>And now I'll elaborate.
Great stuff, Jamie.
I hope this debate continues. I know a lot of people have trouble
understanding this because of the modern way of thinking. Rational
materialism, even without scientism, actively denies the mythic reality
while even indulging in it.
>I'll even use the word 'epistemological', thus
>proving that this post belongs here on the Digest..
epistemology
Branch of philosophy that investigates the possibility, origins, nature,
and extent of human knowledge. Although the effort to develop an adequate
theory of knowledge is at least as old as Plato's Theaetetus, epistemology
has dominated Western philosophy only since the era of Descartes and Locke,
as an extended dispute between rationalism and empiricism over the
respective importance of a priori and a posteriori origins. Contemporary
postmodern thinkers (including many feminist philosophers) have proposed
the contextualization of knowledge as part of an intersubjective process.
>From http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm
>Take the
>rain god. Water falls out of the sky; there it is, doing it right now.
>What more proof of the existence of a rain god could you possibly need?
>What other conceivable explanation could there be for rain falling out
>of the sky? Every time it rains you have your
>cast-iron-couldn't-possibly-be-doubted proof that there's a rain god.
>Not believing in the rain god would be like not believing in gravity.
I shall point out, once again, that most ancient people did not have gods. They had a term for the type of mythological being, but they did not use it as a title when discussing, addressing or considering the phenomena. No rain god, but rain; no love goddess, just love. If you feel bravery, homicidal urge, a move to self defense, etc. then Ares is present. If you hear a rumbling in the sky, Thunderer is present. If you felt like you were part of your clan, then the clan spirit is present. Experience of these things, ESPECIALLY the things that do not have a material component except within the person, was proof of the deity. I will say further that a lot of people even in ancient times knew very well that literal interpretation of mythology was not the point of it. And at the same time, many people probably did believe that the sky turned unto a swan or bull, or that the thunder god had a hammer. Some who didn't consider the gods to be anthropomorphic probably still believed such myths as virgin birth, the Big Bang or "the gene's desire to reproduce itself."
>Heortling's ability to enter the God-world and to cast magic doesn't
>give them an epistemological edge, since its only proving something
>which is obviously true (much as Newton's laws didn't make people any
>more confident that gravity existed than they already were). Besides,
>there were plenty of people in the ancient world - heck, in the present
>world - who were pretty damn confident that they really had travelled to
>the God/Spirit/Whatever World, so I doubt that's much of a difference.
Especially where people can recognize that the "gods" are not just oversized and oversexed humans, sometimes with funny heads. At least by Neoplatonic times we have plenty of proof that many people knew the immortals to be something more than the cute or grotesque beings in stories about divine matings, celestial wars and so on. I will go farther with an example what I bet most people will find shocking. I believe that Odin was a yogi, or at least the power of yogic spiritual practices. I think that some, if not many, spiritual practitioners in prehistoric Europe knew that, and knew the higher principles that yoga canlead to.
>>> Real humans, now and in the past, may know their god exists, but purely
on faith.
>>
>I disagree.
Me too. Especially in a circumstance where "faith" seems to mean "credulity."
>Specifically, I disagree because they've got proof. Rain
>falling, the sun rising, the shaman entering the spirit world, the
>spirit voices in the underground temple, that sense of oneness you get
>when you touch the divine... some of these things might not convince all
>of us today (although some of them do remain pretty convincing to most
>people)
The archetypes are as living today and have the same kind of impact on many people. If we remember that feelings of desire, awe, fear, respect are all sources of spiritual insight then we can remember that we are spiritual beings. Just because those were "taken away" from the gods by science does not mean that they are not active principles. If we remember that "real" has a different meaning when applied to any non-material subject then we can remember that we can start to know things that are unreal.
>but they were convincing in the past. You didn't need faith to
>prove your god existed - you had proof. Faith that your god would
>triumph over his enemies, faith that his rules are the right rules,
>faith that the priests really do know how to appease him; these things
>you needed. But not for things you could prove were true through your
>own personal experience.
Nice distinction between religion and spirituality.
I hope people will respond to the discussion.
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail