Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do you define.....?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How do you define.....?

    This is something I thought might be worth posting, if only to help us understand exactly where everyone is coming from when they post about various paths. I don't want to hi-jack any existing thread, and though it mifght be better to start a new one. So.... how do you define words like neo-paganism, reconstructionism etc.?

    For me, reconstructionism is when we go back to the original sources (or at least as far back as we can get) and try to reconstruct how it was done, what people thought and believed, recreating what sort of rituals they practised etc.

    Again, for me, neo-paganism is taking some of what we know about past beliefs etc., but not perhaps being as finicky as a reconstructionist. Basically, my understanding is that you take the past and are prepared to develop it and run with it. It is a modern version, if you like, of what is understood to have gone before.

    Now before anyone explodes, I must stress that these are basic ideas, and they are just my view. I've often come across many terms used in ways that seem alien to me, but the fact is that if we are discussing paganism at all, then we need to define some of the terms we use.

    I usually describe myself as a solitary pagan witch because for me, that is the best definition I can come up with. Solitary because I work alone, pagan (as opposed to any of the major religions) and witch because that was how I was brought up and where basically I feel I belong (although not on my family's path because that was something I couldn't stomach.) For me being a witch is the practical 'craft' side, whereas pagan deals more with my spiritual approach.

    But I would be very interested to hear others' opinions.
    www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


    Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

    #2
    Re: How do you define.....?

    I dont because I think semantics are a waste of time. Im always up for some antics though :P

    Id say neopaganism is any interest in pagan belief today, its all a product of the same reflex of modernity and not a continuation of belief no matter how you legitimise it or what you want to call yourself. Reconstruction to me is a genre of neopaganism in the germanic club tradition like death metal is a genre of metal music in the rock n roll tradition. it divides itself from other forms of neopaganism like death metal does from Power metal and denies its cheesy origins but ulimately its all neopaganism like its all metal. And its definately all sheep except to a shepard. Not worth even considering unless you want to apply some pet theory to it for intellectualisms sake.

    For example! I do it with ethnologies tradition/modernity dichotemy. Two sides of one coin tradition a reflex/reaction to modernity so romantacist druidry on heads and Reconstructionism on tails. With all that entails :P How they are basically the same alloy but legitimise themselves differently with a SENSE of continuity with the past or a SENSE of breaking with the past. Neither is true but its there.

    Another thing I like to do is look at metal in terms of comparative mythology, it has the featurers of an IE Mannerbund right down to the wolf cult its a really fun way of looking at things. Not somethin to define yourself with or go mad arguing over though. "Its all semantics". "Its all just academic now". "Im going to make a cuppa tea" "I think ive lost my mind".

    Comment


      #3
      Re: How do you define.....?

      It's an interesting approach, James.

      Personally I like to define things because it saves time arguing about things we might otherwise discover we're agreed upon. So from that point of view I wouldn't agree that semantics are a waste of time (just my opinion.)

      I remember once being harangued by someone about 'magnetising' an object. The term I always used was empowering, but she was convinced they were quite different. When we actually sat down and chewed the fat about it however, we realised we were describing the same idea, using different terms.

      So - let's see if I get this right - you're saying that all interest in paganism can be classed as neo-paganism? And it's not worth refining this because it would only be for 'intellectualism's sake?'

      My own feeling - and I think this is something they still teach in university, is that it's important to always unpack the question or concept first.

      But thanks for your input!
      www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


      Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

      Comment


        #4
        Re: How do you define.....?

        Originally posted by Tylluan Penry View Post
        For me, reconstructionism is when we go back to the original sources (or at least as far back as we can get) and try to reconstruct how it was done, what people thought and believed, recreating what sort of rituals they practised etc.

        Again, for me, neo-paganism is taking some of what we know about past beliefs etc., but not perhaps being as finicky as a reconstructionist. Basically, my understanding is that you take the past and are prepared to develop it and run with it. It is a modern version, if you like, of what is understood to have gone before.
        I'm pretty much on the same page as you are. Reconstructionism is recontstructionism: either you're reconstructing something or you're not.

        Neo means 'new' so I view neo-paganism as being any belief system that is classified as or self identifies with the word 'pagan' and which does not have a lineage to something that is older.

        Comment


          #5
          Re: How do you define.....?

          Originally posted by Celtic Tiger View Post
          I'm pretty much on the same page as you are. Reconstructionism is recontstructionism: either you're reconstructing something or you're not.

          Neo means 'new' so I view neo-paganism as being any belief system that is classified as or self identifies with the word 'pagan' and which does not have a lineage to something that is older.
          Yes, I'd go along with that. And I like the point about lineage too.
          www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


          Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

          Comment


            #6
            Re: How do you define.....?

            I don't know why, but I'm uncomfortable using 'neo-pagan', even though it probably describes my path best. By the definition presented here, I'd consider wicca to be neo-pagan, and as I can't deny that many of my beliefs and actions, clearly stem from wicca, then I must be neo-pagan.

            I do, in some ways, attempt to reconstruct beliefs, because I want to know my gods well, and trying to unravel how our ancestors viewed them helps me to do this. I don't mind that I have to fill in 95% with my own guesswork though, and as I include things in my practice that I am quite sure the Celtic Brythons wouldn't have done (celebrating the WOTY, for example), I'm not comfortable calling myself a reconstructionist. I do feel I have to constantly point out that I am not, to avoid some angry recon yelling at me that I'm crapping on historical fact.

            The recons have helped me however. One thing I noticed Celtic recons do, is to fill in gaps by looking at modern religions with similarities to celtic religions.. in particular Hinduism is cited frequently, though I've even come across Shinto suggested as a possible place to look. I have copied this and use a few Hindu concepts in order to have a working path, but if anything, this surely makes what I am doing more neo-pagan.

            As I don't like the prefix 'neo', I'd rather just identify as pagan and hope people will be happy with that.

            Interesting topic!
            Last edited by Jembru; 10 Jul 2012, 06:21.
            夕方に急なにわか雨は「夕立」と呼ばれるなら、なぜ朝ににわか雨は「朝立ち」と呼ばれないの? ^^If a sudden rain shower in the evening is referred to as an 'evening stand', then why isn't a shower in the morning called 'morning stand'?

            Comment


              #7
              Re: How do you define.....?

              To expand it a little bit:

              Do you see there being a difference between "earth based" and "pagan"? Like, where does one end and the other begin?
              "Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children." - Khalil Gibran

              Comment


                #8
                Re: How do you define.....?

                Originally posted by Simon Slade View Post
                To expand it a little bit:

                Do you see there being a difference between "earth based" and "pagan"? Like, where does one end and the other begin?
                For me, it is straight forward whether or not there is a concept of deity which doesn't fit any definitions the 'mainstream' religions. The exception being that this rule of thumb is overridden whenever the individual in question chooses to identify as one thing or another. Regardless of whatever simplified definitions I've come up with, I respect the beliefs of others before anything else. Gosh, even if someone called themselves Roman reconstructionist and then babbled on about how Osiris is their patron, I'd do little more than raise an eyebrow.
                夕方に急なにわか雨は「夕立」と呼ばれるなら、なぜ朝ににわか雨は「朝立ち」と呼ばれないの? ^^If a sudden rain shower in the evening is referred to as an 'evening stand', then why isn't a shower in the morning called 'morning stand'?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: How do you define.....?

                  Jembru - I get what you're saying and although it's important (i feel) to have some idea of our beliefs, I also feel it's important to have a certain amount of tolerance. I wouldn't go as far as saying that none of it matters - in our own spiritual path, I feel we have to go with what feels right to us, and perhaps forget about the labels a bit. I do feel though that working out what labels might mean for us and for others is very useful when we start discussing things.

                  Simon - thank you for taking this a bit further. Earth based and pagan.... it's quite a lot to think about isn't it?

                  I suppose I would describe something as 'earth based' if I were working with earth deities or entities. And perhaps in that sense I ought to start saying that my own path is earth based.... but the only real difference I can make out between the two terms would occur if someone described themselves as pagan and focused mainly on sky deities (Thunor, Zeus, Ra, etc.)

                  Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that all earth based paths are pagan, yet not all pagan paths are earth based....

                  Welcome further input!
                  www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


                  Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: How do you define.....?

                    Originally posted by Jembru View Post
                    I don't know why, but I'm uncomfortable using 'neo-pagan', even though it probably describes my path best. By the definition presented here, I'd consider wicca to be neo-pagan, and as I can't deny that many of my beliefs and actions, clearly stem from wicca, then I must be neo-pagan.
                    Personally, neo pagan doesn't bother me, but I don't self identify as pagan. Not because my beliefs wouldn't fit in (they do, which is why I'm here posting ) and not because I am uncomfortable with the term (it's a broad term that originally means country dweller, and as I don't live in the city....), but because when the term pagan was applied to non Judeo-Christian religions (Jews called non Jews gentiles, not pagan, and Christians just called Jews Jews), it was used as a means of saying 'This is neither Christian nor Jewish.' When Islam came along, they called them Moorish, Saracens, and Muslims, but not pagan, so the term came to mean any non-Abrahamic religion. Other, non mainstream branches of Christianity were described as heretical and usually were called by their name, rather than being grouped in as pagan.

                    My point is that if you're a Buddhist, you're pagan. If you're Shinto, you're pagan. If you're Hindu, you're pagan. If you're following Roman gods, you're pagan. If you follow Egyptian gods, you're pagan. If you were a Celt and hadn't converted, you were pagan.

                    So the term simply tells you what it isn't rather than what it is, and so it is applied to all religions that aren't Abrahamic. The reason that I don't specifically self identify as pagan is because I find the term to be so broad as to be meaningless outside of a Christian environment. Now, if I were labeled as a pagan, I wouldn't complain, particularly since I don't have a name for whatever I am at this point.

                    Besides, being raised Catholic, I was called that by more than one fundamentalist Christian over the years and it didn't bother me.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: How do you define.....?

                      Shrug, I count most Pagans (no, I'm not touching the definition of Pagan unless people want a repost of my flippant definition) as Neo-Pagan. This includes Kemetics, Heathens, Wiccans and a number of others. Recon is a subdivision of Neo-Pagan that puts more emphasis on historical practices.
                      Last edited by MaskedOne; 10 Jul 2012, 07:11.
                      life itself was a lightsaber in his hands; even in the face of treachery and death and hopes gone cold, he burned like a candle in the darkness. Like a star shining in the black eternity of space.

                      Yoda: Dark Rendezvous

                      "But those men who know anything at all about the Light also know that there is a fierceness to its power, like the bare sword of the law, or the white burning of the sun." Suddenly his voice sounded to Will very strong, and very Welsh. "At the very heart, that is. Other things, like humanity, and mercy, and charity, that most good men hold more precious than all else, they do not come first for the Light. Oh, sometimes they are there; often, indeed. But in the very long run the concern of you people is with the absolute good, ahead of all else..."

                      John Rowlands, The Grey King by Susan Cooper

                      "You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content."

                      Aslan, Prince Caspian by CS Lewis


                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: How do you define.....?

                        Originally posted by Simon Slade View Post
                        To expand it a little bit:

                        Do you see there being a difference between "earth based" and "pagan"? Like, where does one end and the other begin?
                        That is a good question. I dont understand where earth based came from it doesnt seem synonamous with neopaganism to me. Im big into history if anyone knows please let me know. The boyscout movement maybe?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: How do you define.....?

                          Originally posted by Tylluan Penry View Post
                          Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that all earth based paths are pagan, yet not all pagan paths are earth based....
                          I almost agree, but there are some people who worship the earth without any real form of structured religion. Do we still call them pagan or neo-pagan?
                          "Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children." - Khalil Gibran

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: How do you define.....?

                            Originally posted by Simon Slade View Post
                            I almost agree, but there are some people who worship the earth without any real form of structured religion. Do we still call them pagan or neo-pagan?
                            Hmmm.... maybe we need to define what a structured religion might be. My own feeling is that most pagan/neopagan paths are fairly loosely structured. In fact, given the high number of solitaries, we could even ask how their individual paths are likely to be structured at all.

                            Perhaps this isn't a problem restricted to earth based paths, but evidence of a wider based - well, not problem exactly, but situation maybe?
                            www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


                            Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: How do you define.....?

                              I hate the phrase Neo-Paganism. Seriously...1) we are all intelligent enough to know the difference between Contemporary Paganisms and ancient paganims (and even little-p paganisms like Hinduism) to just call it P/paganism and 2) Neo-Paganism makes it sound like something out of The Matrix...which is just a petty pet peeve of mine. Plus, I'm not a fan of Isaac Bonewits' neo-, meso-, paleo- paganism dichotomy. And...even Wikipedia calls it Contemporary Paganism (I've been a proponent of changing this for years--if just sounds more serious in terms of conversation (I've informally polled non-Pagans over the years).

                              That being said, this is how I divvy it up---all modern (big-P) Pagans are following Contemporary Pagan paths and traditions (IMO, you need some sort of lineage to actually have a tradition). This includes reconstructionists (who are seeking to reconstruct as historically accurate as possible of a religion from an ancient culture in a modern world--a reconstruction of ancient religion isn't the ancient religion any more than a reconstruction of a classic car is the original classic car), revivalists (those that are seeking to revive the religions of ancient cultures in a modern context, with a nod to history, but without the emphasis of complete historical accuracy), inspirationalists* (who are inspired by the pantheon and mythology of ancient cultures, but choose to view it in a modern context without much concern for the historical context). And, as I see it these divisions are separate from being mono-religious (devoted to a singe path/tradition or pantheon), or syncretic (blending 2 paths/traditions into a single seamless incorporation of both, or eclectic (mixing elements of different traditions or {IMO} following more than one path in isolation {though mebbe that should be considered multi-religious instead}).

                              And THEN there is how people view deity--as hard polytheists, soft polytheists, pantheists, panentheists, agnosticism, atheism, naturalists, duotheists, monotheists (in all technicality, is a pantheist or a soft polytheist a monotheist?), animists, humanists...and hybrids of all of those things. As well as what practices people engage in--are you a witch, or not? a shaman, or not? etc...

                              *yeah, that one is a total Thalassa-ism...revivalists are a grouping occasional bandied about...usually as a grouping of recon, revivalist, syncretic and eclectic...which I think is a totally erroneous grouping---the opposite of recon is not eclectic (which is often how both groups like to push it). Granted, most eclectics are probably (in my observation) inspirationalists (which is the opposite end of the spectrum from recon), but I have met and worked with a large number of eclectics that are actually revivalists. And in the same vein, there are syncretics that are also recons--just look at the Nova Roma and other Roman recons, plus, while the hallmark of many recons is probably their mono-religious outlook, there are also inspirationalists and revivalists that also choose to follow a single pantheon/mythology.
                              Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X