Eclecticism...

[Pelta]

Starlock

It's so funny that ecclecticism is sometimes frowned upon when it is very similar to syncreticism.

I'm afraid I disagree. Syncretism by nature is the combining of two distinct wholes, usually out of necessity, to form a new syncretic object. The creation still embodies both aspects, but is now something entirely different.

For example, the Cuban Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre is considered to be an embodiment of both the Virgin Mary and the Yoruba Goddess Oshun. However, in modern times it retains elements of both but is neither. The Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre is a distinct, Cuban goddess completely distinct from its originators. That is syncretism.

Eclecticism is a scattered collection of interests, selecting what seems to be best from various different sources. There is no mention of an actual coherent combination involved in eclecticism. I could like 20th-Century tapestries and deep-water shark fishing; that is eclectic. There may be no rhyme or reason to what I choose, and each aspect could remain completely autonymous. There is no syncretism in this example. In fact, I would be very hard pressed to try to mesh tapestry-weaving and shark-fishing.

That is why eclecticism is not syncretism. Now, eclecticism can often lead to syncretism; to the creation of an entirely autonymous religion. However, at that point it ceases to be what it was and becomes something new. A syncretic religion can not differentiate between its different components because they are no longer unique. It's like trying to separate an individual ingredient out of a cake. How do you remove the egg after the cake is baked?  

[Starlock]

I suppose I see the process of ecclecticism differently than you do, Pelta. While I don't doubt there are those who use the methods you describe, I'm not so sure it describes all ecclectics out there. Some do not select what seems to be the "best" from various sources, but that which can be synchronized with currently held models. In other words, they bring concepts in from other systems that strengthen and support what they are already using in their system and tend to dismiss what doesn't support it. It can be, though not always, a bit more purposeful than you describe.

Truth be told, this sort of selective perception occurs in every single human person, regardless of how they label themselves on both conscious and unconscious levels. Non-ecclectics are kidding themselves if they think they don't do this also; this is just part of how our brains work to create a sensible structure to all the information we perceive on a daily basis. We take the ideas that make sense to us and use them (the "best" ideas, according to us) and don't use the stuff that doesn't make sense to us or runs in contradiction to what we already believe.

What exactly did you mean by "best" though, I'm wondering? neutral  

[Pelta]

Starlock

While I don't doubt there are those who use the methods you describe, I'm not so sure it describes all ecclectics out there.

And not all humans are blonde... The point being that I never tried to pose my opinion as applying to all eclectics. I was merely pointing out the difference between eclecticism and syncretism as different doctrines, countering your affirmation earlier that they are pretty much the same thing.

Quote:

Some do not select what seems to be the "best" from various sources, but that which can be synchronized with currently held models.

I never said that eclecticism was purposefully random. That is up to individual discretion. People choose what is best for them.

Quote:

Truth be told, this sort of selective perception occurs in every single human person, regardless of how they label themselves on both conscious and unconscious levels.

Indeed, but that is irrelevant. I may be influenced by the man down the road but that doesn't mean I become him. I may perhaps to some extent be influenced by Egyptian beliefs, but that doesn't make me Khemetic. It also wouldn't stop me from becoming Asatruar if I so chose as my path.

When one is in school one studies many different subjects, perhaps taking what suits them best from each and assimilating them. When one goes to college, one specialises in one specific subject studied in school. That doesn't mean they're suddenly not influenced by what they learned before, but that also doesn't invalidate the fact that they're specialising in something. See what I mean?

Quote:

What exactly did you mean by "best" though, I'm wondering? neutral

I'm amused you're harping on the one single word that wasn't my own...

And just to clarify, by "best" I assumed it was implied "best for them."