|
Labels
Aug 26, 2015 9:09:15 GMT -6
Post by kalen on Aug 26, 2015 9:09:15 GMT -6
While most of the time, people online seeking community tend to denigrate labels and distinctions as problematic, sometimes I find them useful for clarifying my current thinking as I continue along this spiritual journey of life.
Regarding pantheons, while I've been Hellenic anchored for at least 16 years, during this past year with Aphrodite affinity increasingly highlighted along with mainstays of Apollo and Athena, and newly realized Hephaistos affinity as a primary fourth for me (from what I can discern), classifying it more of a Cypriot-Hellenic alignment would make sense to me given what's known of current cultural exchange in the earlier part of the first millenium BC (with Cyprus influenced by the Phoenicians prior to the Greek-Cypriot network expansion.) Apollon followers would also have some beliefs influence in that regard, though I think Athena's would have less-so. Beliefs about Aphrodite and Hephaistos have a strong Cypriot influence.
Since I believe in some syncretism between cultures of individual deities, and yet believe in distinctions of individual identities among deities within a culture's pantheon (culture defined by both time and place), the all soft or all hard labels have been problematic for me. For hard, I believe a distinct deity for every name variation out there increases numbers to the point where deity would lack agency or meaning. Also, I personally am not not a full reconstructionist although I appreciate the work that reconstructionist organizations are doing. So, I see that categorization as a "contemporary inter-pantheonic syncretic rangebound hard polytheist." Rangebound would be some number between 3 and, say, 10,000 or so, to define an upper bound range that's potentially conceivable (well beyond what my gut tells me, by the way).
Finally, I'm also unitarian universalist, a principled religion with an entire range of theistic beliefs among its membership.
So, for me that would be a label of Contemporary Inter-pantheonic Syncretic Rangebound Hard Polytheist, Cypriot-Hellenic anchored, Unitarian Universalist.
As I can get caught up in definitions and where I fit sometimes, going through this exercise is helpful to me in a kind of "set it and forget it" for a while manner, rather than ruminate ad nauseum about it.
Would be interested in how others view their own belief labels. What is yours, if you find such labels occasionally helpful?
|
|
aondeug
Full Member
Posts: 141
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers, He/Him/His
Religion: Thai Theravada, Irish polytheism
|
Post by aondeug on Aug 26, 2015 13:04:24 GMT -6
Labels I think can be useful for a variety of things. Like categorizing things and thinking them out. They also provide a way to easily gather together and a sort of kinship? Though that can go awry of course!
I personally identify as a Buddhist religiously. One of a Theravadin slant and a Thai Theravadin one at that. I'm polytheistic and also animistic. Things like rivers I think are definitely alive. I am also definitely superstitious, though many a Theravada monk decries superstition! I take on the title of Gaelic polytheist merely because those are gods that I actually honor. While I may think that certain other gods of other mythologies may exist I don't honor them so I cannot consider myself, say, a Norse polytheist. I do avoid placing the Gaelic gods into a Buddhist place because that makes no damned sense. Like even remotely. I am "taking my stuff with me" though. Like how ancestor veneration is often still practiced by Chinese Buddhists, and is a thing that is sort of just accepted as something that is going to happen even if the goal of certain temples is ALL BUDDHIST ALL DAY ONLY.
|
|
|
Labels
Aug 27, 2015 2:14:58 GMT -6
Post by Allec on Aug 27, 2015 2:14:58 GMT -6
Labels are something I find super useful. I like to meditate and think hard on them before I take them on. I definitely spent a long time thinking when I would be qualified to be a "Gaelic Polytheist", for instance. Though I know that...just practicing in a way that aligns with what someone who is a polytheist under a Gaelic worldview would do, made me one! So I went for it I am also an animist, which kinda is part of being a Gaelic polytheist since the Gaelic polytheism is VERY animistic. But the way I go about my life and daily things is that of a Gaelic Polytheist. I also don't go by certain labels. Like I don't go by the label of "witch", because in Gaelic-speaking places, that term is viewed very negatively and has a definition as something akin to "magic against the community." (Not to knockdown any Gaelic Polytheist who does call themselves a witch! Just my personal preference and way to see things.) So while I practice magic, I don't call myself a witch. I do call myself a Bandraoi, which translates roughly to "magic woman." I also call myself a Banfhaidh, which translates roughly to "seerer." The latter is more important to me, since I do a lot of divination for the community and is one of the ways I see myself giving back.
|
|
callisto
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Religion: Dodekatheism
|
Post by callisto on Aug 30, 2015 13:21:27 GMT -6
Labels are something I find super useful. I like to meditate and think hard on them before I take them on. I definitely spent a long time thinking when I would be qualified to be a "Gaelic Polytheist", for instance. Though I know that...just practicing in a way that aligns with what someone who is a polytheist under a Gaelic worldview would do, made me one! So I went for it I am also an animist, which kinda is part of being a Gaelic polytheist since the Gaelic polytheism is VERY animistic. But the way I go about my life and daily things is that of a Gaelic Polytheist. I also don't go by certain labels. Like I don't go by the label of "witch", because in Gaelic-speaking places, that term is viewed very negatively and has a definition as something akin to "magic against the community." (Not to knockdown any Gaelic Polytheist who does call themselves a witch! Just my personal preference and way to see things.) So while I practice magic, I don't call myself a witch. I do call myself a Bandraoi, which translates roughly to "magic woman." I also call myself a Banfhaidh, which translates roughly to "seerer." The latter is more important to me, since I do a lot of divination for the community and is one of the ways I see myself giving back. Another consideration is the value and devaluing of labels. There is often a great deal of contradiction in the Neopagan community which ultimately renders various labels distorted if not downright meaningless. The "Wicca" label is a primary example of this. Since the advent of solitary witchcraft books claiming to present "Wicca", literally anything and everything anyone wants to call "Wicca" has been dubbed so, and regardless of the fact that the majority are not Wiccan or even generically witchcraft or pagan related, but New Age. Subsequently to the mainstream and pagan outsider alike, "Wicca" seems like an incoherent hodge-podge of random elements that vary per individual fancy. But no doubt just about everyone here is familiar with the state of that issue, so I don't need to further elaborate. Suffice to say in terms of this topic, accuracy with labels is just as important as consensus (arguably foremost and needs to exist before a consensus can be pursued) otherwise it becomes rather difficult to not only communicate effectively but for anyone to even comprehend what a practice is and what are its actual components.
|
|
|
Post by kalen on Sept 1, 2015 15:20:14 GMT -6
But no doubt just about everyone here is familiar with the state of that issue, so I don't need to further elaborate. Suffice to say in terms of this topic, accuracy with labels is just as important as consensus (arguably foremost and needs to exist before a consensus can be pursued) otherwise it becomes rather difficult to not only communicate effectively but for anyone to even comprehend what a practice is and what are its actual components. I think the accuracy and consensus comment gets at why I was on this topic recently. There were too many blog posts I was reading where people characterized a subject in only one way and in contrast to someone else, and I felt further clarification was needed to get anchored in my own positioning for it. The consensus isn't always there, particularly among the louder voices online. Also, my volunteer service within UU requires an openness for various paths without undue censure, so sometimes I need to clarify my personal boundaries internally after a time of that. So, accurate correction is sometimes set aside for being a welcoming host in that regard. Fortunately, community can be built between differing labels along commonalities.
|
|
callisto
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Religion: Dodekatheism
|
Post by callisto on Sept 1, 2015 16:27:09 GMT -6
Consensus is often difficult because the notion of inclusion vs. exclusion, and what either includes, has been grossly distorted. Somehow "exclusion" and "elitism" are equated with "bigotry" and "haters" - all the while disregarding that religions do have specifics and requirements which is what makes them identifiable as being a specific thing and not something else.
So after a couple of decades of "there is no right or wrong way" and "all claims are equally valid" the result is a tangled hot mess of perpetuated contradiction, incoherency and misinformation. Then "consensus" is sought because of personal agendas, and argumentum ad populim becomes the fallacious call for "consensus." Not fact or reality but basically who is stomping their feet the loudest to have things conform to their personal wants.
|
|
Banned User
Newbie
Posts: 5
Pronouns: He/him/his & she/her/hers
Religion: Otherfaith
|
Post by Banned User on Sept 1, 2015 18:22:12 GMT -6
Consensus is often difficult because the notion of inclusion vs. exclusion, and what either includes, has been grossly distorted. Somehow "exclusion" and "elitism" are equated with "bigotry" and "haters" - all the while disregarding that religions do have specifics and requirements which is what makes them identifiable as being a specific thing and not something else. So after a couple of decades of "there is no right or wrong way" and "all claims are equally valid" the result is a tangled hot mess of perpetuated contradiction, incoherency and misinformation. Then "consensus" is sought because of personal agendas, and argumentum ad populim becomes the fallacious call for "consensus." Not fact or reality but basically who is stomping their feet the loudest to have things conform to their personal wants. I think we see this within polytheism/Polytheism discourses online. Not quite so much as within wider Paganism, but on a smaller level because 'polytheist community' is smaller. Except we kind of see a reverse of 'there is no right or wrong way' and instead see 'This is the Right Way' and a lot of resistance to other ways of practicing or nuance within polytheistic theology. I think that is partly a reaction to wider Paganism's 'do whatever you want' approach, which has caused significant problems. However, I see, in the blogosphere, a lot of assumptions that because loud and popular bloggers say that 'polytheism is This Way' that polytheism is exactly as they say - though I think there's problems with echo chambers and harassment that fuel all that within the polytheist blogosphere. Regarding inclusion v exclusion, I think people have a huge problem with being excluded, even though that is, as you note, kind of key to a religion. Boundaries, borders, requirements, all of those are important if we're not trying to just achieve mush. Some people do better with mush, but that doesn't mean that the structure is bad. This comes down to stuff like ritual structure as well as how one believes the gods function and the roles they fulfill - a religious community by necessity needs to have consensus at that, or at least close enough that there is a shared language. I also think we get some problems when people outside the community try to force change. Not only are those inside very resistant to it, outsiders often miss nuances, history, etc. It also shows a lack of faith that people within the community can change or advocate and assumes that a savior-type of person is needed.
|
|
callisto
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Religion: Dodekatheism
|
Post by callisto on Sept 1, 2015 20:54:31 GMT -6
I tend to carry a sizable bag of salt when it comes to blogs. LOL Some do well and offer thought provoking posts, too many erroneously think writing one makes them a "leader" or a Big Name Pagan. It doesn't. All it does is make others aware of who knows what they're talking about vs who's on an ego trip. Unfortunately they can have influence with some, most often those whose only interaction with others is online. But as a recent blogger commented, *talking about* paganism online isn't the same as actually practicing paganism. Anyone can talk a good game.
A recurring issue I've seen is a little different to what you described. It seems to me some folks have difficulty distinguishing between UPG and tradition, and/or fall into the "do what feels right" trap when having to adjust for modernity or need to extrapolate when an element is unknown.
Admittedly, I can't fathom why some have such a problem with exclusivity. Every defined religion, organized or not, has its parameters. If they didn't it would be impossible to discern one from the other. Yet often those same individuals have no problem employing the concept when they need to distance themselves from someone else. Suddenly it's ok to state what a religion does or does not include.
|
|