|
Post by E on May 12, 2009 1:25:05 GMT -5
I recently have sent out some invites to some interesting people who seemed to run a coarse like our own.
Today I received a reply from a group that seemed most interested in us. After "exploring" our site the lady said that we have too many "supernatural" tones or some such. What does that mean?? I thought supernatural meant like aliens. Anyway, she then told me that "spells, spirituality" etc do not appeal to her group (Atheists, Freethinkers, Brights).
So... I just want some input. How would you describe or classify us?
|
|
|
Post by MsAriel on May 12, 2009 6:45:46 GMT -5
An Eclectic mix of people who enjoy each others company and who like intellectual discussions almost no matter the subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on May 12, 2009 8:51:04 GMT -5
I would classify us as a loosely-pagan social community... I say social because we don't really have a lot of in-depth discussions anymore, and I'm not sure we've had a whole hell of a lot of intellectual rigor in awhile. I mean no offense by this - but we are primarily a social network.
What I would not classify us as is anything the Atheists, Free-thinkers and Brights would remotely be interested in. Yes, there are spiritual atheists - but "Brights" and Free-thinkers are generally not of that stripe. (As a side note, I find those terms so pretentious. "Brights", as if the rest of us are "dim" because we're stupid enough to believe in such superstitious codswollop. Free-thinkers, because anyone who might believe in the spiritual is clearly incapable of thinking freely. How could you possible be intelligent and still believe in such tripe, afterall? (And I've actually been asked that question.) Just goes to show that you don't have to be religious to be a douche...)
Anyway...
A quick jaunt to dictionary.com gives us the following for supernatural:
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
Clearly a Pagan board, one which deals with - to some degree - the existence of deity, spirits (of both the ghost and animist variety), magic, astrology, divination and/or other things of the "occult" falls into this notion.
Arguably, anything that exists outside of the purview of science or "natural law" is considered supernatural or preternatural. I would, personally, disagree with this definition because I believe that spirits, ghosts, gods and magic all fall within the natural order of things; however, I also recognize that that is not the standard definition/understanding and would not expect to find agreement of such statements outside of naturalistic spirtual venues.
Aliens are often considered "supernatural" but some, in the X-Files vein of things, but, arguably, would be more naturalistic than gods and ghosts because if aliens exist then they would be natural creatures, albeit from another planet, and the technology that they use to get here would be scientific/technological and not magical.
In other words - anything which would be classified, in a story, as fantasy could be equated with supernatural but things which are sci-fi, while sometimes fantastical, are still, to some degree, based on scienfitic theory and probability and, thus, are of the natural order. (Aliens, time travel, worm holes, quantum theory, etc, etc... )
That said, I highly doubt that the people to whom you talked to would be interested in either...
So, yes - but most standards of reckoning, the things which are sometimes discussed on, nad which are, ostensibly, the focus of this board would be considered of the realm of the supernatural.
(On a side note, I always find it amusing that I pick up quirks of language based on what book I am reading at any given time... )
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on May 12, 2009 11:07:38 GMT -5
Well...the fact that an atheist isn't especially interested in posting here, or in suggesting to her friends that they do so, doesn't in the least surprise me. Though, I'm in agreement with Blackrose that we are not exactly a Pagan board any more; originally, we ostensibly had that in common, so we still organize around that by habit. When we gain new members, though, they will probably be attracted to us for our Pagan-oriented insights (if any), or for the opportunity to meet people online who are, or were once, Pagans, Heathens, or others of "earth-based" or perhaps "reconstructionist" or what-have-you alternative "religion". See I can't even describe us without using scare quotes. Incidentally, the term "Bright" is in fact pretty pretentious, and as such is actually used by only a minority within the atheist, secularist, non-believer community. When the term was coined it was widely recognized as a social clunker note. For every in-your-face, smarter-than-thou atheist, there are ten atheists you don't even know about because they don't talk about it. Partly because they don't want to be mistaken for the other type. These quieter types will not usually use the term "Bright". However, they aren't likely to post on a "Pagan" bulletin board either. The main problem as I see it is that there are rather few ways to describe us that would be anything like accurate - say "Pagan" board and people will immediately think of the worst type of fluffy (ditto for "alternative", which will draw "New Age Christians" out of the woodwork); say "freethinker" and atheists will come by, see posts about anything supernatural, and be disappointed (and hence unlikely to register); say "Heathen" and people will read "Norse only"; say "magic" and people will...no, that last is too terrible to contemplate. Describe us honestly, and we run the risk of being viewed as an Internet clique that is not even really open to new members. We might have to work on that.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on May 12, 2009 14:33:04 GMT -5
Describe us honestly, and we run the risk of being viewed as an Internet clique that is not even really open to new members. I'm cool with that... *egrin* Oh, if we must... Seriously, though... we're open to new members. We're just... selective... yeah... that's it... selective...
|
|
|
Post by E on May 12, 2009 15:39:18 GMT -5
Okay, so I can see that. I suppose I was just taken off guard with the whole "you are too spiritual and too religious" statement. BR thank you for clarifying some. Den, I'm glad you shed some light on the atheistic path.
So I guess I'd like to put this up to vote.
I seriously think we need some new members that are willing to infuse some new perspective here to pop off some discussion on topics we have not touched lately. As you said BR, we have become a net clique, which is good for our friendships, but I'd like to see us have more to talk about than just "Hey Myannn, what's up?".
What do you think?
Who should we be looking for?
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on May 13, 2009 18:57:25 GMT -5
Well...I'm for serious-minded people, be they Pagans or freethinkers, and the former seem more likely to take an interest here. Sure, I'd like to avoid the fluff, but the Frog Prince thing comes to mind, about to find your prince you might have to kiss a few frogs. We might have to cope with a few silly fluffy topics now and then in order to polish up some real gems. Not so interested in becoming a New Age board or any like that, though. Not really into becoming an "alt.Christian" board either, though if someone of that stripe who is thoughtful and interesting comes along they're welcome in my book. Be nice to have a few more Heathens who are into serious historical research, though if I wanted a board that was limited to that, I'm sure there are some already. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to joke around and to post about one's mundane life in threads such as Good Morning. But it might be nice to do the other thing too. If I recall correctly, the original Grove managed to grow itself by advertising on sites such as Witchvox. That's likely to give us a good supply of frogs to kiss, but reference the above.
|
|
|
Post by E on May 17, 2009 13:41:41 GMT -5
Should we put up an ad on witchvox?
I am not sure I have ever even been there, but anything will aid in our quest to grow.
|
|
|
Post by E on May 18, 2009 22:20:10 GMT -5
I think I was aiming for a more "descriptive" discussion. I think that telling someone, "I'm Pagan" is such an umbrella term. It is so hard to describe our community as a whole, so I'd like to know from each individual dynamic within our community. You know? Like, How would you describe us. Ms A hit it pretty well, as did BR. When I try to describe us I tend to hit writer's block for a moment, then come out with something along the lines of, "an eclectic group of people ranging from atheists to ritualists".
This may seem like a repeat of our Road thread, but it isn't. I want to know what you think of us as a community. The whole community.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on May 19, 2009 15:47:44 GMT -5
Hm...a varied group maybe...but I'd avoid the word "eclectic", since these days it essentially means "eclectic Wiccan". That may be the one thing we don't have.
|
|
|
Post by radiance on Feb 25, 2010 10:29:49 GMT -5
Why does eclectic now mean eclectic Wiccan only? I tend to classify myself as eclectic Pagan if I'm asked, although I really dislike labels they do have their uses. I follow my own path and do take things from other paths that work for me or "speak" to me. For instance we are planning on building a "sweat lodge" in our back yard and using it for cleansing and other spiritual uses. In this area there are people that are horrified that we would build one without asking an elder's permission. My spirituality is my own and I do not feel the need to ask for approval to conduct my own ceremonies in my own style.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 25, 2010 10:56:41 GMT -5
Interesting. I do sort of associate eclectic with being primarily Wiccan...I suppose since eclectics tend to also borrow from BTW, or the solitary Wicca teachings, it's easier to call them eclectic Wiccans. The only real problem I have with some of the eclectics is when cultural appropriation or whitewashing occurs. I think if you (generic) are going to borrow from another culture it should be done so respectfully and within the rules and customs of the cultural you are professing to admire. These religions are sacred to their people, and I don't think just anyone is entitled to them. If a person is really called to a specific ceremony or Deity outside of their culture, and feels some level of admiration, then they should be more than willing to do everything they can to honor that in the appropriate ways. From a Lakota website: individuals and groups involved in "the New Age Movement," in "the men's movement," in "neo-paganism" cults and in "shamanism" workshops all have exploited the spiritual traditions of our Lakota people by imitating our ceremonial ways and by mixing such imitation rituals with non-Indian occult practices in an offensive and harmful pseudo-religious hodgepodge; and ... the absurd public posturing of this scandalous assortment of psuedo-Indian charlatans, "wannabes," commercial profiteers, cultists and "New Age shamans" comprises a momentous obstacle in the struggle of traditional Lakota people for an adequate public appraisal of the legitimate political, legal and spiritual needs of real Lakota people; and .... this exponential exploitation of our Lakota spiritual traditions requires that we take immediate action to defend our most precious Lakota spirituality from further contamination, desecration and abuse; . Commodifying Buddhism As I recently told reporter Vanessa Hua, "Mainstream American culture appropriates whatever cultural artifacts it can digest, and racial justice is hard for most people to swallow.".... So shoppers, enticed into the store by the dragon print shirt, leave with a Buddha bracelet to match, unaware that they are trivializing more than a symbol of religious identification, but a very personal, sacred aspect of religious prayer. About the sweat lodges deaths“The newage, pyramid-scheming, scam artist crammed 21 people into a plastic sweatlodge. In the hot, wet dark with the man who had no idea how to lead an Indian ceremony, and no connection to any culture that could have taught him how (or told him this was a really bad idea), they sweated for two hours… till two were dead, three were unconscious, and everyone else went to the hospital. Hazmat teams and crime scene tape now surround the site. Native American ceremonial people from the area are saying that, by imitating a ceremony he was not trained to perform, this newage plastic shaman killed these people. I agree. They used materials in this fake ceremony that should not be used, they used things that were physically and spiritually dangerous. They payed $9,000 for a sad death at the hands of a greedy con man.” Wild Hunt Culturally, we feel rootless as well. Dissatisfied with mainstream (generally white) American culture, more people, neopagans included, are seeking connection with other cultures as a substitute for strip malls, reality television, and the aggressive competition associated with hyperindividualism. Unfortunately, this often results in varying degrees of cultural appropriation, in which an individual draws whatever isolated elements of a culture’s practices they prefer, while ignoring the context provided by what they’ve left behind. (emphasis mine)
|
|
|
Post by radiance on Feb 25, 2010 12:02:50 GMT -5
The sweat lodge or Inyapi, as they call it, does not belong only to the Lakota peoples, my husband is Cree and has been Scapayose (fire keeper and elder's assistant) at many sweats. I grew up with a sauna in my yard that was not used spiritually. There is evidence of sweats or saunas, if you prefer, in some European cultures. My heritage is very mixed so I feel few qualms about "appropriating" cultures as so many are a part of me.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 25, 2010 12:22:48 GMT -5
Oh, I wasn't trying to say that YOU were appropriating any SPECIFIC culture. I was just highlighting instances where certain cultures feel they are being exploited. I did notice that you were from Canada, and that you could very well be of an indigenous culture. The sweat lodge deaths SHOULD be something that people are aware of, and you and your husband probably know this better than most. The message in it is that though a person may feel entitled to partake in whichever religious beliefs they chose, (because it's public property?) that doesn't mean they should. Especially if they haven't taken the time to properly research and explore the surrounding culture and practices. I am well-aware that sweat lodges (or something similar) has been a part of many religious structures, including proto-European shamantics. I wonder, then, why so many pagans of European descent chose to emulate the Native American practices rather then their own ancestral ones. Is it lack of information? I'm not against going against the waves, rebelling a bit, and doing things 'you're way', as long as there is still a semblance of honor and respect to the culture that one is dipping into. Please don't take this as a personal attack. We just get a little long-winded here.
|
|