Erynn ([info]erynn999) wrote in [info]cr_r,
@ 2008-04-29 19:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Work and fear
nota bene: I'm posting this here because I was asked to by several people, and because it would be ironic to talk about other people's fear of posting in the community if I'm afraid to say it in public myself.

It seems like my post with the Brighid imagery struck a real chord with people. One of my friends went as far as to call me this afternoon and thank me for addressing the concept of deity yoga in a CR context. The person has been doing work of this sort for a while but, as with so many things in CR, didn't dare mention it in public for fear of being taken to task over it. I don't like the stifling atmosphere that has been created around CR, where people are afraid to say anything that could possibly be construed as "not Celtic" because they know they are going to be hassled over it.

An orthodoxy of fear has already evolved within the community and it's not pretty. Yet when people talk privately to me about their own practices, so often I see people doing wonderful, innovative things. I see people whose practices have touched upon shared inspirations without any real discussion of it, manifesting in everything from a shared gnosis that Airmid has associations with moss agate to the idea of working with iconic images and using them to understand and embody deity in a manner similar to eastern deity yoga practices.

When people are afraid to talk about what they're getting there's no reason to believe that CR as a community or even as an individual practice is going to evolve. People are afraid to write ritual because they're afraid of violating unstated guidelines or offending other practitioners. They're afraid of doing it "wrong" at least in part because no actual "right" way has yet been articulated, but we've certainly seen the social penalties for disagreement within the community.

Aisling and archaeology. It's a phrase I've been using since the beginning of my involvement with this, back when I founded the Nemeton discussion list. Vision and history as equals, as equally necessary. Both must be measured against the other. Without history we have nothing to support our practice. Without vision, history is sterile dust. We are denying ourselves a rich and engaging colloquy about practice and community when we stifle outlying perceptions and voices -- and yet so much of the task of the fili is to walk within those mists, to dwell in those boundary places between tribes and perceptions and worlds.

I see so many innovative, fascinating people being cut out of reconstructionist Pagan communities for not playing along with an increasingly conservative orthodoxy, and it disturbs me profoundly. We need the mystics, the poets, the visionaries. We need the comparativists and the syncretists and the folks working in multiple traditions. We need the people working with the An-déithe as much as we need the ones working with the Déithe. We need the people who are walking the edges, even if they (and I include myself in this) sometimes make false steps -- how will we find the path through the darkness if we don't put one foot in front of the other and correct for errors when they happen? Is it only acceptable "to boldly go" on a tv screen with big-budget special effects and a nice, safe script?

We need more experimentation, not less. We need to envision our deities and embody them, to examine the virtues and practice them, to speak poetic words that push the boundaries of our knowledge and leave us gasping at the edge of the abyss. Standing on the bedrock of the past, we must cut new stone and build new temples to our deities. With the seeds of trees lying withered, we must plant new groves on the nurse logs of tradition. My vision and articulation of CR has always been a reconstruction of the path suited to our time and our place, based on the threads and patterns we can find but woven in colorful new cloth. The deities live and grow and learn even as we do. They are not static, changeless images bypassed by time.

One of our virtues is courage. We need to have the courage to bring forth our visions, to speak of our work so that we won't feel so alone with our insights and our challenges. I see too many good people stifled by our community's fears of mysticism and direct engagement with deity, of being "wrong", of looking foolish, of being different.

Even the geilta met in Gleann Bolcain to ease their loneliness and share their visions. Should we settle for less?


(Post a new comment)


[info]blackfyr
2008-04-30 02:49 am UTC (link)
I've seen and been saddened by the same pattern here and elsewhere. Having been a newbie (and still feeling like that many times even now), I understand the fears of not wanting to seem like an idiot or being flamed for thinking differently from others. I would like to apologize now to anyone if it has ever seemed like I participated in, agreed with or turned a blind eye to that kind of behavior.

We need people putting themselves into blazing this path, not staying away because they're afraid that their contributions won't help or that they will be ridiculed for participating.

Of course, everyone (myself and any "elders" included) needs to be aware that they will need to be able to face critiques, especially if what they are doing seems to contradict lore. But the lore is spotty in places (lots of places) and can be interpreted many ways.

And here I am rambling about, trying to express my support while looking at it from many angles. There are many paths that can be called CR, and you shouldn't be afraid to talk about your CR path just because it doesn't match someone else's. And carefully patching the spotty places shouldn't be something you should be attacked for.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]caitriona_nnc
2008-04-30 03:18 am UTC (link)
Yes, but she should be clear that it's *her* path. What I see her doing is claiming in some recent posts is that CR can and should be eclectic, and I think she's missed the point there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]godcat
2008-04-30 03:30 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry for this to be my first posting of any kind on the community but, "Huh?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]blackfyr
2008-04-30 03:39 am UTC (link)
I have not seen her doing that, though I have seen you misinterpreting her in that manner.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]caitriona_nnc
2008-04-30 03:38 am UTC (link)
Erynn, I have asked you three times now, in a locked LJ post, in an e-mail, and on your journal, to stop using icons I've made, especially if they are icons with a picture of me in them. Since you deleted my comments requesting and then reiterating this, I am posting it publicly here: do not use my picture with your posts.

I've gone into a lot of this in my journal in these posts: http://caitriona-nnc.livejournal.com/198103.html and http://caitriona-nnc.livejournal.com/192042.html (currently f-locked)

But as Erynn is re-posting her post here, I am going to repost some of my responses to it. Again, I can't do this in her journal, as she banned me from her journal for confronting her on her cultural appropriation.

I think that when people think eclecticism is necessary for spiritual growth, all it proves is that they haven't found a home in any living tradition. I am grateful for the deep spirituality I have found in the Gaelic traditions, and baffled that some, including those I once was friends with, would ever think that that grounding somehow hinders spiritual growth, ecstatic ritual, creativity or revelation.

I got into this, I got started developing this with people I worked with, in person, here on the east coast, to go *deeper* with my ancestors and their/my deities. Not to dissipate it into eclecticism.

If someone wants to be a Buddhist or a Hindu, they should respect those paths and fully join them, not try to lump it all together and claim it's Celtic. It's just mind-boggling to me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

continued
[info]caitriona_nnc
2008-04-30 03:38 am UTC (link)
[info]alfrecht then said he didn't think Erynn was trying to define CR for any one but herself. This is my reply:

So, what do you make of her comment: "Thanks. I'm taking back CR ;)" accompanied by an icon I made, that includes myself and a bunch of people who disagree with Erynn, smiling.* (I have asked her twice to stop using my icons, and she is still using them. She has banned me from responding in her journal, so I commented anonymously, reminding her that I've asked her to stop using my picture with her posts. She deleted my comment.)

By the above statement, she is implying that she once "had" CR and is now "taking it back." Erynn did not found CR. When I met her online in '93, she was calling herself a "NeoCelt". It is my fault that she picked up the term CR, as I said, "Oh, you're CR" - because I mistakenly believed we were more on the same page than we were. I didn't realize until she visited here in person that we are not on the same page, but that she is eclectic, even to the extent of ripping off Lakota ceremonies (see the Polish Chanupa posts, but I'm sure you've seen her fake Chanupa around the house already).

The reason I mistakenly thought Erynn was on the same page is because she was doing research and, at the time, studying Old Irish. That is good, but it is only the beginning of getting involved in CR. What Kym and I had been doing for years before we met Erynn, and discussing publicly as CR, was something that should be rooted in the living cultures, and *not* eclectic. I understand that once a name becomes publicized you lose control over how people use it and who calls themselves that. But with statements like the above, as well as deleting comments from those who disagree with her, Erynn is implying that because she is eclectic, and a cultural appropriator that somehow she can now redefine CR to include those things. The whole recent thread (first link above) is full of her encouraging people to call eclecticism CR. Multiple times she claims CR will "die" without eclecticism. I disagree. CR will die if eclectic appropriation is called CR. It will become a meaningless word.

And the nerve, the insult to traditional peoples, to imply that inspiration only comes from eclecticism or syncretism. All that says is that the person saying that has no idea what it is to be part of a traditional culture. It's a very American, Neopagan attitude; and if that's what one believes and experiences, one should own that, and be an American Neopagan. But that's not what CR is.

Phil, if you believe CR is or can be eclectic, just read the FAQ. We all, Erynn included, signed off on the fact that: "CR is not eclectic." and "coined the term CR specifically to distinguish their practices from those of eclectic traditions." These statements were not just agreed to by those of us who coined the term, but by Erynn as well. Obviously, she's changed her mind. That's fine - for her. But with statements like, "I'm taking back CR" she's more than slightly implying that she thinks she has the right to redefine CR to suit her mental state.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: continued
[info]alfrecht
2008-04-30 03:52 am UTC (link)
I'll post my response to that here publicly as well.

Incidentally, I've never seen the "chanupa" myself, because it isn't anything that has to do with me or my business, nor [info]erynn999's business with me. And as she had advice on it from a pipe-bearer, unless you want to call that advice and the opinion of that pipe-bearer into question, I'm fine with leaving that whole issue as "fair enough."

There is a very big difference between eclecticism and syncretism. The Irish and Scottish systems of polytheism, both pre- and post-Christian, as they seem to be available to us, were syncretistic, and in fact most living and evolving religions are syncretistic. If one doesn't adapt to new and different situations and religious concepts in one's religion, it does ossify, and leads to fundamentalism and other excesses. If CR is going to be a useful religion in the modern world, it will have to take these matters into account. As long as innovations are marked as such, and the inspirations for them are cited as coming from XYZ cultures, I personally don't see a problem with it. There is a very big difference in saying "this concept in Hinduism might suggest a similar technique in Irish polytheism," and invoking Shiva and the Caillech Berri after one has called the quarters.

If one were to strictly stick with what the attested sources say about ancient Irish polytheism, then it would be entirely permissible to worship Iobh, Mart, Apall, and Os (Jove/Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, and Osiris), because there is one text that says the ancient Ulstermen did exactly that; it is one of very few places in narrative where the figures there referred to are called "gods." If one writes that off as someone not knowing what they're talking about, then one is writing off what the culture itself perceived as its own history, which is not very good practice. You'd then have to question every possible source which reports on this history in order to filter out what you feel is biased, but that will entirely depend on what your notions of bias entail, and what your vision of "cultural purity" involves, and that would always of necessity be a construction and a conception based on--imagine that!--one's own biases.

Taking comparative materials from living cultures, especially living cultures that are Indo-European, is something very useful in all of this. Therefore, Hindu comparisons are very relevant. Paying attention to the living cultures in Ireland and Scotland (even if they are not explicitly polytheistic currently) is also something very good to do. The evidence for a pre-Christian all-female Brigidine flametending order is only attested in a late, Christian, Cambro-Norman, anti-Irish text; the only way one can suggest this happened in pre-Christian times is to take the evidence of the Roman Vestal Virgins seriously and build upon it. But, according to what you've said, that would not be permissible. Likewise, looking to the modern Irish culture that has carried on from the practices outlined in that late source (authentic or not), we see they've changed their policies. But, according to what you've stipulated, we should also ignore that. Who's actually picking and choosing on these matters?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: continued - [info]caitriona_nnc, 2008-04-30 04:06 am UTC
Re: continued - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 04:40 am UTC
Re: continued - [info]brigidsblest, 2008-04-30 12:22 pm UTC
Re: continued
[info]cruitire333
2008-04-30 04:01 am UTC (link)
Whenever I asked about the authenticity of what I was doing, Erynn always responded, politely, that it's up to me, but it's not CR - and that covered a wide variety of topics of discussion between the two of us.

She has never suggested that I could go to the Emaho Foundation for Green Tara meditations on Wednesdays and bring that into my CR studies for later. She did say it's perfectly acceptable to participate in them, if invited - but not to the extent that I call myself a Buddhist-CR. When has exploration and participation in cultural ceremonies ever been wrong?

For that matter - weren't you Dianic at one time? Did that all change because you didn't like something and decided to denounce everything but your own personal view? I mean, that's fine but don't expect everyone to agree with you. I appreciate that you met with some people and declared the tradition of CR - and I'm grateful for that - but you're blowing this way out of proportion and spending way to much time denouncing people on a blog. LJ isn't the source of the CR community - I am...and so is every individual who has adopted it as their chosen way of life. Erynn only suggested that we have the right to do that and not be afraid of critical people...apparently like you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: continued
[info]blackfyr
2008-04-30 04:07 am UTC (link)
I think the problem here is that you are identifying things as eclectic that are not eclectic, and are seeing people that follow more than one tradition as being eclectic, even if they have hard separations between the practices and "don't cross the streams".

Building a CR practice requires filling in holes. You have agreed with this in the past. The problem is you seem to have taken the position that you can only fill in the holes if you have exact matches from a close tradition. If a tradition in the same Indo-European cultural spectrum that is not Celtic has something that closely matches the missing part, this should be looked at for inspiration as to how to fill that hole.

As for your repeated pointing out of what you perceive to be [info]erynn999's transgressions, I find it troublesome that in all the posts you link to, she has answered every accusation you made and clarified every point, even to the point that, in one of the posts, you agreed that she had answered your objections and that you accepted it, but you are now using the same accusations here to link to them that were answered and refuted in the very posts you're linking to.

The CR FAQ is a wonderful document that is very useful, despite all the grief and strife that we went through to produce it. That said, everything that [info]erynn999 has done that she has called CR, is covered within the guidelines laid down in that document. It is only those areas of her spiritual practice that she has not called CR that you have found your objections, save in the incubatory chamber that she has been putting together inspired by someone else's practice in a different tradition. Please note that she has not ever said that she was copying the other persons chamber, practices, or tradition. Only that she took inspiration from the way a chamber was constructed out of an existing household feature. All the discussions she has posted about said chamber have been about how she could use it in a Celtic context. Not how she could use the MA practices or beliefs. Just how she could use a room in her place.

I think you need to take a step backward and look at what you have been doing and how you have been presenting yourself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: continued - [info]caitriona_nnc, 2008-04-30 04:41 am UTC
Re: continued - [info]blackfyr, 2008-04-30 05:25 am UTC
Re: continued - [info]caitriona_nnc, 2008-04-30 05:37 am UTC
Re: continued - [info]blackfyr, 2008-04-30 05:48 am UTC
Pardon my jumping in... - [info]misslynx, 2008-04-30 05:00 am UTC
Re: Pardon my jumping in... - [info]caitriona_nnc, 2008-04-30 05:06 am UTC

[info]paul_hamish
2008-04-30 04:42 am UTC (link)
One thing that struck me about your post was the phrase "Aisling and archaeology." I feel there is something missing from that phrase: The living culture in-between. That is, the Celtic cultures which twist and twine from the ancient days right down to today. Seisiuns in pubs, tales told to children, milk in saucers outside the lintel. Celtic cultures are not "dead" cultures, known only by their ancient artifacts; they have grown, rooted in their past, nurtured by tradition, legend, lore and language. Of course they change, influenced by other cultures through the years, but there is also a bright cord in the center, passed from generation to generation, connecting them to their ancestors.

Aisling disconnected from a living cultural matrix becomes difficult to interpret. Symbols are rarely truly and completely universal in meaning. Is white the color of mourning or purity or both or something entirely different? Given a broad enough palette of comparative cultures, meanings stutter and shift radically, leading to a mostly personal deconstruction, unmoored and erratic. This is mysticism but I feel the results, while certainly personally meaningful, rarely seem more broadly applicable.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]caitriona_nnc
2008-04-30 04:55 am UTC (link)
Exactly. Poetry-points to you!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]blackfyr
2008-04-30 05:40 am UTC (link)
I have to agree that there is something missing from that phrase. It needs a third part to balance it properly. Perhaps something along the lines of persistence or duration. However this is nothing I have not seen Erynn advocate multiple times over the years along with many others. The living culture does have traces, but the "bright cord" is remarkably dingy when examined closely and has not always been the same cord between successive sets of generations.

Of course, checking your aisling against the lore (including archaeology) is part and parcel of using aisling in the first place. and comparing it to the living matrix is as vital as comparing it to the past.

However, I have seen nothing in what Erynn has said to indicate that she is not already doing exactly what you are suggesting. Perhaps you can point me to where she indicates something different?

However, this all seems peripheral to the central point of the original post which is that we have bred an atmosphere of fear that has been verifiably keeping people away from CR when they should be welcomed with open arms.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]paul_hamish, 2008-04-30 06:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blackfyr, 2008-04-30 07:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]conchobhar, 2008-04-30 07:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thomasflannery1, 2008-04-30 11:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]paul_hamish, 2008-04-30 07:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 07:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]caitriona_nnc, 2008-04-30 08:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 08:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rialian, 2008-04-30 02:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 03:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]finnchuill, 2008-04-30 07:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]gothicdruid, 2008-04-30 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 10:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]finnchuill, 2008-05-01 05:22 am UTC

[info]heilun_coo
2008-04-30 12:53 pm UTC (link)
I think this was beautifully put. I like the idea of the bright cord (it's bright in spirit, if not always in terms of the continuity of generations that blackfyr was talking about...), it's kind of how I see it and why I place an emphasis on the existing (or only recently deceased) traditions in what I do.

I wonder if a lot of the disagreement going on between people here is because there's a genuine schism developing in CR, or because the points being argued are being approached from such widely differing paths within CR? From my own perspective, I focus on Scottish practices and I take a decidedly 'hearthy' approach, for wont of a better word. I look to surviving traditions to inform my practices, I study the mythology to inform my understanding of the gods, that sort of thing. The elements of experimentation and speculative reconstruction that form part of what I do tends to be based firmly on sources that I can find that are related to Scotland.

My own approach is therefore very different to other paths that take a more mystical focus, and/or are based on elements of society that haven't survived or been recorded to such a great degree up to the modern day. I can see that in that respect a comparative approach is more necessary and may involve more a speculative methodology than I tend to use, and generally the sticking point in the discussion seems to be where the sources that inform such speculative aspects come from, and perhaps (more to the point) the emphasis that gets laid on those sources in informing practices that are supposed to ultimately part of a Celtic cultural practice...Personally, I don't identify so much with these paths and therefore the more comparative approaches don't seem too relevant to me either.

When does inspiration cross the line and become appropriation, I guess is what I'm saying? In fact, I'm not sure if I'm saying anything at all because this wasn't what my brain had in mind when I started typing, so I apologise if I'm not making any sense at all...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]thomasflannery1
2008-04-30 10:35 am UTC (link)
I have to ask, where is this "Red Scare" of CR Orthodoxy coming from? I haven't been a member of the community for as long as many of the people here, but from my time in it (I think four years now?) I have yet to witness any of this "purist orthodoxy." What I have witnessed is a lot of people trying to cram Neopagan elements or other religious traditions/ ideas into a CR/ Celtic context, or people passing off their personal CR spirituality as "public" CR spirituality, and then people blatantly disagreeing with doing such.

From my understanding of CR, it is an orthopraxy as are most reconstructionist religions. It has an established way of doing things rather than an established way of thinking or believing like in Christianity or Islam. If you don't want to follow tradition and rather go off and do your own thing, and that's fine, but don't try and pass it off as CR if it's not CR. What I thought was generally accepted was that CR is not eclectic, and is to be rooted in the traditional cultures of the Celtic peoples. That it's not just a religion, but a way of life in which one immerses themselves in a Celtic culture, and adopts and applies traditional values, ethics, philosophy, thought, and spirituality into every aspect of mundane life. That's what drew me to CR in the first place, but I guess that was a false pretense.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]conchobhar
2008-04-30 03:05 pm UTC (link)
It has always been around. Sometimes it has been the argument over the use of Celtic languages - required or not? Other it has been the form that rituals shall take - Nemetons? Circles? Enclosures? Can men take part in Brighid fire tending?

There has always been something and I suspect there always will be...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]thomasflannery1
2008-04-30 06:37 pm UTC (link)
And this wasn't addressed to any particular person here, I was speaking in general.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]conchobhar, 2008-04-30 07:03 pm UTC

[info]blackfyr
2008-04-30 08:10 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps it would be better to say that it has an established way of approaching things, than that it has an established way of doing things, as we are still trying to figure out how to do many things. The problem of the generation of fear has come from some people attacking other not for how they are approaching something, but from them approaching it at all. Many times the attacks come from misunderstandings, but they have had the effect of causing other people to be silent or simply walk away from CR and stop calling themselves CR because they don't want to deal with the attacks - even if what they are doing is exactly within what CR does.

I have not seen that many people trying to cram in Neopagan elements without looking to see if there was something missing from the Celtic matrix in that area. And most of the time that they tried out those elements, they had been stripped down to the technology/mechanistic level to allow for better integration. And none of them have ever said they were anything other than exactly what they were. None have said, "Look! I've rediscovered an ancient practice!" It's always been, "Look! I came up with something that might let us do something similar to an ancient practice that we don't otherwise know how to do." The former we all agree is wrong. The latter is necessary unless we intend to always leave the ancient practices and skills behind.

Following tradition and building it into your life is a good thing. But if the tradition is incomplete and is not open to change, it will not serve people living in a modern world that is changing on a daily basis. Yes, we need to respect, honor and live our faiths and traditions. But if we lock that tradition in amber, it dies and becomes a museum curiosity.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]thomasflannery1, 2008-04-30 09:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 10:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thomasflannery1, 2008-04-30 10:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alfrecht, 2008-05-01 04:20 am UTC

[info]nicanthiel
2008-04-30 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Then may I present you with my own part?

I identify as CR. Not because it's a tradition that I picked out of a hat (which it's not), or a way of life that resonates greatly with me that I choose to emulate (which it is), but because I was told to by Certain People that have quite a bit more say, in my opinion, than any of the people here (no offense to anyone). They wanted me to act toward them as all the long lines of my ancestors did (and there are many).

However, when I see certain attitudes online, it frustrates me, because the name to which I have been attached is being degraded, simply from the utter lack of (to use a North Trad. word) frith even being considered in the community, let alone actual practice of it. When arguments over books, and irrational fears over the "impressionability" of newcomers (which is infuriating and demeaning in and of itself) take up countless hours and discussions, then, IMO, there is nothing good being done, no progress that we as a community end up gaining; in fact, many times, these arguments set us back, as people get offended and leave, when they could have done so much to enrich the practices and concepts that we're trying to use here.

And even my own parts in this community have me avoiding talking about them in public places, as I know that they would be looked down on. Yet, I hhve never included neo-pagan influences, I don't really know other religious practices (other than smatterings of North Trad due to work with runes, which is also supervised by a God Team, so to speak, and discussions with Heathen friends). So, am I supposed to deny the label I was given, simply because some people in the community are uncomfortable with the things I do and the People Who tell me to do them?

To take your second point, I think you're underestimating the way that a culture is and established way of thinking and believing. As a fellow American, do you not believe in freedom, democracy (in the proper contexts), and the right of innocence, to choose a few cultural values? These things shape how you see everything regardless of how you worship or work with whatever. Yes, there are traditions that we should uphold; yes, there are things that we should and should not do. But if we are so blindly following traditions of a culture that is not, and can never be our own, then we demean our own society, our own culture, and our own personal integrity. I think They would much rather we stay true to ourselves and to the paths They've called us to than fight endlessly about proper terms, or whether a language is required (IME, They'd like it, but it's not a mandate for most. And They're more than lenient on your doing so), or whatever the latest niggling point may happen to be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Continued
[info]nicanthiel
2008-04-30 08:32 pm UTC (link)

As someone up above said (I don't remember, sorry), a living, working religion is a flexible one. And we even have precedent in those very traditions you're holding as evidence, in that the Irish, in many ways, converted fairly easily to Christianity and definitely adapted it to their own matrix (so much so that their practice was stamped out), that the Orkneyjar blended Norse and Celtic seamlessly, that the British saw no difference (that we know of) in worshiping the syncretised Roman gods... So why must we be different? Why must we not have meaningful relationships based on cultural symbiosis? Any time a public "organization" sets down dogmatic "Thou Shalt Not"s, it stagnates the living processes. I see CR as a series of "You can"s, within certain helpful parameters. It's up to the individual to decide the strictures of those parameters. And after all, we're not a church. We're not an organization. We're simply of community of people drawn together from various places and backgrounds who are called to worship the same gods. So why does there need to be so much strum und drang over what certain people do in their own practices, as you pointed out? Erynn may not do things the way Kathryn (I'm sorry if I misspelled your name) would like her too, but I'm sure that Kathryn does things that Erynn doesn't like. My point is, why does it matter to CR as a whole? It's just a label commonly held among the group, and disagreements between two members does not constitute a threat to that label, or even the practices of anyone else in the group, if the group as a whole trusts that its members are rational, critical people who can tell the difference between what works and what doesn't.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Continued - [info]alfrecht, 2008-04-30 10:11 pm UTC

[info]chasingtides
2008-04-30 11:18 pm UTC (link)
I admit to being nervous about posting here. I don't want to be told that I'm wrong or I don't belong.

I feel compelled to worship some Gods in way that CR seems closest to. I'm here and learning. But I don't accept everything said as gold and it's not to say that other Gods don't have a place in my practices too. But I've seen people argue and fight over who has it 'right' and who's wrong. I've seen people be exclusionary. I'm not here to prove that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm here to be a part of something a little bigger than my own personal practices and learn about how other people are doing things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]finnchuill
2008-04-30 08:05 pm UTC (link)
We need more experimentation, not less. We need to envision our deities and embody them, to examine the virtues and practice them, to speak poetic words that push the boundaries of our knowledge and leave us gasping at the edge of the abyss. Standing on the bedrock of the past, we must cut new stone and build new temples to our deities. With the seeds of trees lying withered, we must plant new groves on the nurse logs of tradition. My vision and articulation of CR has always been a reconstruction of the path suited to our time and our place, based on the threads and patterns we can find but woven in colorful new cloth. The deities live and grow and learn even as we do. They are not static, changeless images bypassed by time.

So true! And the stubborn confusion of the terms "eclecticism" and "syncretism" doesn't help us at all.
As far back as can be seen from the records Celtic cultures have always been synchretistic, right back to their creation. How did the insular Celtic cultures come about? Not hard: the indigenous peoples of the islands absorbed Celtic ideas and language from the Continent, mixing them with their older cultures and making something new.
What better example of synchretism than the Book of Invasions? Well, actualy there is one that many of use on a regular basis: the Carmina Gadelica, a nearly seamless blend of cultural/religious traditions. One could go on and on...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]alfrecht
2008-04-30 10:14 pm UTC (link)
Precisely!

I have always taken great solace in something that Núala Ní Dhomhnaill said at an event in New York in 2003, when an Irish short film was shown. She commented that some people resented that there are a lot of English words in the Irish spoken in the film, but she further commented that that's the reality of modern life in the Gaeltacht, that you can't get away from things like computers and coffee and so forth, and this is just how people speak today. She then said "So, any notions of 'linguistic purity' are really just pedantry." This, from a woman who has more or less dedicated her life to making Irish a living language and using it as an artistic medium...

If this is what she's saying about language, how much more so does the larger cultural sphere of religion deserve to be taken in the same way?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sara_super_id
2008-04-30 10:53 pm UTC (link)
I feel confused about this whole thing. I think that the process reconstruction is the way most pagan religions are made. And in the process of reconstruction, some eclecticism happens to fill in the gaps, for most the bare bones relics of the myths, history, and archeology aren't enough. We are no better or no worse than Wicca that grabbed things from other places to fill in the gaps and make something organized and repeatable. We are just more focused on how we do it, we try to stray less far away in the tools we use to patch. Instead of grabbing from masonic, kabballic, sorcery traditions to patch, we might look to other Indo-Eurpoean ancient practices or Modern Hinduism because it has strong similarities.

Reconstructionalism is as far as I can see just a more narrow focus of what most pagan groups already do and have done. CR is not going to grab Chinese sources, Pre-columbian American sources, South African sources, etc. It will keep its toolbox to places Celts were, the Celts were on the Indo-European continent and that is the areas we use as a toolbox. Some CRs will narrow it further, some will let it get a little larger. They may include some non-ancient Celtic Christian sources.

I feel completely overwhelmed when people go off about their doctorates or being raised Irish-American, or in Ireland and over who is more CR than the other. I have no plan to get a doctorate, I don't see myself leaving my family to live in Ireland. When do I get to call myself CR and not feel less than?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]alfrecht
2008-05-01 04:23 am UTC (link)
Nor should you have to do any of those things...Gods know that some of them have much less appeal than they might appear to have initially!

And that's an important part of all this: one does not have to have a Ph.D., or live in Ireland, or even like the idea of doing those things, to have a resonance with and an involvement with the methodological pursuit of CR and a connection with Celtic deities.

So, you're in good company, I think!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sidhe_aingeal
2008-05-03 06:45 am UTC (link)
Thank you for posting this, Erynn.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…