Personal Beliefs

[redraven]

I have moved this post from Megli's excellent What I believe thread, in an attempt not to divert the content.

Ok, after the comments by Francis on the "A year has passed" thread, an attempt by myself to contextualise my present, and therefore not finalised, position.
It is my present belief that this thing called spirituality, which is what I am interested attempting to create a framework for, is based upon the physicality of my present body. The connection with the "greater" consciousness, be that external or internal in nature, may have it's origin in the biology of our inherited physical body.
When people talk of the "connection" with the land, be that through whatever means, it is my opinion that this is somewhat shaped by our genetic ancestors. The food they ate, especially if it was locally produced, and if you think about this, only a generation or so, the vast majority of food ate was grown locally, gives the potential for "more" than just the ingress of nutrients. Today's "have it all at all times of the year" foods resulting from the importation of said foods from different parts of the world, give us the potential for the ingress of different types of nutrients.If this does give us the potential for the absorbtion of non native particles, the physical processes known to us now, show how our bodies adapt to these and the body is altered to deal with these new circumstances.
Because this is an on going process, the potential for the body adapting to a new set of nutrients mean that there is the potential for physiological change.
To use music as an analogy, think about the creation of a guitar. The wood used for the sound box could be viewed as the inherited body, created from the genetic ancestors, shaped and carved by their collective genetics, and, if you believe in such things, possibly their shared or common experiences. The ingress of physical particles,food etc, could have an effect upon the composition of the wood, and therefore, by default, the sound eminating from it.The strings would be produced from external sources, external from the original body, the sound box. They may be viewed as external experiences used to interpret and interact with it's external environment
. Now, different strings produced in different area's of the world produce different sounds. Their composition may be different although their outward appearance may be identical. Importantly, their sounds, the purpose for which they were constructed for in the first place, may vary enormously. This results in different sounds, beautiful to some and meaningless to others.
Which description would be correct? Meaningless or beautiful?
Of course, that would be dependent upon the listener.
So, taking the analogy further, genetics give us the potential to experience beautiful sounds or meaningless noises.
It is my opinion that our judgment is based in genetics.
It has been my experience that my taste in music has changed throughout my life. That is to say, it is not static. Some music resonates throughout my being, figuratively phrased by someone else on another forum, as an almost orgasmic experience. Yet, what resonated with me at 17, may not have exactly the same effect upon me at 46. My physiology, through exposure to different environments, may, have contributed to a changed perception.
So, which was the "correct" perception? The earlier one or the current one? Does it matter? Or is the important thing the evolving capability of receiving different inputs?
Unfortunately, connection to the land, through spirits, deities etc, is, again in my experience, somewhat akin to trying to listen to music through a very large and somewhat, well padded cushion. You can hear sounds, but you can't quite differentiate between notes to create a tune.
To attempt to create that tune may be done individually, certain gifted individuals may possess the equipment to do it, I have in mind here the likes of Beethoven, profoundly deaf yet capable of producing works of wonder through the use of a different medium (which would of course be the written word). But what about the rest of us, who do not possess such qualities? How do we make best use of the fragments of disjointed and disorganized snippets?
The answer should be self evident.

RR

[megli]

This is very interesting RR--- i'm going to need to read it thtough several times before I post any reply...

[redraven]

I have now done an article that sets out my relationship with both landscape and polytheism based on my own perceived Brythonic context. The article is just slightly under 3000 words in total, so it will be posted in two parts for obvious reasons. I am happy for people to comment, even if it's just to observe that they consider it ridiculous, this is just my take on this at this time and I consider it to be important that these things are posted regularly to create discussion and help shape direction.

RR

[redraven]

Edit... This is a later updated version and as such, some of the questions/comments offered may have been dealt with.

Relationship with Landscape.

One of the main thrusts of mainstream religions is the potential for the redemption of the individual through the adoption of the teachings of the (usually) divines representative(s). Some of these teachings could be viewed as profound for their ability to transcend time with a universal truth and as such are valid as metaphor for various experiences. However, the adoption of these religions by the individual may involve a (sometimes) unconscious admission of previous inherent fault by that individual, with the teachings leading that same individual to a reward system qualified by subsequent actions that determine the quality of the reward.

Some of the great thinkers of spirituality, and indeed some of the same appointed prophets from those religions, convey the concept that the accumulation of materials is illusionary, and that part of humanities real goal is to achieve a form of connection with the spiritual aspect of life that needs no physical materials for interaction. For example Jesus is quoted as saying his kingdom was of a spiritual nature and not a material one, the inference being that materialistic gains were illusionary and of secondary importance.
These mainstream religions offer differing frameworks by which to experience the spiritual aspect of life, but it is usual for the individual to have to make cultural and behavioural changes to initiate this aspect.

It would initially appear therefore, that the main religion's premise imposes upon the individual some implied admission of intentional / unintentional fault qualified by the previous methods and processes of living, and it therefore gains a psychological advantage rendering the relationship unequal at the outset. To achieve the desired outcome, the individual has to first admit to the implied fault, thus handing personal power over to the religion's representative in the understanding that the other party has the tools, through the teachings of the nominated religion, to change the faulty perceptions, actions and thoughts of the individual, leading to redemption in the form of the reward used as the goal.
Whilst this approach may lead to a system favoured by many, increasingly many others are now looking for a different approach based upon a more equal relationship between spiritual and physical realms.

Living conditions for earlier generations meant that they were more exposed to the whims of nature for their existence. Weather patterns could, for example, lead to the deaths of civilizations through floods, famines etc. Therefore, relationship with deity would be more directly “intense” in that the reality was that your life could be ended on the altar dedicated to a particular deity / deities if it was considered, through a form of divination, to be appropriate for appeasement. We have many examples of this throughout the world, including, of course, the British Isles.
This type of religious interaction was largely based upon the physicality of the times. Natural weather conditions, because they were not subject to human whims, were placed in the realms of the Gods, therefore those same Gods had to be placated to insure favourable living and growing conditions.

Through the written history of the main religions, the individual is furnished with the locations of various sites that were the setting for specific acts. Some areas were considered to be sacred through the subsequent archaeological finds found at later dates, usually, though not exclusively, more so if that archaeology backed up the “historical” data on offer.
These sacred sites around the world have long been said to possess an “atmosphere”. Of course, this may not represent anything apart from the pre-conceived expectation of the individual, a psychological predetermination of what may be present. However, it is being increasingly speculated, through the rigours of the current scientific approach, that the first law of thermodynamics, which states that “energy can be transformed but not created or destroyed”, creates a hypothesis that may implicitly suggest that previous actions made at a site may have left some residual traces of (emotional) interactions, not currently quantifiable, but no less possible.

One possible useful analogy to use here, would be in the formation of and transmission of information. This has it's origins, it's method of transmission and it's destination. The origin could be represented by human or non human interactions. The method of transmission would be through the medium of the environment and the result would be present in that same environment at it's destination. The action of transmission through the environment may leave traces present in that same environment but not necessarily perceptible or quantifiable without the correct “equipment”.
These interactions could be viewed as part of the physical make up of a particular area. This possibility may lead one to the conclusion that any emotional interactivity has the potential to add layers to the local area and may continue to interact with the changing environment at later dates.

Sacred sites could, therefore, be candidates for greater concentrations of these interactions, resulting in an environment that may contain a multitude of different layers of interactions. These layers could be both positive and negative in nature and the balance could affect the perception of the individual experiencing the physicality of the environment through the individual's own subjective senses.
If we accept this premise, then the subjective senses of the individual may be receptive to some areas and not others. The biology of the individual may determine how the experiences are perceived, and a certain combination of interactions and / or biological processes could be responsible for how a person reacts to the physicality of their environment.

Logically, following on from this, the description of what represents a sacred environment may be open to a more subjective interpretation as opposed to it being based primarily upon a historical context. A certain combination of these interactions along with biological make up, coupled with the “tuning” of the individual's biological and mental processes, sometimes achieved through training from different sources, could result in what may be described as a sympathetic resonance with the environment. This could give some limited explanation as to one aspect of an individuals potential spiritual relationship with the landscape.
For those of us who believe that their relationship with the British Isles is experienced somewhat different to other areas of the world, this may give us some clues as to why. The environment of the British Isles has possibly been exposed to a greater number of interactions with humanity over a more sustained time period than in many areas of the world.

This doesn't mean to say there were greater numbers of people to create these interactions, but the enclosed nature of island living and smaller land mass, give us an idea as to the potential volume of these interactions.
Earlier generations considered places where the elements of Earth, water and air met, to be special places where one could potentially experience connection with deity. The geology of the British Isles lends itself to provide an abundance of such places.
he actions of the ancestors of the tribal societies present for a large period of pre-history and the continued inhabitation of those ancestral lands since then, may also provide a source of concentrated interactions that may have left traces for later generations to experience.

If the individual has now rejected a goal orientated reward system that promises gain through servitude, then relationship with the land may offer that same individual an experience that is not dependent upon the outcome but is based more around the experience. Many religions make specific reference that part of the purpose of life is to experience the act of living through the spiritual realm. It is my contention that to develop a relationship with the land, a nurturing process be built around rituals and ceremonies specific to that landscape and not imported from other areas of the world. For areas of the world with a long history of inhabitation by native populations, we observe very specific and powerful rituals, ceremonies and interactions based upon many lifetimes of nurturing from both sides.
From a British point of view, our history is one that has seen many changes of populations, both genetically and culturally. This has led to a mixing of spiritual belief systems, contributing to the layers previously discussed, each distinct in it's effects and yet contributing to the bigger picture of the environmental landscape.

Relationship with the land offers the opportunity to experience interaction without the expectation of material gain at the end of it and may, in fact, offer the individual the opportunity to contribute some of their own influence to the layers of their locality. This, I would suggest, provides a route which could represent the opportunity to widen one's own experiences of living and also experience the act of connection in a structured subjective level based through a local environmental context.


RR

[redraven]

Edit... as with the previous post, this is an updated version.

Relationship with polytheism.

We have many examples of the belief's of earlier generations in the British isles. For the majority of that history, it clear from the archaeological evidence that there was a common belief in the existence of multiple deities. Inscriptions can give us clues as to the identity of those deities, although the inscriptions are sometimes the interpretations of non-native occupying forces translated into a form that may not accurately represent the true meaning from the original language.
The nature of this polytheistic relationship, I suspect, would be one of a practical nature involving the invoking of various deities to favour the outcomes of everyday living. For peoples whose circumstances meant that a large part of the outcomes of everyday living lay outside their own spheres of influence, one of the means by which lay a possible avenue to influence the outcome of events would have been a “working” knowledge of the various deities associated with their localities. Because we know that literacy was not generally present amongst the indigenous populations, this knowledge would have taken the form of an oral tradition. To the local populations, this oral tradition may have presented some perceived advantages over the non-native written traditions.

Because of the myriad of local traditions present through the tribal societies for the majority of prehistory in Britain, the idea of committing specific information (power) to the written form may have represented an anathema to those early generations.
Therefore, oral traditions probably offered the most practical method of knowledge, handed down from generation to generation. With the natural evolving of language over time, the identities of those deities were kept “current” with continual usage, as opposed to remaining static on the medium. This idea of repressing deity may possibly have been viewed as having a restricting action upon those deities influence and interactions. This oral tradition may also have been perceived as returning some part of the interacting persons life force back to those deities by means of active participation through living communication.
Some of these deities may have taken the shape of what we may now consider to be localized spirits, for example, local to rivers or valleys. As such, it is probable that their identity may never be known again, and that certainly applies to those from pre-Christian societies, one suspects that it is possible that their identities may have actually been known up to comparatively recent history.

The adoption of a monotheistic culture in later times suggests that the relationship between people and their deities broke down. The new religion would appear to have held out the prospect of better living conditions and possibly, for the first time, a common framework usable by large sections of the population under common terms of reference (even if some of these may have been applied under duress to some localized populations).

It is possible that the goal being offered by the new religion, as opposed to being just a localized outcome for the person invoking, represented a larger long term goal (plus of course, the materialistic advantages of working for the new religion, one of the wealthiest organizations around at the time). The goal would be larger because the perceived sphere of influence would be proportionally larger, as opposed to the localized sphere of influence evidenced structurally by the earlier tribal societies.

So the new religion's aspired outcome influenced the local populations by the scale of the perceived goal. Why would you work for the benefit of a localized deity, for whom the sphere of influence was proportional to the area, when you could work for a deity whose influence was said to permeate the whole of the earth and the rewards would be proportionally greater?
And so we witness the influence of a materialistic goal oriented reward system upon a general population. To some, this still represents a preferable route, giving direction to the actions of the many, with a perceived benefit to the majority choosing to live their lives through the teachings and directions of the framework of the controlling religion.
If we accept the premise suggested in the previous section about the effects of interactions upon the landscape, one reaches the inescapable conclusion that interactions made in the locality of sites important to the controlling religion must have contributed some layers to that same locality. It must represent some part of the signature of the environment.

In some areas, such as designated buildings of worship, it may represent the majority of that localities signature. In others it may have no, or minimal, influence. The positioning of some of those buildings, directly upon the sites of earlier generation's places of reverence, suggest a directed intention to alter the focus of these localized areas to the benefit of the emerging controlling religion. So, although the assertions were that there was but one controlling deity, the actions suggest implied recognition of the influence of other external entities.
Explicit wording forbidding interaction with other deities / idols etc., made in the writings of other religions, back up the implied recognition. The only question remaining would appear to be whether the individual accepts the existence of external, as yet unquantified, independent entities. To a large extent, this is probably dependent upon the subjective experiences of the individual at this moment in time.
If one does accept the potential existence of these external entities, through direct or indirect experiences, how could the nature of that relationship be structured?

In earlier times, the emphasis was based upon theological or divinatory interpretation. To a large extent, the majority of the followers were expected to follow the decrees of those in a position of authority. This was not different from earlier generations and earlier religions as such, but the difference now was that the actions of the individual were structured more rigorously in larger quantities reflecting the larger aspirations of the religion.
One major difference however, was the size of the sphere of influence accredited to the mainly, localized deities of earlier generations. This perceived localized sphere placed those same deities more on an equal footing with the inhabitants of the time, in terms of influence. The new religions deity was placed exclusively in a supernatural or other world context, outside of the local environment and therefore out of reach for the majority and as such, reflected the bigger global aspirations of the new religion.

One may reasonably suspect that the nature of that earlier relationship was more of one that acknowledged the different qualities of any one deity without necessarily accrediting them with major supernatural qualities. For the newer religions, it was important that the goal on offer was proportionally larger, because of the accreditation of the one deity having control over all creation, therefore that would place that deity in a position to grant reward on a larger scale than previously available.

Whereas it is not my intention to suggest that relationship with the land through the framework of Christianity or any other monotheistic religion cannot be achieved, it is my contention that the adoption of a polytheistic approach in the context of a Brythonic frame of reference, favouring a more localized connection, would be in keeping with the aspirations of the individual to explore relationship with the British landscape through a framework that may represent a form recognizable to previous generations.
With the advent of the culture of the individual in recent times, many now reject the “authority” of the major religions, preferring instead to cultivate a relationship in context more in keeping with modern structures of living. More people are now accepting the responsibility of creating their own frames of reference to use to cultivate their understanding of the realm of spirit.
For some, this is represented by a solitary path, which best provides them with the majority of their spiritual needs and also provides for them the method by which to experience the divine nature of existence.

For others however, the relationship may be enhanced by a joining of like minded individuals whose experiences may be similar, with enough common terms of reference to advance and enhance their continuing developing understanding of their shared terms of reference.
What has changed though, is a moving away from a subservient style of interaction, to one that requires more of an equal or even proactive basis from both parties. This implies recognition from spirit that the nature of the interaction is changing, or maybe humanity is creating a change in consciousness which is resulting in a change of context in the nature and method of these interactions.
One further impact is represented by the means of communication available through the medium of modern technology that now gives individuals access to a wider section of the global society with which to share perspectives. Earlier generations were more restricted by the physical limitations of their locality and the opportunity of discovering different perspectives was restricted by this physicality. The technological age has provided the means by which to explore shared terms of reference between people who may not share a common physical location.

Why then, could polytheism be seen as a preferable means by which to explore their potential spirituality? Well, personal experiences may demonstrate to them that the communication they experience as a result of their interactions with deity and / or landscape, emanates from more than one source. Of course, this is purely subjective at this time and relies upon the individual's reasoning to qualify this position. But, if it is demonstrated to work, and the modern approach would place emphasis upon the analysis of results, it would then seem logical to adopt this framework.

It would also appear to be logical to suggest that by rigorously sourcing as much current information as is available at this time, backed up by the modern scientific areas of expertise that can give guidance to the probable accuracy of that information, we can strive to construct a working model in a modern context. This approach in following all available sources may help create a framework that would have it's foundations built upon credible evidence, thus helping to construct a form that may be recognizable to earlier generations, enabling us to pay them proper respect and affording them the opportunity to further interact with us.

Personal Reflections
It is my contention that the adoption of a polytheistic approach when creating a Brythonic framework with which to nurture a relationship with both / either deity or landscape, is probably more conducive and more relative for the understanding of the of the earlier generations ideas and possible interactions, than a monotheistic approach which would place it's emphasis upon the interactions of a single entity. This idea would not have been representative of the ideas of those earlier generations.
One may not actually have particularly strong polytheistic belief's, but if the framework is as accurate as we can construct from current available information, this would then appear to offer the best potential from which constructive interactions could be based upon, and one would hope, create an acceptable and usable format for both parties.

If the basic premise of deity being present in the environment is accepted by the individual, through either personal interactions or qualified through reasoned subjective discussion, then it would appear to be consistent to assume that, using the model of life on Earth as one's basis, it would be reasonable to assume that there would be more than one life form that would meet the criteria used to qualify that said life form as deity.
Life on Earth is represented by a myriad of expressions of that initial life form and I would suggest that, for the purpose of presenting a model usable for human understanding and interactions, it would be reasonable to assume that the evolution of deity would follow similar patterns of development and thus, be present in more than one form.

The difficulty is that the mindset of the modern individual, I would suspect, be different in both it's approach and understanding of what actually constitutes “life” from earlier generations. The reasoned rational approach would tend to disqualify a lot of interactions as nothing more than coincidence or chance, and indeed, that would probably be correct in a lot of instances. This would therefore not only provide a challenge for that same individual to understand and develop their own framework, but would also challenge how that relationship was to be structured from both parties.
Unfortunately, that approach sometimes lends itself to a blanket approach to all interactions, with rationality taking precedence in the thought processes and therefore placing before the individual several alternative explanations.

The resultant information then creates a sense of further egoic isolation as the individual struggles to create a coherent structure with which to base all these differing inputs. The result often leads to the abandonment of any frames of reference in which the individual considers to contain interactions of a supernatural context and that same individual then may actively restrict their terms of reference to actual biological processes both qualified and quantifiable by the scientific process.

However, the numbers of people now actively engaged in trying to work in different frames of reference through the myriad of alternative concepts, would tend to lend itself to the suggestion that, indeed, the terms of reference are in the process of being changed, possibly by both parties.

RR

[Francis]

Oct 1, 2009 20:01:47 GMT -1 redraven said:

However, it is being increasingly speculated, through the rigours of the current scientific approach, that the first law of thermodynamics, which states that “energy can be transformed but not created or destroyed”, creates a hypothesis that may implicitly suggest that previous actions made at a site may have left some residual traces of energetic (emotional) interactions, not currently quantifiable, but no less possible.

I've put my view on here before that there is a conflation of concepts in this sort of thinking. We live in a culture where there has been a taboo for so long to open talk of what you describe as

"residual traces of ......(emotional) interactions"

that it's created a sort of cultural blind spot, to the extent that we don't really have a word for it. In my opinion it's unfortunate that for a while now many have, with little rigorous thought, used the word "energy" for that role. This concept of energy is then conflated with the concept of energy as described by mainstream western science. I am wholly unconvinced they're the same thing - as I've suggested before. Would you be happy to describe your thinking that leads you to believe they are the same thing? I'm guessing your invoking of the Laws of Thermodynamics indicates you must feel the "residual traces of ....(emotional) interactions" may be measured in Joules?? (I'm not suggesting you think that would currently be technically feasible just theoretically!)

Oct 1, 2009 20:01:47 GMT -1 redraven said:

The environment of the British Isles has probably experienced more interactions with humanity over a more sustained time period than the vast majority of the rest of the world.

Not East Africa - Olduvai Gorge, or the Great Rift Valley, or perhaps Mesopotamia? I think this statement needs a little bit more behind it. People looking at the credibility of the whole of what you're offering here will pick up on statements like this - and use them as benchmarks for the value of the rest of your speculations.

Oct 1, 2009 20:01:47 GMT -1 redraven said:

If the individual has now rejected the goal orientated reward system, relationship with the land may offer that same individual an experience that is not dependent upon the outcome but is based more about the experience.

When I was even less experienced than now I fell into the trap of raising the "experience" itself into a "goal". My workings on relationship with place could really only be described as a "goal orientated reward system"..... with the experience being the goal - no different from all the New Age journeying junkies I run away from (embarrassing reminders of my own stupidity!)

Oct 1, 2009 20:01:47 GMT -1 redraven said:

Relationship with the land offers the opportunity to experience interaction without the expectation of material gain at the end of it and may, in fact, offer the individual the opportunity to contribute some of their own influence to the layers of their locality. This, I would suggest, provides a route which could represent the opportunity to widen one's own experiences of living and also experience the act of connection in a structured subjective level based through a local environmental context.

I'd like to see you expand this idea a little What is the implicit thinking behind why the "opportunity" this route offers is desirable? I agree with you - but I'm curious to see if we have the same motivation for the "route"!

[Lee]

phew.... thats a lot of text! (RR - do you think youo could go back and edit them to add in more paragraph break please? to break it up a bit)

Post 1

I really dont know about this, it seems to imply that eating local food gives some acces to the local 'spirit realms' and this can be passed on to your offspring. epigenetics again?

i thi you are reducing it to a too small scale, i think this ability to connect comes from the prganism as a whole and a living one at that plus its intereaction with the ecosystem.

all matter is the same, it is recycled in food webs etc globally. the South Atlantic mackerel i ate last week, i crap it out in a field, this field produces wheat which you eat in you local grown farmers market bread. see what i mean? it isnt all local, nothing exists in isloation in a global ecosystem.

[Lee]

post 2

ok, the Uk is proably somewhere in the middle of the pack if you want to talk about human interaction with the landscape; humans didnt really live here until 10,000 years ago.

on the other hand; africa, the middle east, southern europe and australia and the far east have had human habitation in some form or other for 10's of thousand of years and in the case of africe 100' of thousands of years. north europe is a latecomer because of the most recent ice age.

'energy' when used to describe spiritual phenomenon etc is not energy is the sense that it is in physics. it isnt electromagnetic energy and therefore isnt suseptible to the laws of thermodynamics. i would forget the use of the 2nd LOT or any of the other LOT as they simply arent applicable and the hypothesis can easily be disproved with some basic equipment im sure.

we use the word 'energy' as handy and useful term to describe something 'other'. that said yes i agree that places have an atmosphere and a residue of previous interaction. i wonder if Annua who has lived on the other sideof the word would get a similar feel to these places aas we do? if she did it would also disprove the points made in your first post.

Annua, fancy a holiday in the UK?

redraven, please take this next bit of advice as just that, some advice; dont worry about using scientific explanation for things (laws of thermodydmics, quantum gubbins and epigenetics), you dont need them and sometimes you fudge them and get them wrong. as fracis said, if you made this kind of thing more public these things will colour how the rest of your work is judged.

lee

[redraven]

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

I've put my view on here before that there is a conflation of concepts in this sort of thinking. We live in a culture where there has been a taboo for so long to open talk of what you describe as

"residual traces of ......(emotional) interactions"

that it's created a sort of cultural blind spot, to the extent that we don't really have a word for it. In my opinion it's unfortunate that for a while now many have, with little rigorous thought, used the word "energy" for that role. This concept of energy is then conflated with the concept of energy as described by mainstream western science. I am wholly unconvinced they're the same thing - as I've suggested before. Would you be happy to describe your thinking that leads you to believe they are the same thing?

Hello Francis,
I have tried to avoid the term "energy" because the very term puts people into new-age type of mind set. That's not what this is about. Unfortunately, I am unable at this present time to offer an accurate alternative. All I know is that there is something present in the atmosphere that interacts more subtley and I think it has it's origins in humanity.

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

I'm guessing your invoking of the Laws of Thermodynamics indicates you must feel the "residual traces of ....(emotional) interactions" may be measured in Joules?? (I'm not suggesting you think that would currently be technically feasible just theoretically!)

I believe that as technology advances, there will be areas discovered that were not previously quantifiable. It's possible that this may be one of them.

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

Not East Africa - Olduvai Gorge, or the Great Rift Valley, or perhaps Mesopotamia? I think this statement needs a little bit more behind it. People looking at the credibility of the whole of what you're offering here will pick up on statements like this - and use them as benchmarks for the value of the rest of your speculations.

Like I said "most", didn't say all, didn't mean to imply it to be somehow better than anywhere else or earlier, just that my belief is that the fact we live on an island makes a difference, although I can't, at this moment. qualify it. UPG.

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

When I was even less experienced than now I fell into the trap of raising the "experience" itself into a "goal". My workings on relationship with place could really only be described as a "goal orientated reward system"..... with the experience being the goal - no different from all the New Age journeying junkies I run away from (embarrassing reminders of my own stupidity!)

I have very little goals, as such, at this present moment in time (apart from getting through what is becoming more difficult working environments day to day). I am happy at this moment to surrender direction to whom ever is influencing my thinking (be that internal or external).

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

Oct 1, 2009 20:01:47 GMT -1 redraven said:

Relationship with the land offers the opportunity to experience interaction without the expectation of material gain at the end of it and may, in fact, offer the individual the opportunity to contribute some of their own influence to the layers of their locality. This, I would suggest, provides a route which could represent the opportunity to widen one's own experiences of living and also experience the act of connection in a structured subjective level based through a local environmental context.

I'd like to see you expand this idea a little What is the implicit thinking behind why the "opportunity" this route offers is desirable? I agree with you - but I'm curious to see if we have the same motivation for the "route"!

You do pick some difficult concepts for me to try to articulate, don't you!
I'll get back to that one when the brain's in a higher gear.

RR

[redraven]

Greetings nemesis,

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

phew.... thats a lot of text! (RR - do you think youo could go back and edit them to add in more paragraph break please? to break it up a bit)

I'll attend to it shortly.

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

Post 1

I really dont know about this, it seems to imply that eating local food gives some acces to the local 'spirit realms' and this can be passed on to your offspring. epigenetics again?

No, more a case of ingestion of local nutrients interacting with the biological processes.

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

i thi you are reducing it to a too small scale, i think this ability to connect comes from the prganism as a whole and a living one at that plus its intereaction with the ecosystem.

all matter is the same, it is recycled in food webs etc globally. the South Atlantic mackerel i ate last week, i crap it out in a field, this field produces wheat which you eat in you local grown farmers market bread. see what i mean? it isnt all local, nothing exists in isloation in a global ecosystem.

Yes, I see what you are saying. Fact is though, after it's passed through you, it has changed in composition, some things added, some things taken away, who knows what effect that may have? (Just a theory, not an assumption!)
I think that people take a lot of things for granted without thinking about the processes behind them. For example, a couple of years ago, I suffered my first attack of arthritis in my hands. Not a good thing for someone who whose livelyhood depends on sid appendages. Went to the doctor who prescribed NASIDs for reduction of inflammation. Did the job, to an extent, stopped the swelling and pain, for a while, but the disease went into rampant overdrive. Spread into other previously unaffected fingers. So, I did some research and stopped the tablets, pain and swelling returned. Then I stopped eating everything except raw vegetables and water. Pain gone in 24 hours, swelling down after 72 hours. Changing the things you ingest can have an effect on you, this was my point.

RR

[Deleted]

Do I?!? It's been far too long.

I guess it would be hard to say whether when I'm there I experience the power (I prefer this term to energy) of those places the same way you guys do. We came back here when I was two but my Mum's people are an old family in just a couple of Dorset towns that have hardly shifted since at least the late middle ages and are still in the same spot today. I certainly think, though I hadn't thought about it quite so specifically in the terms of food as such, that this brief few decades of living in Australia can't wipe away the residual memory, carried somewhere in my blood and bones of all of my ancestors time in Britain.

That being said I'm also certain I'm experiencing the power in the land differently when I go back than I would have had I never left. It brings it into very stark awareness, takes my breath away in fact when I first set foot back on the ground there. It is very familiar, so that it's like embracing a loved one I've been separated from and yet at the same time never been separated from. I'm fairly sure that Britain is in my bones even when I'm 'absent'.

And as you say Lee nothing stays in isolation within a global eco-system, not these days. So I'm cross-fertilised more than most I suppose, with the stories the land here tells me also. But I often suspect it works the other way too. With all the British-born dead going into the soil here and me bringing my practices here. It seems to me it's probably just like the first acorn we dropped in the soil that grew remarkably well in the temperate climate and became part of the landscapes new nature.

Personally I'm not at all anti-science, I take a great interest in population genetics in particular and see it as another, new way, of searching for our ancestors. But I don't think we should allow ourselves to become so intimidated by science that we feel we need to find scientific language to describe religious and spiritual experience to be taken seriously. I tend to think what modern paganism has lacked is not just academic rigour but a powerful and harmonious poetry-of-itself. I find this observation of Francis's very pertinent:

"We live in a culture where there has been a taboo for so long to open talk of what you describe as

"residual traces of ......(emotional) interactions"

that it's created a sort of cultural blind spot, to the extent that we don't really have a word for it."

I think this is our problem in so many areas, establishing a legitimate language with which to frame our experiences and beliefs. Because all words come with baggage. With this 'emotional tone of a place' concept we find ourselves struggling and not wanting to fall back on gods awful stuff like 'it's the vibe of the place man' lol.

Science may one day discover a way to quantify such a thing but if it can only deal in quantity rather than qualities it can never tell stories. Humans can do that, but we've become so afraid of our subjectivity that we've become very self-conscious. This I totally understand, as rampant subjectivity with no discernable standards or quality control seems to characterise the neo-pagan movement and many of it's aesthetic and historical abominations, garish UPG's and general lack of good taste.

But I wonder if this is because neo-paganism, eclectic wicca etc is a reactionary movement, a counter-culture movement which just seeks to myth-create whatever is in opposition to the forces it sees it opposes. I like to think that polytheism can and has matured past that phase of adolescent rebellion and is levelling out into something deeper and more abiding. I think while so many are still more interested in promoting their own egos than either what is true or what is beautiful, they remain very poor poets, unable to access what Coleridge would have called primary imagination. Discussions about how we value experience, structure it, and even critique it and most importantly why we become impressed by the particular methods we do would seem to me to be critical in moving forward.

[arth_frown]

Oct 2, 2009 11:52:15 GMT -1 redraven said:

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

I've put my view on here before that there is a conflation of concepts in this sort of thinking. We live in a culture where there has been a taboo for so long to open talk of what you describe as

"residual traces of ......(emotional) interactions"

that it's created a sort of cultural blind spot, to the extent that we don't really have a word for it. In my opinion it's unfortunate that for a while now many have, with little rigorous thought, used the word "energy" for that role. This concept of energy is then conflated with the concept of energy as described by mainstream western science. I am wholly unconvinced they're the same thing - as I've suggested before. Would you be happy to describe your thinking that leads you to believe they are the same thing?

Hello Francis,
I have tried to avoid the term "energy" because the very term puts people into new-age type of mind set. That's not what this is about. Unfortunately, I am unable at this present time to offer an accurate alternative. All I know is that there is something present in the atmosphere that interacts more subtley and I think it has it's origins in humanity.

Instead of energy what about, action of..............

[redraven]

Oct 2, 2009 10:16:51 GMT -1 Lee said:

post 2

ok, the Uk is proably somewhere in the middle of the pack if you want to talk about human interaction with the landscape; humans didnt really live here until 10,000 years ago.

on the other hand; africa, the middle east, southern europe and australia and the far east have had human habitation in some form or other for 10's of thousand of years and in the case of africe 100' of thousands of years. north europe is a latecomer because of the most recent ice age.

Yes, you are right, but then again, do you consider those early humans to be the same as us? I have made an assumption here, that in Britain, it has been humans from a later evolutional period than have been responsible for interactions and this may offer a basis for explaining the reason why they may be present. Just to clarify, this has nothing to do with trying to present these interactions as somehow "superior" in quantity or quality, just trying to present a possible route for their arrival in the environment.

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

'energy' when used to describe spiritual phenomenon etc is not energy is the sense that it is in physics. it isnt electromagnetic energy and therefore isnt suseptible to the laws of thermodynamics. i would forget the use of the 2nd LOT or any of the other LOT as they simply arent applicable and the hypothesis can easily be disproved with some basic equipment im sure.

See my reply to Francis before. The point was that these interactions may still be in the environment, the example was put there to demonstrate that energy is not disapated but merely changed.

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

we use the word 'energy' as handy and useful term to describe something 'other'. that said yes i agree that places have an atmosphere and a residue of previous interaction. i wonder if Annua who has lived on the other sideof the word would get a similar feel to these places aas we do? if she did it would also disprove the points made in your first post.

Annua, fancy a holiday in the UK?

That would indeed be interesting!

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

redraven, please take this next bit of advice as just that, some advice; dont worry about using scientific explanation for things (laws of thermodydmics, quantum gubbins and epigenetics), you dont need them

I am an engineer by trade, I work in these realms. If I don't, your boiler blows off the wall because I didn't bother to understand the concepts.

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

and sometimes you fudge them and get them wrong.

So, I make myself look a prat! Then again, by posting these things here, people see how these things can be discussed, and perceptions and knowledge altered through constructive interactions between sensible people.

Oct 2, 2009 10:09:41 GMT -1 Lee said:

as fracis said, if you made this kind of thing more public these things will colour how the rest of your work is judged.

lee

There are plenty of authors out there that make a living out of these sorts of things, I make no gains out of this, apart from gaining knowledge. If my posts are becoming an embarassment to you or others here, please indicate so and I'll take the appropriate actions.

RR

[Deleted]

Actually the very fact that I just responded to an essay placed onto public forum that someone has put thought into writing and other people are actively and intelligently critiquing means hope of all good things above is high for me right now. Thanks for making my night people, I think I'll go to bed before I start off on something else and don't get sleep.

[Adam]

Oct 2, 2009 12:20:49 GMT -1 arth_frown said:

Oct 2, 2009 11:52:15 GMT -1 redraven said:

Hello Francis,
I have tried to avoid the term "energy" because the very term puts people into new-age type of mind set. That's not what this is about. Unfortunately, I am unable at this present time to offer an accurate alternative. All I know is that there is something present in the atmosphere that interacts more subtley and I think it has it's origins in humanity.

Instead of energy what about, action of..............

Or it sounds like it may have more in common with information than energy..."flow" of information is special, because only information can go from A to B while also staying at A, and it is subject to entropy

Or am I getting all akashic?

[redraven]

Oct 2, 2009 12:47:46 GMT -1 Adam said:

Or it sounds like it may have more in common with information than energy..."flow" of information is special, because only information can go from A to B while also staying at A, and it is subject to entropy

Yes, thanks Adam, this analogy works much better! The source would be from the human, the medium used to transmit the interaction would be the environment and the information would be present but requiring the equipment to decipher or detect it. Present but not quantifiable without the proper means.

RR

[redraven]

Oct 2, 2009 8:22:49 GMT -1 Francis said:

Oct 1, 2009 20:01:47 GMT -1 redraven said:

Relationship with the land offers the opportunity to experience interaction without the expectation of material gain at the end of it and may, in fact, offer the individual the opportunity to contribute some of their own influence to the layers of their locality. This, I would suggest, provides a route which could represent the opportunity to widen one's own experiences of living and also experience the act of connection in a structured subjective level based through a local environmental context.

I'd like to see you expand this idea a little What is the implicit thinking behind why the "opportunity" this route offers is desirable? I agree with you - but I'm curious to see if we have the same motivation for the "route"!

Trying to communicate that which is better understood by implicit interactions is a somewhat difficult thing to convey. I believe that my method of interaction is probably more akin to animism than the specific deity interactions experienced by many here, which leads me to speculate that my developing framework as described in both posts about relationship, (I am somewhat relieved though, to have read Heron's viewpoint in the What makes a God thread) is not what many here may be able to relate to. Much like Megli's comment about having to maintain a skeptical objectivity about deity leading to a distancing from said deity and therefore creating a disconnection, I am not able to build a specific relationship with a particular deity.
I think that I too, may have a certain amount of skeptical objectivity that prevents interaction as experienced by others here (just to clarify here, I do not therefore doubt the experiences of others as such, it's just that it's not a method of connection that I am able to develop, be that because of my psychological profile or physiological one).
Interaction through the landscape therefore, offers to me a method whereby I can bye pass any preconceived idea's about the "who" and allows me to focus on the "what", the "what" being represented by the information communicated to me.
I believe that deity is present in the landscape and that landscape offers for me, a better method of interaction, one that relies upon physical interaction and not a theological one defined by earlier generations (as in the writings of said religions). My polytheism therefore, is based upon the implicit recognition that if deity is present in the environment, it would be consistent to presume that, as with the case of life on Earth, there must be multiple examples of this form of existence.

RR