|
Post by littleraven on May 11, 2009 11:23:16 GMT -1
As someone who's interested in history as part of my spiritual iterests, I often get 're-con' thrown at me in a way which can only really be interpreted as an 'accusation', indeed an insult. I can never quite understand the anachronistic need for people to call themselves Druid for example, but have a go at people who look to actual history for the odd bit of knowledge. Ho hum. For me, it matters not a jot whether something I do has historical authenticity. But if it *does*, then the idea that I may be doing something my ancestors did gives me a feeling of connection that makes my hair stand on end (cup to the right ). Let's face it, bishops carrying croziers have a link of tradition to pre-Christian Roman religion, why is it that neo-pagans almost seem to want to deny such potential links? Thoughts? Historical accuracy = important / not important?
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on May 11, 2009 11:57:43 GMT -1
imo without a historically accurate element you're just playing dressup. (even with, sometimes)
It's important to me purely from a "connection" point of view. Needed: I'd say so.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 11, 2009 13:32:21 GMT -1
simply and quickly put, what really matters to me is experience, but experience without consensus can, without other checks and balances, quickly lead to what might loosely be termed insanity. Consensus leads to tradition (a geographical consensus creating a stability of explanation and belief that survives through time) and a sense of tradition can result in strength and weakness (connectivity vs dogma, with connectivity acting to strengthen and reinforce experience, dogma constraining it). So, pro's and cons, I guess. The survival of a tradition in rites and ritual suggests a psychological value (and a "deep structure" that connects behaviour and experience to the transpersonal), but can also suggest a political control. I'm all for the former.
|
|
|
Post by potia on May 11, 2009 14:22:21 GMT -1
I'm not very good at studying history and I never have been but I like to know if what I do or say has any basis in history or is totally made up.
For example like many pagans I started out learning about what has become known as the eight-fold wheel of the year and the four directions/elements. I was perfectly happy with what I was doing at the time but constantly sought to deepen my knowledge and my connections to the pagan past of this land. I gradually learnt that while each of the eight festivals has its roots in history they were probably never all celebrated by one community the way they can be today. I also learnt that the four elements have their roots in alchemy and greek philosophy.
The result of this for me has been that while I still celebrate the eight festivals (some more so than others) I do so knowing that the whole scheme is a modern invention (by Nicols and Gardener I believe). And in my personal practice I no longer use the four elements (or five if you are counting spirit) but a ternary approach of earth, sea and sky (with fire as a transformative aspect linked to deity and spirit). This ternary approach is possibly no more historically accurate than the other method but it feels more in keeping with what I know of Brythonic and Gaelic lore and traditions. To me it feels stronger in this land.
So to me historical accuracy is not not vital but important in the way it informs my development. If I know something may have been done by distant ancestors then it has that extra sense of connection but I think it's even more important to me to have others now sharing in what I do.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 11, 2009 15:04:42 GMT -1
It does make me laugh that some out there think Brython is all about history and that we need to do it 'by the book'. History is a good starting point, but it's not 'the be all and end all'. IMHO personal gnosis is more important which for me has been helped by my understanding of the iron age Brits. In return is has made my rituals a lot shorter and more deeper.
It might help if we had some FAQ's about Brython?
|
|
|
Post by Heron on May 12, 2009 19:30:36 GMT -1
I'm not very good at studying history and I never have been but I like to know if what I do or say has any basis in history or is totally made up. For example like many pagans I started out learning about what has become known as the eight-fold wheel of the year and the four directions/elements. I was perfectly happy with what I was doing at the time but constantly sought to deepen my knowledge and my connections to the pagan past of this land. I gradually learnt that while each of the eight festivals has its roots in history they were probably never all celebrated by one community the way they can be today. I also learnt that the four elements have their roots in alchemy and greek philosophy. The result of this for me has been that while I still celebrate the eight festivals (some more so than others) I do so knowing that the whole scheme is a modern invention (by Nicols and Gardener I believe). And in my personal practice I no longer use the four elements (or five if you are counting spirit) but a ternary approach of earth, sea and sky (with fire as a transformative aspect linked to deity and spirit). This ternary approach is possibly no more historically accurate than the other method but it feels more in keeping with what I know of Brythonic and Gaelic lore and traditions. To me it feels stronger in this land. So to me historical accuracy is not not vital but important in the way it informs my development. If I know something may have been done by distant ancestors then it has that extra sense of connection but I think it's even more important to me to have others now sharing in what I do. I think it's important to realise that, however successful we may be at process of 'reconstruction' (and that in itself is a lot more complex than most people care to realise), what we would be reconstructing is something made up by people in the past. I don't say we shouldn't try and I have to admit that it has immense attractions for me. But in the end what the gods want from us is what WE can give them, so if we make stuff up that pleases the gods, then we shouldn't be ashamed to acknowledge that we have made it up. Though that shouldn't ever mean that we JUST make it up. It has to be real and significant, that is it has to be a sign pointing to something beyond us.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on May 12, 2009 19:53:15 GMT -1
Thoughts? Historical accuracy = important / not important? I think this boils down to whether you think that at some point in the past they knew something relevant that we could no longer discover through either contemporary experience or relationship? Do we believe there are any "keys" to furthering relationship with the gods and spirits of this land that are now only re-discoverable to us through the medium of archeology? That said like you I feel the thrill of resonance when I know I'm doing something my ancestors did. The big But is that I don't think that they necessarily had a better handle on how to approach relationship with the gods and Spirits of Place of this land than those who look with care and dedication today. So my feeling is that historical accuracy is only important if it has something to offer of value and relevance today. I had a good relationship with my Great Granddad, a man born in the 1890s into a very different world and culture - to understand him and relate to him a knowledge of the way the world and our culture was in his youth was very valuable. His approach to servants and class took me along time to understand - and it wasn't until I had learnt some history, and was old enough to put his attitudes into the context of his time, that I could properly relate to him and not judge him harshly for some of his more 'out-of-time' right wing views. If I want to relate to my ancestors of place and blood from the iron age - where there is an even greater gap of time and culture between me and my great granddad - then I need to know something of that culture. I think this is what archaeology and historical accuracy can offer my spiritual path.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 13, 2009 7:56:18 GMT -1
I do think intent is more important than historical authenticity. I know there is one group out there that do it for internal reward as they don't believe the spirits exist. Where as those who have a grasp of ritual know that it's about the spirit receiving worship. That's not to say personal gain doesn't have a place in ritual, but I think you should not ask the gods if you can get for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 13, 2009 8:24:27 GMT -1
.... - to understand him and relate to him a knowledge of the way the world and our culture was in his youth was very valuable. This for me is the crux of it. I do not try to approach deity because tbh I don't know if it shouldn't remain as a great mystery, but I do speak to ancestors in the hope They are listening. For unexplainable reasons, I have a deep fascination with that Iron Age transition into the Roman period. I take it as a point of honour that I should approach Them in as accurate a way as possible. Do I think They will think less of me if I do not approach Them with a bloodied head in hand, no. I think They will appreciate it if I say "It was your way, it is not our way" whilst I do my best to understand Their ways. Make sense? Nor do I believe that They had an automatically better realtionship with Their Gods/ancestors/spirits. But I do think it's harder for us now, we have so much more distraction, knowledge of psychology etc it can be hard to know what is spirit and what is mind. To me, that historical detail gives a focus to help me cut through. I'll be honest, I would love to see pagan British temples built in the same pattern as those of 2000yrs ago, becaseu why shouldn't they be? You can see the continuity if tradition in the layout of church or mosque or synagogue, why not for us?
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 13, 2009 8:35:47 GMT -1
It does make me laugh that some out there think Brython is all about history and that we need to do it 'by the book'. There seems to be this persistent 'them and us' mentality. IMHO there is an internal contradiction within Druidry, it talks about it's newness yet needs to have this ancient provenance to justify itself, then will happily discount aspects of the ancient provenance when it suits. It reminds me of (serious, not Buffyish) Wicca a few years ago, when it went through the realisation it wasn't the 'ancient witch cult' but an invention of Gerald's. It seemed to mature very quickly to a point where it accepted itself for it's own value. This need for the ancient provence seems where our biggest point of conflict comes. Neo-Druids talk about ancestors who did this and that and those of us who have looked at it say "Hold on, that's BS". Of course such things challenge their entire belief structures, particularly when such things as the eightfold year are mentioned. Personally I would rather crawl open eyed in the light than run blindfolded in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 13, 2009 8:38:29 GMT -1
Consensus leads to tradition (a geographical consensus creating a stability of explanation and belief that survives through time) and a sense of tradition can result in strength and weakness (connectivity vs dogma, with connectivity acting to strengthen and reinforce experience, dogma constraining it). Agin, that's a use of 'dogma' in a negative sense that we're trying to combat, to return it to it's meaning of commonly held belief and community than a control mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 13, 2009 17:21:21 GMT -1
Consensus leads to tradition (a geographical consensus creating a stability of explanation and belief that survives through time) and a sense of tradition can result in strength and weakness (connectivity vs dogma, with connectivity acting to strengthen and reinforce experience, dogma constraining it). Agin, that's a use of 'dogma' in a negative sense that we're trying to combat, to return it to it's meaning of commonly held belief and community than a control mechanism. Dogma by definition derives from higher authority and is not open to dispute or discussion. I don't see it as having anything other than an authoritarian aspect or having a positive sense. Community derived believe and consensus understanding is something entirely different, even if one acknowledges the wisdom of certain members of the community in focusing and driving forward that understanding and belief - doesn't rely on indisputable authority. If you can show me a common usage of the word dogma that does not rely on authority and accepts dispute as a matter of principle I will stand corrected, but even my concise Oxford English is quite specific in this matter.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 13, 2009 20:15:41 GMT -1
Adam, dogma are the commonly held beliefs of a group, what is commonly perceived as dogma is actually more correctly absolutism.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 13, 2009 20:55:19 GMT -1
Can you give me a reference? I mean that, I'm not being pointlessly argumentative, but I do have a strong belief that, while dictionaries do lag behind language usage, common usage is pretty much the arbiter of meaning of language and to choose a different yardstick to everyone else simply creates confusion and division. I've searched, on and offline (unfortunately I've let my subscription to the OED lapse), and everything I find specific refers to dogma as a set of beliefs prescribed by an authority, and most everything points to it being not open to dispute.
I'm not talking common perception which is frequent misconception, but current definition, which is pretty much the only way I know how to use language as an effective communication tool. For example, my Concise OD gives and no other definition.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions gives and I'm making a guess that you are referring to its use in that early sense. As far as I can see that usage is archaic and likely to cause only confusion if used in that way, unless always used prefaced with "as used by the ancient classical authors".
Vaguely ironically, I'm forced to assert, by authority of the OED, that dogma refers to beliefs and principles laid down by an authority and which (in most usages) brook no dispute:-)
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 13, 2009 22:11:05 GMT -1
The thing about common usage is that it does not necessarily have much connection to it's original meaning.
Much like 'Druid'.
Look at the original meaning of the Greek word, and who and where it was used in a religious context. Dogma, which originally meant common belief, has come to mean religious absolutism. A lot of what we do here is about reclaiming, and this is one of them. Holding common beliefs is not something to be ashamed of.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 13, 2009 22:35:22 GMT -1
The thing about common usage is that it does not necessarily have much connection to it's original meaning. Much like 'Druid'. Look at the original meaning of the Greek word, and who and where it was used in a religious context. Dogma, which originally meant common belief, has come to mean religious absolutism. A lot of what we do here is about reclaiming, and this is one of them. Holding common beliefs is not something to be ashamed of. If I have implied that, then I have communicated poorly. Holding common beliefs is something to cherish, IMO. But I see little value in reclaiming a word meaning from ancient Greek that hasn't had that meaning for a long time when the rest of the world will not follow. You simply cut off communication. The origin and development of a word is of interest in understanding the development of concepts, and can inform our understanding of its meaning, but surely reclamation of meaning is a retrograde step. I would choose a different word for the development and holding of common belief. One more consistent with common usage. Otherwise you are creating a jargon, incurring baggage and creating confusion. I'm reminded of a battle I had with my daughter's primary school, then the LEA and finally the DoE. I gave up in the end, but my daughter came home tasked to "Write a recount of your trip to xxx". The last recorded usage of the word recount in that manner was something like 190X in a newspaper(can't remember exactly but a century give or take), according to the OED. None of the school's dictionaries used it in that way and no common dictionary used it in that way, so I felt that it was confusing to teach a child to use a word in a way that simply wasn't prescribed by the standard authority she would be taught to use, the dictionary. Unfortunately, it turned out that this usage was printed in DoE guidelines sent to all the primary schools. I'm guessing some idiot couldn't tell the difference between account and recount in noun and verb usage. After some months and letters and emails some guy came back with the 190X example and I gave up. But no-one could show me a dictionary my daughter would ever use that contained the use of the word recount as a noun meaning a narrative of events. That's the sort of anal, annoying little pedant I am :-) But it did bug me that no one else thought it mattered.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 13, 2009 22:51:32 GMT -1
reply to self: I would be more inclined to go with "creed" having roots in the latin for both I and we believe and links to the idea that we can recognise each other by our common belief, without the baggage of authority being so heavily imposed, and a recent history of creeds that have become dogma being rejected and replaced.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 14, 2009 7:42:52 GMT -1
I see what you mean, Adam. It is problematic using the word dogma and it will take a lot of work explaining our meaning of it. I don't think Christainty should have a monopoly on the word. Do you think we can turn it around to it's more positive meaning?
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 14, 2009 10:52:17 GMT -1
may I suggest the word 'canon'? Originally 'measuring rod' it comes to mean the accepted parameters of something: the canon of scripture, the canons of ikon-painting (i.e. the rules). They allow a game to be played much like the white lines on a football pitch. It brings in the idea that we are measuring something against an internal standard, not laying down dogma from on high.
|
|