|
Post by arth_frown on Oct 20, 2008 11:00:59 GMT -1
I've been reading on the OBOD forum implying that we are recons. I personally don't think we are, but history is a good aid.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Oct 20, 2008 11:29:48 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 20, 2008 11:32:21 GMT -1
Stop asking good questions, I've got to do some work damn you !! I think you are right... reconstructionism is a poor word for two reasons 1. Lack of material, and 2. The need to adapt to the 21st century with respect to 1, I see us as having 10 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw... we have to use logic and critical discussion to fill in much of the picture, and yes, we want as many pieces as we can get our hands on from the original and we need to understand them properly to fill in the gaps with respect to 2, maybe we are more like those Talmudic Rabbi's who have to interpret the Torah according to the modern age (is turning on a switch the striking of fire and thus prohibited as work on the sabbath, because it creates a spark when the contacts break)
|
|
|
Post by ceinach on Oct 20, 2008 11:33:06 GMT -1
How can anyone reconstruct sucessfully an oral tradition which is broken by centuries? There is obviously an element of "based on written fact and archiological evidence" but no one actually KNOWS what it was like for people in the iron age, we can only summise and try and empathise, especially with something as personal as belief. IMHO
*modified: Iron Age being an example only.
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Oct 20, 2008 11:52:49 GMT -1
No, Brython is not specifically a recon organisation, and CF is not a recon site.
We're not so much trying to reconstruct a model from the past (and that's the big problem with reconstructionism - there is so little information that they have to grab stuff from lots of time periods and fill in the remaining gaps with stuff from other IE cultures), as look at the past for our main influences, look at what we can take forward, see what is still relevant to us now.
However, research is very important here, and I firmly believe that people should be looking to understand what has gone before. Because even if we're not reconstructing, we're still rooted in our past. I mean, if someone wants to come on here and tell us that the iron age Britons farmed unicorns, then that person is living in fantasy land, rather than truly understanding and connecting with the pre-christian era ;D
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 20, 2008 12:11:51 GMT -1
I mean, if someone wants to come on here and tell us that the iron age Britons farmed unicorns, then that person is living in fantasy land, rather than truly understanding and connecting with the pre-christian era ;D What, no unicorns? Where is the smiley icon for "pout"?
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Oct 20, 2008 12:21:25 GMT -1
A re-wording of LR's phrase.
We may share the land with our ancestors, but the tradition is ours.
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Oct 20, 2008 12:25:40 GMT -1
I like that
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Oct 20, 2008 12:27:17 GMT -1
We may share the land with our ancestors, but the tradition is ours. so how is that any different to what the obodies do
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Oct 20, 2008 14:01:28 GMT -1
We may share the land with our ancestors, but the tradition is ours. so how is that any different to what the obodies do It's a good point <eek>
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Oct 20, 2008 14:07:06 GMT -1
whilst on one hand people decry the use of labels: "I won't be put in a box", people are obviously extremely atached to the labels they give themselves. It's how they define themselves, it gives them an identity. The whole 'No druids' thing has casued such a stir becasue it challenges people's identity. So they retaliate by giving us a name (ironically) which is attempting to devalue our perspective.
If anyone here thinks we are reconstructing Iron age religion, please put your hand up!
What we do is attempting to look at the reality of our history, rather than an assumed (oft) fantasy. To try to know the truth of our history to the best of our ability. To honour those before us.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Oct 20, 2008 14:10:05 GMT -1
How can anyone reconstruct sucessfully an oral tradition which is broken by centuries? There is obviously an element of "based on written fact and archiological evidence" but no one actually KNOWS what it was like for people in the iron age, we can only summise and try and empathise, especially with something as personal as belief. IMHO *modified: Iron Age being an example only. It's possible to look at extant societies that are similar in some ways to what we know (say the Masai for example), and make assumptions, and have wonderful debates and interesting conjecture. Which is a helluva lot better than mashing up whatever and calling it something it clearly isn't.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Oct 20, 2008 15:09:44 GMT -1
We may share the land with our ancestors, but the tradition is ours. so how is that any different to what the obodies do We are Brythonic polytheists with no grand titles. The gods and ancestors are real. Will that do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2008 15:25:17 GMT -1
Hmm, for me it has nothing to do with reconstructing anything: it's simply about joining the dots and sensing the thread of truth that runs between them - and then finding a suitable expression for that truth in the modern world.
But of course, without decent and rigorous research we don't even know where the dots are, so how the heck can we hope to find the thread between them?
Or perhaps I'm missing the point entirely... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Oct 20, 2008 17:14:42 GMT -1
I tend to think of myself as a reconnectionist. Finding my connection with the land, my ancestors, my culture and language. That's why I don't tend to give it a name, it's not a "spiritual framework" or fashion, it is tied to my very psyche and identity. You can't reconstruct a religious and social framework from the tiny sources we have. That's like trying to reconstruct Christianity from half a tombstone and a line from Exodus. All we can do is try to connect and explore our heritage, in the hope that the thing we end up becoming via this exploration would in some way be familiar and true to it.
|
|
|
Post by aelfarh on Oct 22, 2008 14:41:16 GMT -1
hiyah As an outsider point of view I think you share a lot with other CR movements. Enough to be called reconstructionist. See www.paganachd.com/faq and compare yourselves CR are not an attempt to practice the old traditions exactly the same as they was, they do keep on mind that an adaptation to the present day has to be done.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Oct 22, 2008 14:59:36 GMT -1
hiyah As an outsider point of view I think you share a lot with other CR movements. Enough to be called reconstructionist. See www.paganachd.com/faq and compare yourselves CR are not an attempt to practice the old traditions exactly the same as they was, they do keep on mind that an adaptation to the present day has to be done. Thanks for the link, we had that one posted here a while ago, by Bodlon IIRC. People on the outside can call us what they wish, if the CR label is convinient to them then sobeit. Just as we don't think the title Druid is appropriate to them. It's long noted that the neo-Druids try to use the label of CR as some sort of attempted insult. Been there, seen it, the t-shirt is worn out. The continuous lack of understanding, or indeed desire to even try to understand, has long since been given up as a bad job. Indeed I used to call myself a re-con, but I came to realise a major point about CR is that it seems to be usually, though not exclusively, an American thing. Personally I don't need to reconstruct a tradition I can be a part of now, day to day.
|
|
|
Post by aelfarh on Oct 22, 2008 15:18:09 GMT -1
For sure littleraven, and I meant no insult on the CR label. Actually I'm closer in my beliefs to CR than revivalist druidry, so I'll be like insulting my self I just see a lot of commonalities between your organization and other CRs. I have visit some CR groups websites, based on Ireland; so I think it's not only a movement from USA or other countries of America. Being America a big continent, it seems to me obvious to have more druids and druid organization than in Europe or the UK. And speaking of that, are you focus only in UK personal, living and being born in UK?
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Oct 22, 2008 15:19:19 GMT -1
I used to identify with CR too, mostly because it was the only thing I'd found which was closer to what I was doing than the typical neo-druidry.
I fell out of love with it due to it's US-ness too. Nothing against USAnians at all, but I think for them, having to start completely from scratch has led to problems. I remember one occasion, many year ago, on the Imbas board when an Irish girl was lambasted for not being properly CR - when all the lass was doing was following the practices she'd been brought up with. Because the Americans have no living tradition, they are too quick to discount anything not found in a book. And that's understandable, because they are starting from scratch. But here, and in Ireland, we are not, and that's what makes the difference.
|
|