Pagan Tropers Unite!

I classify them as imaginary because of the medium by which I experience them, but not because they're under my conscious deliberate control. I prefer the theory that they are subconscious rather than cosmic divine external whatever. However, it's a big part of my life and, except for blessedly fallow times, I do it constantly.

Maybe rather than a religion, what I practice is a mysticism?

In the Otherfaith, there's a structural distinction (for now) between laity, clergy, and mystics. Because of what I described myself doing, I'm a mystic, so I have these experiences and make sense of them the way I do, but I am not clergy to tell any laity that so-and-so god doesn't want them wearing those shoes, nor even put forth my conjecture as to what is behind my experiences as the stance of this religion's cosmology. I believe this distinction is good for the religion because, while there are some very grounded mystics out there, I'm rather one of those who's always two bad days away from wearing a teapot on my head and never ever bathing again. Also there are some awfully obnoxious and manipulative mystics. I think most mystics would prefer to just do their own thing and not cultivate dependence or abuse of paracosmic superpowers...but, there is something to be said I think for the pan-openheadedness of the Pentecostal sect that my family got into (though the mass ecstasy still freaked me out, people going into seizures and speaking in tongues and such), or a culture of casual theophany and interaction as Sharysa above described with the cake-craving ancestor.

Again, too, orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy. They feed back to each other sometimes, I think, but also sometimes not as I have also experienced.

Fair enough. I did some googling of the Otherfaith, and while I'm not really sure if what I found was the same thing that you're talking about (are there multiple groups who use the same name, maybe?) it was still pretty interesting.

That's usually the position I'd argue for myself, so there's no disagreement there. Just wasn't expecting it.

I happen to be reading Thomas Hylland Eriksen's book on key concepts of globalization for an entrance exam.

In a chapter on risk(s of globalization, spreading dangers), he mentions how eroding trust in expert systems has led people to "abandon faith in technological progress and social engineering" and some of them have turned to religion, "falsifying the secularization thesis - according to which rationalization would slowly erode the basis for religion". That thesis has apparently been so popular among sociologists. Islam, Pentecostal missions and New Age are mentioned as examples. Religion "offers a coherent world and a meaning of life, usually a mission in life, which has become increasingly difficult to deliver by the prophets of modernity".

You sure that wasn't meant for the General Religion thread in OTC instead?

I could copypaste it there, but it also goes along with what we've been discussing.

That sort of reminds me of Carl Sagan's Cosmos documentary series, in one episode (I think "the Backbone of Night") they filmed in Ionia where Sagan pinpointed the first semblances of scientific thought in history. It wasn't, according to him, ever going to happen at the heart of great empires, but it had to happen at a trading port where ideas intersected. For instance, when confronted with another sky god, Zeus to one people and Marduk to another, they might decide that one god had been an invention of the priests, so why not both, then yay science was born.

And I really adore and respect Sagan, but—that was a terribly unimaginative way to put it! Sometimes polytheists recognize the gods of others as gods, and then syncretize.

I believe that the physical sciences (if such is the main gist of prophets of modernity) continue to have the most successful claim to truth about the material world. That is systemic and coherent enough to me, as I have had the privilege of being taught the scientific process rather than the facts or even the most up-to-date scientific facts. If I hadn't been taught the process, I wouldn't understand why the "prophets of modernity" would keep changing their message, and consider a failure what is truly the strength of the scientific process.

However...meaning, and mission in life...I don't believe the physical sciences had a foothold on that, on relationships or morality. Those are probably more the realm of poetics and the subjective experiences, the need for which to validate or express have never gone away. While religion has a longer history, I don't personally consider it categorically different/separate from that which is modern...because it has kept up with people, despite devastating ideological conflicts with secular humanist thought and even the facts of physical science.

Um. Shang just walked up last night and told me "Fixed it."

Meaning two situations: A) My sister's moving from her current place and it's been WAY more complicated than it should be, but suddenly things got easier today (not less suck-tastic, but "more straightforward to deal with"), and b) I have been finding job postings that are INCREASINGLY CONVENIENT. Like, there have been no less than five jobs in town that I'm qualified for AND able to go to. One of them is ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK. It's only half the week, but 1) it's at night and I love the idea of night shifts, and 2) I wouldn't even need to fucking drive there, so that's saving a lot of gas.

Still wondering if this is COMPLETELY his work or blended with my frantic burst of Tumblr "money-post/job-searching" reblogs, but wow, bro.

Bruh. The Filipino Dragon Who Looks Like a Supernatural Model, but is powerful enough to tell Zeus to shut up and stop harassing me?

Is Bathala.

I have to wonder how powerful ACTUAL dragons are that the other gods didn't question him for weeks because of "getting mauled by a sea-serpent" problems, but yeah.

And no, he isn't Tatay the mysterious tribal spirit; I just read too many stories where that sort of thing happened.

edited 21st May '17 1:05:19 AM by Sharysa

Astiiiiig! Is all I have to add.

A project for spiritworkers and bards to blog about gods in America.

In more local news, I had some notes about the Pamati project, which was Grace Nono's idea—anthropologist and baylan of Agusan, brought together babaylan from different tribes to talk with each other as well as talk with interested scholars from as far as California and Canada.

The first Pamati meeting was held in late 2015, this July it's happening again and sadly they're booked up and very selective, as well as the meeting still being in the wildlands of the Visayas...but I hope anyone with an interest will be able to look up if this becomes a regular thing and support the awareness, education, and development of indigenous mysticism. Yay!

Edit to add:

Link to blog from a Pamati participant year before last, with pictures and commentary, and another link.

edited 25th May '17 9:50:14 PM by Faemon

That post is awesome! I left a comment about adding superheroes to the list. It's waiting for approval, so it'll probably show up in a few days.

Hah! "We said don't freak out why is your head exploding" I think it was C.F. Cooper who called superhero comics "the last bastion of mythmaking in the West" and I wanted to say that was exaggerated and there must be other bastions...but, lookit the sheer devotional ecstasy that comic book geeks get into and, a~yup. Give that the bastion. (I don't actually know what is bastion.)

As someone totally ignorant about sports.... what about sports?

edited 26th May '17 8:18:37 AM by MerryMikael

Yeppers, the most devoted sports fans spend thousands of dollars on merchandise, tickets for games can reach insane prices, and they have a habit of rioting if their team loses and throwing extremely destructive city-wide parties if their team WINS. If that's not a form of religious ecstasy by another name, I don't know what is.

Also, bastion.

edited 26th May '17 12:07:00 PM by Sharysa

If their team WINS?!

Color me dumbstruck!

Luckily I live in the suburbs where there's mostly harmless drunk people cramming the sports bars, but the major cities frequently blow up regional news stations whenever someone's home team wins and they start partying the second it's confirmed.

It's not always like that, but people like to focus on the GIANT STREET-PARTIES because it's more exciting than "everyone goes home and celebrates responsibly."

Okay, that explains more of the logic.

(x6) I would even go so far as to say that fiction itself, in any form, has its place in both modern and classical myth. In fact, many deities over the years originated in myth, which one can argue was fiction... basically what I'm trying to say is that spirits are manifestations of a concept that is widely understood - or in this case, read/told about. This coincides with the whole "collective consciousness" argument presented a couple of pages back. And it also makes pop-culture mysticism even more justifiable.

Also, with regards to using imagination to speak to spirits in a sense... I like to think that imagination is not just an "all in your head" sort of thing (that "all in your head" notion is what many "muggles" like to call the notion of magic and spirituality, even). Visualization is an important mystical practice from what I've read, and it coincides well with the notion of spirits being born out of fiction - i.e. creativity - i.e. imagination.

I do a lot of invocations in my mystical practices, and being Wiccan, this mainly happens in rituals. That practice depends on such visualization, but in my experience, also seems to involve an element of spontaneity. Especially with more recent invocations, I've actually had the invokees interact with me much like a regular person in conversation, as Sharysa has mentioned several times in this thread. Sometimes they've even made jokes in the middle of a ritual, or teased me about how I was introducing them - and they do have distinct personalities (for example, Thanatos is apathetic and reclusive, Bastet is surprisingly gentle with a hidden playful side, and Lilith is very proud and will often push to gain more importance in one's workings). I also find that they seem to remember me from previous invocations, even. So kind of that whole "spirits constantly in your head" situation, except more voluntary. Though I have occasionally had random fairies appear to me nearby, often unexpectedly - I've had a few instances where one appeared inside my cubicle at the office where I work - though that may be because I have a "Fairies welcome here" sign hanging inside (which I honestly didn't expect to work, but fairies can be tricky things).

So the last time I posted here was January of last year? Yikes... I need to pay more attention to this thread rather than spend all my time lurking in Writer's Block. And the last post I made was about Santa Muerte, as I now call her, and concerns over invoking her. Well, now she's in my main pantheon! Turns out that there are no initiations needed for her - in fact she's specifically meant to be a figure to turn to when one has no one else to turn to, and thus is often revered by criminals or other people who figured they have sinned so much that no other god would accept them. So my initial suspicions were correct after all. Needless to say, I included her because I truly identify with her with regards to acceptance without judgment (because death doesn't judge, as I've heard a scholar on her say) - and in fact it gives me immense pleasure to be there for someone who is carrying some dark secret that they think no one will understand or accept. Of course, I did hear that she does not like to be included as part of a pantheon... but I think that's just a carryover from Catholicism which she is sometimes associated with. Mary, often seen as her counterpart, doesn't seem to mind much, so...

In other news, I finally finished the Magic Staff I had been in possession of for years. For the longest time she was just a branch with a bag and a ribbon attached, but now she looks broom-like (with a hand-made capelet around the bottom), has feathers and a crystal on her, and just feels closer to me overall. In staff lore, so I heard, the process of creating a "proper" one is supposed to be long and involves a lot of personal symbols, and in a way is bonded to the wielder's soul. The last one kind of resonates with me since I am very interested in soul work overall, but eh, mainly was just a fun vaguely-mystical art project if nothing else.

edited 28th May '17 2:15:06 AM by ladytanuki

I like that, because lately I've been moving towards a more restorative than retributive/exclusionist/purist sense of duty and justice in the world...and yet, I do feel that I have witnessed pure evil that must have every trace destroyed, so I try to balance the contradiction and it's difficult. A god that can sit with that must be wise indeed.

While I would like an opportunity to metalsmith physical representation, I have found soulworking bonds to tools in the otherworld to be a recurring thing. I don't recommend my method, which has been to invest something integral today me unwisely and then find myself betrayed—and then yay my emotions take the form of a comedically oversized broadsword in the otherworld!

But maybe that's a thing, if so, hopefully, it can be more positive emotions taking more practical and beautiful forms for other people in the otherworld or this one.

Tanuki: Whoo, welcome back to this side of the forums! Congratulations on getting in touch with La Muerte, too.

If the spirits are talking to you like normal people, I'd say they're just getting to know you better. Or, well, some spirits have more/less formal personalities to begin with.

What pure evil? I've never gotten into prolonged contact with a person like that. While I don't have the same kind of gut instinct like other people say they do, I tend to get such instinctual warnings in form of a clear thought telling me I'm better off not trusting so-and-so. I've gotten such a thought with a few people I've met in passing.

Or did you have another thing of pure evil in mind?

edited 29th May '17 12:18:29 PM by MerryMikael

Unfortunately, I grew up with that kind of evil. Nothing so obvious as WeNeedToTalkAboutKevin but enough that when a mutual friend suggested I remember—regardless of how much this person hurt me—that this person was still a person...I consider myself fairly compassionate and sensitive, actually, and every fibre of my being reacted with, No, she's pretending to be a person.

But of course, I'm biased because she very personally hurt me. If it were just, say, bullies at school, or terrorists who...lobbed an explosive over the wall of my school and graffitied the walls telling us to go back where we came from...I could conceive of that being a result of immaturity, or being tragically misguided and conditioned/enabled/exploited.

And then there's evil. Or, what I call evil, which could merely be an indicator that I need emotional healing because pain is making me see things that aren't necessarily there (such as evil in a person when people are generally good.)

I believe much can be explained by mentalities. A person, who really knows what she's doing and why others would think it's wrong and enjoys harming another person anyway because it gives such pleasure, is something I don't believe anyone, who realizes what's really going on, wants to be around. Even if not described in terms of good and evil, such a mentality has that malice, callousness toward harm suffered by another person, intentionality, lack of ambiguity and self-deception about what a person is setting out to do and why, lack of any need to have an "acceptable excuse" to act internally as well as genuine, at least sufficient comfort with this all.

Not all such evil people are serial killers or physically violent offenders. I've talked to some people, who say they've faced such vileness. Many of the kinds of people, who have no qualms about hurting others and doing things they know are wrong, pretty much go on about it in a way that looks socially acceptable to the uninformed or even develop some kind of "code language" with hidden - hurtful or disparaging - messages that are sent to a target, but others ignorant of this "code language" can't realize (also known as emotional abuse; one type of it anyway). Then there's the age-old gossip and rumour mill and painting false, socially unacceptable pictures of a target, just degrees from demonization and dehumanization in propaganda. This is without mentioning subtle provocations to make another person respond in a way that's unfavorable to them or outright harassment.

As far as I understand, this may not always be so clear-cut. Some people may not be willing to go as far as others, but still have no scruples about, say, keeping a little black book about someone else's mistakes/"mistakes" or gossiping behind people's backs. Some people may not be anywhere near "pure evil", but can still be obnoxious, troublesome, intentionally directed with an agenda or more trouble than they're worth.

That's my view.

edited 13th Aug '17 12:56:12 PM by MerryMikael

I don't disagree, but yeah, "more trouble than they're worth" is probably closer to the facts than my gut reaction of "pure evil".

I don't know if I geeked out here thoroughly on Marie Louis von Franz's Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales but one point in that book that I considered intriguing was the sort of deification of condemning somebody else as evil. Franz put it better and I haven't gotten around to crunching/editing the relevant quotes, but...the gist of it was that when one human condemns another human as pure evil, it's either contriving or acknowledging a power that this "evil" human has that is inhuman, and therefore, even though it's bad, it is in a way divine because evil is an otherworldly inhuman quality. It could be that the nature of this divinity is that it doesn't belong in the human world, which is why it expresses itself as evil: in the divine otherworld where such power belongs, it wouldn't do harm, it only did by moving through the wrong world in the wrong way. But Franz, being a Jungian and a psychologist, even though I mentioned early Jungians being so woo—did tend to take it back to psychology/mentality more than spirituality, especially communal or collective psychology because fairy tales and folklore being analyzed isn't from an individual psyche but a collective one.

Starting to realize Apsu and Anu/Ouranos were just different names for the same entity.

And the body's merely an interface for the soul.

And Ki used to be Tiamat.