|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 9, 2008 15:38:50 GMT -1
Wow. Okay. It sounds like you had a bad experience with a specific group of people, not a set of principles. I'm sorry it left a bad taste in your mouth, but you know what? Not my fault, not my fight, and not my problem. I'm not affiliated with, or even aware of, Whiteoak. I do know Erynn socially online, and think highly of her and her work, but I'm a big boy. I can have friends that don't mix. As for the Carmina Gadelica, that's a little more North than I'm aiming. Sorry. Can't help you. Right. Now that that's settled, can we have an actual discussion about the matter at hand instead of pointing the finger and shouting at people? You don’t think that the person who I believe was one of the a main motivators behind Whiteoak, who was involved in the ‘CR FAQ’, is significant? If you cannot see the significance of their attachment to their dogma in light of your own apparent contradiction to that ethos then that is intriguing. Perhaps they have moved on, but tbh American CR doesn’t interest me for it’s obsession with such things. BTW, it’s an attitude I have seen with other CR groups, or do you really think that I make my judgements based on only one group? As for ERL, I know her not. But the little of her work I have seen has not impressed me, the same basic neo-paganism wrapped up in a tea-stained linen cloth. The most signifcant issue here is the FAQ promotes non-dogma, yet in practice it seems very attached to it. |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 9, 2008 15:41:40 GMT -1
I've been hanging round the edges of the CR lot for many years, and have a few real life friends who call themselves CR. (They are also the bolshie ones who get thrown out of things...) ;D A few of us have indeed (both hung around CR and gotten thrown out). Bodlon, I think you need to know that CR is not new to us. |
|
|
|
Post by bodlon on Apr 9, 2008 21:58:26 GMT -1
Did some reading and I think you're mistaken. White Oak is a Neo-Druidic group. They cite an essay of hers, apparently, but she's not part of the group.
This is me asking a second time for you to quit attacking me for someone else's actions.
I didn't assume it was, but if I had that point would now be abundantly clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 9, 2008 22:37:53 GMT -1
Did some reading and I think you're mistaken. White Oak is a Neo-Druidic group. They cite an essay of hers, apparently, but she's not part of the group. This is me asking a second time for you to quit attacking me for someone else's actions. They certainly were CR, even if not now. She was there, I have no idea what they or her do now. I have to admit, I have no interest either. I have no idea why my observing that you identify with the CR FAQ, which was jointly written by someone who has appeared to be fundamentally contradictory, is to be considered 'attacking'. Now, this is not relevant to RRs thread so it publically ends here. If you want to discuss it further you know where my PM is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2008 0:24:30 GMT -1
From my personal perspective, while I believe there's a real need to hold on to the history and culture of each society these days, I do raise an eyebrow at the notion that we concentrate just on the mainland and ignore the obvious similarities between mythologies and cultures .... Obviously the notion of "spirit of place" requires a connection to the land, but in my personal experience (to bring it down to a grass roots level) if I wade out into the sea in Wales I'm neither in Wales, nor in Ireland but between, and connected to, both.
My point being, where do we draw the line between what informs (or inspires) our path, and what is inconsequential; between what is divionist and what is a logical separation of ideologies? At what point do we decide which perspectives are useless to us? And how do we know we're not repeating ye olde mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of an easier to follow paint by numbers guide to British spirituality?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on May 19, 2008 8:13:35 GMT -1
aha... good questions. For me, my concentration on the mainland is mainly due the fact that it was to mainland Britain that people came to "learn" druidry. Certainly from Gaul, if not from Ireland too. But that too raises the issue that, if the spiritual cultures of Gaul and (maybe) Ireland came from Britain, it is useful to study those cultures too in order to gain a greater understanding of the source. So in that respect, you HAVE to study the surrounding cultures in order to gain insight into the main point of interest.
But you have to balance that with relevance. For example, if we knew nothing about the Vatican, if it was destroyed in 10ad with no written records, then how would you rediscover it? You could look at other Catholic countries, examine their beliefs and churches, which would give you a good insight. BUT it wouldn't be the whole story. So what do you do? Do you concentrate on *pick a Catholic country*, hoping it will give you the definitive story? No, you'd take them all into consideration, find their common points, in the hope of removing local.... erm.. cultural contamination*... and finding the pure source that they all sprang from.
Same with Britain. Since we know next to nothing, we have to examine Irish, Pictish, Gaulish, Manx, Roman sources and traditions. No getting away from it. BUT you have to be careful not to take too much from any source, or it has the potential to lead you up the garden path. You HAVE to throw out some bathwater.
* cultural contamination - I mean that in the sense of local additions to the source. Local additions are often what makes something special. But they tell you little about the original idea. So, contamination in the nicest possible sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 19, 2008 8:34:53 GMT -1
I couldn't say it any better than Tegernacus tbh.
The thing about Ireland is we can't *assume* that if it's 'Irish Celtic' it automatically transfers to 'British Celtic'. Balance of probablilty would suggest to me similar concepts but with locally appropriate names. For example, I am not interested in calling to Nemain, but I am *really* interested in knowing the name of the British equivalent/name for Nemain in Britain. I'm in Britain.
Ireland is lucky in that it avoided Romanisation, became Christianised later so we have more substancial material of pre-Christian origin. If Ireland was important as a Druidic centre we have to ask why the Romans never followed them after he sacking if Mon. Centres of resistance would shift, we know that the Gauls were assisted by the Brits, and there was a cross channel migration. Why didn't the same happen from Britain to Ireland?
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 19, 2008 8:37:07 GMT -1
My point being, where do we draw the line between what informs (or inspires) our path, and what is inconsequential; between what is divionist and what is a logical separation of ideologies? At what point do we decide which perspectives are useless to us? And how do we know we're not repeating ye olde mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of an easier to follow paint by numbers guide to British spirituality? I would suggest that the 'paint by numbers' approach is the one adopted by neo-Druidic types when they automatically adopt Irish deities whilst living in Surrey, Australia, Oregon etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on May 19, 2008 8:52:33 GMT -1
It is possibly relevant that Mon is sort of half-way between Britain and Ireland (ok, not in miles, but maybe in the imagination). I would think that druidry spread out from Mon in a 360 degree arc, both to Britain and Ireland. Then, when Mon was sacked, Ireland set up it's own center of druidry, and evolved its own traditions from there. Or maybe it came from Ireland to Mon in the first place. Maybe it was Ireland that the Brits and Gauls went to learn druidry, and the "druid stronghold" on Mon was maybe a diversion to stop the Romans sailing over and attacking Eire. Who knows? Maybe someone does. This is sort-of the point: we shouldn't take the Roman accounts as gospel, because maybe they were being fed a pack of lies by the Brits in the first place. I question everything, even things that have a solid historical/archaeological/theoretical basis. I can't simply follow a guidebook, druidry by numbers, because I simply don't believe that anyone has the whole story. But then again, I don't really believe that druidry came from Ireland either: but off-center questions have to be asked, that's the only way to confirm what we already know. Seems silly, using a scientific deductive process in regards to theology, but I'm a 21st century kind of guy in the head, even if I'm a B.C guy in the heart  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2008 12:27:54 GMT -1
I would suggest that the 'paint by numbers' approach is the one adopted by neo-Druidic types when they automatically adopt Irish deities whilst living in Surrey, Australia, Oregon etc. Agreed. I do feel that it can, in some circumstances, be appropriate to honour deities from different cultures ... but only when that's inspired by a connection to either the land or the people in both places that's deep enough for both to be a part of you, in some sense. I find the pick 'n mix approach to spirituality deeply offensive, but there are elements of that to my own practice that I feel are essential. For example, while I live in Britain my ancestors are Irish. So, although I might be standing on British soil I'm still connected, by virtue of my blood, to Ireland. Anything I do that involves those ancestors is based around the Irish pantheon. Yet, when I first introduced Dylan to deity it was British deity, because although we share the same blood his connection is to this place. What I'm trying to say (through an awful headache, so bear with me!) is that both cultures have merged so many times with ideas, practices and myths having a mutual influence on each other, that trying to separate it down to which evolved from relationship with *this* land might not be the best approach. After all, the relationship between the land and the people involves both the land and the people. If we truly honour the ancestors, isn't it equally important to consider the reasons why some things were held in common? |
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on May 19, 2008 14:25:59 GMT -1
of course it is right to honour the beliefs of your particular ancestors when honouring them. That isn't in question, it's the right thing to do. But.. I dunno, I'm a big believer in the "product of your environment" type of thing. If you were born and raised in Ireland, then part of that psyche and .. supernature.. is embedded in you, you can't escape it. What gets me is... I've got to watch what I say... Americans who run around Kansas invoking the Morrighan and speaking in Irish because their great-great-great grandmother was Irish. That doesn't make THEM Irish. Did they grow up walking the hills of Kerry? no. Did they grow up drinking from springs in Waterford? No. Did they grow up running around in the rain in Cork? No. They're NOT Irish. They are as American as the native Americans share the land with. Maybe THAT is the spiritual path they should be looking to, as that is the path that grew up with and from that particular land. Afterall, the Native Americans were immigrants too at one stage. They aren't a seperate species. They all walk in the hills, drink the water, look at the same sunset. If they're going to honour their ancestors, it's right that they honour their ancestors beliefs. But to claim them wholesale, is like me claiming some Japanese religion because I once had a Japanese relative. I couldn't, I'm not Japanese, I wouldn't pretend to be. As far as the native Britons go, there is a wall in the Iron Age that you don't find later. After the Romans left, large parts of Britain became Irish.. whether you're talking about the Highlands or Tenby Irish culture DID have a significant impact on post-Roman Britain. Not sure it had much of an impact on pre-Roman Britain though (unless druidry did, in fact, come from there). So if we're looking to rediscover the pre-Roman British religion, I don't know how much attention we should pay to Irish sources, other than for comparative comparison. (I realise this may be heresy). We certainly shouldn't be calling on the Goddess of the Liffey. (Although we can drink her brew mmm) |
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on May 19, 2008 14:34:55 GMT -1
... but, saying that, you should do as you see fit, do what seems right to you. I'd hate to think someone was taking my babblings as rules, they're just things to think about. The more awkward questions you ask yourself, the stronger your ideas will be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2008 15:40:27 GMT -1
What gets me is... I've got to watch what I say... Americans who run around Kansas invoking the Morrighan and speaking in Irish because their great-great-great grandmother was Irish. That doesn't make THEM Irish. Did they grow up walking the hills of Kerry? no. Did they grow up drinking from springs in Waterford? No. Did they grow up running around in the rain in Cork? No. They're NOT Irish. They are as American as the native Americans share the land with. Hmmm, I'm not sure where I draw the line on that one. On one hand, things like turning the rivers green once a year seem so ridiculously divorced from what I feel it means to be "Irish" ... but on the other hand, I do give a certain amount of credence to a blood link to a place or people. After all, genes play such a huge role in determining who we are that I wouldn't want to discount the possibility that blood was sufficient to create a real link to a place, albeit one that weakens with each generation as the bloodlines of different people merge. Agreed. That said, while I feel reaching back and trying to establish what was is obviously a very important endeavour, it's equally important to trace the journey from there to here as much as is possible. For better or for worse, the landscape is (in every sense) very different now to what it was then ... both the land we live on and the ancestors we honour are aspects of a dynamic and constantly changing relationship that needs to be understood in whole if we're to reach any true understanding of what Britain is. And you thought you were a heretic  |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on May 19, 2008 20:52:49 GMT -1
After all, the relationship between the land and the people involves both the land and the people. If we truly honour the ancestors, isn't it equally important to consider the reasons why some things were held in common? YES! This, I think, is an important point. It's relationship that is important and that is built by getting close to the land and learning from the land but also by investing the land with our own sense of significance so that it takes on something from us just as we learn things from the mountains and the rivers. I've always been mystified that people can work with, say, Egyptian deities or gods from any part of the world they may not even have visited. |
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on May 20, 2008 4:55:40 GMT -1
I've always been mystified that people can work with, say, Egyptian deities or gods from any part of the world they may not even have visited. You mean like a bunch of Romano British people getting into some obscure god and religion from Palestine?  Of course, for some people it descends into the realms of fantasy and playacting.Also, it comes from the old "all gods are one god" mantra, thanks to Robert Graves etc. Basically: all Goddesses are essentialy the same, just pick the one you dig the most. Doesn't quite work like that though, does it. And Crowley, for example, how much of what he did was based on belief, and how much on him looking good in a turban to impress the ladies? If your recent family (maybe a few generations) are Welsh, Irish, from Brittany etc, then it is right that you acknowledge that. I just just question how far this whole blood thing needs to go though.. ultimately, we're all genetically linked to a group of neo-humanoids from South Africa: so do we start incorporating African gods and ritual into our life? Up to what point do you celebrate your past, and at what point do you start to ignore it? Does it matter? I'm of a mind that it is the country of your birth that is the most significant one. Maybe the country of your parents too, as that has a formative influence. But you don't need to keep looking back for everyday ritual. On the special occasion than you raise a cup to your Italian ancestors and maybe say a few words of Latin to thank them, that is for THEM. No need to start calling their gods, other than a quick nod and a wink for them to look after your kin. Is it me, or did everyone disappear? Bloody pagans, the first hint of summer and they vanish off into the woods and gardens ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Midori on May 20, 2008 14:42:01 GMT -1
I'm here and I agree, I'm Mainland British by birth, with a Breton father and Welsh/Cornish mother, with just a smidge of the Irish somewhere. I've not been to Brittany, and don't really feel much of a call to it. Almost all my life has been spent in the ancestral lands of the Belgae, Regni and Atrebates. I feel myself grounded in these areas, mainly, with forays to my mother's lands of mid Wales and North Cornwall. I do feel a pull towards Cornwall, with a lesser pull to Wales.
Breton is a language I haven't heard spoken since I was about three. At the moment I cannot get into the Middle Welsh Course, but will try it after I move, and am settled.
Just to show where I am 'fixed'.
Cheers, Midori
|
|
|
|
Post by Heron on May 20, 2008 20:19:03 GMT -1
You mean like a bunch of Romano British people getting into some obscure god and religion from Palestine? Exactly like that! I've never really understood that either, although there is by now a native tradition of xtian worship. Certainly something of that I think. The story of him walking around the Cafe Royale (I think that's where it was) wearing a pointed wizard cap and cloak covered in stars and moons without anyone noticing him so he could prove that he could make himself invisible has the definite mark of the showman about it. Yes, for me, instinctively, Britain and more generally the countries of Northern Europe have something about them that I am emotionally attached to. I just feel I 'belong' and that there are deeper attachments that are more than just cultural and certainly not 'patriotic' in any way. Intellectually Roman and Greek stuff appeals -in particular the Odyssey - but that is intellectual rather than emotional and beyond that it's 'exotic' or just stuff to study rather than something with any deeper draw to it. The ancestors for me are not just my blood line but those who lived in these places that I feel attached to. So yes I'll say words in Latin and Greek and anything else that is meaningful for me. But it's from HERE that I'll say them. |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on May 20, 2008 20:52:12 GMT -1
After all, the relationship between the land and the people involves both the land and the people. If we truly honour the ancestors, isn't it equally important to consider the reasons why some things were held in common? YES! This, I think, is an important point. It's relationship that is important and that is built by getting close to the land and learning from the land but also by investing the land with our own sense of significance so that it takes on something from us just as we learn things from the mountains and the rivers. I've always been mystified that people can work with, say, Egyptian deities or gods from any part of the world they may not even have visited. The best relationships are usually a two way thing with a physical aspect involved. I too have difficulty relating to deities from parts of the world that I have not been to, so how could I hope to be suitably reverent to a deity that has no physical aspect to which I could use as a starting point? I rather think I would be doing both myself and the deity involved a disservice if I was arrogant or delusional enough to demand contact with said deity. For me, the physical aspect is what initiates the contact, and the more I learn about this and the history of that place, then the more I can, hopefully, be involved in a two way relationship, for by interacting with the locality, some of me maybe "absorbed" by the land, thus adding to the feel of the place and land. RR |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2008 11:53:34 GMT -1
If your recent family (maybe a few generations) are Welsh, Irish, from Brittany etc, then it is right that you acknowledge that. I just just question how far this whole blood thing needs to go though.. ultimately, we're all genetically linked to a group of neo-humanoids from South Africa: so do we start incorporating African gods and ritual into our life? Up to what point do you celebrate your past, and at what point do you start to ignore it? Does it matter? Personally, I'd say you should only incorporate anything into your life if you have a true understanding of it, and what it means to you is based on more than just some misguided notion of a romantic past. It's very difficult for me to draw a line on where the importance of a blood connection lies though ... in a general sense, I don't actually know how that connection might work, whether it'd be based on something passed down through the lines of the ancestors or simply on the influence living in the same place for a long time has on the genetic make-up of a people, or a combination of the two ... and on an individual level, it all comes down to the strength of that link, which I guess would depend on the purity of the bloodline in question. In other words, just to clarify my position, "it probably depends" |
|
