On 22 March 2010 08:42, mandrake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jake
>
> Thanks for that -
> surprises me about glastonbury as i thought there were some good booksellers
> there -
> but I suspect things will change as many more UK are waking up to the
> richness of their heritage and
> there is a new wave of writers and commentators who are helping that along -
> (the Inner Bookshop here in Oxford has definitely improved the kind of stock
> holding you like)
> BTW re witchcraft/wicca - I just finished editing Shani Oates' book
> "Tubelo's Green Fire" which is a
> study of the "Clan of Tubal Cain" - of which she is the current "maid" -
> I learnt a lot about a slightly different type of witchcraft which does
> indeed acknowledge strong links with
> its pagan/hermetic past -
> I think you also have to say that Alexandrian (sic) wicca also has a more
> overtly "occult" ie "pagan" thread running through it.
you're welcome Mogg, reckon we're discovering considerable common
ground via this list (tho' not sure I really belong here). As long as
I remember any aspect of occultism I've had an interest in has been
served by academia first (ATRs, Lunar Mansions, Classical paganism and
the papyri, etc.). Supposed Thelemite intellectuals have even opined
'if it isn't in the modern synthesis it is because it is no good'.
Nice to have a get out clause and still look clever innit? ;)
But yes, Glasto' is changing; a few years back you were lucky to find
any books on 'New World' traditions there (aside from fluffy
pseudo-Native American stuff), now you can. The classical stuff will
likely follow, but my best book buy in years was still popping out to
Blackwells during the lunch break at the Symp. ;)
There are other brands of witchcraft around which I can get on with,
and I retain a soft spot for Alex Sanders, I just think the brand has
been diluted a lot since his day, even become anti-magic. Regarding
discomfort with the term 'pagan', I can readily empathise. On the
other hand there's been plenty of Druids quietly pestering the Home
Office for legal protection for 'pagans' since the Stonehenge ban of
'84, so I'm inclined to be tolerant but critical.
ALWays
Jake
>
> Jez - i understand where you are coming from with the
> silliness/crassness of some media pagans -
> I just think if you keep saying the right thing the message will get there
> in the end
> and the door will close on the carpet baggers . . . ??
>
> bb/93
>
> Mogg
>
>
>
>
>
> Jake Stratton-Kent wrote:
>>
>> On 22 March 2010 07:40, mandrake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear All
>>>
>>> Personally I'm happy to identify myself as a pagan - a new religion
>>> created
>>> in the
>>> classical world from Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian sources -
>>>
>>> as such I think Hinduism is something else, perhaps even as a religion,
>>> its
>>> origins are different and a little older
>>> circa 6th century bce?
>>>
>>> You're right that some UK pagans have problems with the term -
>>> partly I think because of the Xtain coinage and the idea that its _maybe_
>>> pejorative
>>> (Some supposed expert commentators have probably confused the community
>>> on
>>> that . . . ).
>>> Personally I think that some pagans are just being bloody minded when
>>> they
>>> refuse to get on board and take advantage of a name with a long, noble
>>> history . . . it makes it awkward when it comes to committees and
>>> censuses
>>> etc.
>>> We use it here in our dealings with local Council of Faiths -
>>> (although there have been grumblings about the term "faith" -)
>>> where pagans are definitely a local religious minority but not by any
>>> means
>>> the smallest
>>> (some pagans also object to term "religion").
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> that definition of pagan I can get behind, (post-modern classicism
>> again) tho' the Hellenistic synthesis didn't spring into being from
>> nothing. When it comes to origins the Minoans alone go back to 6000
>> BC, and plenty of later Hellenes were disillusioned with state cults
>> and consciously reviving/reforming the old traditions (as were the
>> earlier Orphics etc.). There's also plenty of Indian influences on the
>> old 'Western' trad, and vice versa. So if pagan=polytheist with
>> Western spin, India is in there as far as I can see. More care is
>> needed with th ATRs, as Congo was converted to Christianity before the
>> slave trade and the adoption of Saints as camouflage in Voodoo etc.
>> Nevertheless, we've more chance of empathising with the ATRs by
>> comparison with Classical paganism than with Cabala-ha-ha or Wicca.
>> Indeed, we've more chance of understanding and revivifying many
>> elements of Western magic that way (plus a hefty dose of Astrology).
>>
>> On a personal note incidentally I do describe myself as pagan on
>> censuses and medical forms etc., I just don't much identify with the
>> neos and the reverse is also true (try finding a decent academic book
>> on Greco-Roman magic in Glastonbury!) The pejorative sense is unlikely
>> to worry me, I've been called worse things and relished them.
>> Naturally I am also 'religious', and can't imagine goetia without
>> religious elements.
>>
>> ALWays
>>
>> Jake
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> bb/93
>>>
>>> Mogg
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21 March 2010 21:52, Matthew Citrullo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL - reminds me of the occasion someone asked what the largest pagan
>>>>>> grouping in the UK was, folks were umming and ahing over neo-Celtic,
>>>>>> Wotanist et al, until someone perceptively pointed out it was the
>>>>>> Hindus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone asked the Hindus what they think about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or Voodoo devotees come to that, pagan isn't a universally embraced
>>>> term. Semantics are knotty, medieval Moslems considered Christians
>>>> polytheists - not to mention some Protestant views of Catholicism...
>>>>
>>>> Come to that, neo-pagan isn't exactly how I'd describe myself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|