|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 17, 2009 15:35:15 GMT -1
or, as I tend not to make much sense of theism ;D, the identification of new persons/beings/entities, non-human, of significance to Brython. As LR thought this should be in a new thread, and to steer it away from intruding on a specific discussion, I thought I would start one  The question started with Anyone else any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Sept 17, 2009 19:56:01 GMT -1
Names are nothing except our term of reference when differentiating between separate and individual entities. I believe in this context they are only there for us to be able to achieve this for our own benefit. I'm not convinced that they actually mean anything to them, as their context would be different from ours as their physicality is different from ours.
Saying that, we could always ask!
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 18, 2009 6:32:20 GMT -1
Names are nothing except our term of reference when differentiating between separate and individual entities. Really? Names certainly serve a labelling function (for purposes of identification, you could just as easily have had 1376 on your birth certificate and have been known as that all your life... but for purposes of *identity*?...) but is that all they are? I would venture to suggest that in some cases, they can be entities in their own right  They can also be maps of the relationship, as entities, people etc can change names over time and have multiple names. In any case, what I'm proposing is that the name derived as suggested is a translation of the communication that arises from the question, which serves as an identifier for use of the community. In order for a community to form and develop a sustainable relationship with non-human entities, is it not important that we can repeatedly identify that entity and it's relational characteristics? And if we call it "The spirit in the hill", "The lord of the woods" are we not in danger of running into that woolly OBOD/TDN tendency to blanket call on "the spirits of this place" and simply being specific about the place and not the spirit? At the very least, asking someone by what they should be known (and by this I am not anthropomorphising the entity... I'm liking Harvey's description of person being a much broader category than human, and human person not being definitive of person... I'm talking about inviting a relationship) invites reciprocation and the possibility of a living developing relationship. And if a community does this, does it not move beyond the "*my* truth", "*my* sense of this place" that denies it consensus? And it just seems... polite |
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Sept 18, 2009 7:35:18 GMT -1
In any case, what I'm proposing is that the name derived as suggested is a translation of the communication that arises from the question, which serves as an identifier for use of the community. In order for a community to form and develop a sustainable relationship with non-human entities, is it not important that we can repeatedly identify that entity and it's relational characteristics? And if we call it "The spirit in the hill", "The lord of the woods" are we not in danger of running into that woolly OBOD/TDN tendency to blanket call on "the spirits of this place" and simply being specific about the place and not the spirit? I don't think we should throw the baby with the bath water. If we don't know the land we can call it spirit of the place. once we get to know that spirit maybe can give a more personal name? I've had enough experience over the woods to want to give a certain spirit a name? My description of it is large dark spirit in the woods, is there a Brythonic equivalent? Megli |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 18, 2009 7:41:49 GMT -1
I don't think we should throw the baby with the bath water. If we don't know the land we can call it spirit of the place. once we get to know that spirit maybe can give a more personal name? I whole heartedly agree... just as you might refer to "the people of this land" if you come across people you do not yet know. What I was referring to was the ease with which this can become a catch-all which possibly then starts to preclude or hinder the development of a relationship |
|
|
|
Post by potia on Sept 18, 2009 8:26:44 GMT -1
I think it's important not to get too caught up with words. Yes words are important when we are sharing things with each other and trying to explain things (especially here) but our sense of who/what something is may well involve much more than words. Indeed words may at times be in the way.
I'll try and give an example here. I use the word Cailleach to describe the being I have an ongoing relationship with here in Scotland. She (for to me this being does seem more feminine in nature somehow) responds to this name but when I use the name there are feelings, images, sounds and even scents that are part of the overall picture of the being I have that cannot be included in this simple word. The images are of a clear sky in the night, of mists over the Campsies, the sounds are of winds through the trees, the lashing of rain and the scents are of the earth moist and rich, of the air after a storm. All these things are woven together with my own feelings when I think of the Cailleach, when I use her name. The word is a simplification of all of this and at that it is simply a title the being in question will respond to and not an original one.
When we develop relationships with others - seen and unseen - words are simply one layer of the ways we identify that individual. In some cases words will be useful in others they won't be. In some cases words might help us to gain a shared understanding of someone but the best way to get to know them is going to be to meet them. We will never have the same relationships as each other with any one being but we may be able to have some aspects that are shared - these may or may not be things we can easily label with words.
I'm not sure if this is making sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 18, 2009 8:36:03 GMT -1
ah, but words have power. They're not just arbitrary things, especially names, they are specific and given. And hidden to protect them. Look at the Jews, with their hidden name-of-God, or the Iron Age Brits, who wouldn't proclaim the name of their god either. (It may have been similar to the Jewish tradition even, that only the high-priest could use it, and it was taboo for all others)
So generic "God of the hill" may be fine for talk in a pub, but in ritual they need to be specific imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 18, 2009 9:24:06 GMT -1
I'm not sure if this is making sense. As ever, perfect sense... but I'm talking specifically about a community developing a relationship. In a personal sense, my "naming" has always consisted of the sense impressions I am provided... there is no real need for words (other than with ancestors, for different reasons)... but I'm interested in how a community can develop this relationship, and word names are what we share... if a name derives from a shared UPG and is accepted by the entities concerned, could we not develop a consensus short hand for developing the relationship further... in the sense that the entities concerned become part of the wider community themselves? It is also entirely possible that some entities resist name identification in this way, for reasons that RR suggested. |
|
|
|
Post by potia on Sept 18, 2009 9:25:09 GMT -1
ah, but words have power. They're not just arbitrary things, especially names, they are specific and given. Yes, words can have power but it is the intent and meanings behind the words that gives that power. The more truth of feeling and meaning behind the words the stronger the power in my experience. For example the words "I love you". |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 18, 2009 12:33:42 GMT -1
ah, but words have power. They're not just arbitrary things, especially names, they are specific and given. And hidden to protect them. Look at the Jews, with their hidden name-of-God, or the Iron Age Brits, who wouldn't proclaim the name of their god either. (It may have been similar to the Jewish tradition even, that only the high-priest could use it, and it was taboo for all others) So generic "God of the hill" may be fine for talk in a pub, but in ritual they need to be specific imo. I think this is a factoid, as we've discussed elsewhere. I see no real evidence that the Iron Ager Brits were unhappy about naming their deities: we have hundreds and hundreds of inscriptions which do just that. As for the thing you have in early Irish saga----('I swear by the god--NOT 'GODS'!!!--by whom my people swear')---well, it doesn't occur anywhere in Britain or Welsh stuff, and anyway a) it doesn't have to be ancient and pagan---remember these Irish things are composed by Christian literateurs, who might be aiming for 'local pagan colour', as they undoubtedly do elsewhere; b) even if it is ancient, I doubt the point is about not wanting to say some hypothetical secret name of the god. This line has been repeated so often by pagans it seems 'obvious', but looking at the passage in its actual context in the Ulster Cycle tales I just don't see it myself. The character is just invoking the god who specifically protects his tribe, as opposed to any other one. (Compare the name 'teutatis' 'God of the Population Group'). c) There may be another taboo entirely involved: John Koch has suggested that the god in the oath in question is actually Lugh, whose name may have become taboo in oaths because it resembled the word for 'oath' itself (lugae). Whilst I don't dispute that some gods may have had pet-names or apotropaic names (cf. Greek Eumenides, 'Friendly Ones', for the Furies who aren't friendly at all) I really dislike this idea that 'the Iron Age Celts didn't name their deities'. They clearly did, constantly. Further, again as we've hashed out elsewhere, all ancient god names are 'god of the hill' types: the idea of a secret compination of mystic syllables that is somehow a deity's true name is something that develops well into the history of Judaism, as YHWH-monolatry began to emerge from its polytheistic Semitic matrix: scholars have recently linked the name YHWH to a verb meaning 'fall, strike down', so that even YHWH was orginally 'The god who strikes [with lightning?]'---compare Gaulish 'Sucellos' 'Good Striker'! There's lots of evidence YHWH was orignally a mountain-top storm god, one of the sons or ministers of the god El. So why we should be mapping this Jewish idea of mystic hidden personal names onto Iron Ages brits beats me! ;0 |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 18, 2009 12:45:20 GMT -1
I've had enough experience over the woods to want to give a certain spirit a name? My description of it is large dark spirit in the woods, is there a Brythonic equivalent? Megli : 'He who dwells in the Wood' Deiwos Maros Dubucaitas: 'Great God of the black wood' |
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 18, 2009 15:53:37 GMT -1
So why we should be mapping this Jewish idea of mystic hidden personal names onto Iron Ages brits beats me! ;0 me too, just having a moment  on the other hand, this: Widusedonos: 'He who dwells in the Wood' Deiwos Maros Dubucaitas: 'Great God of the black wood' is the direction we should be heading in if we're creating names. |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 18, 2009 16:36:27 GMT -1
So why we should be mapping this Jewish idea of mystic hidden personal names onto Iron Ages brits beats me! ;0 Erm <puts hand up> to mention the name of the god to a foreigner was a crime punishable by death in Rome at one point, although I can't recall the dates. Or indeed the source of where I got that from. |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Sept 18, 2009 18:22:24 GMT -1
There is an awful amount of baggage that comes with the names of ancient deities and I think this is one reason why I don't connect with these previously named deities. However, I do think this idea of creating new names from a Brythonic context, is a very interesting idea, providing that we are clear these are our own idea's. It also allows for a relationship to be developed from scratch, without any pre-convictions where the interactions can be viewed from both sides and allowed to take their own directions.
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 18, 2009 19:08:12 GMT -1
names are important. the name itself tells you about the being concerned, how it was viewed and interacted by people.
i kind of disagree with RR on the matter of baggage - if anything the gods are stripped bare before us and we have little of them left from the time they were know. this leaves us and them the chance to reforge them for a modern era. with those we know of this can go ahead and to an extent is already happeneing as we share experience and ideas about them.
as to naming 'new gods' i think taking on a brythonic name for them as being a descriptive title works well as megli has done above. the thing is; i dont know why that is better than simply using the english title - perhaps its because it adds 'something' to it, takes it from being the normal language we use everyday and makes it in to something different. and be being different it makes it more important, something special, maybe in terms of removing it from the profane and making it sacred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 19, 2009 6:50:50 GMT -1
the point of translating it is: is ceases to become a title, and becomes a name. Do you know what Lee means? Maybe not, but you recognise it as a name.
similarly, he who dwells in the woods, while descriptive, could mean anyone. Robin Hood? Bigfoot? By taking that and reconstructing it to Widusedonos, you now have a specific name, that can be applied to a specific god/spirit. And once something has a name, there is now a specific .. erm.. portal?... phone number? through which the spirit/god can be found and connected with. I find that tremendously exciting and powerful.
All the moreso since the name isn't a random "celt-alike" construct, it has very specific meaning. We would be carrying on a tradition that hasn't been used since... well, since Roman times anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 19, 2009 6:56:18 GMT -1
and of course, I'm not suggesting we go around giving names en-masse. A name may often only be used by you, or your Aelwyd. But I think it's important to have them.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 19, 2009 7:39:58 GMT -1
and of course, I'm not suggesting we go around giving names en-masse. A name may often only be used by you, or your Aelwyd. But I think it's important to have them. Absolutely. Giving them British names puts them outside the mundane andcretaes a sense of 'otherness'. It also goes a long way to explaining why we have so many god names but relatively few deity 'classifications'. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 19, 2009 9:04:26 GMT -1
similarly, he who dwells in the woods, while descriptive, could mean anyone. Robin Hood? Bigfoot? By taking that and reconstructing it to Widusedonos, you now have a specific name, that can be applied to a specific god/spirit. And once something has a name, there is now a specific .. erm.. portal?... phone number? through which the spirit/god can be found and connected with. I find that tremendously exciting and powerful. All the moreso since the name isn't a random "celt-alike" construct, it has very specific meaning. We would be carrying on a tradition that hasn't been used since... well, since Roman times anyway. And the name is for a relationship that Arth has already built up and recognises, so for Arth, if the name works, it acts from that moment as an anchor to all the feelings. This isn't arbitary naming, it is a name drawn from heart of the relationship itself. I've a lot of thoughts on the power of names, but I might save them for another thread. |
|
They can also be maps of the relationship, as entities, people etc can change names over time and have multiple names.
