Thanks to all who answered, please excuse me getting my hard hat on;
for me at least its much easier to figure out the rules by playing
than by watching.
On 26 March 2010 15:39, Samuel Wagar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> What I'm wondering is why my question about monist elements in pagan
>> philosophy is apparently of no interest to academics here; even though
>> they apparently have *some* basis for distinguishing paganism from
>> polytheism.
>
> I'm a Wiccan High Priest (since 1985) and a History MA (since 2006) and
> interested in both academic and occultist approaches.
>
> I'm a straight-up polytheist, personally. I am not personally interested in
> monism, or the more common duotheistic approaches (at least in Wicca). In my
> experience the various Goddesses do not reduce down to one, the Gods to one
> or the Two to One as Dion Fortune's dictum puts it.
likewise, even when we sidestep compiled Greek myth to local level
cult, there is a wider cast involved. Crowley's reduction to four is
imperfect but far more workable, even if skewed towards generic
qabalah.
My area of current
> academic interest is the sociology of modern neo-Paganism, so a mild
> historical interest in neoPlatonism (but there were several of them and they
> differed widely, as did the variety of things called Gnostic etc...)isn't
> going to make me try to comment on your question.
>
> The same lack of background or deep interest might explain why others didn't
> go with your initial question.
I take your point, though my interest in sociology and modern isms -
which seem to be a major part of academic occultism - is equally mild.
From my position some 'low neoplatonism' seems well overdue, along
with some focus on the Magical Papyri, a comparatively recent resource
unavailable to the originators of our 'occult revival'.
My patience with academic studies of contemporary movements will
certainly suffer if not balanced by some such reappraisal of the roots
of our traditions. Someone must be reading Burkert, Ogden, Iles
Johnston etc. apart from me (perhaps they'd like to talk to me off
list?)
> Another factor might be that "paganism" is another very broad category
true, though the outlines of a definition for the purposes of the
discussion had already appeared, in the guise of classical synthesis
of Hellenistic, Babylonian and Egyptian cults.The bedrock of the
Western Magical Tradition' before the whitewash of 'Christian
Hermeticism' and the grimoires obscured the fact.
Somewhere some pagans are going to have to go sooner or later. When
they do they will find the words 'Jake was here' waiting for them. ;)
>and
> that most versions of neo-Paganism are theologically and philosophically
> incoherent, or at least inconsistent. Comes with the New Religious Movement
> territory.
hence my interest in older roots that might offer some coherence as we
go forward. I'm far more interested in ideas as tools for road
clearance than for dissection. This also seems to distance me from the
focus of occult academia, which seems to analyse from the sidelines.
>Why do you think monism might be important? Why do you want to
> find out about our opinions? Is there a particular question bugging you?
another poster was very firm that pagan didn't describe their beliefs,
and that polytheism did. I thought the distinction interesting and was
seeking clarification. I did preface the question by excusing myself
for perhaps going over familiar ground for longer subscribers to the
list.
Assessing the level of interest in ancient as opposed to modern magic
was another motive.
> In memory of Hypatia (noted neoPlatonist philosopher, mathematician and
> teacher, but NOT Pagan),
do elaborate if you have the time, in the classical sense mentioned
above I'd have thought she was, though it may not have been
particularly emphasised in her work.
ALWays
Jake
|