Posts Tagged ‘silence’

Praise to the Blood-Moon Mani Mundilfari!

September 28, 2015 3 comments

You see us in our suffering, our joy, and our grief

In the quiet times, the loud times

The midst of Nött’s dance

You see us in our raging, our fury, our love

In the boisterous times, the soothing times

The steps we dance behind Her

You come o’er our heads tonight

Tinged with blood and Full

Your Charge glides graceful, dancing with Darkness

We mark Your dance, Your passage

Pour out offerings, words and drink

For You, Bright, Bloody, Glorious Mani!

Tonight, as You look upon us, millions look back to You

Some with tears, others wonder

Silence and prayer alike are spoken to Your Presence

Thank You for Your toil, O Bright One

For Your tireless Charge, the Tide and Turning,

Hail the Bright Moon, the Bloody Moon, O Mani Mundilfari!


Redefining Words and Claiming Space

January 22, 2014 13 comments

After reading the polytheism section of this post, and more recently here, that John Halstead has written over and over again, I have to throw my hands up. Granted, I disagreed with him vehemently on a great many points before he worked on this post and wrote an addendum to it, but I still deeply disagree with him over what I view as one of the most egregious forms of twisting words.

When someone speaks up and misuses words they need to be checked. It is wrong to take words out of their historic, and current context, and to twist them so that the words mean what you believe. Polytheism does not equate or equal panentheism or pantheism, which is more or less what I see John Halstead trying to say with his supposed paradox that “The Gods are many…but one.”

Nowhere in his first piece does he quote polytheists, now living or dead. He notes in his addendum there are folks in the polytheist, reconstructionist, and other camps that directly disagree with him on this point, communities that use this word, and yet goes ahead and writes what he wishes as polytheism is supposed to relate to his Neo-Paganism. I absolutely do not recognize what he quotes as polytheism as such; I do not ‘use’ my Gods, nor are They psychological constructs.

Mr. Halstead quotes from Waldron in The Sign of the Witch “From a neo-Pagan perspective polytheism is not the belief in a world of separate and distinct Gods but is rather an acceptance of the principle that reality and the divine is multiple, fragmented and diverse.” Okay, this may be a neo-Pagan perspective, but I do not find it polytheist at all. So far as I have seen, read, and understood to be true, polytheists treat and believe our Gods as complete in and of Themselves; They are not a fragment of some whole. Nor are They facets of a jewel. To use the metaphor, each God and Goddess is a jewel unto Themselves, and a great many facets or a single facet of Them may be seen, known, and worshiped by a person.

The question of “What the hell is Mr. Halstead getting at? What does John Halstead understand about Neo-Paganism, let alone anything regarding Paganism?” are some questions that have come to mind a few times as I have read his works, but never so much as here. How in the Nine Worlds is his idea of polytheism supposed to actually square with anything resembling polytheism such as it is lived by its adherents? How is it supposed to square with historical polytheism? All I see in his examples are panentheism, and monism. These are not polytheist. The quotes he has given are not polytheist. “The radical plurality of the self”? I have no idea what his point is here. Polytheist religion recognizes a plural Self, i.e. the Soul Matrix of the Northern Tradition. Polytheism has plurality built into it.

If Mr. Halstead’s point is solely psychological, i.e. ‘psychological polytheism’ then I believe has has missed his mark by not being more clear about what he is trying to define, and using improper words to try to define it. Religion helps shape a person and society’s psychology, its understanding of states of good or ill health, in the mental, physical, and spiritual realms. However, religion is not psychology itself. Nor should psychology, in my view, seek or be sought to supplant religion. If I have misunderstood his intent, I apologize. If I have misunderstood or misconstrued his meaning, I hope to have better definitions and descriptions written by him in the future without twisting words which I use as primary personal descriptors, such as polytheism. Were Mr. Halstead writing solely from his own view with at least something recognizable behind the words he wishes to redefine, and not using a word that people already use as a primary identifier, myself included, perhaps I would have less of an issue.

“According to the theologian, William Hamilton, the gods of Neo-Pagan polytheism are not to be believed in, but are “to be used to give shape to an increasingly complex and variegated experience of life.” (quoted by Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon). “

So his idea of polytheism is that They are to be used, to be a tool to help us shape, and therefore also understand the world around us. Yet we are not to believe in Them, even as They are supposed to be used to shape and understand the experiences of life? When I make a woodcarving I do not stop believing in the tools nor their effect on the wood any more than I stop believing or believe that the wood came to me as-is or was grown in the shape I bought it in. That wood had a life before it was cut and shaped. That wood was part of a tree, and that tree had roots in the ground, and that ground had an existence of its own well before I ever set foot upon the ground or happened upon that cut of wood from that tree. So too the tools and their components, which came from other places, and had to be fashioned into the shape they are now.

The Gods, then, are cast only into the form of the tool, rather than the ground. In the form of the woodcarving rather than the tree from which the wood came. I fully believe the Gods can be the ground, the tree, the tool, the toolmaker, the carver, the carved, and so on. In other words the Gods can be in and/or be each part of the process (the process itself may have God(s) and Goddesses over and/or involved in this, too), to say They are merely to be used as a tool denies Their actual involvement and reduces Them to an object to be manipulated. It takes away what is essential to a polytheist perspective of the Gods: personhood. Not that They are human or human-like, necessarily, but it denies Their Being and Self, as independent of us. It denies one of the basic understandings that polytheism, in any form I have practiced or been exposed to, teaches: the Gods are Beings Unto Themselves.

I do not use my Gods; I use a computer. I may ask a God or Goddess to lend Their power to a spell, or to intercede on my or someone else’s behalf, but intercessory prayer does not equal use. I do not use my Gods in ritual; rather, I pray to Them and ask for Their Presence. This point is perhaps the largest point of contention I have when anyone uses the word ‘use’ in regards to the Gods, or to Ancestors or spirits.

If I say “I use Bob on First Street when I have car trouble”, it does not diminish Bob’s personhood nor does it treat him as an end. I acknowledge his role in my life and that he is a person I trust. Saying “I use Brighid when I need healing” does not acknowledge the personhood of the Gods and instead makes the God’s identity and relationship one has with Them about their use.

It matters little if it is a Wiccan talking about ‘using’ Gods in ritual, or an atheist Pagan about ‘using’ Gods to understand the world, or themselves. If one is using this language, then they are talking about ‘using’ Beings, which I believe have agency, self-awareness, understanding, and sentience. They are talking about Beings I consider to be worthy of worship. They are talking about ‘using’ Beings from traditions which I believe to be holy and good. When the language of ‘use’ (as in using tools like an athame or wand, screwdriver or saw) is used in regards to the Gods it is disrespecting both the Gods and the traditions that hold Them as dear, holy, and worthy of worship.

One cannot utterly separate the Gods from the traditions or cultures which give/gave worship to Them. Understanding and knowledge of the Gods are informed by the traditions, cultures. The Gods inform the religions, cultures, and traditions in turn whether by mystic experience and/or simply by being the basis of the religion. This does not mean that you need to be a member of my particular Northern Tradition religion to worship the Norse/Germanic Gods, or to do it right. What it does mean is that one must acknowledge that to worship the Norse/Germanic Gods one needs to understand the culture and traditions out of which the Gods of this/these traditions come. It means that one must come to the religion with its background culture(s), tradition(s), etc. rather than trying to make it, and an understanding of and relationship with the Gods, come to you.

Taking the Gods out of these contexts renders the understanding of Them incomplete. When Ms. Krasskova or I, or another author say ‘take on an indigenous mindset’ part of this means is that one must meet the Gods on Their own terms rather than our preconceived notions, ideas, and beliefs of how our relationship should be. “Odin is the God of Wisdom” is an easy phrase to make, and while it may be true, is not the whole of all He is, and may or may not reflect my relationship with Him at all. I and other polytheists who worship Odin can come to independent understandings and relationships and so on with Him while believing Him as a God independent of our existence, and agree on basic clear concepts, on to deep details of theology. This does not necessarily make established tradition(s), culture(s), and so on, the do-all end-all of any relationship with a God, Goddess, Ancestor, spirit, etc. (although it may) but it will inform, shape, define, and further develop one’s understanding of these Beings, and the ways in which one relates to, worships, etc. Them. The traditions are the bones on which the meat of the relationship are built.

“It is the reality experienced by men and women when Truth with a capital ‘T’ cannot be articulated according to a single grammar, a single logic or a single symbol system.” (David Miller, The New Polytheism).

If you cannot articulate truth, or even try to articulate Truth, then your logic and symbol system have failed. We can debate the nature of reality according to different belief systems, and the extent that different polytheist traditions agree or disagree with one another on these things. Yet, without a single grammar, logic, or symbol system, our understanding of the Gods falls apart. Without coming to understand our Gods on Their terms, as best as we can, we are leaving our understanding of Them woefully inadequate.

Without a single grammar, logic, and symbol system, understanding the Northern Tradition, and most polytheism, falls apart. You cannot understand the Northern Tradition through the Kemetic, nor Roman polytheism. To say otherwise is saying that one can understand and speak German fluently after having done so with Greek. Are there some universal truths? If there are, (and to avoid speaking for all polytheists I will say if), they are broad, such as: the Gods are Beings Unto Themselves; respect is given for the Gods, Ancestors, and/or spirits; hospitality to people, Gods, Ancestors, and spirits; offerings are given in respect to the wishes, traditions, customs, etc. to the Gods, Ancestors, and spirits. The appearance of respect, for instance, will differ between traditions, customs of certain groups within a given tradition, the Gods worshiped by a group, the relationship between the people and their Gods, Ancestors and spirits as a whole and individually, and many, many other factors I could not hope to account for. Yet, on a baseline, there are similar beliefs, even if the shape and effects of those beliefs differ tradition to tradition, group to group, and person to person.

Polytheism is not just a term or a description; it is an identifier that an entire religious community uses to understand itself. It is an identifier people use as means to express who and what they are to others. It has an accepted meaning, Trying to dilute the meaning of this word is an attempt to dilute the meaning and understanding with which this word is used as an identifier. To try to redefine polytheism as something it is not is an insult at the least, and if enough people start using it in the way Mr. Halstead would care to, actively will produce problems in communication.

In the second post linked above, Mr. Halstead seeks to “’re-god’ the archetypes”. I take great pains to say that this is not polytheism. It is fine that he seeks to do it, but it is not polytheism. I believe that he, seeking to put the numinous back into archetypes, rather than Gods into archetypes, is a fine goal for him to do. However, it is not polytheism as I understand it, practice it, believe in, or acknowledge. It is perfectly fine that he believes, understands, practices, acknowledges, etc. in a religious context different than I. What is not fine, and what I will not stand for, is his appropriation of the word polytheism, polytheist, etc. to suit his own ends. What he describes and espouses is nothing I recognize as such.

He rightly points out that his beliefs are a choice. So too, is identifying as a polytheist, and embracing the beliefs therein. As he points out in the post, these are his beliefs. I am not attacking his beliefs, or him, please let me make that perfectly clear.

The spectrum of religious belief does exist on a spectrum, but rather than a singular spectrum, I believe it extends from many, of which extreme psychologism to extreme transcendentalism is just one. Religious beliefs are also a series of continuum on which belief and disbelief are polar opposites. These are tools which can help us understand where we lie in relating to the Gods, Ancestors, spirits, ourselves, the world around us, etc. You can be a polytheist that disbelieves their own experiences in the extreme just as you can be a be an atheist Pagan and fully believe that your experiences of the Gods, such as They are, are real. The scale is only as useful as how accurate and accepted it is.
Mr. Halstead writes “The spectrum of belief regarding the nature of divinity ranges from extreme psychologism to extreme transcendentalism. I fall more toward one end of the spectrum. Others fall more toward the other end. But we are on the same spectrum. For example, whatever they believe about the ultimate nature of divinity, I would wager most people can acknowledge that the experience of divinity is to a certain extent paradoxical, in that divinity can at least seem to be both “in” us and “outside” of us, both a part of us and also other than us. ”

Well, yes, when we are placed on that spectrum of course polytheists are in a very different spectrum from him. In a great many places our various religious positions do not line up. We may be able to agree that ‘the experience of divinity is to a certain extent paradoxical’. In my case, the idea that the Gods can be cosmically as well as personally present is one place where I could say the experience of a God, such as Odin, is powerful and mind-boggling.

Recognizing that I may have attributes within me, or parts of me that resonate with Odin does not mean that Odin is in me. It means that these parts, attributes, etc. resonate with Him. Odin is Odin, Odin is within Himself. When He gave breath to Ask and Embla it was a gift, one which did not cease to be His breath or a gift, but much like my parents’ DNA, that gift of life and existence is part of me. I am, in the end, external to Him. For me, this in particular is not a paradox. It makes sense, since He is not I, and I am not Him. My parents gave me life, and their DNA is bound up in me, but I am not them, nor they I, and while there are parts of me that resonate with them and parts of my persona that match up very well with them, I am not them, and vice versa. Finding the nature of the Gods in ourselves is not a paradox. I can look to a great many things, fictional and non-fictional, in a variety of media, and ‘find myself’ or aspects of myself, things that resonate with me. So too may I see the Gods in the world around me even while recognizing that my personal experience of ‘if I see three pairs of crows it may mean Odin is present’ may either be inaccurate (i.e. it is just 3 pairs of crows, congrats) or simply a personal experience for/with me alone.

Devotional polytheists have contributions to the larger Pagan communities that we may make. Whether we can make these contributions depends largely on whether or not we are given space to speak in it from our own beliefs, experiences, and traditions. Our contributions will depend on whether or not our words and identifiers are respected. I do own the word polytheist the same way that I own the words cis-gender male. The same way that I own the word pansexual. These are identifiers. I do not make these on my own, since meaning is not made in a bubble. These words are accepted by the communities that employ them, and in larger society as meaning certain things. They are, in general, respected for what they are, even if not fully agreed upon. If Neo-Pagans like Mr. Halstead are going to try to include us, respect for us starts with respect for our identifying words, our beliefs, traditions, and experiences. We do not have to agree, that is not at issue here. At issue is basic respect.

Mr. Halstead says that using the words ‘polytheist’ and ‘polytheism’ in psychologized and naturalized senses has precedent. Yet, even he admits there is better precedent for how I use it: “there’s better precedent for using the word to mean a belief in gods as literal, independent, sentient beings”. So while he writes that he sympathizes, he will continue to misuse one of the primary words by which I identify myself. There are two definitions for sympathy, and I am not sure which one rankles me more in this context: “feelings of pity for someone else’s misfortune”, or “understanding between people; common feeling” (OED). What this tells me is that either he is unmotivated by his sympathy to change his behavior, or in the face of it, he is ignoring something that wrongs others so he can use words as he sees fit.

If someone is misusing a label or term, they are misusing a label or term. His belief that “that saying Margot Adler — or Doreen Valiente — is not a polytheist is a little like saying Paul was not a Christian.” No, actually, it is stating a truth. From what writings I have seen, and with my experience of having been on a small panel with Ms. Adler, neither one of these women are polytheists such as I use, understand, or acknowledge the term. The quotes given are monist, panentheistic and/or pantheistic. None of the quotes acknowledge the Gods as Beings Unto Themselves, nor even that They are differentiated from one another. Beliefs like “all the Gods are one God” and the like are not polytheist. There is no belief in many Gods to be had here. It is not polytheist. It does not make any of the contributions these women have made to Paganism and Neo-Paganism less, it simply means they are not polytheist. These women are Pagan (or Neo-Pagan if you will) but they are not polytheist. So no, this is nothing like saying Paul was not a Christian. It is saying Paul was not a Lutheran.

Whether or not trying to erase or silence polytheist voices was Mr. Halstead’s intent, it is no longer an issue for me; it is what he and like-minded people are actively engaged in doing that concerns me. If you wish to identify as a Neo-Pagan and the larger Pagan communities accepts this I will not stand against them; that is their decision. If the larger Pagan and Neo-Pagan communities accept atheist and humanist Pagans as Pagans and/or Neo-Pagans, that is their business and their right.  ‘Polytheist’ and ‘polytheism’ are not just ‘something I found’ or just words that ‘capture’ what I believe. ‘Polytheism’ and ‘polytheist’ are words that identify who and what I am. It is an identifier of the communities and people I find common cause with. It is a religious identification. These words should be used with respect to and for the people, communities, and religions they represent.

In sharing his beliefs Mr. Halstead does not silence my beliefs or erase my community. His attempted co-opting of my words, most especially my primary identifiers, does. His insistence in using these identifiers as he has done and continues to, does attempt erasure and silence. Setting up his standards as norms for my community are further attempts at erasure and silence. His use of the words we primarily identify ourselves with in the larger Pagan community on an inter and intrafaith website decreases our ability to effectively define ourselves. Twisting the words ‘polytheism’ and ‘polytheist’ to mean something they do not dilutes their usefulness as words, silences our effective use of those words, and erases our identity along with it.

Update: My thanks to James Stovall for being a sounding board, and for the example with Bob in the middle of this piece. He helped me think on the term ‘use’, and how it can be used in a sentence without the loss of personhood, and with respect to the person.

Odin Project: Day 8

November 8, 2012 Leave a comment

Give gifts in good measure | sticks to flame,

Love for love and friendship true;

Power is found | in truth and work

Wherever your Wyrd is woven


Listen well when | wisdom is found

Seek with ceaseless searching,

Reckon mercy | and wrath

measure well each choice


Speak what must be | spoken in the moment

And silence when it must be kept;

Wisdom oft is heard | with an opening

And known when it is said


April 24, 2011 4 comments

I can’t stress enough how valuable I have found meditation.  I have been doing no-mind meditation for the last week or so, as I can, and each time I leave it with a sense of profound peace.  Today I lay in front of my altar, and just breathed deep, letting thoughts pass.  When I finally got up, I thought “I wonder if I got down to no-mind”, and that was when it hit me that I had.  The passage of time seemed to take forever, yet I was only down for about fifty minutes.  The deep breathing put me into a peaceful, passive state, and I found a lot really extraneous or ridiculous thoughts, from wondering if the candle would be okay (it’s a pillar candle about elbow to wrist high) to asking “Am I there yet?”.

As the cacophony died down, I felt myself just slip slowly into silence, felt my breathing slow deeper, felt the world around me contract into darkness.  It seemed like I was there forever just floating, breathing, blood circulating, everything being as it should, and me, just being.  I felt very present in that moment, and yet not.  I was and was not, I was there and I was elsewhere.  That is something like what the Ginnungagap feels like.  Like it is nowhere and everywhere when you experience it…and yet the experience seems to stretch on forever.  I don’t know if my experience of no-mind and the Ginnungagap are the same thing in itself, but the experience of each is profound.  I feel very-much at peace, at ease, and my muscles feel loose.  I feel good, and like I’ve shed some emotional baggage.

My 1st Day of Silence

April 21, 2011 Leave a comment

Today was rather nice, though I could not have a complete day of silence.  I had a final exam to make up; I have no words that could praise the generosity of my teachers’ patience with my absenteeism this semester.  That surgery and its recovery time did one hell of a number on my time in the classroom and my schoolwork.  I think my grades will make it through just fine though.

For my first Day of Silence I did a lot of hanging around my folks.  Odin seemed amused that I could not communicate as I would have liked to.  I did a lot of gesticulating that my folks had an introduction to when I did my Vow of Silence for the Nine Days I hung on Yggdrasil last year.  I know very basic American Sign Language (not more than a few basic gestures and the alphabet) and my Mom used to work at a group home before she had me, so overall we can talk in a very stunted way.  It made me appreciate finally being able to talk to Dad once midnight hit.  The silence has taught me in just a little bit how much I rely on talking, and how listening can help others.  Although I could not say anything, listening to Mom or Dad talk about their troubles without interruption or judgment helped them open up to me.  Attentive listening is more powerful than I give it credit at times.

I printed up my horarium after I got back from taking my test and ran smack into a problem: reality.  I was scrambling most of the day trying to get back to it and fulfill it.  I was worrying about it as I hung out with my folks, going over “What was I supposed to do now?” when Odin finally interrupted my thoughts.  His words amounted to, “This is isn’t why you’re doing this in the first place.  You’re supposed to do this to grow closer to Me, not run yourself into the ground for what you ‘should’ have done.  Have you never set a schedule aside for something more important?”  I then asked Him what was more important and He openly laughed at me and said “You think I wanted this thing to rule you?  I wanted you to have a tool, not be one.  Do you really think you’ll have anything like healing if you just hole up and pray all day?  There are people out there, your parents, you know, your Ancestors? -that you should be with.  What good is a Vow of Silence if you’re by yourself talking to no one besides yourself?”

Well that frustrated me a bit.  This is, though, one of the advantages I feel I have in Paganism that I never really did have in Catholicism: I couldn’t ask demanding questions like these of Yahweh and get any satisfying answers.  I can ask Odin what He means, and I might not get a response, but I know in one way or another He has heard me, and in His own way, is answering.  More often than not with Yahweh I had deafening silence, and a definitive lack of presence.  Back then I took that as “not being faithful enough”, but really, Yahweh just was not answering.  I would sit in devout prayer with my rosary, or Bible, or just my hands clasped, rocking back and forth as I prayed.  Only a few times did I really feel the touch of His Presence, and those were few and far between in my life.  Some might say I feel Odin’s Presence too much now…but I would rather hear a God too many times than not hear Him enough.

So I asked Him, “Hey, what the hell is that supposed to mean?”  He answered me curtly “What good does a Vow of Silence do you when you’re all alone?  Sure, it can help you shut up and keep your mind on me, but part of that Vow is a challenge to not speak to others, to listen to others.  If you didn’t have the temptation to speak, how would you learn to listen to others half so well?”  Well, I had to admit I guess that made sense.  But why not just have me “hole up and pray by myself”?  “That’s not your lesson for today, which you would have seen if you had actually read your Runes like your schedule says you should.”  Yeah, He’s got me there.  I may not like all the answers I get, but Odin doesn’t tend to bullshit me a lot.  He’s very to-the-point a lot of times, and sometimes has this tone to His Voice like “Why did it take you this long to figure it out?” or “Do I really need to explain this?”  I hope He gets some amusement out of the deal, because He must have a lot of patience to deal with the questions.

So what did I get out of my Day of Silence?  Well, beyond the idea that I’ll be sticking to my horarium a lot more closely, I may also want to take a second look at it and see if I haven’t overscheduled my days so that I’ve eliminated human contact.  I had a lot of limited human contact when I was living in the dorms; I didn’t see a lot of people outside of class, or the Society on the weekends.  A lot of my life revolved around spirituality.  Perhaps what I needed the horarium for was to balance my spirituality moreso than my mundane life.  I’ll be doing my best to work with my horarium, and adjusting it as I need to fit my life, and my spiritual needs.  Like Odin said, it should be the tool, not I.

Something else I learned from today is really the value of listening.  Especially with other people.  There were times that I wanted to say something, or make a joke that I simple couldn’t because of my Vow.  It made me think about how much I use humor to deflect, how I use words to stop things from affecting me.  In having to sit there and listen, and feel the affect of the words, it made me think of how I relate to other people, especially when my folks sat with me in the basement and talked.  I could find myself at times when things would get uncomfortable reaching for a joke, or for a deflective or mean statement.

Something my Mom told me last night has been stewing in my head in relation to this: “Truth without love is brutality.”  When I told people what I saw as the truth, did I say it in love?  Sugar-coating is one thing; I find it often strays into lying, or lying by obfuscation.  The Runes talk to me in a blunt, realistic way, and that is how I read them to others.  Yet when I talked about personal truths, especially ones that I felt I knew a lot on, I took a hard and cutting edge to my truth.  In reality there was a lot more insecurity than I liked to put out there; after all these were things I was supposed to know about.  What was the use of saying “I know x, y, and z.  Person a, b, or c probably doesn’t.” other than to prop up my ego or protect my insecurities?  Why could I not just have said “I know x, y, and z.” and left it at that?  There was no reason to go further, to hurt another person.  I know that in my mind.  The key is knowing it in the moment.  Besides what I’ve already written, that really is what the Day of Silence has taught me, to begin to recognize when I get defensive, and when that happens, to recognize when I am going to lash out.  There’s a lot less judgment on me than I perceive, and that is probably the key to these insecurities: fear of judgment.  Perhaps the more I work in silence, and at least my own thoughts, the deeper I’ll work into this.  I’ll know if I am starting to learn the lesson when I stop myself from saying something hurtful in defense of those insecurities.

%d bloggers like this: