#value monism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tawakkull · 2 months

Text

ISLAM 101: Spirituality in Islam: Part 193

Basira and Firasa (Insight and Discernment)

Seeing is one of the luminous Attributes of God Almighty, and one’s insight, as declared in: We have shared among them (43:32), is proportionate to one’s ability to receive the manifestations of this Attribute. The greatest portion belongs to the one who, having benefited from that Divine Source to the fullest, poured his inspirations into the hearts of his followers, namely the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings. He is the most polished mirror of the Truth’s manifestations, and is unequaled in receiving them. The Divine declaration: Say: This is my path. I call to God on clear evidence and by insight, I and whoever follows me (12:108) points to the greatness of the share of that Divine gift belonging to the prince of the Prophets and his followers.

This matchless perceptiveness allowed that holy traveler on the path of Ascension to reach in one breath the realms beyond corporeal existence, which those devoid of even the least perception regard as dark or unknown or categorically deny. He studied those realms like a book, and traveled on the “slopes” of the Unseen where the archetypal tablets are exhibited and the melodies of the pens of Destiny, which make one’s heart jump, thrilled him. He visited Paradise accompanied by heavenly male and female servants, and received a Divine welcome with the breaths of two bows’ length, or even nearer (53:9), at a point where space and location are undefined or undifferentiated.

The pleasure of observance given by insight sometimes acquires a new, deeper dimension when the believer begins to discern and discover the spiritual dimension and meanings of things and events. His or her spirit experiences other dimensions in this three-dimensional realm, and his or her conscience becomes the eye of existence with which it sees, as well as its pulse and intellect.

In addition to perception and understanding, discernment (firasa) denotes the deepening of insight when perception becomes a source of certain knowledge. Those who discern the manifestations of the light of God, the Truth, own such a radiance that they see everything, every issue, in its full clarity. They are never confused, even when encountering the most intricate, similar elements, and are not lost in particularities. Seeing at the same time, for example, sugar with the sugar cane and hydrogen and oxygen with water, they refrain from all deviation (e.g., pantheism and monism) and recognize the Creator however He is, and the created however it is.

From the face of each individual believer to the face of the universe, every point, word, and line in existence is a meaningful message, even a book, for those to whom the verse: Surely in this are signs for those having insight and discernment (15:75) refers. Those who can look at existence from a point stated in the Prophetic Tradition of: Fear the discernment of a believer, for he sees with the light of God, [1] make contact with reality, become familiar with the invisible side of existence, and, revealing the real face of everything, shed light on events. While some spend their lives in “black holes” they are enraptured with increasing pleasures on Paradise-like “slopes.”

For one endowed with such discernment, existence is a book of countless pages, with each animate or inanimate part of creation being a word shining with thousands of meanings, and the face of existence and each person expressing many hidden realities. Those of true spirituality see such things in the “verses” of that book and in the luminous “phrases” of those verses, and receive from them messages that even the greatest minds among the non-believers are unable to discern. The unimaginable surprises awaiting believers in the other world are according to the rank of each, and are revealed to them together with all the spiritual pleasure that they give.

[1] Al-Tirmidhi, “Tafsir al-Qur’an” 6.

#allah #god #islam #muslim #quran #revert #convert #convert islam #revert islam #reverthelp #revcert help team #help #islamhelp #converthelp #how to convert to islam #convert to islam #welcome to islam

7 notes · View notes

beguines · 1 year

Text

The "biologically under-determined" nature of the human being makes it important to insist on a distinction which has been under sustained attack from various strands of critical theory in the last couple of decades: the distinction between the social and the natural. The conception of the human being defended in the preceding pages obviously entails that humans and their social relations cannot be thought of as something existing outside of nature. Nevertheless, relations between human animals are significantly different from relations between other natural things and organisms, and we need a conceptual apparatus which is capable of reflecting that difference. In a ridicule of the economists in Capital, Marx writes that "[s]o far no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value either in a pearl or a diamond". The value form is a "purely social" property of a thing and has nothing to do with its "natural qualities" such as its chemical composition. Similarly, Marx insists that "[t]o be a slave, to be a citizen, are social determinations, relations between human beings A and B. Human being A, as such, is not a slave. He is a slave in and through society". To say that having a value or being a slave is a social property is to say that these phenomena have their roots in relations between human beings. The reason why Marx finds it important to underline the social nature of things such as value and slavery is, of course, that he wants to stress that they are not necessary, i.e., that they fall within the domain of what can be changed by human beings. This is the core meaning of the distinction between the natural and the social on which Marx's denaturalising critique of social forms rests: the social is what can be changed by humans, and the natural is what is necessary. As Soper puts it, nature is "those material structures and processes that are independent of human activity (in the sense that they are not human created product), and whose forces and causal powers are the necessary condition of every human practice, and determine the possible forms it can take". Only by insisting on such a distinction is it possible to conceptualise the crucial and real difference—systematically obliterated by economists and other ideologues—between the value of a commodity and its chemical composition or the enslavement of a human being and the possibility of emancipation.

A distinction between the natural and social does not imply the claim that the boundaries between them are fixed. Social relations give rise to technologies which enable humans to control and manipulate natural processes previously outside their reach. The distinction between the natural and the social does not imply an absolute difference between them either. Malm has convincingly demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to insist on a "substance monism" while acknowledging that human social relations have certain "emergent properties" which cannot be found in the rest of nature. Drawing on contemporary philosophy of mind as a kind of template for conceptualising this, Malm dubs this position "substance monism property dualism". Another way to put it is that Marx conceives of the relation between the natural and the social as dialectical. The concept of dialectics is often used in a sloppy manner in Marxist (and non-Marxist) literature; more often than not, it simply means "that everything is dependent upon everything else and is in a state of interaction and that it's all rather complicated," as Heinrich aptly puts it. Dialectics is neither interaction, mutual presupposition, reciprocity or simply contradiction. Dialectics is rather the process in which a concrete totality reveals itself to contain its own negation as one of its moments. This is the sense in which the relation between the natural and the social is dialectical: nature is the totality out of which emerges an animal whose corporeal organisation opens up a new field of possibility which sets these animals apart from the rest of nature.

Søren Mau, Mute Compulsion: A Theory of the Economic Power of Capital

#søren mau #mute compulsion

4 notes · View notes

wisdomrays · 1 year

Text

BASIRA AND FIRASA (Insight and Discernment)

Seeing is one of the luminous Attributes of God Almighty, and one's insight, as declared in: We have shared among them (43:32), is proportionate to one's ability to receive the manifestations of this Attribute. The greatest portion belongs to the one who, having benefited from that Divine Source to the fullest, poured his inspirations into the hearts of his followers, namely the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings. He is the most polished mirror of the Truth's manifestations, and is unequaled in receiving them. The Divine declaration: Say: This is my path. I call to God on clear evidence and by insight, I and whoever follows me (12:108) points to the greatness of the share of that Divine gift belonging to the prince of the Prophets and his followers.

This matchless perceptiveness allowed that holy traveler on the path of Ascension to reach in one breath the realms beyond corporeal existence, which those devoid of even the least perception regard as dark or unknown or categorically deny. He studied those realms like a book, and traveled on the "slopes" of the Unseen where the archetypal tablets are exhibited and the melodies of the pens of Destiny, which make one's heart jump, thrilled him. He visited Paradise accompanied by heavenly male and female servants, and received a Divine welcome with the breaths of two bows' length, or even nearer (53:9), at a point where space and location are undefined or undifferentiated.

From the face of each individual believer to the face of the universe, every point, word, and line in existence is a meaningful message, even a book, for those to whom the verse: Surely in this are signs for those having insight and discernment (15:75) refers. Those who can look at existence from a point stated in the Prophetic Tradition of: Fear the discernment of a believer, for he sees with the light of God, make contact with reality, become familiar with the invisible side of existence, and, revealing the real face of everything, shed light on events. While some spend their lives in "black holes" they are enraptured with increasing pleasures on Paradise-like "slopes."

For one endowed with such discernment, existence is a book of countless pages, with each animate or inanimate part of creation being a word shining with thousands of meanings, and the face of existence and each person expressing many hidden realities. Those of true spirituality see such things in the "verses" of that book and in the luminous "phrases" of those verses, and receive from them messages that even the greatest minds among the non-believers are unable to discern. The unimaginable surprises awaiting believers in the other world are according to the rank of each, and are revealed to them together with all the spiritual pleasure that they give.

2 notes · View notes

aboutanancientenquiry · 28 days

Text

Pluralism in the Age of Sophocles and in Herodotus' Histories

Lauren J. Apfel The Advent of Pluralism. Diversity and Conflict in the Age of Sophocles, Oxford University Press, 2011

Abstract

This book is concerned with the relationship between a modern philosophical idea and an ancient historical moment. It explores how the notion of pluralism, made famous by Isaiah Berlin, may be seen to feature in the Classical Greek world and, more specifically, in the thought of three of its most prominent figures: Protagoras, Herodotus, and Sophocles. The book falls into three parts, each of which considers one of these authors in detail and investigates how the core aspects of pluralism — diversity, conflict, and incommensurability — manifest themselves in a particular literary arena. Part One illustrates, through an analysis of two of his fragments and the portrait of him from Plato's Protagoras, that the sophist Protagoras held that perspectives on truth and value could be plural, while retaining a degree of objectivity that distinguishes his position from relativism. Part Two turns attention towards the ways in which historical writing can be understood in pluralist terms. It portrays Thucydides as an exemplar of a monistic historical style in deliberate contrast to Herodotus. It then examines how ideas of diversity and conflict figure in Herodotus' Histories in a variety of methodological and moral contexts. Part Three focuses on conflict in Sophocles. It argues that pluralist messages emerge from four of his tragedies, in which a certain kind of hero and a certain kind of ethical disagreement are present. These features of Ajax, Antigone, Electra, and Philoctetes are related to the Homeric moral patterns from which their meaning in large part derives. The overall aim of the book is to identify a pluralist temper of thought in the age of Sophocles and, in doing so, to offer an enriched understanding of this crucial intellectual period.

Part front matter for Part Two Herodotus

Extract

Everyone is today aware of the fundamental difference between, on the one hand, those historians who paint portraits of entire societies or groups within them that are rounded and three‐dimensional, so that we believe, whether rightly or mistakenly, that we are able to tell what it would have been like to live in such conditions, and, on the other hand, antiquaries, chroniclers, learned compilers, or theorists who look on the use of imagination as opening the door to the horrors of guess work, subjectivism, journalism, or worse.

(Isaiah Berlin, ‘Giambattista Vico and Cultural History’)

Thucydidean historiography laboriously cleanses muddy testimony, and removes irrelevant accretions and all ‘wrong’ versions of the facts from a severely limited series of events…whereas Herodotus has built an elaborate set of portraits of civilizations from a rich variety of their great and remarkable actions.

(Donald Lateiner, The Historical Method of Herodotus)

…his work reveals why the title Histories fits perhaps somewhat better than the other widely used alternative, History; as reflected in the plural form of the noun, its author's views of a single topic can be plural, divergent, or even…contradictory of one another.

(James Romm, Herodotus)

IV IV Pluralism and history

Abstract

This chapter begins by considering the ways in which history and historical writing can be understood in pluralist terms. Drawing on the writings of Isaiah Berlin, it examines pluralism as it applies to whole cultures (cultural pluralism), as well as pluralism as it applies to historical methodology (methodological pluralism). It then places the historian Herodotus in his proper intellectual context, looking at links with his Ionian predecessors, the sophist Protagoras, and the tragedian Sophocles. Finally, the chapter touches upon the relationship between Herodotus and the other best‐known Classical Greek historian, Thucydides. The monism of the younger writer as it manifests itself in his scientific history and tendency toward reduction is analysed in detail.

V Pluralism in the Histories

Abstract

This chapter is concerned with Herodotus' approach to history across a host of methodological and moral domains. The hallmark of Herodotus' method in the Histories, it is argued, is variety. This is true of his approach to subject matter, sources, and causation. In each of these arenas diversity and conflict occur too frequently and too pointedly to be ignored and, as a result, Herodotus' methodology should be seen as notably pluralist in this regard. Herodotus' stance on moral conflicts also shows a pluralist leaning, especially in contrast with Thucydides. His depiction of moral dilemmas (e.g. Gyges) reveals a true understanding of the core pluralist tenet of incommensurability. So too, the portrait of the conflict between East and West is ultimately drawn as incommensurable. Finally, Herodotus' acceptance of and deep fascination with the diversity of different peoples is taken as a mark of cultural pluralism.

Source for the abstracts: https://academic.oup.com/book/8890

Lauren Apfel

#pluralism #ancient greek classics #sophocles #herodotus #lauren apfel

1 note · View note

ayngaranfoundation · 4 months

Text

Sasi Krishnasamy view on Hinduism

Hinduism is one of the oldest and largest religions in the world, with over a billion followers. It is a complex and diverse tradition, with many different schools of thought, sects, and practices. Hinduism has no single founder, creed, or authority, but rather is based on a variety of scriptures, teachings, and traditions that have evolved over thousands of years

Hinduism is often considered a way of life, rather than a fixed set of doctrines. It encompasses a range of philosophical, ethical, and spiritual perspectives, such as monotheism, polytheism, monism, dualism, and non-dualism. Hinduism also recognizes the concept of dharma, or the moral and cosmic order, which guides the actions and duties of individuals and society. Hinduism teaches the concepts of karma, or the law of cause and effect, and samsara, or the cycle of rebirth, which are influenced by one’s actions and intentions. Hinduism also offers various paths to liberation from samsara, such as bhakti (devotion), jnana (knowledge), and karma (action)

Hinduism is a pluralistic and tolerant religion, which respects the diversity of views and practices among its adherents. Hinduism does not claim to be the only or the best way to attain the ultimate truth, but rather acknowledges the validity of other paths and traditions. Hinduism also values the freedom of conscience and expression, and does not impose any dogmas or restrictions on its followers. Hinduism celebrates the diversity of human experience and the unity of all existence

0 notes

nobodywantstodancewithyou · 5 months

Text

I've been thinking about being good lately. We're supposed to use ethics, but so often I find that people use it, not to figure out how to do good, but rather to justify doing bad. It's the trolley problem all the way: political ideology, who is it OK to hurt? The obvious answer is "no one" but come on...

I have the fanciful suspicion that ethics was invented by sociopaths. They lack empathy and must use reason instead but, much like capitalism, we all got taken along for the ride. A perfect hierarchy of values for everyone. Hegemony. Monism.

My paternal grandmother knew how to be good. She didn't need any of this. She knew. If one wishes, one could claim that her apoliticism did nothing to combat systemic inequality, and that's true. But you were better off simply for knowing her. She did not love you because an ethical argument logically concluded it, or by following the chain of an ideology, or because God told her to, and certainly not for personal gain. She just loved you.

Of course, that isn't enough, is it? And when one is the product of a fundamentally unjust society, conditioned to perpetuate this injustice, one cannot simply take one's feelings at face value. But maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse? Or is there a dialectic in there? In an ideal world, I suppose we could trust our feelings, as they would always tell us what is right.

But my Nanny burns in me.

#thoughts #mine

0 notes

sublimeredviolin · 8 months

Text

Nothing is new for me, under the Sun, so you need to use your own mind. Tips or tricks? Shall we beging?

1) What colour is your soul?

2) If you have to review your OWN ideas, projects or decisions either in business or your plans in the long run, ambitions, career, responsabilities or problems with your reputation, is it the right moment for you to take major decisions?

3) Do I look like to you to go with the flow, or the crowd? It takes courage to be different.

4) Mediocre people, mediocre results, no?

5) Rules: the good ones yes, the rest, the more Rules, more Control, dont you think?!

6) The only reality that exist is called Monism?

7) Look around, nothing much has changed.

8) Life is full of contigenties, therefor, what trully defines you and your personality?

9) 70% of all business with employees fail

within 10 years? Failure to deliver real value? To connect with the target audience? To create an effective sales funnel? Lack of authenticy and transparency? Unable to compete with Market leaders? Inability to control expenses? Lack of strategic and effective leadership?

10) Can you invent a whole new subsection of tech set to be worth 1 trillion dollars as the Wonderful Ida did?

11) Take any subject, a personal experience and with it, do you add something valuable and strong to the World or others?

12) What is your purpose in life?

13) Can you understand that the Brain, the human brain is a 3 pound Paradox?

14) Is only matter if you deep down, know is true, corect?

15) People dont change, they just reveal themselves for what excatly they trully are, no?

16) What could be your point? I meant less superficial, ordinary, less about you or your fragile ego?

17) Rethoric questions multiply by infinity, are you that important, bigger than life? Hmmm I bet you do.

0 notes

platosarse · 1 year

Text

When you’ve spent an hour trying to understand Blattberg’s ONE paragraph appealing to Heraclitus’ doctrine of the unity of opposites to explain why Machiavelli can actually be read as endorsing a fundamental value monism.

#I really created this blog to avoid reading Blattberg’s paragraph again #I’m almost done with my masters so I this blog is about a year and a half too late in the making #oh well #I needed to vent somewhere #I just need to get this one paragraph to add like 2 sentences to my essay #incidentally #I don’t think Plato’s arse would’ve been anything special #Diogenes on the other hand…#philosophy

0 notes

theophrastus · 1 year

Text

History of Monism

Excerpt from Arthur Drew's Geschichte des Monismus im Alterturm (History of Monism in Antiquity)

"A 'history of ancient monism' in the sense discussed here will not need to justify its appearance in our 'monistic century'. Modern monism itself has as great an interest as its opponents in tracing the traces of the monistic way of thinking in history. And just the attempts of antiquity to lift up the multiplicity of phenomena into a unified concept of the world do not only have the attraction of youth for themselves, but possess at the same time a high philosophical value also for the present monism, if only because they present monism in its typical manifestations, which are still fundamental also for the present, and these in their relatively simplest and most impressive form. There might be quite a few among those who call themselves monists at present, whose standpoint in philosophical respect has not yet essentially reached beyond the pre-Socratic philosophy of nature...Perhaps there is no better means to bring to modesty and to "reason" the naturalistic monism that today behaves so pretentiously than the reference to the role that this standpoint has played so far in the history of human thought, and the proof of how the inadequacy necessarily attached to it led already more than two millennia ago to its being lifted into a higher idealistic standpoint. The overcoming of the prevailing naturalism, however, is the most important task, which today's monism has to solve, in order to be able to take up as an equal world view with that of the positive religions, yes, to be able to carry off the victory over them."

#history #philosophy

0 notes

gevoc · 2 years

Text

I am finding myself wayward or neutral in areas I have been very opinionated before. It started with disillusionment of politics but has carefully crept into other areas of my life. The most noticeable, recently, is how pretty much over night I have come to accept that the advancement of technology might actually be the right thing, evolutionarily, for man. Theoretically, this goes against my most longstanding, essential core values. Values that pretty much make up my essence, and thus personality. I would consider myself a panpsychist, with first hand and continual experience of the ‘geist’ and animation within the natural world. Call it animism, paganism, monism or pantheism if you want. I have happily surrendered many hours of learning to navigating my experiences, finding nouns to apply to formerly ineffable concepts and spending time actively opting in and opening myself to more of these experiences. I 100% believe that eating a Hippocratic diet, using herbs and plants as medicine, spending the majority of your time outside, small time community-centred agriculture within small communities, analysing dream states, frivolous and strength orientated movement, breathwork, shadow work, etc. have the capacity to ‘cure’ individuals enough to warrant a collective consciousness level up, if enough people were to do so. (yugas)

A majority of the world opting in to that way of thinking is obviously unrealistic. There is, of course, the crescendo of do-gooder wellness folk that penetrate almost everybody’s IG feed by now, which I guess at least inspire some that would otherwise not have knowledge on such things. The authenticity, though, of the ‘sacred ceremonies’ I find myself questioning

0 notes

wisdomfish · 15 days

Text

THE FREED ATHEIST

Naturalism is the belief system that regards the natural, material, and physical universe as the only reality. Nature is the whole show. This viewpoint is often characterized by corollary beliefs such as monism (all reality is one), materialism (reality is ultimately matter), antisupernaturalism (all supernatural explanations are to be rejected a priori), scientism (only the scientific method yields “truth”), and humanism (humanity is the ultimate outcome, hence “value”).

According to naturalism, everything (things, people, and events) can be reduced to “matter in motion.” Everything is reducible to, or explained in terms of, certain fundamental natural phenomena (physics, chemistry, and biology). Carl Sagan expressed the position of strong naturalism in a famous statement in his television series Cosmos:

“The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

Thus, If God is dead and the grave our final destination,

"nothing would be immoral any longer, everything would be permitted, even anthropophagy [i.e., cannibalism]."

They [i.e., atheists] are now free, if they so choose, to become nihilists or sadists or solipsists on their own account.

Some theories of 'the Superman' [Ubermensch] derive from atheism, and a person who thought that heaven and hell were empty could conclude that he was free to do exactly as he wished. The fear that this might be the outcome-well-expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky-underlies many people’s reluctance to abandon religious dogma.

Not all showed such reluctance. Ted Bundy being one such person,

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself: that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring — the strength of character — to throw off its shackles. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block, and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

[Kenneth Samples; Mitch Stokes; Fyodor Dostoevsky; Christopher Hitchens; Ted Bundy.]

#scientific enlightenment #relativism #nihilism #atheism #anthropophagy #final destination #cannibalism

0 notes

tawakkull · 1 year

Text

ISLAM 101: Spirituality in Islam: Part 34

Basira and Firasa (Insight and Discernment)

Literally meaning perception, intelligence, discretion, evidence, and witness, insight (basira) is defined as having an eye of the heart open, deep perception, an ability to see consequences just at the beginning of an act, or foresight. Insight acquires a different, deeper dimension among Sufis. It is considered the sole source of spiritual knowledge obtained through reflective thought and inspiration, the first degree in the spirit’s perception of the reality of things; and a power of conscience that discerns and establishes values originating in the spirit, whereas reason becomes entangled in colors, forms, and qualities. It is also a power of perception so sharpened by the light of nearness to the Divine Being that, when other powers of perception become exhaustedy by imaginings, it acquires great familiarity with mysteries lying behind things and, without any guide or evidence, reaches the Truth of the Truths, where reason is bewildered. Seeing is one of the luminous Attributes of God Almighty, and one’s insight, as declared in: We have shared among them (43:32), is proportionate to one’s ability to receive the manifestations of this Attribute. The greatest portion belongs to the one who, having benefited from that Divine Source to the fullest, poured his inspirations into the hearts of his followers, namely the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings. He is the most polished mirror of the Truth’s manifestations, and is unequaled in receiving them. The Divine declaration: Say: This is my path. I call to God on clear evidence and by insight, I and whoever follows me (12:108) points to the greatness of the share of that Divine gift belonging to the prince of the Prophets and his followers.

[1] Al-Tirmidhi, “Tafsir al-Qur'an” 6

3 notes · View notes

samwisethewitch · 3 years

Text

What does it mean to be pagan? (Paganism 101 Ch. 1)

That’s right, y’all! With Baby Witch Bootcamp officially wrapped, it’s time to jump into our next long term series! I put out a poll on Patreon, and my patrons voted for Paganism 101 as our next series. While not all witches are pagan and not all pagans are witches, there is a lot of overlap between the two groups. Both witchcraft and paganism offer practitioners a sense of freedom, a deeper connection to the world around them, and a greater awareness of their personal power.

I identify both as a witch and as a pagan, and I get a lot of questions about paganism. In this series, we’ll go through the basics: what it means to be pagan, the difference between a neopagan and a reconstructionist, and the role of magic in different pagan traditions. We’ll also talk about some of the most popular modern pagan traditions and how to find the right tradition for you.

Let’s start off by answering the question, “What does pagan actually mean?”

Defining “Pagan”

It’s important to remember that “pagan” is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of different faiths. Someone who practices Wicca, for example, will have very different beliefs from someone who practices Hellenismos. These different faiths are linked by a shared history, rather than by shared beliefs or practices.

The word “pagan” comes from the Latin “paganus,” which literally means “area outside of a city” or, to phrase it slightly differently, “countryside.” This adjective was used to describe people and things that were rustic or rural and, over time, came to also have the connotation of being uneducated. Originally, the word had no religious association, and was even used to refer to non-combatants by the Roman military.

From this definition, we can gain some insight into what makes a religion or practice pagan. Pagans feel a kinship with the wild or rural places of the world, and are comfortable waking “off the beaten path.”

But how did “paganus” come to refer to a type of religion, anyway?

To understand the religious meaning of “paganus,” it’s necessary to understand a little bit about the religion of Ancient Rome. Rome (the city) was built inside a pomerium, a sacred boundary that formed a spiritual border around the city and its people. Paganus folks were those who lived outside the pomerium and, as such, may not have been strict adherents of the state religion — they certainly wouldn’t have been able to travel into the city for every major festival. They may have gotten a bit more creative with their worship of the gods. However, as previously stated, the word paganus did not have an explicitly religious meaning in ancient times.

The use of paganus as a religious label began after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 313 C.E. Christianity would not be adopted as the official state religion until 380 C.E., but Constantine’s conversion and decriminalization of Christian worship paved the way for Rome’s transformation into a Christian state. It was around this time, as Christianity was quickly growing in urban areas, that early Roman Christians began using the word “paganus” to refer to those who still practiced polytheism. Rather than referring to those outside the city’s boundary or to untrained civilians, the label now referred to those outside the Church, those who were not “soldiers of Christ.”

As Christianity spread in popularity throughout the Mediterranean, Europe, and Northern Africa, the pagan label was applied to all non-Christians in those areas. The word “pagan” became a derogatory label, implying an inferior and backwards religion.

So, really, the thing that makes a religion pagan is a historical conflict with Christianity. Pagan religions are those that were suppressed or completely destroyed after Christianity became the dominant faith in the region.

This is why Norse Paganism and Kemetic (Egyptian) polytheism, which are very different, are both considered “pagan” while Shinto, a Japanese religion that shares a lot of common features with many pagan faiths, is not. Because Christianity never achieved total dominance in Japan, Shinto was never pushed aside to make room for Jesus.

In the 20th century, people who felt drawn to these old religions started to reclaim the pagan label. Like many other reclaimed slurs, “pagan” became a positive label for a community united by their shared history.

What do all pagans have in common?

This is a tough question to answer because, as stated above, paganism is a historical definition, not one shaped by belief or practice. However, there are some things most pagans have in common. Here are a few of them, although these concepts may take different forms in different traditions.

Paganism…

… is (usually) polytheistic. Most pagans do not subscribe to monotheism, the belief in a single, all-powerful divine being. Some pagans are polytheists, meaning they believe in multiple divine beings with varying levels of power. Hellenic pagans, Norse pagans, and Celtic pagans are typically polytheists. Still others are monists, meaning they believe in a single divine source that manifests itself as multiple gods. Wiccans and other neopagans are typically monists. Many pagans fall somewhere in-between strict polytheism and strict monism. We’ll talk more about polytheism in a future post, but for now just know that the idea of a single, supreme creator is not compatible with most forms of paganism.

… is based in reciprocity. This is a concept that may seem odd to those who grew up around Abrahamic religions: the idea of engaging the gods in a mutually beneficial partnership, rather than one-sided worship. When we connect with the gods, we receive spiritual, emotional, and physical blessings. The gods also benefit, as they are strengthened by our prayers and offerings. (I like to think they also enjoy the company. It has to be lonely, having your body of worshipers supplanted by an anarchist carpenter from Palestine.) The concept of reciprocity is why most pagans make physical offerings to their gods.

Reciprocity also extends to our relationships with other people. Most pagan religions have a code of ethics that includes values like hospitality, kindness, and/or fairness with others. Depending on the pagan, reciprocity may even extend to the dead! Many (but not all) pagans practice ancestor worship, the act of honoring and venerating the beloved dead.

Reciprocity may even extend to the world at large. Some (but not all) pagans are animists, which means they believe that every animal, plant, and stone contains its own spirit. Animist pagans strive to live in harmony with the spirits of the world around them, and may make offerings to these spirits as a sign of friendship.

… embraces the Divine Feminine. Paganism acknowledges and venerates both masculine and feminine expressions of divinity. Polytheist pagans worship both gods and goddesses, while monist pagans see the divine Source as encompassing all genders. In either case, the end result is the same: pagans acknowledge that, sometimes, God is a woman. (Cue the Ariana Grande song.)

Paganism also acknowledges gender expressions outside the masculine/feminine binary. Many pagan deities, like Loki (in Norse paganism), Atum (in Kemetic paganism), and Aphroditus (a masculine aspect of the Greek Aphordite) exist somewhere in the grey area between man and woman.

… is compatible with a mystic mindset. Remember how I said there’s a lot of overlap between witchcraft and paganism? Part of the reason for that is because paganism is highly compatible with magic and other mystical practices. Most pagans believe that humans have, or can attain, some level of divine power. It makes sense that this power would manifest as magic, or as other spiritual abilities. Many of the ancient cultures modern paganism draws inspiration from practiced magic in some form, so it follows that modern pagans would as well.

… draws inspiration from the ancient stories. As we discussed, “pagan” originally referred to the religious groups that were pushed out by Christian hegemony. As a result, every modern pagan is a little bit of a historian. Because paganism was pushed underground, it takes a little digging to find myths, rituals, and prayers that can be used or adapted for modern practice.

Many pagans worship historic deities that you’ve probably read about at some point. Visit any pagan pride event, and you’ll probably find worshipers of Zeus, Venus, Thor, and Isis, just to name a few. Studying and interpreting ancient mythology and archaeological evidence is a big part of modern paganism.

… is a religion with homework. If you’ve read this far, you may be beginning to realize that being pagan is a lot of work. It’s fun, spiritually fulfilling, and very rewarding work, but work all the same. Because very few modern pagans have access to temples, priests and priestesses, or an in-person community that shares their beliefs, they end up having to teach themselves, do their own research, and guide their own practice.

This is incredibly empowering, as it means you are your own religious authority. It does, however, mean that you will occasionally have to open a book or slog through a dense academic article about the most recent archaeological find related to your favorite deity. Thankfully, there’s a growing number of accessible, beginner-friendly books, blogs, podcasts, and YouTube channels to help you in your research.

… embodies a deep respect for the natural world. While not all pagans are animists, most pagans do feel some sort of reverence for the forces of nature. Many pagan deities are associated with natural forces or use the natural world to communicate with their followers. Because of this, not only do pagans respect and love nature, but they’re constantly watching it for signs and messages. (Are you really friends with a pagan if they haven’t called you crying because they found a crow feather on the ground or saw a woodpecker in their backyard?)

Some pagan groups, especially neopagan religions like Wicca, have been classified as Earth-centered religions. Personally, I dislike this term. While it is true that many pagans feel a deep spiritual connection to the Earth and may even venerate local nature spirits, to say that these religions are “Earth-centered” feels like an oversimplification. Wiccans, for example, don’t actually worship nature — they worship the God and Goddess, who they see reflected in the natural world.

… is driven by individual spiritual practice. As mentioned above, very few pagans have access to an in-person community. Because of this, modern paganism largely consists of individual practices. Even pagans who do belong to a community still typically worship on their own sometimes. These personal practices may involve prayer, offerings to the gods, meditation, divination, astral travel, performing religious rituals, or countless other practices. Many pagans have personal altars in their homes, where they worship alone or with their family.

… is a celebration of daily life. One thing I love about paganism is how it makes every aspect of my life feel sacred. Many religions emphasize the spiritual aspects of life while deemphasizing, or even demonizing, the physical or mundane aspects. This can lead to practitioners feeling like they are spiritual beings trapped in a physical body, or like their physical needs and desires are something to escape.

Paganism allows practitioners to fully enjoy being physical and spiritual beings. Pagans reach for the heights of spiritual awareness, while also enjoying earthly delights — recognizing that neither is inherently more worthy than the other and that both are needed for a balanced life.

… is only one of many paths to Truth. Most pagan groups do not claim to be the only valid religious path, and in fact several openly acknowledge the validity of other religions. This is why you rarely see pagans trying to convert other people to paganism — it’s openly acknowledged that paganism isn’t for everyone, and that those who are truly meant to practice the old ways will find them.

~~~

Hopefully, this post has given us a good working definition of “paganism.” From here, we’ll explore some of these individual concepts in more depth and discuss specific religions within the pagan umbrella. Until then, blessed be.

Resources:

Wicca for Beginners by Thea Sabin

Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham

A Witches’ Bible by Janet and Stewart Farrar

The Way of Fire and Ice by Ryan Smith

Where the Hawthorn Grows by Morgan Daimler

Temple of the Cosmos by Jeremy Naydler

A Practical Guide to Irish Spirituality by Lora O’Brien

264 notes · View notes

quasi-derivative · 3 years

Text

Why it's Pointless to Compare Disciplines: a Pantheist Take

The structure of this essay will be as follows. First, I will explain the conflicts and attitudes between the academic disciplines. Then, I will explain pantheism, specifically spinozist pantheism. And finally, I will attempt to show that it is pointless to compare disciplines

1. The Debate

There is often conflict and competition between what i identify as the 3 main disciplines: the arts, the humanities, and the sciences. The arts refers to music, visual art, theatre, etc. That is to say, they refer to expression of human emotion, and serve to present and convey themes and idea about the wider world. The humanities are philosophy, history, sociology, etc. These are the study of people, society and seek to explain and understand humanity. Finally, the sciences. These are simply physics and maths, biology and chemistry, which seek to find explanation for the processes that govern the Universe.

Conflict between these often hinge on a few questions; "which is more true?", or "which is better for people?" are just two of them. As an example, consider the climate crisis. There is debate as to how it should be tackled, whether a subject of the humanities should take lead, or if a physical, chemical alright should be taken. This is one of the areas where this conflict emerges. Another point of contention, that may be more familiar to Tumblr users, is the conflict between science such as physics and art on the internet. Although of smaller consequence than other clashes, there is often tension between artists (who create art with symbolic meaning), and physics students who tend to imagine that their descriptive, scientific process is much more valuable.

It should quickly be noted that conflict between western scientism and spirituality stem from a history of white supremacy, colonialism and exoticism.

I have laid the issues out quite simply here, in order to simply provide a summary of inter-disciplinary competition and act as a memory aid.

2. Spinozist Pantheism

Baruch Spinoza was a 17th Century Dutch-Jewish philosopher and rationalist. Excommunicated from his church and community for his unorthodox views, Spinoza created a whole new conception of God and ethics and the Universe - a metaphysic. His most notable work is The Ethics in which he explains and proves his metaphysical model using succint mathematical order and logic.

Here is a definition of some terms that will be helpful:

- Substance: the most fundamental 'thing' that exists. To someone who believes that atoms are the most fundamental things, all atoms are substances that make up other things.

- Attribute: the essence (nature) of substance when it is thought or conceived of in a certain way.

- Mode: things which are in and conceived through substance, such as a chair. if you imagine substance as a big ball of clay, modes are like this formed out of the surface of the ball.

- Theism: the belief in a God or Gods, who created and intervenes in the universe.

- Atheism: disbelief in existence of any god or gods

- Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with abstract things, such as being, time, knowing, and space.

These terms should hopefully help clarify terms that i use in the following section.

Spinoza's metaphysic is a substance monism. This means that the universe is made of exactly one substance, which spinoza calls God. His first argument in The Ethics is to prove that there is necessarily only one infinite substance, which he calls God This is pantheism, and can be best summed up in one quote - "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived" (Ethics Part 1, Prop 15). Or, in other words, everything is part of God and created by God.

This is the definition of pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God and the Universe are the same. Adamant in his belief, Spinoza labels traditional religion as "fiction" (not the same implication as 'fiction book', but you get the idea). He wrote that the Bible is just a book written by people, that prayer and appeals for divine intervention are pointless, etc.

His method for approaching God is intuitive and, to me, quite beautiful. Spinoza argues that asking for divine intervention is futile, since God is a huge immoveable thing, the universe itself. Instead, Spinoza says that this should be flipped. We should listen to God, bend our will to it, and follow nature, in order to live free of the pressures that come from spirituality and fear of eternal punishment.

This is the crux of argument, which i will clarify in part 3.

3. Argument

In the end of the last section, i said that Spinoza believes in listening to God. The way that he suggests this is through science and the humanities. By studying the laws of nature (which includes psychology and thought), we can get closer to understanding and appreciating God itself - not simply his Creation as Theism would posit. This aspect is why I, as a spinozist pantheist, believe that it is wholly absurd and pointless to compare different disciplines; they are all a form of understanding, explaining, and contemplation of God/nature.

The sciences describe the basic laws of nature, they seek to (with strict methods) approach a model that can explain how everything functions. The humanities are a study of human culture and society, and try to understand and appreciate these. The arts are expressive; a work of art is a form of expression, thought, and an act of creation and contemplation. All of these, inevitably, are a deep engagement with God. This makes competition absurd, since they all have the same purpose, and therefore holy. They are all of equal importance and value.

Thank you so much for reading this mess!!

#philosophy #spinoza #pantheism #everything is holy

9 notes · View notes

angelicranger · 3 years

Text

Moving my Essays Pt.1 Pagan Monarchism

In the modern day we see a resurgence in ideas and faiths that were lost long ago, amongst these two we have the pagan religions which are being revived and the political ideas of monarchism. This shows a rejection of modern ideas and values that have been forced upon people unfairly, however we see that most popular or influential pagans seem to reject monarchism as an ideology and instead prefer a republican system, some have even argued that monarchism is ‘unpagan’. I find that these people are sorely mistaken, and I will undergo some basic arguments of how paganism supports monarchism.

As a forewarning, I will not discuss here the secular political reasons behind monarchism such as myths about taxes or tyranny as these things fall out of the scope of paganism and have no place in this discussion. I would instead suggest consuming other literature if you are not a pagan or of pagan background, I am also speaking more to historical reconstructionist then I am to wiccans, atheistic pagans and neodruids.

The first thing we must discuss of course is the history and origins of modern paganism so that we may understand why so many pagans reject monarchism, modern paganism mostly harkens back to the occult practises that captivated people during the Victorian and World War era. This was a time when most pagan practises were either misunderstood or were made up by some ‘intellectuals,’ the discipline of pagan reconstructionism had not yet been introduced and as such the fundamental philosophy behind pagan religions was also lost on these people.

With paganism you often also had the noble savage argument, a complete fallacy that harmed the understanding of paganism, introducing pantheism and monism to otherwise polytheistic religions and making conjectures on pagan society and culture that was simply untrue. This ideology presented a pagan society without a king, that was fair and egalitarian, had equal roles of men and women and lived in connection to nature and ‘mother earth’ and did not worship patriarchal sky deities. This misunderstanding was used in arguments against Christianity during the surge in atheism, during the colonial era and continues until this very day.

This continued and branched out as political diversity was introduced through republicanism, some occultist groups moved towards the left and becoming more socialist while others moved to the right and became more nationalist. From here we have the two largest origins of the pagan movement, Thelema and wicca on the left and German occultism (used by the Nazis) on the right, fortunately German occultism which was used to oppress people fell with Nazi Germany and we were left with wicca overtaking Thelema as the origin of pagan movement. However, this continued with the noble savage ideas of paganism and promoted republicanism over monarchism, this can be highlighted today with modern pagans.

Now onto the basis of this argument, paganism is rarely suited religious for a republic, the exceptions being the romans and Greeks who I will get into later, we do however see that paganism is far more suited to monarchism. Most monarchs having a religious role and entire cults around kingship and the king being built around him rather than a republican president and a voting ritual, though that may now exist due to pagans trying to adapt to their environment in America.

This is because pagans for most of human history had served under a king with very few exceptions, this is true for all of the groupings, Celt, German, Greek, Roman etc. all of these cultures at one point or another served under a monarchy, not a monarchy that we would recognise today as post-enlightenment absolutism but nevertheless still a monarchy.

The two most well-known exceptions of this would be Roman and Hellenic paganism, Rome was a republic for a period and some city states like Athens was a republic as well. Now this firstly of course ends the stigma or argument that monarchism is somehow old compared to republicanism because as we see not only that a republic and a monarchy been recorded as existing at the same point in ancient history but also that a country went from republicanism to monarchism. Either way, we see with these ancient republics that they were often replaced or subsumed by a monarch or a confederation of monarchies (Peloponnesian war) we also see that these republics were heavily corrupted, Rome only achieved their full glory entering into the imperial era.

On a lesser-known example, we have the things of the Germanic peoples, while it is true that the Germans did indeed have a very democratic process under the things, let us remember with few notable exceptions (Icelandic, Ingwine, Greenlandic) that the things of the continental and Norse world are not fully understood and that these peoples still served under a king.

Now some may infact argue that just because the ancestral pagans practised it, it does not mean that we have to as well, that is true for many things, however you cannot argue that paganism or monarchism and are not compatible. Also, the decision on what is and what is not brought back can often be arbitrary at best, I have met a few pagan monarchists in my life so I will say for now that this is something that can be brought back with the rise of paganism.

Something I would like to address in more detail as well is the kind of people who seem to be both pagan and vehemently against monarchism, this is not an attack on character but rather an observation, most of the pagan monarchists I’ve met seem to be from the old world (England, New Zealand, etc.) while the antimonarchists seem to be from America. Now as any monarchist would tell you, America is in fact a very republican country and often depicts monarchs as evil, more than other countries at the least and actively teaches politically that monarchism as inefficient in all of their classes.

I am not stating that all antimonarchist pagans are from America and all monarchist pagans are from the old world, I have met American pagan monarchists just as I’ve met European anti-pagan monarchists and to make that argument is stupid. However, I am stating that a lot of antimonarchism sees to come from America rather than other countries.

More on paganism being specifically geared towards a monarch tradition then a republican one, we see that with the numerous practises of sacred kingship and imperial cults, a religion like Kemetism could never be properly complete without the Pharoah or Romans where there is no emperor. This was so prevalent that in some societies it is one of the few pieces of theology we have record of so it is obvious that these traditions not only existed but held great sway over the people and were important, why else would even the most Christian English monarch claim descent from Woden?

On some of these faiths that are incomplete without a sacred king, it is no secret that the imperial cults of Egypt and Rome were vastly important with the Pharoah and emperor both being hailed as living gods! Some people might of course reject this and state that we ‘live in the modern day’ and this kind of thought ‘is behind us’ but then I have to ask, if this is behind us, then what else should we leave behind? I am not arguing for some human sacrifice we have few records about but simply that what constituents as modern to our mostly Christian world shouldn’t dictate how we practise our religion.

The first thing that every pagan must accept is that what popular opinion considers ‘modern’ is simply what has been forced upon them unwittingly by the Christian church (For Americans, protestant church), I spend a lot of time pondering on how a thought, a concept could even be modern or ancient? Philosophy after all is unaging and therefore someone may find as much wisdom in Marcus Aurelius and in the Havaml as they do in modern philosophers like Nietzsche or Freud and often have as we search deeper into our own understanding as a race.

The point of this is that we as pagans should not treat ourselves in respect to modern society, a society that was built upon Christianity and not paganism and even with this lenient view of society it is not the Christians that disagree with monarchism either, it is simply the American viewpoint that has been pressed upon other peoples. If this were not so then why do countries where America has not been pressing or simply places where they retained their own culture the highest, the middle east, Japan, south east Asia, these places do not spit on monarchism or the monarchy.

So where do we as Pagans leave off on this issue? Do we simply continue with cultural norms so engineered and ingrained in our society by the harsh efforts of Christianity that even Atheists choose to accept this modern thought, or do we return to our traditions and embrace the thought of the original pagans?

The final, most clear and most simply point I would like to make on this issue is this: Pagan religion is in a monarchy, what I mean by this of course is that pagan gods are never in a republic, it is true that kings can come and go in these religions, however a king of the gods there always is. Never a president as has been since the earliest time of the pagan religion descending their line all the way back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the earliest European word.

To those oppressed by monarchies and point to them as the issue I would ask that you reflect on who is the head of the pantheon, even outside of Europe this reigns true, Odin may reign over the gods of the Norse but it is El who is king over the Cannanite gods, it is Tengri over the steppe and Armazi of the Georgians. The very basis of our modern peoples and nations come from these kings and their descendants, who mind you are also kings, so why should we practise so much hubris as to say that we have the superior system to heaven itself?

And yes, it is indeed hubris for what else should drive a follower, as devout or pious as they that they should think a republic is better than a monarchy while bowing down and praying to those gods who are kings or bow their heads themselves to their king!

In the end, I hope that when you, my fellow pagans and my fellow monarchists, read this that you will not find that I made this out of any spite or malice, I would equally serve the will of the pagan faith as I would the monarchist movement for I find that both are equally as important in my life. Rather I hope that you find that I, in all good will, created a document that challenges the preconceived notions of paganism and its political ideology to both pagans and monarchists and that you do not view me as some sort of fool or clown rather that you take me seriously and read my work with an open, but serious mind. I thank you for reading my work.

#paganism #celtic paganism #heathenry #sacral king #monarchsim #semdaeism #tanistry

2 notes · View notes