div sab="984">
<div sab="935">
<div sab="1290">
Fiction and music, on the whole, emphasize love and in the broadest sense this is meant as <em sab="1383">eros</em>, or romantic love. It is remarkable enough if a film or story does not contain some element in which the male and female leads become romantically involved. Or, to put it another way, while the quest element of a film may not be romance in and of itself, said romance often enough supplants the quest, to become the real point of the story. Let's look at one of my favourite of the current Marvel Studio's films, 'Thor", to showcase this perspective. "Thor" is a very basic story at it's roots, it is a component of the "hero's quest" where as a consequence of the hero's vanity or hubris, conflict emerges, the hero is removed from his lofty position and forced to redeem himself through trial and tribulation. Yes, the film cuts out the element of the origin story involving the crippled doctor, which was essentially retconed away in the later comics anyway, substituting pathos for slapstick, but I digress. Thor, in his very brief jaunt on earth, also falls in love, and while it is a subplot to the greater narrative of the film, by the time the credits begin to roll, the love between Jane Foster and Thor frames everything which is to follow (and indeed does in the sequel.) Thor, then has redeemed himself in the eyes of his father and community, yet he remains distraught because he was forced to (temporarily) sacrifice the aforementioned love. So here is the first really solid point; even when there is no "happy ending" (where the couple is together at the end of the film), the act of sacrificing that relationship has untold power and value. So much so that this romantic love supplants the value of compassion and leadership; a lesson is learned, but the cost is great (too great it seems). What is the point of all this new found wisdom, if Thor can't be with the woman he loves? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1385">
<div sab="921">
<div sab="989">
<div sab="941">
<div sab="1297">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1387">
<div sab="924">
<div sab="993">
<div sab="946">
<div sab="1303">
Now, this is but one example of the multitude of film, and I could go on and on about romance supplanting the original values sought, but I'm fairly certain that as far as film and romance goes, it is self evident. So I turn now to other variations of love in other films: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1389">
<div sab="927">
<div sab="997">
<div sab="951">
<div sab="1309">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1391">
<div sab="930">
<div sab="1001">
<div sab="956">
<div sab="1315">
The LOTR films cover an enormous swath of geography and characters, if a short period of time (in the main narrative anyway). The upshot is that that while the romantic elements were heavily expanded upon in the films (particularly the Aragorn, Arwen, Éowyn love triangle) it never manages to eclipse everything else that happens. So while Jackson did his best to shoehorn in romance (after all, audiences crave it) the kind of love that was the focus of the film was <em sab="1392">philia </em>and <em sab="1393">agape</em> (or friendship and selfless devotion). I think the films did an admirable job of translating this component of the novels, if only to be utterly misunderstood by audiences and relentlessly mocked. Modern movie going folk were so utterly ignorant of concepts like <em sab="1394">philia</em> and <em sab="1395">agape</em> (outside of a very famous, yet specific context) that they themselves invented their own romantic subplot, homoerotic as it may have been. Of particular note is the relationship between Sam and Frodo, an exemplar of <em sab="1396">agape</em> love if there ever was one. Sam is utterly devoted to Frodo, is willing to travel the breadth of the world they inhabit, to the very source of the evil they seek to destroy, to the extent of being willing to sacrifice his life should the need arise. Such devotion is admirable, especially since it is reciprocated by Frodo. Yet the framework for such a relationship, the means of understanding and explaining such selfless devotion between two people who were not blood relatives, was for the vast majority of people, <em sab="1397">eros</em>. Or more accurately, since no physical expression of this love occurs, the subtext was held to have been extremely homoerotic. So while it is a subtext, and such is usually the source of humour, the point remains that <em sab="1398">agape</em> love was the linchpin of the entire story; "Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without Sam."</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1399">
<div sab="939">
<div sab="1011">
<div sab="967">
<div sab="1327">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1400">
<div sab="941">
<div sab="1014">
<div sab="971">
<div sab="1332">
Turning now to Harry Potter, the power of love, particularly <em sab="1401">storge</em> (or familial love), is hammered home again, and again, and again. An old and powerful magic, a mother putting herself between harm and her child; powerful enough to destroy the most powerful dark wizard of all time. Throughout the novels, this protection remains until it transforms into something different. It is at this point that we can move away from looking at fiction to sourcing the centrality of love to something else. In the last film Harry sacrifices himself to save his friends, the order of the Phoenix and everyone else at Hogwarts. He purposefully seeks out his own death in payment for the protection of those he loves. Note, however, that it is not simply Ginny Weasley he seeks to protect, but everyone. What is not presented in the film, however, is the result that his sacrifice has (other than destroying the penultimate Horcrux). In the novels, his sacrifice literally protects everyone from Voldemort's magic, which is rendered utterly ineffectual. Is it any wonder than that there exist books like "Jesus Potter Harry Christ"?, because the only way the parallel could have been stronger is if Harry had of been crucified (well he was crucio'd...). The day is saved by love, <em sab="1402">agape</em> love, and this is precisely the sort of love which is exemplified in the central figure in the Christian religion, Jesus Christ.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="893">
<div sab="1404">
<div sab="946">
<div sab="1020">
<div sab="978">
<div sab="1340">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1405">
<div sab="948">
<div sab="1023">
<div sab="982">
<div sab="1345">
Here we come face to face with that "very famous, specific" example of love understood outside the confines of romance or kinship. The love of Christ, the love for which his apostles forswore all else to seek after him, and which he ultimately sacrificed himself for, was one of utter devotion. An utter devotion so intense that it spread to the whole of humanity, for all of time. So while the precise term <em sab="1406">agape</em> may be relatively underutilized in common parlance; the value and significance of what it represents has been one of the singular forces shaping western culture for the past two millennia. Christians are theologically conditioned to recognize that sacrifice as the most important single act in human history, and western culture certainly follows suit. There are few acts held to be as noble or inspiring as the willingness of someone to give up their own life, for that of another. So while sacrifice is by no means unique to Christianity, as far as cultural underpinnings go, it is difficult to escape the impact this model of sacrifice has had upon western culture in general. So to by proxy the value of love as expressed through the teachings of Christ ( "But now faith, hope, love abide these three; but the greatest of these is love" Corinthians 13:13, "...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" Mark 12:31) have also had a profound impact upon the culture.*<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
This is the "love" so often sung about, so often expressed across religious bounds, which has over time mingled, very gradually, with the idea of romantic love. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1427">
<div sab="951">
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="987">
<div sab="1351">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1428">
<div sab="953">
<div sab="1030">
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1356">
Having established how love is represented and why it is held among moderns to be the ultimate pursuit, let us turn our attention to sources from Gaelic myth which touch upon and explore the importance of love (in its various forms). The two tales I would like to focus on are: ""<em sab="955">Longes mac n-Uislenn</em> " and "<em sab="956">Tóraigheacht Dhiarmada agus Ghráinne</em> ".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1428">
<div sab="958">
<div sab="1036">
<div sab="997">
<div sab="1363">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1428">
<div sab="960">
<div sab="1039">
<div sab="1001">
<div sab="1368">
<em sab="961">Longes mac n-Uislenn</em>, or "The exile of the sons of Uisliu" is often grouped among the <em sab="962">remscéla</em> (or fore-tales) of the <em sab="963">"Táin Bó Cúaligne".</em> The purpose of the story, as it relates to the <em sab="964">Táin</em>, is that it explains why Fergus and other Ulster heroes are fighting for the Connachtmen during said story. The basic plot revolves around Deirdre, a maiden betrothed to Conchobar, falling in love with Noisiu, their elopement, trials in exile, eventual return, betrayal and violent deaths. I certainly do not do it justice here, but the reason the tale is relevant to this discussion is the action/decision upon which the bulk of the narrative hangs; Deirdre's and Noisiu's elopement. The "young lady intended for an old man, falls for young man, and they run off" trope is of a rather ancient pedigree, and this tale is a shining example of that trope. Deirdre is raised, almost to the extent of being cloistered, for the sole purpose of becoming a wife of Conchobar. She by chance happens to see Noisiu, and his beauty overwhelms her, and despite his initial protestations he too falls for her beauty. They elope, and flee Ireland to settle in Scotland, and the tale goes on. Conchobar is understandably furious, and being a schemer, arranges for their return that he may have his revenge. Noisiu and his brothers are eventually killed, and as punishment for her crimes Deirdre is made to marry Eogan mac Duthacht (the man who killed Noisiu), upon which she kills herself by leaping from a chariot and smashing her head against a rock. The tale is rightly so grouped among the "three most sorrowful tales of Irish literature", and we as readers cannot help but feel bad for Deidre and Noisiu, and hate Conchobar. Except Conchobar is in the right. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1428">
<div sab="966">
<div sab="1046">
<div sab="1009">
<div sab="1377">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1428">
<div sab="968">
<div sab="1049">
<div sab="1013">
<div sab="1382">
That's right, Conchobar is totally justified in his anger at this betrayal, by his own nephew even, and that his intended bride ran off with another man. His later actions are abhorrent, his eventual betrayal of Fergus unforgivable, and his final treatment of Deirdre terrible, but he is initially right. Deirdre and Noisiu both knew what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway regardless of the very dire consequences sure to happen. Noisiu's brothers both try to convince him that his actions are folly, that death and disaster would pursue them, but being unable to convince him, go along with him. Conchobar's honour is impugned, and the honour price is steep. This entire calamity could have been avoided if only two young lovers had resisted their passion, and acted according to their duty. I realize this is anathema to modern sensibilities, but there in lies the rub. Romantic love trumps duty and obligation now, but that shit did not fly in Iron Age Ireland. So, lets move on to the next tale. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="968">
<div sab="1056">
<div sab="1016">
<div sab="1386">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="968">
<div sab="1058">
<div sab="1019">
<div sab="1390">
The second tale to examine is <em sab="1059">Tóraigheacht Dhiarmada agus Ghráinne</em> , or "The pursuit of Diarmuid and Grianne", which is part of the Fenian cycle. One of the more widely known Fenian tales, and great favourite of folklore (considering how many stones are recounted as "beds of Diarmuid and Grianne" which dot the Irish countryside). The motif is the same as the tale above, but the consequences play out slightly different. Grianne is yet another Irish beauty of legend, and is also intended to Fionn mac Cumhaill (again in this narrative considerably older than Grianne). The other figure of note in this tale is Diarmuid Ua Duibhne, one of Fionn's retainers and core member of the Fianna under Fionn's leadership. Grianne, being disappointed with the prospect of becoming the aged Fionn's wife, places a sleeping draught in the cups of the Fianna, and leaves only a handful of them awake. She asks each of the still conscious men to elope with her, but they all refuse. She then places a geis upon Diarmuid, that forces him to run off with her. Diarmuid is reluctant but has little recourse, and they flee. Fionn awakes and in righteous anger pursues the couple across the whole of Ireland, with many interesting events occurring, including the continued aid of Aengus Og, Diarmuid's foster father. Eventually Fionn pardons the couple, and they marry and have several children. The addendum to the tale involves the culmination of this and another tale, where Diarmuid is gored to death after slaying a giant boar. Fionn has the chance to heal Diarmuid, three times even, but each time declines to do so, and Diarmuid dies.</div>
</div>
<div sab="1019">
<div sab="1393">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1019">
<div sab="1395">
So the end result is tragic, but not nearly as tragic as the tale with Deirdre and Noisiu, as Diarmuid and Grainne do wind up together and have children. Fionn is represented as the primary antagonist throughout the narrative, and is made fool of on many occasions. Yet, the entire affair began because of the decision of Grianne to abandon her sworn oath to marry Fionn, because of her love for Diarmuid, and their fate was sealed the moment she placed a geis upon Diarmuid to elope with her. As much as the reader is meant to root for the young lovers against the aged rival, that Fionn's anger and pursuit of the pair who wronged him is never in question. Fionn is utterly humiliated and disgraced by those whom he trusted, Diarmuid breaks his own vows of loyalty to his leader, and disharmony abounds. As light hearted as the narrative is, and despite the initial positive result for the lovers, Diarmuid's death is a direct result of this tragedy. Both men are good and just, fair and honourable, yet because love is allowed to supersede duty and obligation, tragedy (eventually) comes to pass. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="968">
<div sab="1061">
<div sab="1023">
<div sab="1399">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1428">
<div sab="972">
<div sab="1064">
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1404">
The singular point which leaps off the page, one of the central "morals" of the tales, is that when romantic love is placed before duty, grave consequences follow. This is again not to under value love, as the motif of "wasting" or "love" sickness is common enough; the power of love is undeniable. Only that from the perspective of the culture, when romance is placed above all else, disaster and tragedy are the consequences. As difficult as it may be for modern sensibilities about the role that romance and individual choice play in marriage, such was not the case during the period in question. I have long argued that the values, the core ethical framework which bound pre-Christian Gaelic society together (and for a considerable time after the conversion to Christianity) were communal in nature; the good of the group came well before the good of the individual. While it would be foolish to seek after a return to wholly communal values (individualism is far too ingrained in us now), as GRP's we ought to be doing our best to restore and live by the ethics which are the legacy of our forebear's. Indeed if any form of love I have discussed above was held to be important, it would have been <em sab="973">storge</em>, or kinship. The loyalty to ones family, the family's loyalty to the clan, the clans loyalty to the<em sab="1066"> tuatha</em>; was the microcosmic supporting the macrocosmic. Considering how great a crime like kin-slaying was, this comes as no surprise. Romantic love, also, has its place and is the focus of many tales, but you will note that in such tales where it is treated as noble and worth striving for, it is never at the cost of honour or society in general.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="972">
<div sab="1068">
<div sab="1032">
<div sab="1410">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="972">
<div sab="1070">
<div sab="1035">
<div sab="1414">
There needs to be a balance between ones passion and ones duty, and we see time and time again in the tales the consequences of passion gone too far. Ruination follows in its wake, primarily because it stands against tradition and the right order of things. We may root for the lovers, sympathetic as they may be, but their transgressions threaten not only themselves, but their communities as well. Here then is the dissonance between modern sensibilities inherent in the over culture, and our adopted values as GRP's. In the sort of generalized ethical modes, or categories present in CR, of the values espoused by the texts, love is notably absent. Wisdom, Justice, Honour, Loyalty, Courage are however all present, and certainly love can have a place within such concepts (particularly loyalty and courage), but it ought not to supersede them. Honour, for example, is one of the most romanticized virtues and values, yet it is so misunderstood that it is rejected out of hand. Honour necessarily exists only where the is community to render an individual as honourable. It is a virtue that can not exist alongside rugged individualism, because honour is inexorably linked to reputation. How often in films or fiction does ones reputation count for nothing, how easily is it abandoned for the sake of love? Remarkably simple really; reputation counts for nothing when it stands in the way of love, and so to must honour. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="972">
<div sab="1072">
<div sab="1038">
<div sab="1418">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="972">
<div sab="1074">
<div sab="1041">
<div sab="1422">
If we are to openly and fully live as GRP's, then there will be times where we are at odds with our families, friends, cohorts and society at large; at least when it comes to ethics and behaviours. Many of our values overlap, but often enough they are at odds with positions so taken for granted, they are the default. The first step is to recognize that these differences exist and that the default cultural conditioning needs to be overwritten. As I mentioned in my <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2014/04/a-blog-of-most-boastful-nature.html" sab="1076" target="_blank">previous post,</a> given that we have already bucked the trend of a monotheistic approach to deity; that other conceptual changes need to occur should be obvious, but not terribly difficult to accomplish. This may cause some friction with other people in our lives, yet if we really do seek to fully embrace GRP then it has to extend beyond our devotions to the <em sab="1043">na trí naomh</em>. It needs to encompass our very way of seeing and being in the world and this extends to how we comport ourselves, the values we embody and which we need to transmit to future generations. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1074">
<div sab="1045">
<div sab="1427">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1074">
<div sab="1047">
<div sab="1430">
We can not turn back the clock, and there is a multitude of reasons that even if we could, we would not want to. It is important to recognize that we do not live in the Iron Age, just as it is important to recognize that reconstruction in not re-enactment. Not every scrap and every practice is valuable to a 21st century worldview, but this does not preclude that the values of our ancestors which may have been placed on the cultural back burner should also be forgotten. There is so much value in restoring, well, more antiquated values and these values naturally flow from our more overtly religious devotion and the tales which inform that devotion. So enjoy romance, celebrate friendship, reinforce ties of kinship, and devote yourself to those who are worthy of your devotion. Just be mindful that love isn't the only thing worth living for: live with honour, speak with truth, act with valour, judge with wisdom and enjoy with hospitality.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1074">
<div sab="1049">
<div sab="1433">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1074">
<div sab="1051">
<div sab="1436">
-Gorm.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="899">
<div sab="1431">
<div sab="983">
<div sab="1090">
<div sab="1056">
<div sab="1442">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1431">
<div sab="985">
<div sab="1093">
<div sab="1060">
<div sab="1447">
* For a slightly more in depth examination of this cultural shift, see Kelly and Dryfus, "All Things Shining".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-6252276044887907132014-04-14T20:44:00.001-07:002014-04-14T20:48:13.981-07:00A blog of a most boastful nature<div class="separator" sab="146" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" sab="203" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-33opDm9vqXk/Uyx32gZTxLI/AAAAAAAAAL0/iR5kqfw3Rik/s1600/white_not_arrogant_better_than_you_card-p137434357865911045q0yk_400.jpg" imageanchor="1" sab="204" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-33opDm9vqXk/Uyx32gZTxLI/AAAAAAAAAL0/iR5kqfw3Rik/s1600/white_not_arrogant_better_than_you_card-p137434357865911045q0yk_400.jpg" height="320" sab="205" width="320" /></a></div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="893">
<div sab="894">
<div sab="894">
<div sab="1233">
<div sab="897">
<div sab="898">
<div sab="1242">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="895">
<div sab="897">
<div sab="898">
<div sab="1238">
<div sab="903">
<div sab="905">
<div sab="1250">
Let's talk about boasting.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="897">
<div sab="900">
<div sab="902">
<div sab="1243">
<div sab="909">
<div sab="912">
<div sab="1258">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="899">
<div sab="903">
<div sab="906">
<div sab="1248">
<div sab="915">
<div sab="919">
<div sab="1266">
An odd topic, to be sure, yet one which is worth having a discussion about. Boasting, and to be specific and framing this post in its proper context, ritualized boasting is something which has almost universally fallen by the wayside. Few people enjoy braggarts and those supercilious types whose favourite topic of discussion fails to extend past their own nose. It wasn't always like this though, and given the right context, such arrogance and unabashed self promotion are considered the norm. I need to place a caveat, however, before going any further.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="901">
<div sab="906">
<div sab="910">
<div sab="1253">
<div sab="921">
<div sab="926">
<div sab="1274">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="903">
<div sab="909">
<div sab="914">
<div sab="1258">
<div sab="927">
<div sab="933">
<div sab="1282">
For those of you who frequent this blog or are acquainted with me via other media, who do not already know, I hail from Canada. Born and raised, immersed in whatever it is that constitutes Canadian culture and by proxy our reputation often proceeds us. The idea of being boastful (outside of our jocular Hockey culture) as a national ethic is very much universally anathema to the image we have of ourselves, and others have of us. Self deprecation is built into our collective psyches, and is a national characteristic. We joke well and often, yet generally at our own expense as much as at others. So the idea of boasting in general is slightly problematic, and I have found through the musing and typing out this post, a varying degree of discomfort in, well practical applications. So now that this sentiment is out there, we can proceed. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="905">
<div sab="912">
<div sab="918">
<div sab="1263">
<div sab="933">
<div sab="940">
<div sab="1290">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="907">
<div sab="915">
<div sab="922">
<div sab="1268">
<div sab="939">
<div sab="947">
<div sab="1298">
Within the tales, and more often than not singularly contained within the Ulster Cycle, we find countless examples of the heroes of Ulster and Connacht gathered around a table, talking shit to one another. While tales like <em sab="916">Fled Bricrenn </em>(The Feast of Bricriu) certainly contain boasts, they also contain actual challenges so I would argue that the seminal example of this genre tale is <em sab="917">Scél Mucci Mic Dathó </em>(The Story of Mac Dathó's Pig). Cú is notably absent, and so it falls to Conall Cernach to save the honour of the Ulstermen from the besmirchment of the Connaughtmen. Found within the tale (and mind you there is a distinct possibility that the tale is largely satirical or parody in nature) are some of the best examples of ritualized boasting, utilized as a means of establishing the proper division of a roast boar for the various hero's gathered under one roof. Historically there is evidence that the ritualized element of the boasting was a way to keep hostile guests from shedding blood while under the banner of hospitality, while still allowing them to maintain their honour in the presence of their enemies. Given that this particular tale ends in a bloody rout of the Connachtmen, the idea that it is satirical holds perhaps some more weight than it may otherwise have. Given that there is considerable reason to hold many of the Ulster tales may have a satirical edge to them, drawing too deep a conclusion based upon them is unwise. Regardless, there is clearly evidence in other examples of tales where boasting is utilized to establish and maintain propriety, so misgivings aside, holding that there was some ritualized element to it is reasonable.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="907">
<div sab="919">
<div sab="927">
<div sab="1274">
<div sab="946">
<div sab="955">
<div sab="1307">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="907">
<div sab="921">
<div sab="930">
<div sab="1278">
<div sab="951">
<div sab="961">
<div sab="1314">
This is all well and good for a medieval set of tales depicting a mythological iron age, hero-elite society, but like so much else concerning GRP, where does it leave us? Boastfulness is generally considered bad form, base and boorish behaviour among polite company, and save from a few accepted situations (i.e. "trash talking" in the build up to a sporting event, "diss tracks" among hip-hop or rap artists, and commercial advertising in general) is a vice if there ever was one.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="909">
<div sab="924">
<div sab="934">
<div sab="1283">
<div sab="957">
<div sab="968">
<div sab="1322">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="920">
<div sab="911">
<div sab="927">
<div sab="938">
<div sab="1288">
<div sab="963">
<div sab="975">
<div sab="1330">
So, occasionally I utilize Google to locate images to post to supplement the blog, break up the blocks of text and try to avoid tl:dr. The interesting thing is that doing a Google image search using the word "boasting" returned several hundred images, most of them were of an anti-boasting pedigree. As I had suspected, there is a great deal of Christian influence pertaining to this particular sentiment, or rather once more the cultural legacy of Christian morality remains ever present. At a fundamental level, and across varying delineations of Christianity, humility is lauded as a central virtue. Catholics, of course, hold humility as the holy benediction inverse to the deadly sin of pride; The Orthodox church has the commentaries of St. Chrysostom, such as homily III: " 8. Let us beware therefore of saying anything about ourselves, for this renders us both odious with men and abominable to God. For this reason, the greater the good works we do, the less let us say of ourselves; this being the way to reap the greatest glory both with men and with God." Evangelicals also hold that "everything is to be given up to god" and to be "boastful in Christ", that is they are not responsible for their own fortunes or good works, but that Christ alone is to be given the glory. As far as something can be held to be uniform among Christendom, the fundamental rejection of pride in favour of humility is quite clear.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="911">
<div sab="929">
<div sab="941">
<div sab="1292">
<div sab="968">
<div sab="981">
<div sab="1337">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="911">
<div sab="931">
<div sab="944">
<div sab="1296">
<div sab="973">
<div sab="987">
<div sab="1344">
So, this is where the culture shock comes, and given my caveat above, it strikes with abundant force. If almost every notion of modern propriety enforces that boasting is problematic, vainglorious and rude, then is it something worth trying to reclaim and reinvigorate? Among the more general neoPagan community, humility is still held as superior to pride, non-judgement to judgement, and one has to look no further than any number of Pagan blogs to see, to say nothing of the more pluralistic and "open" religions and spiritualities floating about. Confounding things among a wide, diverse conglomeration who often enough reject things on the basis of their being held to be Christian (or being a problematic element of a given Christian dogma), is that the rejection of judgement (which through hyperbole metamorphs to be cognate with self-righteousness) inherently accepts the very Christian rejection of pride. Through the deliberate rejection of a virtue held to be Christian, a virtue which runs through most ancient polytheism's is likewise rejected. The baby has indeed been tossed out with the bath water.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="931">
<div sab="946">
<div sab="1299">
<div sab="977">
<div sab="992">
<div sab="1350">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="931">
<div sab="948">
<div sab="1302">
<div sab="981">
<div sab="997">
<div sab="1356">
Complicating the picture, for me at least, are some other texts which (unlike the Bible or scriptural commentaries) I actually ascribe to, which caution against boastfulness. In one of the most commonly utilized wisdom texts, "The Instructions of King Cormac", Cormac extolls that when he was a lad "he was not boastful" and warns against being "too conceited". It merits pointing out that this text was clearly written with significant Christian morals being extolled, yet is not necessarily a summary rejection of pride, nor of boasting. The earlier lesson pertained to Cormac's behaviour while in his youth, and that boastfulness was unbecoming to a future king. Given that in the heroic literature we have, none of the figures portrayed as kings (or queens) participated in the boasting contests. |Such acts of bravado, then, were left to the warrior class. Likewise, the caveat to warn against being excessively self congratulatory in no way prohibits the maintenance of recognizing ones own accomplishments and prowess in a self congratulatory manner. It is clear then that our more ancient forbearers were not shy about self promotion and hyperbole concerning their own exploits. The question then becomes, ought we do the same? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="911">
<div sab="933">
<div sab="951">
<div sab="1306">
<div sab="986">
<div sab="1003">
<div sab="1363">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="911">
<div sab="935">
<div sab="954">
<div sab="1310">
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1009">
<div sab="1370">
As reconstructionists, we rely on historic, mythic and folkloric evidence to develop a framework for honouring the <em sab="1311">na trí naomh,</em> which in turn fosters the way in which we perceive the world around us and interact with it. Yet we also recognize that we are not ancient Gaels, and that this is not the Iron Age; we are decidedly modern and so need to live and flourish in a modern context. While historic, practices such as human sacrifice, head hunting and cattle raiding are anathema to modern ethical systems and law codes. But these are easy enough to replace or abandon; with symbolic rites or recognizing that cattle raiding in an economy that is not based on livestock is pointless. Other components of given cultural practices are decidedly messier to carve away while still leaving enough in tact to build from.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1012">
<div sab="1374">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1014">
<div sab="1377">
So moving forward, what is to be done? I would make the case that boasting, or at the very least ritualized boasting, is a practice which is worth restoring and adopting to our ways. Not because boasting is an intrinsic component of any proper model of GRP; given that GRP has gotten this far without it, such ought to be a given. Not because I (or GRP's) in general are a conceited, arrogant lot (the Canadian within me again cringes). No, I stand up for boasting because boldness is necessary in order for many of us to overcome and supplant our existing cultural/societal inclinations. I have long contended that GRP is most accurately a lifeway, and not just a religious or spiritual component of ones life. This compartmentalization, the idea that one is religious on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 12 and 6 pm, that ones honour only matters when participating in an online discussion, or that you switch off your inclination to mystic experiences because they're kind of inconvenient at work, results in a fractured, broken experience which is simply untenable in the long run.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1016">
<div sab="1380">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1018">
<div sab="1383">
Internalization is the key, and the first step to the adoption of a considerably different worldview from the one many of us were raised with, is becoming divorced from it. This is not a call for the abandonment of modernity or the wholesale rejection of modern western culture (or whatever regional/national variant thereof one exists in). Rather, it is a call to replace some of the existing cultural and social norms, the perspectives taken for granted, with those which foster GRP. Already we are outliers from the vast majority of our families, friends and cohorts; owing to our adherence to polytheism, animism and ancestor worship. So while the <em sab="1019">na trí naomh </em>are the core objects of our religious devotion and activity, they are but a piece of a greater whole. Developing ethics, behavioural standards which allow for the celebration and maintenance of our ancestral values, is necessary and deciding which characteristics encourage human flourishing (in a GRP context), and which stymie it requires examination and reflection. That many of the virtues lauded as such are at loggerheads with existing ethical frameworks or societal values is to be expected, and this can (and will) make for some uncomfortable moments. It may very well be something with which to struggle for as long as it takes to supplant our preconditioning with conscious adoption, but this to is necessary.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1021">
<div sab="1387">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1023">
<div sab="1390">
So we now return to the place and value of boasting among GRP's. Boasting, to speak fervently and with occasional exaggeration of ones accomplishments and abilities, without descending into arrogance, is only possible when one holds their own accomplishments and abilities worthwhile. Combining eloquence, good judgement and self confidence in such a way as to impress upon others that you are worthy of respect and are honourable. So, when it comes right down to it, boasting naturally reinforces other virtues as well, such as pride and honour. Pride is something I have mentioned many times (here and elsewhere) and is one of the virtues which has been inverted and held to be a vice, held to be a grave sin by some. I'll not go into why this is the case, and only mention that here is yet another example of a perspective which finds itself at odds with the dominant paradigm. Yet pride in measure is a rather laudable value to have, as it fosters self worth and that we should be striving always for excellence, while shunning mediocrity. Honour is yet another virtue that is held to be worth having, if it remains misunderstood in modern parlance. Honour only really makes sense as a communal recognition of the value an individual has within that community. This is accomplished by ones behaviour and actions within that community, and it is by our community that one is held to be honourable or dishonourable. I'm hoping that the intertwining threads of honour, pride and boasting are evident by this point; yet this is by one component of a much larger tapestry. (I'll stop with the textile metaphor now).</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1025">
<div sab="1393">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="991">
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1396">
The next step, then, is implementation and incorporation; how best to do this? One source we can look to for, inspiration if nothing else, is the Heathen community. Symbel will, depending on the gravitas attached to it during the occasion, often times include a component where boasts are made. This will most frequently occur during the period where past oaths are recounted, and new oaths are sworn in front of the assembly, and given the necessary link between action and honour, such boasting is appropriate and comfortable. If we take a step back from the adversarial tone the medieval literature provides in such cases (considering then that there may have been a satirical edge in such accounts), and instead reflect that such moments have a component of the sacral to them, community feasts or celebrations are the most appropriate venues for one to boast. If the goal is to self aggrandize while simultaneously representing the community as composed of strong, capable and proud people, then such boasting can only have a positive effect. Helping to foster a spirit of excellence and community and instilling honour as a central virtue, I honestly believe that we can make it work.</div>
</div>
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1398">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1400">
Thoughts?</div>
</div>
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1402">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1404">
- Gorm</div>
</div>
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1406">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1027">
<div sab="1408">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-83728950267676683502014-03-13T07:51:00.002-07:002014-03-13T07:51:53.629-07:00Pagans, Polytheists and St. Patrick's Day<div sab="166">
Just a quick update, I have a short article recently published on the<a href="http://www.gaolnaofa.com/website-updates/new-stuff-article-and-youtube-channel/" sab="260" target="_blank"> Gaol Naofa site</a>, which ties into an earlier piece on <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.com/2013/10/oisin-or-cailte.html" sab="168" target="_blank">Oisin, Cailte and Patrick</a>, and explores the tumultuous relationship between we as modern polytheists and the reality of a heavily Christian past. There are also two short videos which explore some of the broader points of St. Patrick's day, stereotypes, problems and so forth. If you've some time, have a gander.</div>
<div sab="166">
</div>
<div sab="166">
-Gorm.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-75374266213548048042014-02-13T20:00:00.000-08:002014-02-13T20:00:18.720-08:00So (explitive) Pious<div sab="1723">
<div sab="1055">
<div sab="930">
Some recent Troll activity on my blog has got me to thinking, so thank you anonymous Troll, you've actually helped me to generate content. One term which came up, time and time again in this childish tantrum that was supposed to come off as "comments", was piousness; specifically my own. It was used in an effort to deride, and I find this rather confusing: when did piety make the transition from virtue to vice?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1724">
<div sab="1057">
<div sab="933">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1725">
<div sab="1059">
<div sab="936">
The context tended towards the adjective "fucking" with the coordinating conjunction "so". I believe the fault may lie with the Troll, who just tacked on pious as some abutment to the real insult, sanctimony. Generally for piety to be insulting or used to damage ones honour, it requires a proper noun to imply a more problematic state: "pious fraud" or "pious hypocrite". Both of those phrases are certainly equivalent to the state of sanctimony, so using them together is rather redundant. Certainly this followed, as the word sanctimonious did pop up in one or two of the diatribes, but again it beguiles one as to why piety would itself be considered problematic?</div>
</div>
<div sab="1060">
<div sab="938">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1061">
<div sab="940">
Pious (from the Latin <span sab="1064" style="color: black;"><em sab="1082">pīus</em>, derived from the pIE<em sab="1083">-*pey</em>) is the quality of piety [reverence or devotion to something (generally a deity)] one has. It has been a hallmark of the character of an individual or group as it relates to being in good standing with the gods (or later God), and so has generally been an uncontested virtue, as far as virtues go. <em sab="944">Pietas</em>, (i.e. piety) in the Roman world was often contrasted with <em sab="945">superstitio</em> (the root of the English "superstition", but different in meaning) which was a slavish devotion borne out of fear of the gods anger. The former is virtuous because it encourages behaviours which foster the proper relationship one ought to have with the gods; whereas the later is a vice because while it too engenders devotion, it is a devotion rooted in a dysfunctional relationship with the gods. How then have we gotten to a point where piety is something which is in itself problematic?</span></div>
</div>
<div sab="1061">
<div sab="947">
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1061">
<div sab="949">
Well, by arriving at a cultural view where everything and everyone are inherently corrupt or flawed to some degree, and so thus rendering piety as sanctimony. This is interesting, because the two terms are related, and so this is a visible descent within the context of language. There was a period when sanctimonious (from the Latin <em sab="950">sanctimonia</em>, holy/sacred action) was cognate with pious; at some point, however, the term became synonymous with false piety. The idea that an individual or group was putting on airs to appear pious, but that their actions were not at all reflective of such a state of being. Perhaps this new found disdain for piety itself is simply a continuation of this descent. Though, and this is where things start to branch off, piety is not the only term which (may) be one so loaded with cultural baggage that for many coming from minority theological positions, that it isn't worth "saving".</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1726">
<div sab="1066">
<div sab="953">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1729">
<div sab="1068">
<div sab="956">
This touches on a much wider theological discussion (one which is to some degree or another ongoing among polytheistic and Pagan bloggers), but a conclusion which many seem to reach is this: having these discussions is, while not difficult, complicated by the predominant theological framework our language (in this case English, but it could be extended to any Western one, Gaelic [broadly] being no exception) and culture are beholden to monotheism and especially Christianity. Piety, Worship, Prayer, Theology, Holy, and so forth, are all terms that in popular parlance are loaded with preconceptions rooted in Christian tradition.</div>
</div>
<div sab="1068">
<div sab="958">
</div>
<div sab="959">
Herein our troubles begin, because this cultural view is pervasive and dominant, and even those smug Atheists (not all Atheists. NOT ALL ATHEISTS. Just the smug ones (like the troll I mentioned above) who find it necessary to belittle theism and theists of any and all stripes) find themselves couching terms and arguing from presuppositions. To the extent that being held to be pious from such a perspective is but a breath away from being labeled "holier-than-thou". The phrase betrays a theological (and widely cultural) perspective that makes many assumptions, and holds them to be more true than not. The expression refers to an attitude or belief (as reflected in thought and deed) that one holds oneself as being morally superior to another; this sentiment is almost always attached to feigning said morality. This sentiment has descended to a state where morality can not be measurable and so necessarily, to hold that oneself as being more moral than someone else, is being sanctimonious. Except this argument is bunk, hokum and falderal; logically there are people who are demonstrably more moral than others. This stance on behaviour and superiority/failing ties back to a much earlier post I wrote about <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2010/09/judging-others.html" sab="961" target="_blank">why the faculty of judgement is good</a>, and that such a perspective can trace its origins to Christian theology. What follows is a bit of a digression, but is nonetheless pertinent to the topic at hand, so please bear with me.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1730">
<div sab="1070">
<div sab="965">
</div>
<div sab="965">
In the past (recently no less) I would have made an argument about Christians holding people to be worthless, because of sin, and in that state of worthlessness, all are equal and none have the right (or ability) to judge anyone else. In fact this issue sort of came to a head in a discussion I was involved in relating to the use of the term "worship" (which I will touch on below). Someone called me out on my statement (being seen as just another "attack" on Christianity). Having myself to have taken a step back, because it occurred to me during the discussion that I had grossly generalized a much more complex state of affairs. Christianity may be monolithic, but the religions(et. denominations) that make up the whole of Christendom are hardly unified. Protestantism itself seems to be as highly fractious as Paganism (and some may argue that this fractiousness among Paganism is in fact a holdover from this religious perspective, but perhaps more on this some other time). With this in mind, the understanding of concepts like "sin" and "atonement" vary wildly among Christians, and so trying to form a cohesive pronouncement on the entire group is fraught with peril. I think my perspective has been greatly coloured by my time spent on interfaith web forums, where the natural state of affairs is that Evangelicals tend to dominate the Christian communities, and given their influence (or visibility) in media, this can most definitely create theological tunnel vision, where this <strong sab="1732">is</strong> Christianity. So when asked to provide an example of a religion where people were undervalued (or held to be worthless) my immediate response was 'Christianity". </div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1733">
<div sab="1075">
<div sab="972">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1734">
<div sab="1077">
<div sab="975">
This needed to be qualified, and my visceral reaction was grossly unqualified. It appears at first blush to be more accurate, a core belief even, than not so. Given the idea of human agency having little actual impact in a good number of Protestant religions (particularly those who accept "free grace" theology), when it comes to positive moral action, even to the extent of being able to accept Christianity (or specifically their salvic figure) without some divine mandate, it stands to reason that humans as fallen, generally miserable creatures, are not presented, nor held with much esteem. It is easy to then turn and say, "Well if people are held to be intrinsically terrible, it stands to reason that they haven't got much worth. This is why the idea of 'Grace' is so appealing, because even though humanity is not worthy enough to be saved, the Christian god is merciful enough to give it none the less." This was my general stance towards Christianity in general then, and to be fair I think many among us would reasonably reach this conclusion if this was the message that the Christians we knew personally, discussed religion with regularly, or were exposed to via multi media constantly were presenting to us. Then again, simply because one perspective is the most noticeable, it is by no means the largest, let alone only one available. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1734">
<div sab="1079">
<div sab="978">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div sab="1734">
<div sab="1081">
<div sab="981">
The truth of the matter is that "Free Grace" is something which is a core doctrine of only some Protestant churches, not all, and this does not then account for Catholicism nor the Orthodox church. The idea of personal atonement, penance and restitution through the actions of both the laity and the clergy, as well as the acknowledgement that humans have moral agency, stands in stark contrast with the assertion I made in the context of the conversation I mentioned above. Religions are no so simple, and theology and doctrine are complex enough to stymie easy answers and gross generalizations.</div>
<div sab="981">
</div>
<div sab="981">
Having said all of that, there is no doubt in my mind that the attitudes among many folks presently with regards to attitudes like "don't judge me", "being holier-than-thou" and "so (expletive) pious" can trace their origins to some of the cultural baggage of Christian theology/doctrines like sin, guilt and religious hypocrites. The gospel authors have seen to it that the Pharisees have been one of the most maligned historic figures, well ever. The term itself is synonymous with sanctimony, but the cultural impact of the idea extended far beyond the first century CE. As my troll illustrates and as a generalized sentiment I have experienced time and time again, there is a deep mistrust of people who are seen to be "too moral", almost to the extent of it manifesting as misanthropic glee. A holdover from anti-clericalism perhaps, or a natural result stemming from a never ending cycle of clerical betrayal. In such a context, it is fairly understandable; a sacred trust which is continually betrayed is hardly any sort of trust and certainly not sacred. Reverence and deference to moral authorities have been superseded by a deep seated cynicism to the extent that for many anyone who appears to be moral for the sake of morality (or devout for the sake of the gods) is automatically red flagged. Even if that person is not in a position of authority, the general sentiment remains. It is a very regrettable state of affairs. </div>
<div sab="981">
</div>
<div sab="981">
It is regrettable because the simple state of virtuous living can be looked at askance and made to seem wrong. It is my opinion that this position is based largely on an individuals insecurities being projected onto those they deem as making them feel insecure in the first place. People are also often fully justified in their cynicism, and it is remarkably easy to just abandon standards and expectations (either of oneself or others) and just "get on with it". </div>
<div sab="981">
</div>
<div sab="981">
And yet ease is not necessarily the most effective measure of quality. I think that striving for a better state of affairs, again personally or collectively, is a worthy endeavour and living a virtuous life is an important part of that endeavour. Human flourishing will always be worth the effort one invests to attain it, and for me (and others like me) piety is one of the virtues which encompasses a good life. I am unabashed in my devotion to the <em>dé ochus andé</em>, and I would think that such a position is patently obvious to anyone who reads this blog. Having and fostering standards of ethical behaviour is not, and will never be problematic. I suppose that, given everything I've said that I am, in fact, so (expletive) pious.</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-9965859463349255682014-01-02T20:25:00.000-08:002014-01-02T20:25:00.633-08:00Gentle, Fair-Cheeked Brigid.<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--xSXaq-hOaQ/UsY4qKcZnhI/AAAAAAAAAII/McXzEL3ydpo/s1600/fireplace.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--xSXaq-hOaQ/UsY4qKcZnhI/AAAAAAAAAII/McXzEL3ydpo/s320/fireplace.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Brigid the merciful; <em>Brigid an trócaireach</em> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Brigid of the broken heart; <em>Brigid an croí briste</em></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Brigid of the hearth; <em>Brigid an tinteán</em></div>
<br />
It is difficult to express in words the overwhelming outpouring of emotion and profound joy at the simple thought of Brigid. I suppose this is what Pentecostal Christians must feel like when they are "in the spirit", but I want nothing more than to sing of her praises to all who will hear, whether they listen or no.<br />
<br />
<em>La Fheilhe Brigid</em> is still over a month away, yet I feel her presence so much now it is almost smothering. Every day and night, when I stand before her flame upon my hearth, I feel a deep joy kindled within my very being. <br />
<br />
Her beauty and her wonder, the visceral reaction I would have to those who would slight her name, her grace, her compassion. A child's simple wish to protect the sanctity of their mother.<br />
<br />
==============================================================<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Her flame. golden radiant warm and kind, a fire of comfort on this frigid winters eve.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Hail our goddess of inspiration and awe, so beloved even the monks continued to sing her praises!</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
May we shout her name from the hill tops, and sing her praises sweetly.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
We, the sons and daughters of fire!<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Hail our goddess of family and friendship, around whom we gather in fellowship and love! </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
May we fill our hearts with her love, and kindle a candle of kindness. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
We, the sons and daughters of fire!<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Hail our goddess of grief and sorrow; mother of a broken heart which we all must some day bear!</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
May we bear our burden with grace and compassion, fondness and memory. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
We, the sons and daughters of fire!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-khptg2XryGI/UsY5o69FLkI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/vkKXGooRUhY/s1600/brigids+cross.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-khptg2XryGI/UsY5o69FLkI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/vkKXGooRUhY/s1600/brigids+cross.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="center">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-80571787943655220172013-12-13T06:32:00.002-08:002013-12-13T06:32:40.772-08:00Happy Celtmas 2013<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pViZE9PGxBE/UqsWY7GwlCI/AAAAAAAAAHU/6_kQSaChlPo/s1600/celtic+christmas+tree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pViZE9PGxBE/UqsWY7GwlCI/AAAAAAAAAHU/6_kQSaChlPo/s320/celtic+christmas+tree.jpg" width="260" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Frankly, I'd rather be under the mistletoe...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
I'm actually at a loss as to what I ought to write about this festive season. I've commented previously on a sort of<a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2011/12/happy-holidays.html" target="_blank"> seasonal ennui</a> about not having a particular "holiday" to actually celebrate while many others do, and then one learns about tings like<em> <a href="http://mo-thearmann.blogspot.ca/2012/12/celebrating-grianstad-gheimhridh-winter.html" target="_blank">Grianstad an Gheimhridh</a></em>, and suddenly there is a cultural "reason for the season", beyond ones <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2010/12/christmas-etc.html" target="_blank">familial traditions</a>. The so called "War on Christmas" continues to be a non-issue, and Christmas is in no danger of being cancelled this year. There has been a bit of a dust up with some Atheistic/Humanistic groups utilizing pre-Christian symbols and figures in an attempt to get a fair shake when it comes to public displays of, well non-faith. They've every right to, and while it does get tiring that deities many of us worship are used especially because they are seen as being "dead" or "forgotten" gods, demographics have never really been kind to the modern polytheistic community. We need to get out more, and so the upshot of these sorts of things (like that "god graveyard" back in October) is that since we tend to be a raucous bunch, certainly more Atheists are aware that some still hold to some older ways.*<br />
<br />
I suppose it also relates to my current situation and that while this is the first time I will actually be home on the 25th in three years, it is going to be a relatively low key affair.<br />
<br />
Still, there will be feasting, there will be gift giving, there will be merry making. The little things do make all the difference; the smallest of lights in the midst of so much darkness**.<br />
<br />
<br />
*I didn't realty write anything about the "god graveyard" thing, seemed rather pointless considering all the coverage it was getting. Still it has resulted in one of the single greatest and most powerful responses one could do, in the face of ignorance. My heartfelt thanks and admiration goes out to whomever left that offering on the "grave" of Freya. You make your ancestors proud.<br />
<br />
**Not that I actually have anything against <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2013/07/not-alone-in-dark.html" target="_blank">the Dark</a>, per se. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-39164665379739646982013-11-19T23:54:00.000-08:002013-11-19T23:54:04.491-08:00"Pagan" Literacy ProjectI often make assumptions, though my experience has been that I am usually proven correct, this is not always the case. With that in mind, anecdotally anyway I have begun to find, well not a growing problem, but one which is becoming more evident.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b6R1kZ4Om5A/UoxlmVqriaI/AAAAAAAAAG0/cEGALUFxE5Y/s1600/gilgmesh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b6R1kZ4Om5A/UoxlmVqriaI/AAAAAAAAAG0/cEGALUFxE5Y/s320/gilgmesh.jpg" width="229" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Find the cornerstone and under it the copper box that is marked with his name. <br />
Unlock it. Open the lid. Take out the tablet of lapis lazuli.<br />
Read how Gilgamesh suffered all and accomplished all.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
"Pagans" as a group are a diverse and disparate lot, and who does and does not fall under what seems to be an ever growing umbrella is often a matter of great contention. One aspect, which I would make the case for, which more often than not is a shared aspect of the "Pagan" identity, is some degree of enmity with Christianity. To be sure this would be best seen as a gradient of enmity; ranging from outright hate to basic theological differences, and everything in between. As such, there tends to be a reasonable degree of familiarity with the Christian Bible and some other aspects of their theology among "Pagans" in general. I know I'm not the first nor the last to make light of the fact that I know more about the Christian holy book than many of the Christians, whom I know and discuss things religious with, do. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XXaNgnGOA2I/UoxmqV8fSkI/AAAAAAAAAG8/rugHm_zJEpg/s1600/aenid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XXaNgnGOA2I/UoxmqV8fSkI/AAAAAAAAAG8/rugHm_zJEpg/s320/aenid.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I sing of arms and of the man, fated to be an exile, <br />
who long since left the land of Troy and came to Italy <br />
to the shores of Lavinium...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Each of us, or those of us who find ourselves in "the west" will necessarily have some familiarity with Christianity and its mythology. It is engrained in our societal customs, calendar, holidays, literature and language. It is simply inescapable. This is not, necessarily, bad. For example, while the Authorized King James Bible is one of the poorest translations available, it is none the less one of the single greatest works of literature ever written in the English language. I own a copy (the Oxford edition), have read it, and enjoyed much of it. As someone who enjoys literature, the work has great value, as in individual work as well as its influence on the development of writing in the English language.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gOVheDWveRo/UoxnxNokGiI/AAAAAAAAAHE/8EWFIpagaWo/s1600/220px-Cuinbattle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gOVheDWveRo/UoxnxNokGiI/AAAAAAAAAHE/8EWFIpagaWo/s1600/220px-Cuinbattle.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">'What wonder' Fiacha mac Fir Febe said, <br />
'that the one who did this in his seventh year should triumph<br />
against odds and beat his match today, <br />
when he is fully seventeen years old!'</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So whether you've read it for enjoyment or to pick apart some contradictory theological argument you'll be having with aunt Pauline at Thanksgiving dinner, the fact is you've read some of it, read a book which makes allusions or references to it, seen a film which depicts an episode from it, or have had it quoted at you, you will have some experience of it.<br />
<br />
But what do you know about the "Epic of Gilgamesh"? What was the point of the Illiad? Where was Odysseus trying to get back to in the Odyssey? What is the Aeneid all about? Why was a second battle fought at Moytura? What was the Cattle raid of Cooley? How did Thor end up in a wedding dress? Why did Sigurd fight a dragon? Why would Sita sing the Blues? Why did Son-Goku journey to the West? Why should anyone care about the Tale of Genji? The list of questions goes on, but the point is this: How literate are you when it comes to the works of pre-Christian cultures (and in many cases Christianized versions of those cultures tales) and your familiarity with them? <br />
<br />
I do not doubt for a second that recons will have a very good grasp on the materials which informs their worldviews, both the primary materials as well as secondary texts and commentaries. How much then, would those same folks be cognizant of when it comes to the tales from other cultures? How would that knowledge then stand up against their familiarity with the Bible? What of "Pagans" who are not as interested in mythology as others? <br />
<br />
My point is this; I think there is a need to educate ourselves about a rather large body of myth that ought to have a greater impact than it currently does. Is it not worth considering that many of us are far more familiar with the Christian mythos than that of the Hellenes, Romans, Celts, Germanics, Kemetics, etc? Would it not be worth developing a better working knowledge of the mythology which informs the worldviews of fellow polytheists and "Pagans"? Certainly there is a treasure trove of mythic literature available, and while I know I've already got a lot of reading and study on my plate, it behooves me to make just a little time to broaden my horizons and read some myth which isn't Gaelic in nature.<br />
<br />
As such, I'd like to make a modest proposal and I'm calling it the ""Pagan" literacy project". It can be as narrow or as broad as you'd like to make it, but the goal is to read a work of myth or legend which does not have a direct connection to your own cultural tradition, or perhaps for those who are not Reconstructionists or more culturally minded polytheists, a deeper examination of the foundational mythology of the cultures you draw inspiration from. Even just one work will go a long way to broaden your understanding and perhaps appreciation of the mythology of your fellow polytheists. <br />
<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
<br />
-GormUnknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-4811500420146512622013-11-05T21:21:00.001-08:002013-11-05T21:21:53.308-08:00Tinker Bell Theology... or if you just believe.I've not come across any sort of formal use of the term, though most folks seem to understand what I'm nattering on about when I make use of the expression. The "Tinker Bell Doctrine" or "Tinker Bell Theology" or "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkerbell_effect" target="_blank">Tinkerbell effect</a>" is a term I utilize when I encounter a peculiar, if pervasive, perspective when it comes to the nature of the gods. The origin of the term denotes the character Tinkerbell, originating in the works of J.M Barrie and most popularly, the 1953 Disney animated film, "Peter Pan", and in particular that the more an individual (or group) believes in something, the more potent it becomes. This is a concept which, while not necessarily a major strain in theological thought, is none the less pervasive, especially in fictionalized representations of mythic beings.<br />
<br />
There are a number of fictional works where this approach to deities can be observed, ranging from stories by Douglas Adams, to Neil Gaiman, to the show "Supernatural". Jason, at the Wildhunt blog, has already explored some of the <a href="http://wildhunt.org/2010/04/pagan-pop-culture-round-up.html" target="_blank">problematic aspects</a> of the practical application to gods some of us actually still worship (in the case of the later); it is one reason why I dislike the show and despite the protestations of my wife and others, will not "give a chance". I'll touch on this in a little more detail later on.<br />
<br />
I wanted to touch on and explore in a little more depth the approach Gaiman in particular takes. I really, really like the fiction of Neil Gaiman. I am at a loss to name any other recent author who so thoroughly "gets" what many refer to as "mythical thinking". The love the man has for mythology, in and of itself, permeates all of his works. Coupled with the understanding that myth is a framework, a lens through which to understand our experiences, to provide meaning to those experiences, is a thoroughly refreshing approach, normally only found haunting academic approaches to the subject itself. <br />
<br />
Having gotten my fanboy gushing out of the way, Gaiman does make substantial use of "Tinker Bell Theology", smatteringly throughout his "Sandman" graphic novel series, but centrally in his novel "American Gods". In particular, his framing of the origins and extent of deities in particular (sometimes conflated with <em>genius loci</em>, sometimes not) fully adopts this perspective. The basic framework outlining the "life" of a god or goddess is as follows.<br />
<br />
1. Humans have something they begin to believe in strongly.<br />
2. This belief manifests itself in a physical form.<br />
3. This form will follow the humans who believe in it, or another localized form will do the same.<br />
4. The level of offerings/sacrifices/ influence directly correlates to the potency of the god/ goddess.<br />
5. As the level of devotion wanes, so too does the god.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, the mitigating factor in the existence of a deity is the extent in which Humans actively/inactively believe in them. The more people who believe, the stronger the deity is.<br />
<br />
While this creates an interesting framing of the origins and nature of gods, and certainly works as a plot device in a number of fictional universes, it is at its core, incompatible with a truly polytheistic approach to theology. Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Monistic, even perhaps so called "soft polytheism", but not polytheism in and of itself.<br />
<br />
I personally think such a theological approach to the gods is an almost textbook definition of self-importance and solipsism. That we create the gods, that they are beholden to us, that they need our worship to sustain them speaks far more to the ascendency and dominance of monotheistic thinking, than to the actual nature of the gods, from a polytheistic world view.<br />
<br />
If the gods are little more than thought projections, delusions of a fevered mind or mass imagining, then what value do they have, really? How can these mere mental (and later physical) constructs, or idols, hope to compete with the supreme being, with the "author of creation"? In a word, they can not; they are literally straw(god)men, built up specifically so they can be torn down by the obvious truth which can only be found through the worship of the "One true God". Monotheists, while trying to explain away the historic context of the struggle monotheistic systems had in dealing with contemporary polytheism, will argue that references to "gods" do not refer to deities aside from their own, but the metaphorical idols of the human condition: money, greed, power, lust, etc. In the same breath, the gods of our ancestors are explained away as at best base superstition and at worst demon worship. The gods of polytheism necessarily have to be imaginary friends or hallucinatory monsters, because they do not fit anywhere else.<br />
<br />
While I can appreciate the more sympathetic approaches in some of the other theistic frameworks I listed above, they all tend to have one thing in common; they reduce the existence, the nature of the gods, as being sourced to the human mind. The gods become archetypes of human endeavour, they become names of power, they become explanations of natural phenomena to a primitive people, they are relegated to a bygone era, they are shelved in storybooks, and they are proclaimed to be dead (especially when compared to the "living" god of monotheism). Is it any wonder, then, that people will often look askance at those of us who mention that we not only "believe" in these gods, but that we actively worship them?<br />
<br />
This turns back to one of my major criticisms with the show "Supernatural", and also why I balk at it, but give Gaiman a pass. The narrative framing of the series is from a monotheistic theological perspective; gods when they do show up, are little more than glorified monsters and readily dispatched by the recurring heroes/villains. Living in a culture steeped and saturated with the superiority of monotheism, I'd rather spend my time in fictional universes more sympathetic to my own view of theology. While Gaiman does us similar framing, and is just as guilty of utilizing 'Tinker Bell theology", he applies it equally across the board. For those of you who like me have the 10th anniversary edition of "American Gods" and have read the Apocrypha, you'll understand what I'm getting at. For those who have not, suffice to say that Jesus is "stretched", just a little bit, not unlike an aged Bilbo Baggins. Gaiman gets a pass for having a good grasp of the myths his characters are sourced from, and not just using them as magical (and recognizable) names, to be disposed of at will for plot convenience. In addition, his sympathies lie with mythic thinking, and not mythic name dropping.<br />
<br />
I am firmly of the perspective that the gods are both real and external to us. They do not require our worship, nor do they require our belief in order to exist. At least not anymore than I require your belief to exist. Subjectivity is fine and good, and context is always relevant, but one needs to have a grounding in what is, so as to not fall into the trap of solipsism. Why then worship the gods, if they do not need our worship to sustain themselves?<br />
<br />
Because it is better to live in harmony with the gods than to be in opposition to them.<br />
Because they enrich our lives and provide us with models and guidance to follow.<br />
Because they offer to us a connection to something far greater than ourselves.<br />
Because their worship establishes a connection with those who came before us.<br />
Because they, and their stories, provide us with meaning and purpose.<br />
<br />
I believe in the gods, because they believe in me.<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
<br />
-GormUnknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-47324586388552672072013-10-09T10:35:00.002-07:002014-02-24T20:14:52.186-08:00Oisin or Cailte?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Fenian lore, in all its longevity and folk charminess, bears the distinction of being the mythic period which overlaps more than any other, with the coming of Christianity to Ireland. While the accounts themselves, and the exploits of the Fianna under Fionn mac Cumhaill, take place in the centuries proceeding the mythic start of Christianity, Padraig's mission, the tradition ends with two accounts which are both some of my favourite literature, as well as quite inverse to one another.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">These are <i>Acallam na Senorach</i> (Or "The Tales of the Elders of Ireland") and <i>Agallamh Oisín agus Phádraig</i><i> </i>(Or "The Dialogue of Oisin and Patrick". The former dates to <span style="background-color: white;">the 13th century, and I would highly recommend Anne Dooley and Harry Roe's Translation. </span>Oisn and Patrick, on the other hand can be found in Lady Gregory’s adaptation of the Fenian Cycle, Gods and Fighting Men (1904), itself derived (in large part) from Jerimiah Curtin’s “Myths and Folk-lore of Ireland” (1890). Curtain based his translations off of <i>Agallamh Oisín agus Phádraig</i>, which was published in <i>Duanaire Finn</i>, by Aodh Ó Dochartaigh, in the 17<sup>th</sup> century.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-style: none none solid; padding: 0cm;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: currentColor; line-height: 14.4pt; margin-bottom: 1.2pt; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Acallam na Senorach</i>, is the larger of the works, and it contains a treasure trove of Fenian lore and legends. The basic premise is that <span lang="EN">Caílte mac Rónáin</span><span lang="EN"> </span>and Oisin, as well as a band of unnamed followers, are all that are left of the Fianna. Oisin and <span lang="EN">Caílte</span> meet one last time, and Oisin decides he is going to stay with his family in the Sidhe. Calite and the others are then left to wander about, when they happen to stumble upon St. Patrick, who is in the process of missionizing to the whole of Ireland. Patrick inquires as to the giant, yet aged figure of <span lang="EN">Caílte</span>, and he recites a few tales of the exploits of the Fianna. Patrick is naturally enamoured by the stories, when two angels descend and instruct Patrick to record all of the tales <span lang="EN">Caílte</span> recites, for the betterment of Ireland. The story then has <span lang="EN">Caílte</span> and his cohorts travelling from place to place with Patrick and his followers, while <span lang="EN">Caílte</span> recites tales about the Fianna at every single place they inquire about. This story, among other things, is the source of the oft-quoted:<span lang="EN"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Truth in our Hearts, Strengths in our Arms, Fulfillment upon our Tongues.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">"Patrick and Oisin", on the other hand is really an end piece of the Fenian lore, dealing specifically with Oisin upon his return from the Otherworld. Oisin, having become an ancient upon his touching down upon the earth, is now blind and decrepit. He is taken in by Patrick and his monks, and the story revolves around the debate which occurs between Oisin and Patrick regarding the merits of their pre-Christian and Christian beliefs. It is somewhat reminiscent of "The Madness of Suibne", in that Oisin as the Suibne figure, is the man out of time, enamoured of the wilds and the wonder of nature. Patrick is a joyless, at times cruel figure, giving Oisin only the meagerest of food and drink, and chiding him for his fondness of his heathen past. Patrick is very much the fire and brimstone preacher, condemning the Fianna to hellfire and Oisin himself will share their fate if he does not convert. There are some different versions, usually Oisin relents and converts, but sometimes he refuses and dies unbaptized.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">We are presented with two very different accounts of a similar type of event, and two very different approaches to the subject (or subtext) of the religious conversion of the Irish. The later is fueled by animosity, contrast and Patrick being an all around git. The former, on the other hand, does its best to showcase the very best of the Pagan and Christian worldviews, and how they (could have been) reconciled. The nobility of the past, the heroic days of valour and adventure, the dignity of an old warrior mingled with the peace and joy of the new faith, in its magnanimity and charity to those who, while not "saved" in life, are deserving of heaven none the less.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I am by no means a fan of Christianity, as any who have a familiarity with my blog and me personally, are certainly aware. I'd not go as far as some who recognized March 17 as a day of mourning, but theologically there are some very real and problematic elements of the religion, and the world view that has developed, which I find myself at odds with. Truth be told, and it ought to be, I rather liked "Oisin and Patrick" precisely because of the animosity which permeates the narrative. It presents a side of the "argument" which has for the most part been omitted or left out, that of the pre-Christian. Even in the older manuscripts and texts, primarily the Ulster cycle, there is an underpinning of the "natural evolution" towards the new faith. All having been written long after the conversion, there none the less remains an undertone of "we know what's coming, and it has little to do with magical folks in mounds". The inevitability of the coming of Christianity, written with the gift of hindsight, precludes a lot of the value of the pre-Christian world view. Oisin and Patrick presents that rare voice of the conquered, who still clings to a way which is no longer seen as feasible or worthwhile by contemporaries. Make no mistake, Oisin is the conquered: aged, debilitated and crippled, at the complete mercy of Patrick. This is not a robust, full bodied defense of pre-Christian religion or world view; it is a man on his deathbed, lamenting for a bygone age, in the face of his own misery and the bully pulpit of Patrick. None the less, the criticisms made by Oisin are both poignant and even of value today. Who among us has been fortunate enough to never encounter Christian triumphalism? None to few, I would wager. Oisin and Patrick appeals to that part of me which seeks to stand against the hegemony, which wishes to see a broader return to the religion of my far distant ancestors in a more robust way. It appeals to the part of me which has endured for decades the notion that Christianity was and is "it" when it comes to religion, and that nothing before or since has any value.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">On the other hand...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It would be foolish to ignore the centrality of the Christian religion, and in particular Catholicism in the history and culture of Ireland, both historically and today. Certainly, like many western democracies, there is a gradual shift towards secularism occurring; albeit in Ireland's case it is remarkably slow. The majority of the population of the republic is Catholic, and most of the rest are Protestant to some extent or the other. Certainly those of us who find ourselves in the Diaspora, whose ancestors left Ireland some centuries ago, have to face up to the fact that by and large, our ancestors were staunchly Christian. We really do need to go back to times immemorial to find those pre-Christian connections, and almost certainly any individual in our family tree's with a name would be Christian.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Christianity is also still the dominant religion in the world today, certainly this is not going to change in western countries any time soon, and so we find ourselves faced with the reality of demographics and being a rather tiny minority, have little recourse but to learn to live with it. Well, reality check time again, we already are living with it, have been and will continue to do so far into the future, so this will surprise exactly no one. I suppose the point of all of this is how ought we to proceed? The way of opposition and confrontation or the way of cooperation and pluralism? Do we walk with Oisin or <span lang="EN">Caílte</span>?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In my youth, unabashedly, I would have sided with Oisin in this matter and there remains a part of me which still wants to. Being a little older, and by proxy more experienced, I think the best choice lies, however, with <span lang="EN">Caílte</span><span lang="EN"> </span>. Well for the most part; <span lang="EN">Caílte</span> did after all become a Christian, and that's simply not something a GPR can do. Our textual traditions are the product of a gradient of pre- and co-Christian world views, but this does not prevent us from holding them as being central and relevant. We need to understand that we will never have a purely pre-Christian textual tradition, and do our best to sort the bits out which can in fact, be sorted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The history, the "bad blood" between the pre-Christians and the Christians, is all but absent from our history; texts like "Oisin and Patrick" are extremely rare. By and large we simply do not have much evidence to support an antagonistic relationship between the ancient and slightly less ancient religious traditions of the Gaelic world. There is no evidence of the sort of religious conquests or mass conversions under the sword which is evident in the lands further to the north and to the south. I can understand why an Asatruar or Heathen may balk, why a practitioner of the Religio may be understandably hostile, but our own anger and frustration is a byproduct of a modern worldview which is noticeably absent in our own records. Try as some may, black armbands on March 17th and all, there simply is no basis in the evidence we have for such theatrics or outrage. This is because the process of conversion was gradual, peaceable and highly syncretic. Yes, in later hagiographical accounts the image presented of the "noble pagan" is replaced by conjurers of demons and other Christian bogey-men, but an examination of such "events" reflects far more the retooling of existing Biblical stories or of continental hagiographies made local, than disdain for actual pre-Christians. The largest victim of the coming of Christianity to Ireland, was Christianity itself; it would become quite literally, its own worst enemy. Christians have carried out far more unspeakable things to each other than they ever did to the pre-Christian Gaels.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I like to think I'm not so naive to see everything as sparkles and rainbows, but historically speaking, the Celts had a lot worse done to them by other polytheistic cultures (in fact one of the only clear examples of religious persecution from a polytheistic culture was that of the Romans towards the Celts, and in particular the Druidic functionaries) then they ever did from Christians. Yet, I've not seen any sort of the vitriol or disdain among some GRPs (and CRs) which is held for Christianity, aimed at members of the Religio.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Returning to the main thrust of this post, however, this entire piece is written primarily as an exploration of mythic ways in which figures who represent disparate world views interact with one another, and what (to some kind of extent) follows. The real world applicability is of relatively small consequence; not because the question is one that need not be explored, but because of demographics. It may have some wider applicability beyond the scope of GRP, perhaps extending as a model for CR’s or even more broadly neo-Pagan traditions stemming from the Celtic cultures. If nothing else, perhaps something to consider before slapping on a black arm band or celebrating “All Snakes Day” on March 17 as a knee jerk reaction to the imagined horrors of the conversion of the Gaels to Christianity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Practically speaking, the vast majority of Christians aren’t even aware of our existence, or have some vague notion that people actually believe in those silly fairy tales they read as children. Anecdotal as it is, most of the people I encounter have such a poor grasp of their own religion, they’ve not even thought about other traditions, let alone how to interact with them. Pre-Christian perspectives are just that, pre-Christian, and as such are relegated to the past and have little to no bearing on the present. Patrick in which ever version outlives both </span><span lang="EN" style="line-height: 18px;">Caílte</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> and Oisin after all.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Ours is presently a rather insular community, already awash in a lake of polytheism, itself surrounded by a continent of monotheism. At the end of the day, I direct my message to the GRP’s, CR’s and Celtic influenced neo-Pagans. We decide how we want to understand and interact with the Galileans (albeit this could certainly be broadened to interfaith relationships in general), by understanding how the (mythic) “last Pagans” chose to do so. Perhaps it will largely depend on context, as so much often does. It is rather easy to abide alongside an open minded, pluralistic styled Christian, and this is reflected in the Patrick from the <i>Acallam</i>. The fellow who is not only willing to attentively listen, but to discuss and recognize the merits of a world view outside of their own. Of course is also helps when the other side is represented by someone who is also willing to listen, who is up to the task and capable. </span><span lang="EN" style="line-height: 18px;">Caílte</span><span style="line-height: 18px;">, while ancient, remains a staggeringly powerful figure throughout the narrative of the </span><i style="line-height: 18px;">Acallam</i><span style="line-height: 18px;">. It is another matter altogether to sit idly by while the fire and brimstone preacher </span><span style="line-height: 20px;">lambastes</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> everything one holds dear, and demeans and debases what is considered sacred. It does not help when the other is reduced to </span><span style="line-height: 20px;">decrepitude</span><span style="line-height: 18px;"> at the utter mercy of his host, that the host thinks nothing of the words being spoken, and only hears the last mewling of a long broken worldview.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I have come to understand that while the later is certainly the most vociferous, the most bombastic and the most influential, there are folks who are willing to listen. There are those who are willing to not only listen, but to learn and understand; to see the value in the worldview of another. This is really the only basis upon which we can build any sort of interfaith dialogue, and I think the best way forward.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Thoughts?</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">-Gorm</span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-2458629619094468472013-08-04T08:46:00.000-07:002013-08-08T20:15:02.827-07:00You are your wordsI'm a bit miffed while writing this, a couple of things have transpired in a group I belong to, where folks have said unbelievable, stupid things, are called out on it and held accountable for their words. In a community where the bulk of interactions are through an electronic medium, <strong>you are your words</strong>. People can not judge you by the things you do outside of the context with which they have shared experiences with you. Regardless of how much of a decent person you claim to be, or how much you speak of virtues like honour, if you act like a dick when I'm around, a dick you will remain.<br />
<br />
I'm starting to think, really believe, that for many people concepts like honour are just so totally foreign, that they have no idea what the word even means. They believe they do, but their actions/interactions, say otherwise. I think the problem comes down to rampant romanticism coupled with a wholly separate notion of the concept. From a GRP perspective, honour is "what is known", your value is determined by what you do, who you are, and some other mitigating factors which are not applicable/ appropriate in a modern context. Yes, it is related to someone as an individual, but it is the reputation of that individual within the context of a given community, that creates the concept of honour. It is not a self proclaimed, individualistic, value judgement. You can make the claim that you are honourable, but it is determined by others. Honour is a communal value, and this is where I think the divorce from the concept occurs. Because the hyperindividualism which is the core of so much of the modern, Western image of the "self", overshadows every perspective on value and ethics, this can be something which is lost on those who have only a tertiary understanding of the ethical underpinnings of GRP.<br />
<br />
It isn't enough to read the wisdom texts, because you need to understand why the values which are espoused in them, matter. If you lack that, then you'll come away from them with many a misguided notion of proper conduct, with platitudes and trite quips, instead of wisdom and understanding.<br />
<br />
Honour walks hand in hand with responsibility, and if you tit about and do something dishonourable, it is your responsibility to fix it. Yours and no one else. At least from a practical standpoint; since honour is a communal value and by proxy your dishonourable behaviour reflects on your group, it may be their burden as well to make proper restitution. Within the context of the core group one belongs to, however, it is entirely upon yourself.<br />
<br />
Forgiveness has its place, but it is a tertiary value and it is certainly not the moral underpinning of our world view. Given the centrality of it within Christianity, and so within the general cultural milieu, I get that it can be difficult to divorce oneself from it, but it has to be done if there is any chance of developing a different perspective. Honour can not flourish if the moral underpinning is "we are all equally terrible, and so have no basis to make judgements upon others."<br />
<br />
So if you decide, even brashly, to make a statement, you had better be prepared to deal with whatever consequences transpire. If you made a mistake, it is upon you to rectify it. Do not expect others to be forgiving, especially where forgiveness has not been earned. Accept the responsibility your actions have, and the repercussions of those actions.<br />
<br />
Words, once spoken, can not be taken back. Our ancestors understood this, we should do likewise.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836664455022539794.post-38091547971962700302013-07-25T16:31:00.001-07:002013-07-25T20:50:52.048-07:00Shouting from the Hilltop: a perspective on La Lunasa/Lughnasadh<u><strong><em></em></strong></u><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="smshadow" collect_rid="1:167304192" data-gmiclass="ResViewSizer_img" gmindex="10" height="1116" id="gmi-ResViewSizer_img" name="gmi-ResViewSizer_img" src="http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/162/c/1/LUGH_2_by_el_grimlock.jpg" style="height: 711px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: auto; width: 277px;" width="435" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong>Lugh inspires the very finest quality of fan art.</strong></span><br />
Image by <a href="http://el-grimlock.deviantart.com/art/LUGH-2-167304192" target="_blank">el-grimlock</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<u><strong><em>La Lunasa/</em>Lughnasadh</strong></u><br />
<strong></strong><br />
With the end of July and beginning of August rapidly approaching <em>La Lunasa</em> will soon be upon us and with it, well folks like me talking about it.<br />
<br />
In terms of more mainstream "Pagan" holidays, it has been my experience that Lughnasadh often finds itself as being one that many folks are unsure of what to do with it; <em>la fheile brigid</em>/ Imbolc being the other. Whereas <em>Oiche Samhana</em>/ Samhain and <em>lá bealtaine</em>/Beltane remain two of the more popular feast/festival days, the others find themselves playing a sort of second fiddle. <br />
<br />
I think it is primarily to do with the fact that each day has direct associations wih a specific deity. So, if one finds themselves not being particularly devoted to either Lugh (Tailtu, but we'll get to her later) or Brigid, then there is little impetus to celebrate, other than they are supposed to be holy days on that "wheel of the year" calendar. For GRP's, on the other hand, we've only really got the four days... so you had bloody well do something you lazy wretches!<br />
<br />
I mean, I am certainly "closer" to Brigid, than I am to Lugh; Brigid, after all is the focus of my hearth and has the added significance of a probable functional connection to my profession. I thoroughly enjoy <em>lá bealtaine</em>, as it is a bright spot in an otherwise drab, freezing, somewhat miserable point in the year; February being the "heart" of winter in Toronto, such as it is. Lugh, on the other hand, I'm not remotely devoted to, strictly speaking.<br />
<br />
Lugh was, at one point in my life a very significant deity, and in my neo-Pagan days often the centre or focus of the majority of my prayers/ meditation. Nowadays though, prayers going his way are either for specific reasons (safe travel, chief among them) or during la lunasa. Don't get me wrong, Lugh is a pretty awesome god. He has one of the most detailed and epic of all mythologies, he is all skilled, and so far as the reports from his devotee's go, a pretty nice deity all around (except, of course, if you've murdered his father). In fact the priest who married my wife and I is a devotee to him, and if the company one keeps is any indication of the quality of an individual, that he is counted among Lugh's devotees speaks volumes. I think in my youth it really was the "star power" that Lugh had which initially drew me to him, but as I progressed a bit deeper into things, I came to realize that my experiences were leading me to other, <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2013/07/not-alone-in-dark.html" target="_blank">darker</a> places.<br />
<br />
Having said all that, La Lunasa is the one time of the year where Lugh is front and centre (other than some of the more spectacular thunderstorms which crop up around this time of year). I often find myself going over his tales a little more closely, and certainly I do enjoy my generally low key activities on the day itself. <br />
<br />
I will generally get up early, and go to a particular local, which happens to be one on the the highest points in the region. There is a small parkette, itself a terminal portion of a trail which extends south, along the Humber River, to Lake Ontario. At this northern end, there is a very large hill, and so for the past few years I have taken it upon myself to go down into the river valley, find a nice broad stone to carry with me, and traverse up the hill to its summit. I will make a small shrine, pour out some offerings and offer prayers and song to the lord of victory. I'm going to be moving in the autumn, and so travelling distances on a daily basis are going to be much further, so this year I think a little more emphasis will be required on the safe travel aspect as well. Again, being isolated and not part of any local sporting leagues, opportunities to offer up my victories are few ad far between, but Lugh does recieve those as well.<br />
<br />
It is also a pertinent time to reminice about our ancestors (then again, when isn't it pertinent?) and particularly their sacrifices, their struggles in which they made our coming into the world, and our lives within it, that much easier. Tailtu, the foster mother of Lugh, ought to also be given offerings and prayers. Though if you want my thoughts on her, you can find them in my La Lunasa post from <a href="http://threeshoutsonahilltop.blogspot.ca/2012/08/la-lunasa.html" target="_blank">last year</a>.<br />
<br />
Hail to the lord of Victory!<br />
He, whose hand is far reaching<br />
He, whose skills are many<br />
He, whose blessings produce victory<br />
<br />
May he continue to watch over and <br />
guide us in our efforts to restore: <br />
<br />
Honour to the gods!<br />
Nobility to the ancestors!<br />
Peace with the kindly ones!<br />
<br />
Hail Champion!<br />
Hail Balors bane!<br />
Hail Lugh!<br />
<br />
-GormUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0