40 new of 48 responses total.
The reason I suggested Ice is because I am usually pretty strong but under the right pressure I'll break. On the other hand, I could be magma - patience of Earth, but temper of Fire. Your idea about the coloring of my responses helps somewhat. I do have experiences outside of gaming and things I like to do outside of gaming, but I'd say the gaming is probably the most restful of these activities save for reading or watching t.v.
My questions about gaming usually stem from terms and concepts that
I've seen in your posts that originate only from gaming; there's no other
context in which to describe them, unless you accept parts of AD&D as
religious truth and worship that way.
Since a dryad is a personification of a tree's spirit, and intimately
linked to it's life, wouldn't it *be* a tree presence?
Surely you aren't suggesting that the concepts of the four basic "elements" is entirely gaming? For I know for a fact that that isn't true. Um, and combined elements appear in science too you know. Even one of the basic four, water, is a combination of two scientific elements: Hydrogen and Oxygen. So although combinations of elements in science aren't called anything other than the name of the result, paraelements sort of exist in science, now don't they? Sorry to once again have to disappoint you, jazz, because the religous context of paraelements comes far before gaming of the roleplaying vareity existed (to our knowledge). In the creation story in Norse mythology, Niflheim (pronounced Nie-vell-HI-m), a realm of nine layers of Ice, Darkness, and Fog; and Muspell, the realm of Fire where all that existed aside from the Vanir, or first pantheon. These realms were seperated by a large chasm, but eventually they travelled near enough to each other to have effect on each other. (Incedentally, Muspell can even kill gods according to the legends) From this, the world was brewing in the gap, and while there is more story, it is not important to telling you why paraelements are NOT entirely gaming. The word certainly is, but not the "elements" themselves. As for AD&D as religious truth, no, I do not take it that way, but I do keep my horozion open, and certain things said make a lot of sense logically. Heck, some parts of ascending from the material world are pretty solid from whichever religion the learned the stuff from. On the other hand, it does not please me that TSR takes all its information on Norse gods directly from Marvel Comics without any REAL research.
The *term* "para-elements" would seem to have come from gaming- it isn't a common magickal term. Pockets? The elemental realms, by definition, would be nothing but the pure element. Think about it. (Um, the explanation for that is getting pretty complicated. Can we leave it at that?) They mix in this world- look, Bjorn- the example you give, the Norse creation story, creates this world when the elements mix; only the pure form lives in its own realm. Misti, your explanations are so lucid. I'll get it eventually.
Okay, I've been reluctant to speak up before, but what the heck, I'll put in my $0.02 Of course it wouldn't be a Good Thing to just take what any gaming system says as the truth. But it sounds to me like that's not what bjorn's doing here. Suppose you're reading a novel, or watching a movie, or whatever, and you come across an idea you'd never thought of before that really makes sense - a new way of looking at an old belief or yours, or a symbol that you find especially meaningful, or whatever. Why not adopt it? I'd be willing to bet a good number of the people in this conf. have their ideas of religion affected by what they read, or listen to, or do in their spare time. So why should gaming be any different? Okay, so there are plenty of gamers who're interested in paganism because they think that demons and vampires are cool and they want to meet one, and I'm not going to call that reasonable; but if you're being intelligent about it, a good gaming universe is no worse a place to find ideas than a good movie or a good book.
I think I'll try to explain elemental pockets, at least in gaming terms, later if you wish. If not, I will leave thins where they lie. I do have another example but that requires taking a look at the oriental 5 elements: Kick air away from the basic 4, add metal (gold), and nature (wood).
I'm aware of the Norse mythos (interestingly, my ancestors helped
write a portion of it in migrating north, conquering the original peoples,
and becoming diefied in the Norse mythos as the Aesir), but I don't agree
that any mention of ice or frost automatically validates a theory out of
Dragon as valid theology.
Now who's got the gaming fixation? I understand that the closest you could come to spelling the name of the second Norse Pantheon correctly on Grex would be to write AEsir, but that is not the point. If you refuse to see that as anything other than a gaming reference, it is *you* who has the problem with the insatiable need to defeat me. Much as I am often ammused by having people try to simply dismiss things as gaming references, it is obvious that you are only trying to piss me off. But I refuse to sink to your level since you cannot accept that I actually have pulled away from gaming. There's no point in arguing when one side refuses to listen.
John, in the last item or so, you referred to mixing AD&D with religion as "really, really sick" and yet go on here, dismissing Dragon and AD&D's as an invalid theology because it's steeped in one person's sense of right and wrong, and that that sense is overly simplisitc. The Green Man on my altar is a Toxic Avenger figurine. He's green, and in the cartoons stood for ecological awareness. Am I really really sick because I chose an object from pop culture and saw religious significance in it? My Loki figurine, likewise, is the Marvel Comics Loki. Sure, their mythology is wrong (he's the half-borther of Thor, according to them). But it's a tangible symbol that helps me focus. If it helps bjorn to take the mythology of AD&D and expand and reflect upon it for personal use, why is that really really sick? He isn't crawling around the accessways of a major university trying to kill psychic demons. He's taken a piece of pop culture and tried to see if he can get some personal religious use out of it, and he's asking us, as seasoned religious teachers and as cohorts, for some guidance, and you're calling him "really really sick." Is that what Buddha would have done? (To exploid a currently popular Christian question.) (exploit)
No, Paul, most Pagan traditions, and most Christian traditions, do an
awful lot of reconstructionism, since the Gardnerian - Golden Dawn
reconstructions, the Golden Dawn itself being reconstructionist. Most schools
of thought are that modern symbols for a particular concept are as valid as
the classical symbols (though generally there seems to be a sense of the
authors I've read and the practitioners I've worked with that they're not as
powerful as their particular adopted older symbols).
But what's the point of a theology discussion if skepticism isn't
allowed, and tracing the origins of a particular piece of belief isn't
allowed? Furthermore, look at what you're defending ...
Bjorn, I suppsoe your questions make a lot of sense to me because 20 some-odd years ago, I was a gamer and simultaneously exploring paganism. I, too, saw parallels and explored them to the extent that they went. They do make a pretty good shorthand for getting a grip on the concepts, and you seem more aware than most that that's just what they are, shorthand for far more complex concepts. I don't think "pockets" of one element exist within beings of another element so much as we are all collections of more or less concentrations of several elements, and they peacefully (or not so peacefully in some cases) co-exist.
There's a far cry difference between skepticism and ridicule. I'm defending another person's right to incorporate an element of popular culture into their personal faith, and another person's right to ask for advice and input without being called sick, or condescended to. When somebody comes forward and says, "I read this in an AD&D magazine, and I was wondering if any of you have heard of anything like this in native traditions," it isn't skepticism to say, "That's just AD&D," because you're not refuting anything that the person is claiming. Skepticism relies on refuting (or attempting to refute) claims made... what claim of Bjorn's are you refuting? No, you're not being skeptical. You're being dismissive. Entirely different.
That's exactly what I said in #1, Brighn. Re-read the item.
Since the topic seems to have changed to whether my comments were
dismissive or skeptical, please forgive my further diversion into this in an
attempt to explain my responses.
You'll note that #1 of this item was a paraphrase of your example of
a skeptical remark. #2, the immediate response, was dismissive, including
a sarcastic "Thank you for your input though jazz. Thanks in advance to
anyone who give me the anwer(s) I requested." #3 was my explanation of my
skepticism in #1, and #4 was a well-written rebuff, but note the phrase "prove
you wrong" - already at this stage, it's emerged at least in one party's mind
as a contest to prove the other party wrong.
#5 was what I thought to be a bad joke. Apparently Kami liked it. :P
#6 is Kami's well-written response about theological and magickal ideas
that were borrowed rather than created by role-playing gaming. You'll note
that this is an outright contradiction of bjorn's earlier comment, yet there
is no response along the lines of #2 to it. #8 and #9 are discussions of the
symbols and definitions of elemental theory, and #10 is a refutation of my
use of gaming terms for concepts originating from gaming.
In addition to #2, I urge you to look carefully at the wording and tone
of #11 - "Sorry to once again have to disappoint you, jazz,".
I'll stop for now, I'm probably boring the rest of the conference to
tears, and I don't think that metadiscussion really advances the conference's
indended purpose, but I do ask you to consider the tone and choice of words
in the items contained; I freely admit that my "sick" comment was
inflammatory, but outside of that, I believe the remainder of my comments have
been politely skeptical, and the response those comments inflammatory.
#1 and #3 were dismissive. "No religion has been founded in the last 12 years" is a purely absurd comment, and you should know it. What you mean is, "No IMPORTANT religion..." PLENTY of religions (at least, cults and sects) have been formed in the last 12 years. The fact that bjorn is responded non-constructively is not a defense for your own ill behavior. My viewpoint of the conversation: Bjorn: My friends and I played around with this framework, which I use these terms for... is anybody familir with it. John: Those terms are from D&D Bjorn: Well, yeah, but I was curious to know if this framework has been used by any other paths? John: Those terms are from D&D. No serious religion uses those terms, ergo no serious religion uses that framework. Bjorn: I heard you the first time. Those are just the terms I'm familiar with. I wanted to know if there was anybody else who's used the *framework.* John: Well, sure. Pagans have used just about any framework you could come up with. And so on to a pissing contest. I don't think it's irrelevant to the goals of this conversation to examine how it w\e treat people who have genuine questions that might strike us as stupid or mis-guided. *How* we teach and share knowledge is just as important as what knowledge we teach or share. (goals of this conference, not conversation) Sure, there's a place for healthy skepticism. there's also a place for healthy psychological viewpoints, one of which says the extreme defensiveness that John is showing is indicative of his inability to accept that, as a human, he can make judgment errors, and that these judgment errors often go with some sort of remediation. *waits for Kami to tell Brighn, but not john, to take it to private mails* *another judgment error*
<robh is amused by the twelve-year comment, given that robh's religious group was founded thirteen years ago>
I guess like wishing I could retract the "religious views based on
gaming are sick" comment doesn't exactly qualify as admitting failure of
judgement?
Hmm. I guess what the thinker thinks, the prover does tend to prove.
I think the problem is, John is in the same mindset as Bill Clinton... that it's enough to say, "I did it. I wish I hadn't." I'm of a different mindset. I like to add, "I'm sorry." But I realize now that I've made a failure in judgment in trying to force somebody else to apologize in the way I would. I'm sorry for that, and will drop the issue now.
Sigh. Wish we could all discuss ideas without getting egos involved. I try really hard, especially on line where there is no eye contact, and as John has pointed out, where it's hard to retract stuff, to phrase my comments in a non-inflamatory way, as "I think..." or "I have read..." or "Have you thought about..." or "If..then..." etc.-- not "you're wrong" or "that's dumb" or "so what" or other potentially agressive statements. Now, you folks don't get to hear me snorting loudly, or see me slapping the monitor (or my forehead) in exasperation, or get to hear the sarcastic and dismissive things I think- about any of us. Those moments of self indulgence don't further the discussion or build community between us. And please folks, could we endeavour *not* to see- or express- personal slights in this general forum? Thanks.
Now that my anger has passed - mostly - I have a different Elemental question. I should remember from the rituals in the Winona, but I have forgotten: which direction represents which element?
The standard correspondences are:
air - east
fire - south
water - west
earth - north
Many traditions will move the correspondences around to better
suit their locales. For instance, most northern hemisphere folks
would attribute the south with fire (the sun is always more
in the south than the north), while Australians would go vice
versa. If you're in the British Isles, the water=west makes
sense (the Atlantic Ocean being a fairly large source of water),
but if you're on the east coast of the US, you might do water=east
instead.
So, it's really up to the individual coven. I think I may have been calling upon the wrong element when we called corner for our rituals, but we've only had two, so I don't think it really matters. I think we used what you go by above in Winona.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that there is a standard direction. What I've seen
and read of Native American shamanism usually agrees on the colours and the
symbols for the directions, but not always, and tends to disagree on the
animals and elements ascribed to the directions. I'm pretty sure that that
pattern's consitent with Gardner, and his influence Crowley, and his
influence, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but I'm not sure if the
four-element theory was primarily Greek in origin or existed in pre-contact
European people.
Anyone know the answer to that?
The standard directions Rod described in resp:29 are the ones I use -- but it's also qute possible to meditate on the quarters and see what they say to you...
I guess I'll have to find where North, East, South, West are in relation to the fire pit in my back yard.
Re #31: My friends in Winona discourage anything Crowley. Just thought you might like to know.
I've always gotten the sense that the dual-duality (i.e., four way) system that Wiccans use is Platonic.
(Bjorn slipped in) Wiccans who practice anything remotely Gardnerian and then universally scoff at All Things Crowleyite have no sense of history and no real sense ofCrowley's role in the development of Gardnerian Wicca... it's akin to praising Carl Jung and dismissing All Things Freudian... sure, Jung had plenty of his own ideas, but he also took what he saw as the best ideas of Frued and incorporated them into his own theories, just as Gardner took what he saw as the best of Crowley.
I'm not sure what flavor of Wicca my friends emulate, so to speak. Heck, I'm not even Wiccan, but I have been involved in definitively Wiccan rituals.
re: #36- Pretty accurate, Brighn. Bjorn, Alister Crowley had a lot of influence on Gardiner, and thus on Wicca, but if there is a hard way to do something, an easy way and a really convoluted way- he'll choose the convoluted way or at minimum the hard way. So take anything he has written with a large pile of salt. As to the directions of the elements- yeah, the standard ones came from Europe and especially from the Greeks, and your locale might seem physically different, but consider a)archetypal/sybolic reality- and participating in a common symbol set b)being able to work with other people as desired, without jarring differences in imagery c)the full range of associations which are mapped around the circle including age and season; E/Air=Childhood/Spring, S/Fire=Youth/Summer/noontime, W=Middle Age/Autumn/afternoon, N=death and birth/Winter/night. So if you go and swap Air and Water, the cycle goes widdershins. Other changes create other kinds of confusion.
Thinking about geographical location in relation to the "corners", I'd practically have to place water in the north, since from our house, the man-made lake is north north-east. As for my friends, they're pretty much of the take any Crowley book and read only the first 3 chapters then stop kind of attitude.
Earlier in this item, colors for each element were stated, but I don't think they were directly stated. If I were to get four bricks, each of a different color, which color should be used for each element? I have an idea, which, like many of mine in this conference is flavored by role-playing games, and that idea was this: Air - Blue, Earth - Brown, Fire - Red, and Water - Green.
Not bad, Bjorn, if those work for you. In general Air- yellow, light blue, white Fire- red, orange, bright yellow or gold Water- blue, blue-green, indigo or violet-blue Earth-Green, brown,black
Hmm . . . well, I'll think on it. Perhaps a brick of each color of an element shaped into some pattern at the corners. How far from the edge of my firepit should I place such niceties?
hmmm...as far as directions go, i seem to be all sideways:
north: fire
east: earth
south: air
west: water
a lot of people have looked at me peculiarly over this arrangement,
but it works better for me than any of the others i've tried.
How'd you come to it? Any idea?
In attempt to kick some life back into this item . . . For the purposes of gaming, I am devising a outdoor lunar temple. However, since I do have an idea in the back of my mind to build a Pantheon temple (i.e. dedicated to all gods) temple sometime during my life, I seek information. I have some to understand that "spirit" or "soul" is the 5th element, and wonder where directionally this is represented? Perhaps it would be easier if I re-worded this to ask which portion of the pentacle this is represented by? I will not go back to address what happened earlier in this item, although I do have things to say about it both of a philosphical nature and of a hindsight nature.
In some eclectic Wiccan and Wiccan-derived neopagan traditions, "spirit" is the center of the circle, the 5th element. "4 elements and spirit". In other traditions, "spirit" is either the "source"- the Ain Soph or Ain Soph Aur in cabalistic terms, from which all else derives, also at the center of the circle and above it, and/or at the top of the pentegram, or else "spirit" is the confluence of all else- the synergy of all 4 elements and the spark of divinity in all things/people, which meets at the center. In either case, it really isn't separate in itself. It's not something you'd meditate on or do a ritual about, as you might one of the elements. (Although a meditation on the source might be pretty cosmic if you didn't totally trip out on it.) A lunar temple is not the same as a pan-theon temple. Both are worthy ideas. For various cultures, the moon may be male, female, both or neither. May be brother, sister or daughter to the sun. May be a source of magic, healing, illusion, madness or danger. Consider the purpose of such a temple, as well as its placement and who would be welcome at it for worship or service. Who is the moon to *you*. A temple to all gods might be very simple and spare, with sacred fire, healing or holy water, a place for meditation, and perhaps generic earth/sky icons. Pretty hard to pull off, actually- to make it both general enough and intentional enough. Have fun.
I have actually written an extensive template for my lunar temple, which while mostly wiccan in decoration, it is dedicated to all lunar deities. Some aspects of this temple for my game will change, such as directon of the top of the pentacle/penatagram (which currently points east) and the locations of th surrounding herb gardens - beneficial/benevolent herbs to the front, harmful/malevolent herbs at the back, and unknown/miscellaneous herbs to the sides. It has some Celtic and Gr/Ro aesthitics as well: standing stone "gates", and columns (which happen to be fashioned from white moonstone).
In the case of herbs which are useful in controlled amounts, how do you decide where to put them? <g> Put the top point West for water- the moon coming over/out of the water, or North, the usual neutral direction. Or have it move by magic, always to point in the direction of moonrise- that would be cool. Or don't use a pentegram at all. What's it got to do with the moon, after all? Try a spiral or some such.
You have several choices: