On Jul 17, 2009, at 12:11 AM, Moose wrote:
> Bob Whitmire wrote:
>> Well, wikipedia is not very high on my list of credible sources,
>> but ranks about number one on my list of convenient sources. <g>
>
> <snip>
> To use a blatant example, a mid 16th. Century edition of Britannica
> would undoubtedly have featured a wonderfully learned, through and
> well
> written treatise on Ptolemy's geocentric model of the heavens. A
> Wikipedia would have included Copernicus' and Galileo's observations
> and
> theories, at least as alternatives.
Ah, Moose, I can always count on you to put me in my place. But note
that I did say number one on my list of convenient sources. But I
still won't like it, because in the present moment, one has difficulty
determining the twaddle from the factual. Who knows what else a 16th
Century Wikipedia would have included, and in what light would they
have illuminated Mr. Copernicus and Mr. Galileo?
>> That said, I still think neo-paganism sounds pretentious. I would
>> never identify myself as such. Simple pagan would suffice. Or
>> heathen. I like that one even better. Not neo-heathen, mind
>> you . . . <g>
>>
>
> I understand that you have a prejudice against the usage. It is
> nevertheless accurate and more meaningful than without the "neo".
> Since
> many of these practices are modeled after what are imagined to be the
> detailed beliefs and practices of ancient spiritual traditions, to
> call
> them by the name of the originals implies continuity or at least
> accuracy in following the old. Prepending "neo" admits the difference.
Well, true, to a point. But considering that the term "pagan" is
basically a pejorative of Christian origin, likely even an epithet,
I'm not sure I'd agree to giving the epithet-hurlers the satisfaction
of glueing neo- in front of my paganism--if I were a pagan, which I am
not. As stated above, I think of myself as a heathen, pure an simple.
True, heathen is a bit of an epithet itself, but it's one I choose to
co-opt and turn to my advantage. It also has connotations extending
beyond the metaphysical.
> Many of the old practices they admire and wish to emulate and
> revitalize
> involved secret teachings and practices which were only revealed to
> initiates to various levels and never to be revealed to outsiders.
> Some,
> of course, were, but most either were not or have been lost.
My take on "neo-paganism" is that it's mostly made-up twaddle and
wishful thinking, usually underpinned with environmentalism or some
sort of gender-twisting. (Please, no cards and letters. My wife will
handle the thrashing I am sure to receive. <g>) I do know, for
example, that virtually nothing factual is known about Druids and
Druidism, simply because the Romans chose to stomp it out, literally.
Almost everything, we know about the Druids is taken from Roman
sources, which are sketchy to say the least, and, of course, written
by the winner. (As I recall, one of the reason Queen Boudica's revolt
achieved its successes was because the Roman governor of Britain was
off on the other side of the island slaughtering Druids.)
And least anyone think I take my heathenism too seriously, I
understand that most spiritual traditions started as what most people
of their times would have considered twaddle. As a matter of fact, I
appreciate much of the environmental "neo-paganism" because it makes
an attempt to disavow the blatant hubris of humankind toward its
surroundings. I'm not a true tree-hugger, but I've been known to pat a
few affectionately as I walked past. And just so you know that I have
some kook to go with my heathenism, last night on the way home from
dinner I stopped the car in the middle of Route 32 and blocked a line
of cars behind me from zooming past and possibly hitting a group of
three young raccoons who seemed a bit confused in the middle of the
road, unsure as to whether they should head for the tall grass or hold
their own. I stayed put until they decided the tall grass was the
better option. (To be fair, no one behind honked or otherwise acted
annoyed at my actions, so maybe what I think of as "kook" is becoming
more of the norm.)
> I believe that even those which have survived are often
> misunderstood in
> the enormously different contexts in which we now live from those in
> which they originated.
On this we could not agree more. In fact, while not wishing to insult
anyone or start a religious war, I might suggest that Christianity
itself, in some versions extant today, supposes more than a few
enormous misunderstandings of its formative years because of those
same different contexts.
--Bob "Just Plain Heathen" Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|