|
|
Post by Heron on Oct 10, 2009 20:26:29 GMT -1
I'm hoping I having not caused offence with my accusations of vagueness... my language could have been rather bullish and if so, I apologise unreservedley... I'm pretty much up to my limit here, both linguistically and conceptually (my instinct is telling me this is time to move to maths, but that is way too rusty ;D )... but I certainly don't mean to convey an impression of the gods as boiler suited engineers  nor to offer disrespect to someone else's understanding In my head, in my heart and in my limited experience, I would draw a distinction between various human/once-human/non-human intelligences... the ancestors I have experience with are intimate to me. The spirits of the land are different and intrinsic to the land and I relate to them in a different way. The gods... the gods, to me, are an abstraction further... somehow more intrinsically related to the very fabric of existence, or to my experience of it... genius *non*loci if that makes sense... abstracted (in my experience only) to the point that I have been largely able to disregard them day to day, though my day to day experience with the ancestors is drawing me in to a relationship with them indirectly. The question that hangs pertinent for me seems to be one of the nature of the gods as well as the nature of our relationship to them Does it make more sense if I simply say the gods sustain reality? No offence taken by me about the vagueness comment which wasn't about something I'd said anyway but I did, genuinely, want to avoid being vague and wondered if I'd succeeded. I didn't find your language bullish either. Directness is fine. We're all, as you say, up against the limits of language here but not, I hope, the limits of our world. I like 'the gods sustain reality'. I agree that we shouldn't confuse the gods with ancestors. As for land spirits and gods as an 'abstraction' from these, I take your point, but would prefer to think of the process of 'abstraction' as one of culturisation. This relates to my comments last time : 'In Nature they are presences ; in Culture they have form.' which is why I like your 'sustain reality'comment. Once they are part of our world they also become part of our structure of meaning. I realize that you probably weren't thinking of social reality though, and regarding them as sustaining reality in a more absolute sense also appeals to me, but is more difficult to argue for. This would, presumably, put them in the same category as the one absolute God of the monotheist religions, but it's that removal from Nature (or 'abstraction') that I am less happy with. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 11, 2009 12:56:45 GMT -1
This would, presumably, put them in the same category as the one absolute God of the monotheist religions, but it's that removal from Nature (or 'abstraction') that I am less happy with. I would shy away from that, I think... *my* gods (in the sense I'm starting to talk of them in) would have come into being with existence (or always have been, if the aspect of existence they are intrinsic to is so)... Time, for example... that which moves day to night and rotates the seasons... that is serious god shit ah... I think I understand a little better now your point about 'In Nature they are presences ; in Culture they have form.' off to ponder |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 9:07:26 GMT -1
In my head, in my heart and in my limited experience, I would draw a distinction between various human/once-human/non-human intelligences... the ancestors I have experience with are intimate to me. The spirits of the land are different and intrinsic to the land and I relate to them in a different way. I'm not really sure personally what I think the spirits of the land are, where one thing ends and another begins on that front. I think I have trouble ordering them in my mind, what seems to me the immense combined memory of the land, of numerous once-human and non-human intelligences. I've always thought of the ancestors as becoming partially part of place, at least the part that doesn't live on in our bones and blood as their descendents. But I suppose to confuse them too much, as I'm sometimes inclined to do, disallows the important recognition of the non-human intelligences of a place in nature. As to the gods I tend to think of them as the broadest sentiences that there are. A sentience that takes in a wider scope than ours, that can at once partake of, or be immanent within certain natural forces, certain human experiences or sensations or even skills, and also somehow remain individual and aware in a way we can't quite visualise. I imagine that involved in so many more things than us they have greater powers, but I see a great element of mystery as intrinsic to what a 'god' is from a human perspective. They are, it could be said, the mystery that the self observes when looking at the universe, and also the mystery the universe sees with the eyes of when looking through the self. |
|
|
|
Post by Rion on Oct 12, 2009 9:15:29 GMT -1
They are, it could be said, the mystery that the self observes when looking at the universe, and also the mystery the universe sees with the eyes of when looking through the self. This ^^^ is a sentence I'm going to have to think about for at least an hour! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 9:25:04 GMT -1
Is there an emoticon for *looks sheepish*? I didn't mean it, it was about as clear as I could make the concept in my head with these little wordy things.  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 12, 2009 9:32:19 GMT -1
I'm not really sure personally what I think the spirits of the land are, where one thing ends and another begins on that front. I think I have trouble ordering them in my mind, what seems to me the immense combined memory of the land, of numerous once-human and non-human intelligences. I've always thought of the ancestors as becoming partially part of place, at least the part that doesn't live on in our bones and blood as their descendents. But I suppose to confuse them too much, as I'm sometimes inclined to do, disallows the important recognition of the non-human intelligences of a place in nature. It's one of those things that isn't "clean" I guess... doesn't all go into nice little boxes... I would think of ancestor as partially becoming part of place too, but that isn't my experience of them... but I would also think of the soul or spirit of the place being "of its self", that the place is, its self, alive As to where one thing ends and another begins... I think that is down to perception and consensus... including consensus with the place itself |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 20:33:14 GMT -1
I would agree with you. I think it only really matters, that kind of drawing of lines, when you need to try and convey you're experiences with others. Which is of course really important because that's how culture develops and is reinvigorated.
|
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Jan 6, 2011 16:31:24 GMT -1
Is it wrong to resurrect old threads like this? Apologies if I should be starting a new thread (I'm not only new to this forum, I'm newborn in the forum world full stop).
But I would just add that my thoughts on what makes a god a deity rather than S.O.P is that they have the freedom/power/ability to roam freely - it must take more energy, more omph, more *something* to move within the world and those spaces between freely, no? That's the distinction I make (for the moment!) I have huge difficulties with rivers though... (commence singing song from disney's poccahontas *excuse dreadful spelling*) their movement and inclination to merge into one another... If a river is the physical manifestation of a spirit where does that spirit end? When one river meets another is another river spirit 'born' or does one spirit have dominance?!?! Too difficult a question for my small brain...
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 6, 2011 16:43:54 GMT -1
Is it wrong to resurrect old threads like this? Apologies if I should be starting a new thread (I'm not only new to this forum, I'm newborn in the forum world full stop). No, not wrong at all. You are welcome to resurrect any thread you want being a member of CF. But I would just add that my thoughts on what makes a god a deity rather than S.O.P is that they have the freedom/power/ability to roam freely - it must take more energy, more omph, more *something* to move within the world and those spaces between freely, no? Not necessarily. how much energy do you suppose it takes to manifest interactions through the medium of the land as compared to the medium of air or the otherworld? That's the distinction I make (for the moment!) I have huge difficulties with rivers though... (commence singing song from disney's poccahontas *excuse dreadful spelling*) We'll soon get rid of that for you! ;D their movement and inclination to merge into one another... If a river is the physical manifestation of a spirit where does that spirit end? When one river meets another is another river spirit 'born' or does one spirit have dominance?!?! Why would dominance be necessary? What if it was actually an increase in the collective? RR |
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 6, 2011 17:38:41 GMT -1
Is it wrong to resurrect old threads like this? Apologies if I should be starting a new thread (I'm not only new to this forum, I'm newborn in the forum world full stop). ... You carry on resurrecting old threads to (hopefully) find the answers you seek. It's can be easy to miss or forget some very good but old posts. |
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Jan 6, 2011 18:40:38 GMT -1
Hmm RedRaven, you make me question why I think it takes more energy to manifest without residing within a physical landscape. Why DO I think that?  Surely spirits (I'm including Gods in this as a particular form of spirit) also expend energy in their movements - maybe not in the same way as we physically would, but everything else in the universe (as I understand it) is energy so it would make sense that spirit is energy too of a kind?? (Ak I get the feeling I'm making myself look like an idiot) For energy to 'move' there needs to be an expendure or release of energy. S.O.P don't move so does this mean that they do not have the energy required to move? Where as a spirit that does must be more, erm, 'powerful' (?) making us humans more likely to percieve it as a God? As to the dominance thing I just don't know, just throwing some ideas around. |
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Jan 6, 2011 20:19:00 GMT -1
I see Gods as transcending and SOP as place locked. I doubt that any one would worship the spirit place of Mam tor in Brighton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 21:37:13 GMT -1
Just to add to the confusion ... I agree that evidence that specific deities existed in the past is a valuable starting point, but I do feel that before drawing a distinction on that basis, the first question we should ask is how did our ancestors define gods, as seperate from spirits of place or otherworldly beings. What qualities do the deities they revered have in common and how can those be applied to our experiences and understanding of deity today? Were their definitions airtight, or was there overlap there? If we're going to follow the leader, best find out what the rules are, seeing as the leader's not around to ask  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2011 14:41:06 GMT -1
How about this: In Nature they are presences ; in Culture they have form. Thank you. That answers a question I've been trying to pose for 24 hours. |
|
nor to offer disrespect to someone else's understanding
Surely spirits (I'm including Gods in this as a particular form of spirit) also expend energy in their movements - maybe not in the same way as we physically would, but everything else in the universe (as I understand it) is energy so it would make sense that spirit is energy too of a kind?? (Ak I get the feeling I'm making myself look like an idiot) For energy to 'move' there needs to be an expendure or release of energy. S.O.P don't move so does this mean that they do not have the energy required to move? Where as a spirit that does must be more, erm, 'powerful' (?) making us humans more likely to percieve it as a God?
