Whatever Happened to the Tolerant Polytheists?

So I was making my semi-regular reading exploration on WitchVox, when I came across this article. Me being the critic that I am, I wanted to make a couple of comments on some of it’s content; less because I have a problem with the article itself (on the contrary, it’s fine), but because – to me – some of the points made in this article exemplify some of my problems within the NeoPagan community.

“Not too long ago, a close friend asked me, “So what do you want for…. What do you call Christmas?”… It’s not as though we have a hard and fast, universally pagan-accepted divinity to attach it to… Many of us, though, still say “Christmas”. Is it cultural bias, momentum, commonality for the sake of communication, or simple political-correctness?”

Or, it’s an acknowledgement that the Christian holiday of Christmas (hey, look, I said it in it’s entirety and didn’t spontaneously combust! See, it can be done!) occurs on December 25th. In her initial anecdote, by all means, tell the friend the name of the holiday relevant to whatever tradition you practice; Saturnalia, Yule, whatever. But in her expanded idea of using the term Christmas, the point is completely moot: I refer to my holiday (i.e. the NeoPagan one) as Yule/the Winter Solstice/Alban Eiler. To me, these holidays, each ascribed to a different religion, happen to occur at the same time (usually).

But perhaps the bigger problem here is the fact that a lot of NeoPagans apparently feel this overwhelming urge to continually point out that ‘Christmas is just a stolen/appropriated use of old pagan celebrations’. I’ll admit, I’m not above pulling the old ‘Jesus-is-a-cheap-imitation-of-Mithras’ argument out if I’m being severely irritated by a fundamentalist Christian. But on the whole? It’s the simple fact that virtually all religious mythos are re-tellings and re-interpretations of other religions. Sure, it’s annoying that Christianity took pagan mythology, used it indiscriminately, and then turned around and denigrated paganism as an entirely ‘incorrect’. However, again, this is the nature of the beast (humanity); each ‘successive’ mythos/ideology/culture basically steals the ideas of it’s predecessor, and then identifies it’s re-telling as the superior/’right’ one.

So. I don’t say “Christmas” because I’m being politically correct, I say it when I am referring to the Christian ‘holy’ day occurring on the 25th of December. And, at the same time, I don’t unnecessarily enter into arguments about ‘whose’ holiday it really is, because I don’t see the point. It comes back to the same old point; those people who will listen would prefer to have the topic approached in a mature, discoursive manner (not “your religion is a rip-off of my religion!!!”), and those who won’t listen… well, there’s no point arguing with people like that.

Onto the second point; why do I perpetually feel that hard-polytheists are a significant minority in the NeoPagan community? Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against soft-polytheism (though I do if you identify yourself as a Celtic Reconstructionist/Kemetic Reconstructionist/etc, and still refuse to acknowledge that the archaic pagan view was not one of ‘archetypes’). I just think it’s kind of weird that people self-identify as polytheists, but, when it comes down to it, a lot of these people don’t actualy believe in any Gods.

“…how does one choose and isolate a single path? Do I choose Wicca or Romany? Should I choose Egyptian Deities, Assyrian Entities, or East-Asian Archetypes?”

(Let’s not even go into the fact that the author just identified a racial/cultural group [the Romany] as a religion).

This is the other part of this weird non-belief that seems to increasingly characterise non-mainstream religion; that so many people CHOOSE what they ‘believe’. Last time I checked, belief is generally inherent. It may be latent, it’s manifestation may be altered through knowledge, new experience, etc., but the belief has always existed, in some form. This is a pretty contentious stance, but one I maintain. I freely admit that I’m suspicious of people who suddenly ‘convert’ from absolute ‘belief’ in monotheism (or atheism, or anything, really) to an equally adamant ‘belief’ in something else.

Maybe it’s just my perspective, having always possessed an inherent belief (or, rather, knowledge) in polytheistic deities, but it always seems a bit strange that people use the term ‘belief’ for something that they can change at a whim. I’m not saying it’s not possible to have some kind of epiphany and realise that you weren’t really sure, but this sudden decision to ‘believe’ something else? I’m just skeptical. Well, I’m skeptical in general, but I’m particularly skeptical about this.

Thoughts? Hope this wasn’t a ranty diatribe, I’m tired and at work. Nothing like the retail industry to bring out the negativity and irritation. 😛

Comic of the Week: CTRL+ALT+DEL

From here.

Comic of the Week: The Penny Arcade

From here.

Recipe: Vegan ‘Scrambled Eggs’

(Or, vegan scrambled tofu). Original recipe, so all credit to meeeeee (please). Serves 1-2, depending on how hungry you are!

Ingredients:
175g firm/pressed tofu
3-4 tsp soy sauce
soy milk
4 tsp nutritional yeast
2-3 medium-sized mushrooms (optional)
1tbsp vegetable oil

Method:

1. Mash the tofu in a bowl, using a fork, until it resembles the consistency of scrambled eggs
   

2. Add the soy sauce and nutritional yeast, mixing well, then add the mushrooms, mix in, and then add a splash of soy milk* until the tofu mixture begins to stick to itself
   

3. Place a frypan on high heat, grease using the oil, and stir tofu mixture constantly until it begins to brown slightly
   

4. Serve with toast and pepper, and enjoy.

*I used approx. 2tbsps

No photo’s this time, but it’s not the most photogenic recipe anyhow. Delicious, though!

Book Review: Prozac Nation

So, I finally got my hands on a copy of ‘Prozac Nation’ by Elizabeth Wurtzel. Let me just say, I really, really wanted to like this book. I endured reading it because, well, I’m right into the ‘memoirs of famous mentally-unstable women’ lately. But there’s a reason I use the quantifier “wanted”; no matter how hard I tried, I just really didn’t like this book.

Stylistically and technically, it’s not too bad; she uses the (somewhat typical) devices of unconventional syntax, punctuation and grammar in order to convey Wurtzel’s chaotic emotions over the course of the book. Some of it is quite creative, but it lacks the unique, creative analogies and metaphors of, say, Plath’s ‘The Bell Jar’, or the tangential reflections of Kaysen’s ‘Girl, Interrupted’. I know that it’s unfair to compare the 3 books, but it’s virtually impossible not to associated them, give their similar content. Wurtzel herself makes reference – perhaps a little conceitedly – to ‘The Bell Jar’, but in the end the lack of insight, and the completely self-indulgent nature of ‘Prozac Nation’ clearly sets them apart. Obviously, in a book that is more or less a memoir, introspection is to be expected; however, the book is less self-reflective and more narcissistic.

Which brings me to my major problem with the book; Wurtzel’s characterisation of herself (I don’t want to say Wurtzel herself, because I’ve never met her, obviously), and the fact that she has almost entirely replaced ‘plot’, pacing and narrative for extended self-pity and time-jumping whining. The entire structure of the book is basically trying to prove that Wurtzel has reason for being depressed (the fact that she admits that she ‘has no real reason for being depressed’ doesn’t qualify the fact that she spends a GREAT deal of the book trying to prove why she has a ‘right’ to be depressed, as though genuine mental illness requires an excuse). And this appears to be the sole aim of the 370 pages of self-pitying, self-indulgent drivel.

A lot of the reviews of this book seem to overlook Wurtzel’s blatant ‘woe is me, I’m so hard done by’ attitude in order to conclude that it’s an ‘important work’ because it depicts severe depression from the perspective of someone suffering it. I’m sorry, but there are a lot of better pieces out there (such as the Bell Jar) that depict the exact same thing, and with more insight and less whining. It’s pretty rare that I have to force myself to finish reading a book, but I was so incredibly irritated with Wurtzel and her narcissistic attention-seeking that, by the end of it, I was reading as fast as I can, purely in order to get it over and done with.

Overall, 4/10. Some good technical aspects, and 1 paragraph out of every 50 is interesting or insightful, but on the whole, the book drips with self-pity and attention-seeking self-indulgence.

Litha/Alban Hefin/Midsummer Altar

Close up of centre.

Full view.

And yeah, it’s a little late (considering we’re now approaching Lughnasadh…), but I kind of forgot to upload the pictures. And no pretty candlelit ones because my camera battery died.

Poem: Repetition

In certain months of every year
I get the same feeling

it’s the exact same feeling as the exact same time…
lastTHISyear

The years are passing (I think)
… but every year
this same
… odd

… déjà vu?
or is this the same year stuck on repeat?

over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Maybe we’re going in circles.
Though, it seems to me
(more likely)
that we aren’t moving at all

did I say we? me, myself and i
(wave goodbye
as you and your years
fly by)

These words, they’re déjà vu too,
written countless times, but I find –
find the right ones? no. – find they lose their
meaning,
once the moment’s passed

(don’t worry, it’ll be back.)

(it always come back)

(back to this)

And I’m back, it’s back, we’re back, to going;

Round
And
Round
And
Round.

10 backward, 1 step more? I don’t want to repeat a cliché, I get enough of the same, being stuck in Day after dAy after daY that has that feeling. The one I can’t escape.

Or maybe it’s just me.

I’ll remember this,
thisNOWTOMORROWALWAYSNEVER thisINFINITEFINITEETERNITY
and I’ll write a new poem, nextTHISyear
and it shall begin…

“In certain months of every year
I get the same feeling…”

13 Awesome Film Soundtracks

After my big long political rant (not that I have those very often, hahaha), here’s a nice light post of my recommendations for the top (instrumental/original) film soundtracks. So, the list doesn’t include ones that are basically just compilations of actual songs, though I may post a list like that later. And there’s 13 because these are the ones I can think of, offhand, and I like the number 13. 😛

• Lord of the Rings (TTT, FOTR, ROTK, in that order, I’m cheating and classifying them as one)
  

• King Arthur
  

• Braveheart
  

• Ned Kelly
  

• Band of Brothers (a television mini-series, but both the series and the soundtrack are too mind-blowingly fantastic to miss)
  

• Pirates of the Caribbean (CotBP)
  

• Amelie
  

• Firefly (ok, another television show, but it’s still awesome)
  

• The Piano
  

• Pride and Prejudice (the new version)
  

• Gladiator
  

• Van Helsing
  

• Chocolat

Obviously, I also love the above films/television show (with the exception of Braveheart. Emotionally, it’s very good and all, but the blatant, massive, terrible historical inaccuracies just got to be too much for me. And I can take a lot of artistic license, but there is a limit). So, go forth and listen and buy, my capitalist puppets! Mwahahah.

And I’ve successfully spent half an hour avoiding studying Latin. 😛

Comic of the Week: Oh My Gods!

From here. Sorry about the sporadic posting, I’m trying to spend more time backlogging thoughts and comics, so that I can just publish the posts on the fly.

The Problem With Science as a ‘kind-of’ Meta-Narrative

In a lot of ways, the ‘enlightening’ force of the post-modernist philosophical movement has a great deal to answer for. In the wake of the realisation that all values – including morals – are entirely subjective and mercurial, people then sought for a new meta-narrative (an overarching value that is applied to all of existence in order to create meaning), one that they could assert is definitive and concrete.

Our society adamantly maintains that science is that meta-narrative; and thus it is that we run into problems when faced with the reality that we still haven’t actually abandoned the moralistic (and, predominantly, religious) meta-narratives of the earlier part of the century. That is to say, due to being suspended between the ideals of a purely moral society and a purely ‘rational’ one, there is (obviously) blurring between the two when put into daily practice; the problem with this is that sometimes this overlap creates larger problems than one might consider.

Although something might be scientifically/logically desirable, the latent ‘moral’ codes we inherited from antecedent society tell us that it is repugnant. Now, the problem here is that, because we maintain that our society is purely ‘scientific’, we refuse to acknowledge that this repugnance comes from the moral meta-narrative, rather than the scientific. Therefore, in order to reconcile the two (apparently dichotomous) values, people erroneously try to change the science or logic in order to meet what is believed to be an appropriate moral response. On the surface, although this is irritating from a scientific perspective (any real proponent of science recoils in horror at the mere thought of trying to implement arbitrary changes to rules, purely in order to achieve the desired results), it could be worse, right? But consider, for a moment, the long term ramifications of this.

If logic becomes an arbitrary concept, determined by the ‘moral’ whims of society, it then becomes child’s play to manipulate scientific ‘fact’ and logic in order to meet the desires of any individual. The warping of the evidence of the fossil record to meet the beliefs of creationists is a classic example of this. Eventually, science will become as subjective and malleable (read: changeable to suit the desires and wants of any interested party) as ‘morals’.

Despite what everyone I present this theory to says, I’m not against using morals as a guiding principle in our society; they are necessary to prevent true chaos and anarchy. However, I wish people would acknowledge that we are neither solely logical, nor solely moral. Realistically, we vacillate between the two according to what is convenient, and what will achieve our ends at any particular moment. And once we mutate science into a malleable, subjective concept, it then becomes yet another tool for those in power; and if it is so changeable, how can you construct a valid argument for/against it? It becomes nothing more than another value that is entirely dependent on opinion.

If we want to convincingly argue that our society does use science as a consistent meta-narrative, then we have to stick by it, and not disregard it whenever it’s inconvenient. If that seems too amoral, then we need to stop claiming to be a solely ‘logical’ and ‘scientific’ society, because, the reality is, we aren’t. Even better, perhaps we could stop looking for this one, ‘defining’ meta-narrative, and accept that there is no one system/value/principle/idea that can be consistently applied in a way that is acceptable to all. Because this weird ‘kind-of’ veneration of science (when it’s convenient, at least), is just merging into the old meta-narratives, and is thus dooming itself to the same perceived obsolescence as it’s predecessors.

Note: this post was actually inspired by a discussion about the moral ideology represented in Nolan’s The Dark Knight with one of my few delightfully intelligent acquaintances. The conversation will be re-posted here at some point.