|
Post by potia on Nov 26, 2010 21:00:45 GMT -1
This is a theory I chatted with Redraven about at the TDN conference about the difference between our relationships with gods and land. Francis and Redraven both have strong relationships with the land they live on. Both have family ties over generations for at least one of them to their respective areas and both seem to have much weaker ties to the gods. It seems to me that their relationships with the spirits of the land they live on is so strong that the gods take a much lesser role in their lives. Francis and Redraven I'm hoping both of you will input on this thread to either confirm or deny my assumptions there I on the other hand do not have much of a relationship with the land I live on and in. I do try and make friends with the spirits of place but my blood, my family, does not have ties to any particular place to this extent. I do not have strong roots to a particular place. My strongest relationships are with the gods that can, will and do travel with me. My theory is that those of us with weak ties to the land we live on will tend to stronger relationships with gods than with the spirits of place and those whose blood and bones are bred into an area will have the strongest ties to the spirits of that area because they are born and bred of that land. Does this make sense to folks here? Do you think I'm right or just limited in my experiences?
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Nov 26, 2010 23:52:12 GMT -1
My theory is that those of us with weak ties to the land we live on will tend to stronger relationships with gods than with the spirits of place and those whose blood and bones are bred into an area will have the strongest ties to the spirits of that area because they are born and bred of that land. Does this make sense to folks here? Do you think I'm right or just limited in my experiences? That's an interesting theory Potia, though I'm not sure it quite ties in with the fact that our ancestors who live close to the land also had relationships with gods. The question, I suppose, is whether there is any essential difference between gods and spirits of place. Certainly the Greeks and Romans thought of the various nymphs, naiads, dryads etc as gods, though of a 'lesser' order than the more universal deities. So it might be no more than a difference in status that we are talking about here. But I can see your point about people living close to the land being more likely to have attachments to local spirits and those living a more urban life-style relating to more universal deities. In one sense that's simply a matter of historical development. I will give further thought to this.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 27, 2010 4:52:33 GMT -1
Certainly the Greeks and Romans thought of the various nymphs, naiads, dryads etc as gods, though of a 'lesser' order than the more universal deities. So it might be no more than a difference in status that we are talking about here. That's not my understanding. It's more about "sphere of influence". And it's interesting that the question of a hierarchical order was proposed by both Greeks and Romans, civilizations whose exploits lead to a movement of large numbers of individuals away from ancestral lands. My limited interactions with deity have revealed some powerful presences, but my experience of S of P has been just as powerful, so for me, any hierarchical structure tends to be more about compartmentalizing to fit human perception and theoretical structures, rather than an actual hierarchy being in place. RR
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 7:27:30 GMT -1
I think it actually depends entirely on the disposition of the individual, as opposed to there being an actual trend.
I know people like you describe above, yet I also know people that have very intense devotional relationships both with gods and the beings that inhabit the land around them.
Our ancient ancestors probably would have honoured both without a second thought, though I suppose it's perfectly natural for people to feel more of a connection to some beings than others.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Nov 28, 2010 15:13:16 GMT -1
Certainly the Greeks and Romans thought of the various nymphs, naiads, dryads etc as gods, though of a 'lesser' order than the more universal deities. So it might be no more than a difference in status that we are talking about here. That's not my understanding. It's more about "sphere of influence". And it's interesting that the question of a hierarchical order was proposed by both Greeks and Romans, civilizations whose exploits lead to a movement of large numbers of individuals away from ancestral lands. My limited interactions with deity have revealed some powerful presences, but my experience of S of P has been just as powerful, so for me, any hierarchical structure tends to be more about compartmentalizing to fit human perception and theoretical structures, rather than an actual hierarchy being in place. RR I think this touches on a pretty fundamental consideration of how we can interact with nature. On the one hand 'human perception' is all we have, and certainly the imposition of a hierarchical structure on the gods and spirits of place is a cultural one based on human perceptions in a particular period and a particular place. We might perceive things differently. But then there is the feeling that we can perceive things as they are. That is unaffected by our cultural conditioning. And certainly this should be possible in order for cultural views to shift over time. But a mythology is a cultural thing. It is about our relationship with the gods. {Or it might operate in way that doesn't specifically identify deities in this way. There is, in Welsh, a concept called ' cydymdreiddiad' developed by the philosopher J R Jones to discuss the way language and landscape can interact. The theory proposes that landscape interacts with our language and cultural traditions so that for that culture the landscape is constructed within that language and culture. The Welsh poet Waldo Williams expresses this in a poem where he says "These mountains, only one language could raise them ..... against a sky of song" (my translation).} That's a theory constructed to claim a privileged view of a landscape by those who have lived in it for generations and built a relationship with it through their culture. Mythology works in similar ways. But the feeling that we can have direct experience of spirits of place which by-passes language seems to me to be qualitively different from this. It suggest a personal relationship, individual to individual, rather than one which is cultural. This may be possible, and certainly many feel that it is possible. But what can't be possible is that we have a relationship that is based on anything but human perceptions. Because they are the only perceptions we have.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 28, 2010 19:08:43 GMT -1
Our ancient ancestors probably would have honoured both without a second thought, though I suppose it's perfectly natural for people to feel more of a connection to some beings than others. I believe that statement is entirely dependent upon the time period for it's context. RR
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 28, 2010 19:34:01 GMT -1
I think this touches on a pretty fundamental consideration of how we can interact with nature. On the one hand 'human perception' is all we have, One that is not static as we learn more about the "reality" of our world. and certainly the imposition of a hierarchical structure on the gods and spirits of place is a cultural one based on human perceptions in a particular period and a particular place. We might perceive things differently. But then there is the feeling that we can perceive things as they are. That is unaffected by our cultural conditioning. And certainly this should be possible in order for cultural views to shift over time. But a mythology is a cultural thing. It is about our relationship with the gods. Agreed. {Or it might operate in way that doesn't specifically identify deities in this way. There is, in Welsh, a concept called ' cydymdreiddiad' developed by the philosopher J R Jones to discuss the way language and landscape can interact. The theory proposes that landscape interacts with our language and cultural traditions so that for that culture the landscape is constructed within that language and culture. The Welsh poet Waldo Williams expresses this in a poem where he says "These mountains, only one language could raise them ..... against a sky of song" (my translation).} That's a theory constructed to claim a privileged view of a landscape by those who have lived in it for generations and built a relationship with it through their culture. Speaks to me more of the dynamism speculated as being the ethos behind the oral tradition. But I am not in a position to speculate as to the underlying motives behind the example quoted here. You are in a better position to qualify your statement as I'm unfamiliar with the material and I accept the definition you present here. Mythology works in similar ways. But the feeling that we can have direct experience of spirits of place which by-passes language seems to me to be qualitively different from this. It suggest a personal relationship, individual to individual, rather than one which is cultural. This may be possible, and certainly many feel that it is possible. But what can't be possible is that we have a relationship that is based on anything but human perceptions. Because they are the only perceptions we have. Again, agreed, but these perceptions are subject to change and as they change, is it possible that the methods used to interact with these perceptions is also subject to change? RR
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Nov 29, 2010 13:59:21 GMT -1
Mythology works in similar ways. But the feeling that we can have direct experience of spirits of place which by-passes language seems to me to be qualitively different from this. It suggest a personal relationship, individual to individual, rather than one which is cultural. This may be possible, and certainly many feel that it is possible. But what can't be possible is that we have a relationship that is based on anything but human perceptions. Because they are the only perceptions we have. Again, agreed, but these perceptions are subject to change and as they change, is it possible that the methods used to interact with these perceptions is also subject to change? If the capacity for perception changes it would be very slowly through the process of evolution. It might be that we become more specialised in certain areas and lose capacities in other areas. And the ability to perceive certain things is always going to be slightly variable : there are always some people who are better than average and others who are worse than average at any given skill. That variability will not be significant. But the way we interpret perceptions may vary significantly and can change within a generation, and is of course likely to be different across different cultures at the same time. But the interesting question, it seems to me, is the variation within a particular culture and whether we are bound by our cultural conditioning or whether it is possible for individuals to have direct access to nature in some 'unconditioned' way. Although I have had experiences which seem to suggest this is possible, I can't work out any way of arguing that it could be possible.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 29, 2010 18:39:50 GMT -1
If the capacity for perception changes it would be very slowly through the process of evolution. I would have agreed with that statement a short while ago, but technology is now presenting previously unheard of evidence. For example, the recently discovered "bubbles" found in the centre of the Milkey way which are 25,000 light years across and have only been "discovered" because the telescope used was viewing using the gamma ray spectrum of the light scale spectrum, which is invisible to humans. It might be that we become more specialised in certain areas and lose capacities in other areas. And the ability to perceive certain things is always going to be slightly variable : there are always some people who are better than average and others who are worse than average at any given skill. That variability will not be significant. Again, agreed. But the way we interpret perceptions may vary significantly and can change within a generation, and is of course likely to be different across different cultures at the same time. But the interesting question, it seems to me, is the variation within a particular culture and whether we are bound by our cultural conditioning or whether it is possible for individuals to have direct access to nature in some 'unconditioned' way. Although I have had experiences which seem to suggest this is possible, I can't work out any way of arguing that it could be possible. I think the strongest argument is to establish that the limits imposed on us as humans are not completely binding. As I mentioned elsewhere, when one considers for example, the actual percentage of the light scale humans can actually see, it is unreasonable and irrational to insist all life must exist in such a minimal range of the available spectrum, simply because that is what is available to us and therefore anything outside of this range is irrelevent. I truly believe that these boundaries will be pushed back at a quicker rate in the next 15 or so years than at any other time in history. The veil may not be just lifted, but actually identified beyond reasonable doubt. RR
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Nov 29, 2010 20:38:39 GMT -1
I think the strongest argument is to establish that the limits imposed on us as humans are not completely binding. As I mentioned elsewhere, when one considers for example, the actual percentage of the light scale humans can actually see, it is unreasonable and irrational to insist all life must exist in such a minimal range of the available spectrum, simply because that is what is available to us and therefore anything outside of this range is irrelevent. I truly believe that these boundaries will be pushed back at a quicker rate in the next 15 or so years than at any other time in history. The veil may not be just lifted, but actually identified beyond reasonable doubt. RR Absolutely. Just because there are things beyond the range of our perceptions, it doesn't mean that they are not there. But it does mean that we can't perceive them. Of course technology can extend the range of perceptions we have (infra red and ultra violet light for instance) but we can only have any sense of things outside our faculties of perception at a highly abstract level (like mathematical modelling). We can't actually experience these things directly. So how, in this case, would the veil be lifted?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2010 22:02:18 GMT -1
isnt it the case though that with these bubbles the only part of the spectrum able to get this far is the gamma rays? rather than it only existing in the gamma ray part of the EMS?
simply put, the only part of its emmissions able to get here efficiently is the gamma rays, the rest gets washed out in the interim space.?
are you suggesting that we might 'discover' something here on earth that exists only within the non-visible spectrum?
|
|
|
Post by potia on Nov 30, 2010 11:46:32 GMT -1
I love you guys but how is this helping with my theory about the differences between us in the way we develop relationships with deity and/or spirits of place? You've kind of lost me Are you saying that the way we perceive these beings plays a large part in what relationships we develop? In which case that makes sense. I mean if you never meet someone it's hard to develop a relationship with them
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 30, 2010 21:11:43 GMT -1
isnt it the case though that with these bubbles the only part of the spectrum able to get this far is the gamma rays? rather than it only existing in the gamma ray part of the EMS? Possibly, but my point was that we didn't have access to the gamma rays previously therefore, no-one would have believed in the existence of these structures. simply put, the only part of its emmissions able to get here efficiently is the gamma rays, the rest gets washed out in the interim space.? Again, probably. are you suggesting that we might 'discover' something here on earth that exists only within the non-visible spectrum? Seeing as over 99.9% of that spectrum is not available to us, then the fact we encounter other lifeforms in such a small section of the total range suggests that life must be present in this larger range. To assume otherwise doesn't appear to me to be reasonable. RR
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 30, 2010 21:18:14 GMT -1
I love you guys but how is this helping with my theory about the differences between us in the way we develop relationships with deity and/or spirits of place? You've kind of lost me Are you saying that the way we perceive these beings plays a large part in what relationships we develop? In which case that makes sense. I mean if you never meet someone it's hard to develop a relationship with them Trust a woman to bring the conversation back to the original point . Perception must surely govern our understanding of our interactions. I believe that for some, the individualized deity is the best method of interaction whereas for others, perceptions may well be rooted in a historical and ancestral connection to a particular place. This does not imply any precedence of one over the other, but rather signals a diversity of available methods of interactions. RR
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 1, 2010 5:25:23 GMT -1
To try to clarify better, I'll quote Charbonier from 1959 "In a forest, I have felt many times that it was not I who was looking at the forest. In some days I have felt that it was the trees that were looking at me, that were speaking to me. For myself, I was there - listening." I believe that anyone for whom their interactions are placed more in S of P as opposed to individual deity, this is quite applicable. Speaking personally, I have learned to allow myself to be "guided" through observations, observations I am quite sure have been presented to me and not randomly generated. And I believe that some of the actions, motives and desires of my and others ancestors, continue to interact with and through this same landscape. Of course, this is just personal UPG.
RR
|
|
|
Post by potia on Dec 1, 2010 7:26:48 GMT -1
I have had some experiences like that described above RR, of being observed or welcomes but something much more localised and I have been able to form some level of relationship with what I have felt in these places.
I'm not saying that someone will only have experiences of one type of being or another. I'm suggesting that depending on an individual's personal background they will tend to be drawn more strongly to one type or another.
I think that fits with the idea of cultural perceptions mentioned above as well.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Dec 1, 2010 18:50:14 GMT -1
I've found that in different areas and/or settings the 'vibe' can be quite different. These I always refer to as 'other', deity or SoP but for me it's kinda the same thing & tend to treat it as such. By which I mean I recognise the Gods, ancestors & Spirits of place at that moment. Not once has it been obvious or crystal clear to me the actual identity or identities that are there.
For instance, in the lowlands of Scotland where my parents live their home & land has a strong presence. I acknowledge the presence & only once attempted to interact. The result was something else, too much for this old cynic to try and rationalise.
In a nutshell, I won't fuck about like that again! I learnt a lesson not to think I could actually have a 'one to one' type of personal relationship. I'll continue to simply to honour and acknowledge their presence from now on.
Other places are completely different. Where I live now in rural West Wales, it's very much a mutual acknowledgement and respectful distance.
Anyway, enough of my waffle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 21:54:52 GMT -1
Interesting discussion. I live in California and have a number of friends and acquaintances amongst the American Indians. One friend, has regular drum circles at his home and another is a Spiritual leader amongst the Apache and is well respected among other nations. They have clear concepts of the Creator above all, The Earth as Mother and Grandmother and the sky as Father and Grandfather. They also have a connection to the spirits of place (Specific location) and time (Ancestors) All of the above receive proper respect in whatever ceremony is being conducted. I never heard a debate about who is more connected. It's just all about appropriate time and place. This all resonates with me personally. I honour the Gods of my Welsh ancestors, not for any blessing in this life or the next and certainly not in the hope of gaining some occult "Magic Powers" but because it fills a deep spiritual need for me. So I find I can honour the spirits of time and place gere in California without in any way compromising my relationship to the deities of my homeland. It's all about what is appropriate to the actions of the moment. Incidentaly, the profile picture was taken at an OBOD Summer Solstice camp in the Los Angeles national forest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2010 9:57:08 GMT -1
In my home town, where my paternal ancestors have lived for at least 6 generations, I have a very strong conection to the S of P but not so strongly to the gods. Perhapse it becaue almost every street has a family legand attached to it and Im mixing up ancestors with SoP? I now live in rural wales and don't have such a strong connection connection to the spirits of place and I have been here for all my adult life but I can interact more easily with the gods here even though some of them are gods from home.
|
|