Putting the "Earth-Centered" into Neopaganism

[blindfaith^_^]

Starlock

Heheh... wow. I guess technically given what I wrote, you're right that Wicca doesn't quite fall under it. Though maybe we should ask precisely what 'reconstructionalist' means? Although Wicca isn't based directly off any specific Pagan religions, its intention was to do so. Gardner certainly thought he was recording a dying Pagan remnant that hat survived through the era! Today we know a bit better. So does only a historically accurate reconstructionalism count, or is it the intentions? Perhaps instead of saying 'reconstructionalist' we could say something like this:

Neopaganism draws upon antiquity and the past; instead of using post-industrial or pre-monotheistic thought for inspiration, it draws upon ancient Pagan practices, Eastern mysticism, and Earth-centered ideologies. This *could* be faithfully reconstructionalist, but like Wicca, it could also be a false reconstruction of a perceived link to the past. I'm not sure I'm quite satisfied with the above, though. I'll have to think on it now. whee

Rest of your response was interesting by the way... this is just the part that's given me the most to think about.

I could accept this, based off of what I know of the Pagan scene in general. My only question is exactly where are you drawing a line in falsely or losely recontructed religions? With this new interpretation of neo-pagan one could make up a completely fantasy religion claim it was poor scholarship and be neo-paga, not that this is a bad thing persay, just that I'm not sure its necissarily good either.

Also a lot of eastern traditions do not really center around nature. Some of them are actually trying to conquer nature while more of them have paths where caring for the enviornment is not required. Just to make things sticky and what not.  

[The Bookwyrm]

blindfaith^_^

Also, under this definition Celtic paths (I'm being picky now sorry) aren't included. They are not being reconstructed, but passed on from existing members of the path. This would also be similar for a lot of Native American paths that seem to be enjoyting a "revival" when the existing beliefs are still alive and well, others just seem to suddenly have taken an interest in them more so than in previous years.

Heh... Now it's my turn to be picky. sweatdrop I'd argue, on the whole, about Celtic paths being passed down from existing members. I have a very Celtic bent to my path, and no one has taught me. You also have a much larger gap between people trying to revive the traditional Celtic paths, and the resurgence of Native American paths. I've studied Celtic history, and the religion itself was destroied in most areas and was changed beyond recognition in others; the essence was still there, which allowed revivalists to turn to it. But most of the paths today can only be dated back that far accurately.

Naturally, there will be a few that can trace their roots back, underground, much farther than that, and their claims my be legitimate. But you then need to address are they tracing it back to the rites of the Druids, or to the folk religion of the masses? The folk religion is the only one people can make a genuine claim to; the druids did not write down their lore or their rites, and they have been largely lost. Druidic paths have been reconstructed for the most part.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Gypsy Blue

Heh... Now it's my turn to be picky. sweatdrop I'd argue, on the whole, about Celtic paths being passed down from existing members. I have a very Celtic bent to my path, and no one has taught me. You also have a much larger gap between people trying to revive the traditional Celtic paths, and the resurgence of Native American paths. I've studied Celtic history, and the religion itself was destroied in most areas and was changed beyond recognition in others; the essence was still there, which allowed revivalists to turn to it. But most of the paths today can only be dated back that far accurately.

Naturally, there will be a few that can trace their roots back, underground, much farther than that, and their claims my be legitimate. But you then need to address are they tracing it back to the rites of the Druids, or to the folk religion of the masses? The folk religion is the only one people can make a genuine claim to; the druids did not write down their lore or their rites, and they have been largely lost. Druidic paths have been reconstructed for the most part.

I would agrue that there is a large difference between having Celtic influnces or any sort of other religious influnce and being religion X.

It was my understanding that to be Celtic (and I may be wrong) one needed to either be born Celtic and raised in the Celtic tradition/culture, be adopted by a Celt, or be called specifically by a God or Godess of the religion for a certain purpose. From these qualifiers, I'm not really sure how a lot of people could claim the title without having a cultural connection.

Also change in a religion, as long as it comes from its own followers is fine, imo. However when other people read about Celtic culture and try to claim that what they are following is Celtic they can not change or alter the religion in any way. I would argue that they aren't really Celtic, though I suppose if we threw a modifier in the title like Celtic Revionist or something similar I would accept the label...though I don't know how others would feel about that.

I would argue that there is no one now who is practicing a "Druid" path. They may draw from the information available, but that doesn't make them Druids, Eclectic Druid influnced or Celtic Druid influnced would be as close as I think I'm willing to budge on that one.

Also I would argee the only acceptable Celtic titles are tied to the folk religion masses.  

[The Bookwyrm]

Quote:

It was my understanding that to be Celtic (and I may be wrong) one needed to either be born Celtic and raised in the Celtic tradition/culture, be adopted by a Celt, or be called specifically by a God or Godess of the religion for a certain purpose. From these qualifiers, I'm not really sure how a lot of people could claim the title without having a cultural connection.

Here I'd argue, both from experience and my own understanding. I'm of Celtic descent, but my family on all sides are a minimum of five generations away from Scotland and Ireland; none of us have been back, nor have we even attempted to maintain or establish a noteable Celtic lifestyle, unless you count a deep love for pipes and drums born of military affiliation. I've always felt a connection ot the Celtic, worked within the Celtic pantheon with great success, and have only been very recently called. I would simply question, though, what makes the Celtic pantheon so exclusive? One needn't be raised Greek to be Hellenic, nor Egyptian to follow and Egyptian path, nor Native American to follow that path; so why should one be born or raised a Celt to work with those gods?

Quote:

Also change in a religion, as long as it comes from its own followers is fine, imo. However when other people read about Celtic culture and try to claim that what they are following is Celtic they can not change or alter the religion in any way. I would argue that they aren't really Celtic, though I suppose if we threw a modifier in the title like Celtic Revionist or something similar I would accept the label...though I don't know how others would feel about that.

These titles, in all reality, need to be applied to all paths if you want to get down to the nitty gritty. Any that can claim an unbroken line from the tradition's formation and modern times (especially if it is based of the historic traditions) are in the minority. All others have been unearthed, dusted off, and reestablished with changes made. The fundamentals are the same, but practices have had to be adapted to reflect life style changes of the people practicing those religions. And I really disagree that only those who have "cultural connections" should be the only ones to have power to change the religion; new traditions are formed (and need to be acknowledged as new) when someone who is well educated learns about a culture, its customs and beliefs, adopts some of them and modifies others. Provided the core of it remains the same, it's simply a different branch of the same tree for me. To be of a "Celtic" faith, or any other, is simply the core of one's principles and beliefs.

Quote:

I would argue that there is no one now who is practicing a "Druid" path. They may draw from the information available, but that doesn't make them Druids, Eclectic Druid influnced or Celtic Druid influnced would be as close as I think I'm willing to budge on that one.

I disagree; I believe that there are individuals who are practicing Druids in today's culture. They are, however, modern Druids, and their faith is a part of a renaissance of the Classical Druidic system; they are not practicing an anceint faith, but a modern one with roots that run deeply that has been reconstructed beased upon what is known about the old. I don't see it as being of any less value, or requireing a modifier; one's religious title shouldn't read read like a novel; it's a brief description. I call myself a Witch, but to be more accurate I should likely call myself an Ecclectic Celtic Draconic Wiccan-influenced Soliatary practitioner NeoPagan Witch. What's the difference, besides one title being as long as my arm and providing a lot of unnecessary information? Both titles are accurate in their own way. Just as calling myself a Druid should suffice even if I am following a reconstructionist path, provided I recognize in my practice that what I follow is not the original, nor is it ancient.


Wheee! I love being able to have friendly debates with people. Even if they are off the original topic. xd  

[blindfaith^_^]

Gypsy Blue

Here I'd argue, both from experience and my own understanding. I'm of Celtic descent, but my family on all sides are a minimum of five generations away from Scotland and Ireland; none of us have been back, nor have we even attempted to maintain or establish a noteable Celtic lifestyle, unless you count a deep love for pipes and drums born of military affiliation. I've always felt a connection ot the Celtic, worked within the Celtic pantheon with great success, and have only been very recently called. I would simply question, though, what makes the Celtic pantheon so exclusive? One needn't be raised Greek to be Hellenic, nor Egyptian to follow and Egyptian path, nor Native American to follow that path; so why should one be born or raised a Celt to work with those gods?

I had thought, and here I would have to check that the Celtic Gods have said directly that the Celts are their chosen people and that they will not listen to any other petitioner (unless of course you've been adopted by a Celt or they specifically call you. With this understanding, I would think that minimally one would need a little Celtic blood in them. I'm about a quarter Irish, but I would never claim to be a Celt. I don't follow the religion, I don't know a lot about it, and I don't follow those Gods.

Still, if you work with a set of Gods and it seems to work for you, then who is to say the exact qualifiers for cultural background and blood line?

Quote:

These titles, in all reality, need to be applied to all paths if you want to get down to the nitty gritty. Any that can claim an unbroken line from the tradition's formation and modern times (especially if it is based of the historic traditions) are in the minority. All others have been unearthed, dusted off, and reestablished with changes made. The fundamentals are the same, but practices have had to be adapted to reflect life style changes of the people practicing those religions. And I really disagree that only those who have "cultural connections" should be the only ones to have power to change the religion; new traditions are formed (and need to be acknowledged as new) when someone who is well educated learns about a culture, its customs and beliefs, adopts some of them and modifies others. Provided the core of it remains the same, it's simply a different branch of the same tree for me. To be of a "Celtic" faith, or any other, is simply the core of one's principles and beliefs.

I don't find this to be entirely true in the case of the Celts. Celts never died off entirely and as such I think the orginal peoples should have complete claim over the title. Since these people are in the minority, I would think that perhaps we could modify their titles to something like Orthodox Celts or Tradtional Celts or Direct Bloodline Celts, however if the Celts found this offensive, it would me more proper then to relabel the new movement something esle. Part of it in my mind is for clarity's sake and part of it is just that the same way I would call out a Catholic who has no baptism or confermation in the church structure and claims to be indoctrinated, I would call out a person calling themselves Celtic who did not have a qualifier. Not to say what they follow is invalid, but to state that the religion they are following demands X requirements from their followers.

It is also important to note at this time that I know of some orginal Native American tribes who are very offended when people try to pick up Native American religions and try and conglomerate them all into one. I would think that Celtic traditions have a lot of the same affront.

Quote:

I disagree; I believe that there are individuals who are practicing Druids in today's culture. They are, however, modern Druids, and their faith is a part of a renaissance of the Classical Druidic system; they are not practicing an anceint faith, but a modern one with roots that run deeply that has been reconstructed beased upon what is known about the old. I don't see it as being of any less value, or requireing a modifier; one's religious title shouldn't read read like a novel; it's a brief description. I call myself a Witch, but to be more accurate I should likely call myself an Ecclectic Celtic Draconic Wiccan-influenced Soliatary practitioner NeoPagan Witch. What's the difference, besides one title being as long as my arm and providing a lot of unnecessary information? Both titles are accurate in their own way. Just as calling myself a Druid should suffice even if I am following a reconstructionist path, provided I recognize in my practice that what I follow is not the original, nor is it ancient.

I like accuracy, and I can be really picky about titles sometimes. I know its a little too much from time to time though. Its just that when one moves away from generic terms like pagan, eclectic something or other, witch, and so on I want to have a term that I understand to qualify mimimal beliefs. Like if someone calls themselves Catholic I know what that means and why its different from Protestant.

I think its great that people are inspired by the Druids of old and have a desire to try and pick that up. There are a few things I think though they need to acknowledge, one is that unlike recreating Egyptian or Greek or Roman culture, there are still Celts around in the world today. If the Celtic people find the use of the term Druid offensive, then who am I to tell them to loosen up?

Another problem I have to a lesser degree is that the Druids did pass on all their information word of mouth and everything one reads, even source material is second hand and biased. Its not a lot to go from and I think more likely than not most people who claim that title are not following anything similar to the orginal religion...not that any of us really know.

Honestly though if we can come up with a universal core definition of Druid and aknowledge that no one has crazy Celtic secret Druid knowledge, then I would probably let the title stand, just more often than not people who claim the title don't know what they claim or how potentially insulting it could be.

Quote:

Wheee! I love being able to have friendly debates with people. Even if they are off the original topic. xd

Me too its good times all around ^_^  

[The Bookwyrm]

Quote:

had thought, and here I would have to check that the Celtic Gods have said directly that the Celts are their chosen people and that they will not listen to any other petitioner (unless of course you've been adopted by a Celt or they specifically call you. With this understanding, I would think that minimally one would need a little Celtic blood in them. I'm about a quarter Irish, but I would never claim to be a Celt. I don't follow the religion, I don't know a lot about it, and I don't follow those Gods.

Still, if you work with a set of Gods and it seems to work for you, then who is to say the exact qualifiers for cultural background and blood line?

I've been reding a lot of Celtic mythology lately, and hve yet to come across an instance where any group of Celtic gods declaired that they had a chosen group of people. It was actually the reverse, and it was the people who chose the gods, and not just the Celts. The Romans adopted many of the continental gods; Epona was very popular among members of the Roman cavalry, just as an example. The
y loved her, and she worked very well for them.

The Romans being the exact opposite of the Celts would, to me, indicate that blood and cultural background mean very little within the Celtic pantheon.

If blood were critical, it would also severly limit the pantheon you could work within; the Irish had their own, the Scots had their own, so did the Picti, Welsh, Gauls, Iberians.... The pantheons carried similar gods and goddesses, much like you find within the Greek and Roman, but each was unique, each had their own identity and affiliations. Being of Irish and Scottish descent, I shouldn't be able to work witht he Welsh pantheon, but I can. Rhiannon and I get along wonderfully.

Take a bit further: if blood matters in religion, one should have to be Roman, or at least Italian, in nationality or descent before one could practice Roman Catholocism. Indicators such as Roman or Celtic I've always seen as a geographical marker, indicating where the religion came from, not as an indication of who is able to follow it.

Quote:

don't find this to be entirely true in the case of the Celts. Celts never died off entirely and as such I think the orginal peoples should have complete claim over the title. Since these people are in the minority, I would think that perhaps we could modify their titles to something like Orthodox Celts or Tradtional Celts or Direct Bloodline Celts, however if the Celts found this offensive, it would me more proper then to relabel the new movement something esle. Part of it in my mind is for clarity's sake and part of it is just that the same way I would call out a Catholic who has no baptism or confermation in the church structure and claims to be indoctrinated, I would call out a person calling themselves Celtic who did not have a qualifier. Not to say what they follow is invalid, but to state that the religion they are following demands X requirements from their followers.

Naturally the Celts didn't die out, but their religion did. We have bits and pieces of the folk religion that was recorded in places like the Scottish Highlands at the turn of the century, where it was able to survive in fragmented pieces because the area was so remote and not as exposed to the influences of England and its church. In Ireland, Wales, France, Brittany, etc., it was obliterated by the Catholic church and England's Brog tendencies to not only conquer, but to assimilate other cultures. Traditionalist have the say over their particular branch of Celtic Paganism, but it needs to be acknowledged that there are many others, and they are certainly a diverse bunch. Each simply has to acknowldge what they are: an offshoot of something bigger, and not the end-all-be-all of Celtic Pagan spirituality.

Quote:

I think its great that people are inspired by the Druids of old and have a desire to try and pick that up. There are a few things I think though they need to acknowledge, one is that unlike recreating Egyptian or Greek or Roman culture, there are still Celts around in the world today. If the Celtic people find the use of the term Druid offensive, then who am I to tell them to loosen up?

Most of the Celts today do not exist as the Celts did historically, just like with the Egyptians and Greeks. The Celts do not maintain a clan system any more as a system of government, they are not warriors, matrilineal, manintain even a fraction of the old traditions and customs, there are no traditional bards, few speak the languages, and 99% are Christian. Historically, the Celts were just a group of people historians lumped together, and today they only see themselves as loosely affiliated; they prefer to see themselves as Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and Bretons.

The few other people I've encountered who practice some form or other of Celtic spirituality have been pretty easy going; it's been a prevailing attitude of "To each their own". They're more offended by people practicing a system, and claiming it's something it's not, same as most people within the Pagan culture.

And phear my crazy uber secret Celtic Druid knowledge! domokun  

[Starlock]

Erm... to semi-relate this tangent back to the original discussion, what you guys have been talking about seems to touch back on the issue of whether or not one needs an 'unbroken decent' or a cultural connection to be regarded as a true practitioner. Aka, the question: does good reconstructionalism only count?

An answer based on yet another book I've been reading lately (titled something like "The God against the Gods" and it's about the historical conflict between many-god-ism and one-god-ism) suggests that Paganism by its very nature espouses religious tolerance and multiple paths to the same ends. The author notes that ancient Pagans believed that there were many paths to the same truths; the diversity of the Gods was a representation of that.

Modern Paganism attempts to adopt some of this, but I think many of us still get bogged down by the dominant one-true-wayism. Sometimes this might manifest as "you have no cultural ties to this pantheon so you can't worship it" or "you can't mix that and that pantheon together!" when by this author's staements, there can be doubt as to whether or not the ancient Pagans would have been bothered by this at all. But I'm just throwing out ideas here...  

[The Bookwyrm]

Quote:

Modern Paganism attempts to adopt some of this, but I think many of us still get bogged down by the dominant one-true-wayism. Sometimes this might manifest as "you have no cultural ties to this pantheon so you can't worship it" or "you can't mix that and that pantheon together!" when by this author's staements, there can be doubt as to whether or not the ancient Pagans would have been bothered by this at all. But I'm just throwing out ideas here...

Agreed. Personally, given the amount of pantheon swapping that went on among historical Pagans I can't see them having had a problem. Most cultures at the time generally seemed to accept that other cultures had their own way of going about paying their respects to nature; not to say that there weren't wars over religion, because there were, but there wasn't this petty bickering of "No! There's only one way to do things, and it's like this!" It was more "I've conqrored you and now you're going to follow my gods, because they're obviously superior; yours couldn't protect you."

Modern NeoPaganism seems to get bogged down in the "right" way or the "established" way of things, which is why I think we run into so many problems between traditions. I think it's more of a modern mind-set, really, that causes it that still hasn't died out from the colonization period.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Gypsy Blue

Quote:

Modern Paganism attempts to adopt some of this, but I think many of us still get bogged down by the dominant one-true-wayism. Sometimes this might manifest as "you have no cultural ties to this pantheon so you can't worship it" or "you can't mix that and that pantheon together!" when by this author's staements, there can be doubt as to whether or not the ancient Pagans would have been bothered by this at all. But I'm just throwing out ideas here...

Agreed. Personally, given the amount of pantheon swapping that went on among historical Pagans I can't see them having had a problem. Most cultures at the time generally seemed to accept that other cultures had their own way of going about paying their respects to nature; not to say that there weren't wars over religion, because there were, but there wasn't this petty bickering of "No! There's only one way to do things, and it's like this!" It was more "I've conqrored you and now you're going to follow my gods, because they're obviously superior; yours couldn't protect you."

Modern NeoPaganism seems to get bogged down in the "right" way or the "established" way of things, which is why I think we run into so many problems between traditions. I think it's more of a modern mind-set, really, that causes it that still hasn't died out from the colonization period.

All intersting thoughts (of note, Gypsy I am not ignoring your last post so much as taking my time in getting to it. I have a lot to say or try to say and not enough time to type it all up at the moment) and worth considering. However, I think its also important to note that there is a reason we have langauge at our disposal, and that is so we can have free and open communication. If we don't stick to the cores of what a word means, communication breaks down and langauge is no more than meaningless words and symbols.

This is not to say that we need to hyper focus on nitty gritty specific meanings of words and this is not to say that words do not change over time. It is merely to say that one can not decide to call a tomatoe an apple because we want freedom of speech. I don't think anyone here is suggesting we do this or allow this, but sometimes this line of thinking allows for too much freedom of defintion.

There do need to be cores that people must follow to have a title. We don't need them to be too specific, persay, but we do need to have preameters and alternate definitions when a topic gets too broad. I think what we often find in the pagan movement in general are two kinds of people at war with another. One extreme side wants anyone to claim whatever title and do whatever one wants and the other extreme allows for others to follow and do whatever but in no way can they then classify themselves as X group because of how they tie their shoes. A lot of times pagans are agrueing over definitions and I don't know why if its that big a deal we can just slap modifier labels on the title, it seems to work well for other sects of religion.

Now I like order and structure. As an English major I hate words like nice that could mean anything and I shudder at turning title definitions into being too loose to mean anything, but at the same time I don't want a twenty page definition either. Half a page max for a broad belief and then start subseting and dividing. That's just my take though.  

[PoeticVengeance]

Starlock

risen_from_the_ashes

Hm. Well the earth-centered definition sounds an aweful lot like what I practice. I was wondering a bit what form of Paganism I was best catagoristed in, and NeoPaganism seemed to fit. Now I am confused. sweatdrop

Let's see if I can clear up how I tend to use all those "Pagan" terminology words from the broadest category which "Paganism" can describe to more specific forms of Paganism.

Paganism #1 - any practice that is not Jewish, Christian, Islamic. This would include, however, those who self-identify as nonreligious (ie, Atheists). Using this definition, Paganism =/= Earth-Centered since Athiests, of course, are not by definition Earth-Centered.

Paganism #2 - (usually when I use the word "Paganism" this is what I'm refering to) Refers to religious systems whose deity conceptualizations are in prime polytheistic, pantheistic, and animistic. Would include several religions who do not label themselves as "Pagan" neccesarily, such as Shinto, Hinduism, and Chinese folk practice as well as dead practices such as Hellenic and Celtic.

Paganism #3 - "Neopaganism." Same as above, only it is "neo" ... that is "new" in some way. This typically means it is reconstructionalist; a revival of dead practices or a syncretic melding of several Pagan religions (sometimes with non-Pagan elements).

I would not be considered a Pagan unless the first definition is applied, because the Aspects are not Dieties, but representations of forces and elements of the universe, and the Ether is a non-thinking entity (um..kind of... that's actually really iffy, because the Ether is the spiritual and physical energies of everything, including minds and thoughts.)  

[Starlock]

Excellent post on the nature of labels in language, BlindFaith. I have something to add to what you said. There's a second set of ideas that often end up at war with one another, and sometimes they align with the ones you described and other times they don't.

There's the side that thinks that any practice that lacks an academic foundation and strong research is fraudulent, and there's the side that cares not a whiff of academic credibility and pulls whatever from wherever. Typically, the academic extremist would align with more rigidly defined definitions and the syncretic extremist would align with free-fire labeling. But... this is a tangental issue so perhaps it deserves its own thread. The question of 'how much scholarship should a practitioner have?' has some relevance here, of course. Is Paganism (both ancient and Neo), by academic definition, Earth-based? Most of what I've read seems to say yes, but without having read extensively in ancient Paganism, it's a bit of a jump to say the academic conclusion is that Paganism = Earth-based. Different disciplines probably use the word in different ways that fits with what they're discussing.

Brief aside to PoeticVengeance, I'm curious as to how you define 'deity.' Often how deity is viewed in Pagan religions is quite a bit different than how most of us grow up thinking about deity. Representations of forces and elements of the universe could qualify as deities/spirits under some systems of belief.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Starlock

Excellent post on the nature of labels in language, BlindFaith. I have something to add to what you said. There's a second set of ideas that often end up at war with one another, and sometimes they align with the ones you described and other times they don't.

There's the side that thinks that any practice that lacks an academic foundation and strong research is fraudulent, and there's the side that cares not a whiff of academic credibility and pulls whatever from wherever. Typically, the academic extremist would align with more rigidly defined definitions and the syncretic extremist would align with free-fire labeling. But... this is a tangental issue so perhaps it deserves its own thread. The question of 'how much scholarship should a practitioner have?' has some relevance here, of course. Is Paganism (both ancient and Neo), by academic definition, Earth-based? Most of what I've read seems to say yes, but without having read extensively in ancient Paganism, it's a bit of a jump to say the academic conclusion is that Paganism = Earth-based. Different disciplines probably use the word in different ways that fits with what they're discussing.

Brief aside to PoeticVengeance, I'm curious as to how you define 'deity.' Often how deity is viewed in Pagan religions is quite a bit different than how most of us grow up thinking about deity. Representations of forces and elements of the universe could qualify as deities/spirits under some systems of belief.

I think that this vein is the reasonable background explination for why there are these two conflicting veins of thought. I think what really gets under the accademics skin (and I myself and most certainly not near that catergory) is that:

a) the more intutive method does not acknowledge the roots and changes they have made to a cultures' work and

b.) the more intutive method leave the door open for fluffies and other people that I (And many other people) don't want in anyway shape or form connected to my faith or beliefs.

I don't think the intutive group means or desires for either of these things to happen. One thing we, as a representation of such a large newer movement have to recognize is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there and that our own attempts to educate often only lead to the vat of misinformation (both accademic and intutive sides are guilty of this). Because while it is important to recognize that karma comes from the hindu tradition and is useless without the word dharma, it is also important that words like karma and aura have come into common useage and mean something different now. We need to discuss the root of the word and the change and whether that change is valid and where the change is too far.

I spend a lot of time working to inform the general not pagan backroud populace on different aspects of the pagan movement and some of the misinformation is astounding. While I personally am more intution based in my philosophy a lot of my path requires me to find or have at least the core accademic base, and I find using the definition is the looser but still academic based method to be best in my own descriptions and then I can branch ouf to how other people use these words and while it is techinically word misuse the popularity of use makes it required for people to understand bothl.

Part of what I find interesting in all of this debate is that the more we define neo-pagan and new age, the more aware I am that while I use both terms to describe what I do and practice. Neither, with these definitions, acturately describe what I practice. Good thing I usually stick with eclectic pagan as a description. xp  

[PoeticVengeance]

Starlock

I'm curious as to how you define 'deity.' Often how deity is viewed in Pagan religions is quite a bit different than how most of us grow up thinking about deity. Representations of forces and elements of the universe could qualify as deities/spirits under some systems of belief.

Generally the way I define deity is as follows:

"A self concious entity that has complete control over an aspect or aspects of existance. This entity generally has a personality of some kind, including motivations of its own. Basically a very powerful sentient being."



You do raise a good point though. The Aspects are an iffy concept that skirts the line between sentient beings with immense power (over a single aspect) and non self concious Spiritual Reflections of a force or element of the universe.

So my Aspects could very well be considered dieties under the viewpoint of most Pagan religions.

The key difference I see is that Aspects are not worshipped, but instead emulated and understood, and through those actions their energies are channeled into you.

By understanding the Aspects most closely tied to your personality, you understand yourself. This leads to a stronger tie to the Ether overall, and is a key step in any Ascension. By emulating the Aspects that you carry as your own you tie your Spiritual Reflection closer to them and this allows their energy to flow into you more easily. This grants you a certain amount of strength in that Aspect beyond what you would have by yourself.


Hmmm... it occurs to me that this hasn't been added to the summary yet. I should update that soon.

Edit: Updated Etherism Summary! Maybe I'll make a wiki for it soon. Or maybe I can hassle Nihl to do it for me.

^_^  

[Starlock]

blindfaith^_^

I think that this vein is the reasonable background explination for why there are these two conflicting veins of thought. I think what really gets under the accademics skin (and I myself and most certainly not near that catergory) is that:

a) the more intutive method does not acknowledge the roots and changes they have made to a cultures' work and

b.) the more intutive method leave the door open for fluffies and other people that I (And many other people) don't want in anyway shape or form connected to my faith or beliefs.

Interesting hypothesis. It might also be added that a concern for historical accuracy tends to be an appeal to Traditionalism moreso than Progressivism, particularly where new religions movements are concerned. But... I think I'm going to make a new thread on this tangent now... heh...

blindfaith^_^

I don't think the intutive group means or desires for either of these things to happen. One thing we, as a representation of such a large newer movement have to recognize is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there and that our own attempts to educate often only lead to the vat of misinformation (both accademic and intutive sides are guilty of this).

Yet sometimes the intuitives are treated as some malevolent force that is deliberately perverting accurate history and honest practice. That attitude bothers me quite a bit, partly because of what you've said here. But some other ideas here... I'll save for the new thread....

Back to Poetic...

Those are some interesting ideas you have there. The definition of deity you've used implies a belief in free will, or, if not, deity must be synonymous with the universe. It also implies a supernatural requirement, as natural law dictates it is utterly impossible to have complete control over anything. Perhaps this wasn't meant to be implied, but that is what I gleaned from it.

It could be mentioned, too, that in Neopaganism, a spirit/Aspect/deity isn't neccesarily worshiped (presuming worship imples a servent-master relationship) but honored and also used as models of emulation and understanding. While not all Neopagans would regard, say, the four elements as divine, understanding them acts as a mode of understanding the world around you as well as yourself. These kinds of deeper philosophical implications are probably present in all Neopagan systems, but unfortunately the general lack of any books beyond 101 level don't quite probe some of these areas.

So is this your own personal system, then, or is it a pre-established one?  

[PoeticVengeance]

Starlock

Back to Poetic...

Those are some interesting ideas you have there. The definition of deity you've used implies a belief in free will, or, if not, deity must be synonymous with the universe. It also implies a supernatural requirement, as natural law dictates it is utterly impossible to have complete control over anything. Perhaps this wasn't meant to be implied, but that is what I gleaned from it.

Precisely the reason why I don't consider the Aspects dieties. At least according to my definition of deity.

Quote:

It could be mentioned, too, that in Neopaganism, a spirit/Aspect/deity isn't neccesarily worshiped (presuming worship imples a servent-master relationship) but honored and also used as models of emulation and understanding. While not all Neopagans would regard, say, the four elements as divine, understanding them acts as a mode of understanding the world around you as well as yourself. These kinds of deeper philosophical implications are probably present in all Neopagan systems, but unfortunately the general lack of any books beyond 101 level don't quite probe some of these areas.

Then I do suppose you could consider me a Neo Pagan.

Quote:

So is this your own personal system, then, or is it a pre-established one?

Personal system. All the pre-established ones that I looked into had all kinds of issues that I couldn't work with.

So I began to piece together elements of them that were in common and had the least level of contradiction when put together. Some of it is based on personal instinct and experiences that I couldn't explain, as many religions often are.

After a while it kind of took on a life of its own and grew into what I have now. Of course I had a little help from people like Nihl, who debated with me about it and helped me work out its kinks.