#assumption of some supernatural and/or divine importance

[gloriousmonsters]

screw the current 'let's rehab the Gerudo by uhhhh making them really want to suck up to the Hylians and they super hate Ganondorf and disown him now'. give me back the enthusiastic Ganondorf fans who don't gaf about Hylians unless they win a gym membership from OoT

[creature-wizard]

I'm pretty much the same, but sometimes I see people talking about experiences with spirits or deities and I think something maybe exists? Or is everyone just lying or having psychological experiences

There's many possibilities, honestly! While we often tend to treat the existence of the supernatural or the divine as a binary where it's one extreme or the other, there's a lot of options that get overlooked.

I think there are plenty of liars out there, but I think lots of people are honest. I've met people who were obviously lying, and people who very clearly weren't. Some of the honest ones did seem like they might have been experiencing psychosis, but plenty of them... I know they weren't experiencing psychosis.

I do think that at least most experiences are psychological in some way, because all things considered, it makes a lot of sense. You see many cases where experiences conform to certain cultural expectations and biases; for example, when the vampire spirit a person is working with is clearly patterned after World of Darkness or The Vampire Chronicles, or when a person has a near death experience and sees angels wearing Roman style armor. I have yet to see any case where someone's experience was completely alien to their personal expectations and biases.

Occasionally, things happen that seem to defy psychological explanation; for example, someone dreams that an angel tells them that a family member will get into an accident, and then that family member does in fact get into an accident.

Let's say for the moment that spirits really do exist, and can exercise power over our physical world. If this is true, it doesn't inherently imply the existence of an infinite creator deity, no more than the existence of a normal ox implies the existence of an Uber Ox of Infinite Power. Nor does it inherently imply that these beings would be incapable of saying whatever they want to get our attention, and might not always be telling us the truth.

We also tend to assume that such beings must come from some kind of higher or superior realm - but that's just a cultural assumption. For all we know, the people who think all spirits ever are thoughtforms might be correct. Or they might develop through some other process.

Many people have the experience of traveling to other realms to meet divine beings, but for all we know, but even if some sort of entity is involved, that doesn't mean the experience isn't taking place in their own minds. Maybe the entity is projecting it, maybe the person is generating it, maybe it's both.

And of course many people will claim that their experiences felt too vivid to be fake - but we honestly don't know that the brain can't generate super vivid experiences under certain conditions. For all we know, generating super vivid experiences is just a thing the brain does sometimes.

So yeah, whatever's going on, there are many possibilities, and IMO the truth isn't going to be in any simplistic or extreme explanation. (Because when is it ever?) As always, it's important to think critically, keep an open mind, and think critically some more.

[talenlee]

The Impossible Weight Of Love

There’s no Greater God of Love in Cobrin’Seil. In a Pantheon full of characters that embody easily explained, narratively significant ideas to a culture of people who love to tell stories, each one incarnated by a divine supernatural power capable of exerting its personality to influence those believes, it is a common point of research into the question as to why there is no great and iconic character to represent love itself.

The research is largely settled, mind you; the answers have been satisfyingly found, though there are always questrions of how and what they mean. No research is truly complete after all. But to understand the absence of the god of love, first, there needs to be an understanding of divine lacunae.

Gods are both a reflection of the belief of a community and a conscious entity capable of manipulating that belief. They are in a way the metaphorisation of media effects, an entity that people can point to that they have a relationship to and that in turn affects them through the relationship back. If a god of war is a massive asshole and everyone sees it, the assumption is not that he’s having a bad day but that the god of war is like that and as a direct result, war is, also, like that. Gods therefore exist in a nexus of being both representative of an ideal they want to express and also beholden to the needs of that expression. A god of war may want to be a pacifist but it’s not going to last, either the demands of the belief of what they are overwhelm them or the belief moves on from where they are; a god of war who puts down the weapons may find that people keep believing in ‘the god of war’ part and it just no longer refers to them, the agonising sensation of finding out your identity is a mis-filed reference that you now either need to run and catch up to, or worse, someone else can just step into and become.

This creates the notion of an idea of a ‘god space’ – a place where emotional energy and belief is directed, but where there’s no actual divinely sparked entity there. This can create odd effects; some believe that El is a ‘god’ in name only, and that he is subject to worship just because he makes a satisfying story as a god of secrets, effectively turning good press into magical prowess. If you could cut into the nature of what he is, you would not find ‘god’ underneath, but instead a living entity taking the form of a god.

Since several godhood stories in Cobrin’Seil describe the way a divine being was once a person who was not a god ascending to godhood, however, this particular convention is considered something of a distinction without a difference. If a person can become a god, then what method they use to use it isn’t exactly important, and the only suggested problem with El is that he hasn’t done it enough, or properly yet.

But what about the spaces that don’t have gods in them, but where people are pretty sure gods should be? This is the formation of what’s called in divine magic studies as a divine lacuna, a place defined by its absence. Lacunae are typically short-lived absences before either the belief in a deific power collapses (because of the absence of any proof that deific power exists) or because a divine spark, a ‘small god’ steps into the lacunae and takes on an identity that, more or less, works to serve the needs of that lacuna. Lacunae are usually connected to great times of social upheaval, revolutionary inventions, or rediscovery of ancient truths. Unwittingly, ancient gods have been ‘awakened’ long after their death by their belief system being discovered, and a small god steps into the space to take on that role and in the process, become that god again – not what they were, but what the new, modern people imagine them to be.

And then there’s love.

It’s not like cultures don’t try to determine a God – or Goddess, more usually – of love. Indeed, almost every major cultural centre has some deity that’s meant to represent love in their cultural place, but none of these gods have successfully ‘caught on’ as gods of love itself outside of those cultural bubbles. There are a host of reasons why, such as:

The god is singularly linked with a local population and doesn’t exert power outside of it

The god is known for something else more significant in the greater world

The god doesn’t even actually exist, and most commonly,

The god’s vision of love is not congruent with love in other places

As an example of the last point, in the cultures of Bidestra in particular, most orc clans regard ‘love’ as a distinct and different thing from the way even people in the Eresh protectorate regard it. They don’t even have an ambiguous word like ‘love’ for what they consider pair-bonding relationships. Common has the word ‘love’ which can be used for a family legacy, a sandwich, and a wife, all at once, and orc does not. Even then, the idea of a ‘god of love’ becomes malformed just by dint of who is asking. This creates gaps, and these gaps can be seen as either one huge lacuna, or many, many smaller interconnected lacunae.

Even within a culture with a shared common language, though, there are discrepancies. The Eresh Protectorate, Visente, and Dal Raeda all use the same common language (with numerous dialectal shifts from region to region that most people imagine don’t exist or are the result of being a bit stupid or whatever), but even across those three cultures there are vividly different visions of what ‘love’ is and what about it matters.

In Dal Raeda, love is often treated as preamble to a marriage, and that marriage is also lended significance by revealing after the participants commit to it, that both parties are politically important. Dal Raedan stories of love are often told in ways that suggest that whirlwind romances between nobles are very common, even if they were arranged to be wed ahead of time.

In Visente, love is treated as a sign of great value; stories often focus on wealthy people who cannot ‘buy’ love, finding someone poor and elevating them into being a love interest and the comedy that derives from their mismatch. Also, Visente produces a lot of dirty books about dashing heroes and heroine adventurers that sweep people off their feet in stories that maybe go wrong, in a very pulpy way.

In the Eresh Protectorate, stories of love are often about people from very different walks of life finding one another thanks to being part of such a wild and chaotic place. Eresh Protectorate stories suggest that even if your day job is ‘baker’ you might still wind up seeing a tradesperson from across the world regularly.

Now, any vision of what love ‘is’ is going to be able to represent a part of these stories, which is where most Small Gods trying to take the title of God of Love succeed. There are some tales of gods who have done it, and there are questions around how different cultures represent a ‘god of love.’

Glotharen has an ancient pagan goddess of love, who is depicted as being linked to a single specific tree that people who are concerned about matters of love travel to and offer up prayers. This god’s power is heavily isolated to one space, but also the worship tends to only involve attending to that space – people don’t seek prayers from her across the country.

There is a god of love stories venerated by the Abilen, who is explicitly meant to be a storyteller goddess who brings together narratives from all across the different beastfolk communities, meaning that there is no need for a single god to explain Gnoll stories of love and Tjosen stories of love, which are otherwise, pretty different.

A common representation of a ‘god of love’ amongst Orcs is a triune godhead representing the nurturing love of sleep, the rising love of starting something new, and the satisfying love of returning home. There are a host of different metaphors for these three characters, but notably, the evidence suggests these three gods were originally one god, shorn into three parts by assuming the lacuna.

Kyranou has a god of love that shows up in their fiction, as a fictionalised god meant to express clear information about love or its limits. Thing is, because this god is literally a fictional construct, its identity is incredibly fragmented, with any given author’s opinion about love informing it, and Kyranou is a place that makes a lot of theatre. These plays are in many cases meant to be arguing with one another, creating a god that will say completely opposite things from time to time, making it so that any small god who has tried to take the role winds up being deeply confused before they give up or get obliterated by the impossibility of its contradictions. One of the only commonalities in these theatrical performances is how commonly the relationships are explictly unable to have children, because children are so obviously a good thing, so being in love despite not being able to have children, is a sign that the love must be even more powerful.

Tjosen culture is often bound up in the idea of star signs and determining truth from the stars. To this end, some believe there is a god of the stars who weaves ‘love’ out of different paths. The problem is, if such a god exists, as the Tjosen perceive them, that god explicitly cannot interact with the world directly, because to interact with the world is to become tainted with its lies and lose your ability to prove you are true. This means that the Tjosen may or may not have incarnated a god of astrological love, but there’s literally no way to prove or disprove their existence.

The Lacunae of gods of love are dangerous and tempestuous places, where a small god that lacks a name can try and creep in and take on the responsibilities (and hopes) of that position, but just as much risk being ripped apart by the demands and impositions of the people who believe in them.

Love is too powerful for a mere god to represent.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[eucatastrophicblues]

@joanofarcs-stigmata I had too much to put this in a reply, because I think you hit on a really important distinction

Folk Catholicism - and I mean real enculturated folk Catholicism, not what I see a lot of people practice where they’re essentially saying “I’m a folk Christian so I can be a witch” - is informed by and shaped by more standard Catholic practices and doctrines, and is in constant conversation and dialogue with more traditional ways of worship, and exists in a space of openness to correction and criticism from within and without. It’s a way of interfacing with culture and with supernatural power while honoring all your roots and valuing all your heritage, and it also often uplifts or spotlights minority perspectives and allows for members of colonized cultures to find culturally-specific meanings in the faith. And you’re right, it doesn’t have the transactional aspects, because it’s often practiced by the people who developed it to accompany or enhance or personalize a universal Church, and so it tends to prioritize God in ways that I’m really comfortable with.

but I do have a problem, and the problem is, unfortunately, neopaganism again.

I’ve seen a lot of people (particularly white people) be drawn to folk practice because they see it as a way to essentially be a polytheist without being a polytheist (I’m a Catholic but I’m a Catholic who also gets to worship the Goddess Brigid, or I’m a Catholic but I also get to worship Aphrodite or Athena) or to kind of apply the witch-cult hypothesis to Marian theology or to assume that because God is, you know, God, He is less specific than Zeus or Baal or Tyr or whoever you like about how He wants to be worshiped. the assumption that Christianity has no culture and no mysticism or personal connection to the divine so you have to go buy crystals about it.

and I think a lot of people also act like fake folk Catholicism will save them from having to face and wrestle with the unpleasant or restrictive aspects of what God demands of us. I can engage with the iconography and imagery and parts of the worship but I can disown the parts of the faith I don’t like (often removing themselves from culpability for the Church’s massive mistakes and fuckups around the aforementioned minority cultures because they’re not really Christian).

also, the polytheism, like, we can’t be doing that, people.

it’s a very complicated knot. lots of people who are folk Catholics (including myself, by some definitions, since I see corn and say a Hail Mary for cultural reasons) are genuinely trying to strike a balance between different demands and desires. and some people are ringing the bell at the counter asking to speak to a manager. sigh.

like I get it, being witchy and occult is in vogue right now, and I’m not ever going to tell someone it isn’t real or it’s not a valid spiritual practice

but we have a God who spent an excruciatingly long amount of time explaining to us how She wanted to be worshiped. part of worshiping a specific god of any sort in any pantheon is being aware of their preferences and desires - why is the way She wants us to worship Her no longer good enough? why do we need to look elsewhere? we are not supposed to divine, to use magic, to invoke without cause. there are rules. we should follow them.

[catenaaurea]

The Roman Catechism

Part One: The Creed

ARTICLE III : "WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY GHOST, BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"

Importance Of This Article

From what has been said in the preceding Article, the faithful can understand that in bringing us from the relentless tyranny of Satan into liberty, God has conferred a singular and surpassing blessing on the human race. But if we place before our eyes also the plan and means by which He deigned chiefly to accomplish this, then, indeed, we shall see that there is nothing more glorious or magnificent than this divine goodness and beneficence towards us.

"Who was Conceived”

The pastor, then, should enter on the exposition of this third Article by developing the grandeur of this mystery, which the Sacred Scriptures very frequently propose for our consideration as the principal source of our eternal salvation. Its meaning he should teach to be that we believe and confess that the same Jesus Christ, our only Lord, the Son of God, when He assumed human flesh for us in the womb of the Virgin, was not conceived like other men, from the seed of man, but in a manner transcending the order of nature, that is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; so that the same Person, remaining God as He was from eternity, became man, what He was not before.

That such is the meaning of the above words is clear from the Creed of the Holy Council of Constantinople, which says: Who for us men, and for our salvation,, came down from heaven, and became incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. The same truth we also find unfolded by St. John the Evangelist, who imbibed from the bosom of the Lord and Savior Himself the knowledge of this most profound mystery. For when he had declared the nature of the Divine Word as follows: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, he concluded: And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

The Word, which is a Person of the Divine Nature, assumed human nature in such a manner that there should be one and the same Person in both the divine and human natures. Hence this admirable union preserved the actions and properties of both natures; and as Pope St. Leo the Great said: The lowliness of the inferior nature was not consumed in the glory of the superior, nor did the assumption of the inferior lessen the glory of the superior.

"By the Holy Ghost"

As an explanation of the words in which this Article is expressed is not to be omitted, the pastor should teach that when we say that the Son of God was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, we do not mean that this Person alone of the Holy Trinity accomplished the mystery of the Incarnation. Although the Son only assumed human nature, yet all the Persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were authors of this mystery.

It is a principle of Christian faith that whatever God does outside Himself in creation is common to the Three Persons, and that one neither does more than, nor acts without another. But that one emanates from another, this only cannot be common to all; for the Son is begotten of the Father only, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Anything, however, which proceeds from them extrinsically is the work of the Three Persons without difference of any sort, and of this latter description is the Incarnation of the Son of God.

Of those things, nevertheless, that are common to all, the Sacred Scriptures-often attribute some to one person, some to another. Thus, to the Father they attribute power over all things ; to the Son, wisdom; to the Holy Ghost, love. Hence, as the mystery of the Incarnation manifests the singular and boundless love of God towards us, it is therefore in some sort peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost.

In The Incarnation Some Things Were Natural, Others Supernatural

In this mystery we perceive that some things were done which transcend the order of nature, some by the power of nature. Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.

But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.

Again -- and this should overwhelm us with astonishment -- as soon as the soul of Christ was united to His body, the Divinity became united to both; and thus at the same time His body was formed and animated, and the Divinity united to body and soul.

Hence, at the same instant He was perfect God and perfect man, and the most Holy Virgin, having at the same moment conceived God and man, is truly and properly called Mother of God and man. This the Angel signified to her when he said: Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High. The event verified the prophecy of Isaias: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son. Elizabeth also declared the same truth when" being filled with the Holy Ghost, she understood the Conception of the Son of God, and said: Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

As the body of Christ was formed of the pure blood of the immaculate Virgin without the aid of man, as we have already said, and by the sole operation of the Holy Ghost, so also, at the moment of His Conception, His soul was enriched with an overflowing fullness of the Spirit of God, and a superabundance of all graces. For God gave not to Him, as to others adorned with holiness and grace, His Spirit by measure, as St. John testifies but poured into His soul the plenitude of all graces so abundantly that of his fullness we all have received.

Although possessing that Spirit by which holy men attain the adoption of sons of God, He cannot, however, be called the adopted son of God; for since He is the Son of God by nature, the grace, or name of adoption, can on no account be deemed applicable to Him.

How To Profit By The Mystery Of The Incarnation

These truths comprise the substance of what appears to demand explanation regarding the admirable mystery of the Conception. To reap from them abundant fruit for salvation the faithful should particularly recall, and frequently reflect, that it is God who assumed human flesh; that the manner in which He became man exceeds our comprehension, not to say our powers of expression; and finally, that He vouchsafed to become man in order that we men might be born again as children of God. When to these subjects they shall have given mature consideration, let them, in the humility of faith, believe and adore all the mysteries contained in this Article, and not indulge a curious inquisitiveness by investigating and scrutinizing them -- an attempt scarcely ever unattended with danger.

[dwellordream]

“There is a substantial connection between the social and religious philosophy of an epoch, its political, economic, and moral conditions, and the manner in which individuals treat one another. Belief or disbelief in man’s accountability to a supernatural force plays an important role in the formation of courtesy practices and standards. Citizens of a community, in which most people strongly believe that the world is created by a living God who holds individuals accountable for their actions, exhibit a double-edged deference towards one another: their treatment of one another is based on a recognition of their personal worth as well as a personification of their placement within a divine system managed by an active supreme being. 

Relations within such theological societies could be said to be doubly deferential or triune. The ‘other’ is not only a fellow citizen but also a spiritual sister or brother (a ‘thou’) who acts as a reminder of one’s religious identity and duties. Members of a community are, therefore, in a relationship of mutual witnessing and considerable mutual surveillance for they feel themselves to be in the presence of a third all-seeing supernatural being. The Protestant Reformation had a seminal influence on human relations and civility practices because it placed considerable spiritual responsibility on the individual. 

The removal of the Catholic confessional and the priest’s power to speak to God on behalf of a person created a community in which citizens had to take over the ministerial functions previously reserved for the clergy. This assumption of personal responsibility undoubtedly made for less artifice and a more grave interactive style. Protestantism insisted on deep self-reflection on the matter of behaviour and salvation. It, therefore, favoured ‘sincerity’ of thought and feeling. This movement away from the performance aspect of courtesy and towards the sincerity and authenticity of personally managed moral behaviour created a certain amount of resistance and criticism towards books such as Castiglione’s Il Corteganio (Trilling 1971). Some Protestant works even ridiculed the medieval courtesy books (Starkey 1982:232–9). 

It is difficult to gauge how much of this resistance was connected to the waning of the ideal of courtliness and its implied aesthetics and how much of it was a defensive reaction to the invasion of Italian style and language in northern Europe. On the whole, however, those nations that were progressing towards absolute monarchies, such as Russia and France, continued to consider style and etiquette vital indicators of personal worth. Unarguably, Protestantism had a new and important long-term influence on standing conceptions of propriety and impropriety. 

The Catholic Church had used the Augustinian dualistic conception of life to argue that the secular world was unreliable and that only devotion to the Church and its rituals could act as an effective insurance policy against the wiles of the devil. Man had been stuck between two formidable forces that were at odds: Good and Evil. When Martin Luther reacted against the Church’s abuse of power, he realized that the central question that needed to be answered was the question of man’s ‘justification’ in the eyes of God. Was God’s gift of grace given a priori due to God’s love of mankind, or was it to be earned on a case-by-case basis? 

By extension, had Christ died to set in motion an absolution of the sins of all Christians – an absolution that became effective upon the demonstration of total faith – or had Christ simply set an example that now needed to be replicated within an active and self-directed journey towards salvation? How was a sinner to earn God’s favour without the confessional and the availability of absolutions and prayers administrated by priests who were supposedly capable of speaking to God on man’s behalf? These were not trifling questions for a society that was passionately (and anxiously) obsessed with discovering and understanding God’s purpose for mankind. 

This intense questioning of self would have an important effect on the reformation of social mores and citizenship ideals for it put tremendous pressure on the individual to map out a personal life that would be in accord with God’s wishes. It would be an understatement to say that the Protestant ideal was anything less than a strict mission entrusted to each member of the faith. John Calvin, who was far stricter than Martin Luther, denied the idea that salvation was a ‘reward.’ Since God stood outside humankind, God’s decisions regarding human fate could not be analysed by human means nor tied to human covenants. 

Calvin ([Latin: 1536, French: 1541] 2001) found it ridiculous that a person would count on salvation simply because he had asked for it and been reassured by a cleric that it would be his. A person’s decision to be faithful to God did not automatically put God in a contractual obligation to dispense salvation. God himself willed the fate of those He intended to save as well as those He meant to damn. If He chose to redeem a sinner or damn a righteous man it was a decision that was beyond human understanding, to be accepted as divine will. 

Such acceptance was the ultimate test of faith. In the absence of guarantees of salvation, man had to map out a pious and sincere life for himself. No ecclesiastical intermediaries could speak on his behalf, not for any price. Man was the sole arbiter of his relationship with God and, consequently, fully responsible for the outcome of his life. Thus, according to Protestant doctrine, individuals could not possess foreknowledge of that for which they were predestined; all they could do was to perform at their best in order to increase their chances of salvation. 

It is hard to tell which came first, the desire for prosperity and a consequent break with Catholic ideology or the Protestant ascetic convictions which unintentionally (or intentionally) facilitated progress in the material world. At the outset, the main effect of Protestantism’s removal of absolutions and indulgences was the rise of a strong introspective individualism, at times hopeful and at other times mired in morbid self-blame. Calvin’s theology also reunited God with the world. Although God was located outside the world, He remained its creator. So, accepting God was also an act of worldly acceptance. 

There was no longer any need for the monastic denigration of secular life. Protestants rejected the medieval Augustinian distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular,’ believing, instead, that a person actually honoured God’s creation by committing himself to good worldly works. Every person was, therefore, a potential member of God’s priesthood. And God did not evaluate individuals by the grandeur of their work but by the sincerity of their motives. Godliness could be experienced in the most mundane tasks provided they were performed with God in mind and heart. 

This communally grounded theology had a twofold effect. It liberated individuals to consider every secular activity that did not contravene Biblical prohibitions as potentially worthy of God’s approval. It also placed secular activity under the scrutiny of religious ethics. In this manner, Protestantism imbued temporal life with a new mystic meaning. Calvin had declared that every person occupied a ‘calling’ chosen for him by God. Human dissatisfaction resulted from a person’s nonacceptance of that which God wished him to do and where He wished him to be socially. 

If God assigned all men’s callings, then no one calling could be considered superior to the next. This promoted a type of social equality that required courtesy practices based on a broad standard of tolerance, applicable to the interactions of individuals of varying social ranks. The courtesy a person gave and received was no longer a refection of inherited privilege but of actual worldly involvement. And it could not be determined by the aesthetics of style. More important than mannerisms was the character of a person and the severity/sincerity of his religious intentions and practices. 

Calvin even warned against the superficiality of conversational competence when he stated: ‘I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels.’ Emotional restraint had already been increasing during the Renaissance. The motive for this increase was the need to control aggression and also to provide courtiers, merchants, and republican politicians with the opportunity of observing the behaviour of their adversaries without revealing their own positions. This guardedness became transformed into an emotional reserve that went hand in hand with rational calculation. 

The Protestant movement furthered such restraint of emotions through its insistence on a serious and methodical relationship between personal conscience and divine guidance. There was a self-absorption that accompanied this continual search for the proper ways of seeking God’s favour. This affected personal as well as communal relationships. A certain ‘serious’ (or perhaps ‘dignified’) Puritanism became embedded in even the most intimate personal relationships. Any comparison of Catholic and Protestant communities needs to take this transformation into account, for the varying emotional thresholds of Protestant and Catholic cultures and ideologies have important effects on the degree to which artifice and the aggrandizement of self and others become part of habitual civility rituals. 

Wit, in the Protestant sense, becomes the ‘irony’ of self-critique, a modified and tamer version of medieval ‘moral anger.’ Protestant insistence on personal accountability also encouraged believers to think critically of one another. This ‘mutual surveillance’ cannot be suffi ciently stressed, for it achieves its most radical form in the Puritan teachings in England and America. Undoubtedly, the self-reflection of the Protestant doctrine facilitated the work of the Enlightenment thinkers, even though the Enlightenment occurred much later. In the interim, what did increase were the restraints put on the body and the mind, for Calvinistic Protestantism did not take kindly to sloth or the enjoyment of pleasure for its own sake. 

Whereas the Renaissance had attempted to free the human body from the domination of medieval theology, Protestantism delivered it back into servility, this time in the service of communal salvation. Although Calvin had asked in all irony, ‘Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church?’ he also warned that ‘God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.’ 

Delivered from the monastics of Catholicism, the Protestant was now required to be his own monk. It should not surprise us that a certain ‘bodily hesitancy’ (and even mistrust) entered into social relations and the relationship between a person and his physical body wherein lay his desires. So, what has been termed ‘Protestant guilt’ in the popular literature might be better referred to as ‘emotional hesitancy,’ almost bordering on mistrust. After all, how could an individual fully trust his contemporaries when he remained painfully aware that any one of them could be damned without his being aware of it?”

- Benet Davetian, “Shifts in Identity and Awareness: Protestantism and the Enlightenment?” in Civility: A Cultural History

[firstumcschenectady]

“The Fabled Wisdom of Solomon” based on 1 Kings 2:10-12 and 3:3-14

(Image: Lamp of Wisdom, Waterperry Gardens, Oxfordshire, England)

What I wouldn't give for the wisdom of Solomon right now. I've prayed for it already, lack of asking isn't the issue. Life feels like a series of unanswerable questions. “Is this safe?” “Is this wise?” “Is this fair?” “Who does this exclude?” “Whose needs does this meet?” “How do I create balance?” “Whose needs do I prioritize?” “How can I find a middle way?” “How do I manage risk? As a person? As a parent? As a pastor?” “What are the risks of NOT doing the thing?” “How do they compare to the risks of DOING the thing?” “How worried should I be?” “How courageous should I be?”

I'll stop. It's probably unpleasant to hear already, and truthfully those are MOST of the questions, they just repeat a lot. Furthermore, these are variations on the themes of everyone's questions, maybe with a little bit more pressure on those making decisions for others or for groups.

We're nearing 18 months of pandemic based impossible decision making. I'm also nearing 15 months of parent based impossible decision making, which has led to SO MUCH more respect for every other human who parents or offers caregiving. (I already had respect for those things, but my respect has increased exponentially.)

I find myself thinking about presidents who wear the same thing every day, or offload trivial decisions so that they can keep their capacities for the important stuff. I remember articles about how our decision making capacities are finite, and I think about how incredibly overwhelming it has been to be in this “new world” where everything carries risk and every decision is suddenly BIGGER.

And I want to be Solomon. I want to be blessed by God to be wise. I want God to give me “a wise and discerning mind.” I want to know what to do!!!!!!

But even as I say this, I realize that I have projected onto Solomon and on to this blessing from God a supernatural sort of wisdom and discernment. I've read this story and assumed that Solomon always knew what to do, and was always right when he decided. But, I don't actually BELIEVE that. That would be superhuman.

(Also, if that were true, then the kingdom of Solomon likely would have outlasted … say … Solomon because he would have been able to fix the underlying issues and pick a good successor.)

Which means that the Bible has just served as a very good inkblot test for me to realize that in the midst of incredible uncertainty, certainty would be superhuman. (Or dangerous. That's another way this can go.) I yearn to feel good about decisions, but that's not possible right now. I yearn to feel confident as I decide, but that isn't possible right now either. I yearn, truthfully, to pass my authority off to someone wiser, more prepared, better read – but no one knows the struggles and the questions I face quite like I do, so there isn't anyone to pass them to.

John Wesley's “Three Simple Rules”: “First do no harm, then do all the good you can, and stay in love with God” have never seemed so hard to work with!

To keep the challenging more challenging, people judge each other on decisions. I can't remember the last time I had a conversation that didn't involve either 1. someone who had to make hard decisions struggling with what is right OR 2. someone who doesn't have to make the decisions frustrated with those who made them. I hear clergy and bosses worrying over safety procedures, balancing risk tolerance with the will of the body with the needs of the vulnerable. And, at the same time, I hear others complaining on ALL sides.

I'm definitely not Solomon, but I want to offer to all of you some of the models and tools I bring to discernment, under the assumption that we're all bogged down by the weight of all these decisions. Welcome to a pragmatic sermon. ;)

In terms of the pandemic itself, I've been really grateful for an idea I heard put into words in the NY Times in June of 2020.

Manage your exposure budget

Risk is cumulative. Going forward, you’ll need to make trade-offs, choosing activities that are most important to you (like seeing an aging parent) and skipping things that might matter less (an office going-away party). Think about managing virus risk just as you might manage a diet: If you want dessert, eat a little less for dinner.1

During a pandemic, every member of the household should manage their own exposure budget. (Think Weight Watchers points for virus risk.) You spend very few budget points for low-risk choices like a once-a-week grocery trip or exercising outdoors. You spend more budget points when you attend an indoor dinner party, get a haircut or go to the office. You blow your budget completely if you spend time in a crowd.2

This has been super helpful. I often call it the “risk budget.” We all have different risk tolerance, and we have different things we particularly value and need. I hear from many families with kids that day care or school are imperative to someone in the family's well being, and so they do it. But then their risk budget is spent. I hear from others that going to work and being exposed to a whole lot of people is already an over extension of their risk budget, and they fear bringing something home to their kids, so they don't do anything else.

I'm mentioning this right now, because people without kids or other unvaccinated people in their households have had an increase in risk tolerance, and aren't always seeing how carefully others have to manage their risk budget. And, for some in our community that means not coming to worship – even outside, even masked, even distanced – because even that TINY bit of increased exposure is more than the budget can handle.

It isn't really a FUN thing, a risk budget, but it brings a model to something otherwise incredibly overwhelming. Deciding on each individual activity separately is simply too much for any of us, so a budget gives us a guideline on how to make decisions. It also reminds us that we're working with different budgets and different expenditures, and none of us need to judge how someone else makes their decisions.

Not quite the fabled wisdom of Solomon, I'll grant, but a tool nonetheless.

Another simple tool is one I've mentioned before. “Daily examen” is a prayer process. It is quite simple. You center yourself, ask for God's help, review the past 24 hours, identitfy when you felt most alive and connected with love, identity when you felt most disconnected from life and love, thank God for the best the worst and all that's in-between, and either share that information with another person or write it down. It is entirely too easy to zombie our way through life, especially in the surreal pandemic times. But taking the time to be reflective helps us learn about life, ourselves, God, and what we value. It helps us learn what we need to change, and what we actually love about our lives as they are. This is the single best discernment tool I know, although it is most useful for BIG HUGE decisions that can be made over an extended period of time.

My final “simple” tool is one of those deceptive ones. It is simple, in ideas, but it is much harder in practice. It is: trust God to be working in and through you. That is, notice when something feels off-kilter in you, and trust that it is significant and matters. THIS is the most subversive thing I'm saying today. Trust the wisdom of your body as being connected to the wisdom of the Divine, and when a decision brings a dull ache to your gut or any other part of your body STOP and listen. Figure out what emotions fit into that ache. Then, figure out what needs are under that emotion. (Handy-dandy helpful pdf chart here: Feelings/Needs). We KNOW more than we think we do, and God often works with us in subtle and embodied ways. As we learn to trust ourselves, we are learning to trust God-who-is-with-us-and-for-us.

Well friends, it doesn't feel like much, and it DEFINITELY doesn't feel like the fabled wisdom of Solomon, but in the midst of unending difficult decisions, I hope these little tools are gifts for you. May God help us all, as we discern. Amen

1 I'm not convinced diet culture is safe nor healthy, but I left the reference in because I fear it is familiar.

2 Tara Parker-Pope “5 Rules to Live By During a Pandemic” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/well/live/coronavirus-rules-pandemic-infection-prevention.html June 9, 2020.

[wisdomrays]

TAFAKKUR: Part 277

FIELDS OF CERTAINTY AS A UNIFYING PARADIGM FOR SCIENCE AND RELIGION: Part 1

superficial understanding of science and religion perceives these two fields as being disciplines of different realms. Such a perspective sees science as an objective pursuit of knowledge based on observation and logic, and religion as a set of dogmatic assertions. Finally, some view “questioning” as the essence of science, while they view religion as requiring submission without inquiry.

These views reflect a shallow understanding of faith and religion as well as the reality of the scientific enterprise. In this article we argue that there are varying degrees of certainty in each piece of scientific and religious knowledge. One can thus imagine two fields of certainty where established knowledge is at the center and the less certain pieces of knowledge form field-like circles around a center. We further argue that this perspective can serve as a unifying paradigm for science and religion.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION AS DISCIPLINES OF DIFFERENT REALMS

The superficial understanding of science and religion as disciplines of different realms asserts that religion concerns the relationship of humanity with the divine and considers human relation-ships on this basis. Religion primarily relies on sacred scriptures and subjective experiences as sources of knowledge. Religious assertions tend to be absolute and they do not accept questioning. The main underlying assumption of religion is the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent Being referred to as God. Science, on the other hand, deals primarily with observable and measurable phenomena. Thus, its main domain is the domain of physical objects. It accepts systematic and objective observations or experimental findings, and inferences on these as sources of knowledge. Scientific assertions appear as theoretical models that attempt to provide objective descriptions of the physical world and predictions of natural phenomena. Science is ambivalent to the existence of a supernatural Being. The underlying assumption of science is that the physical world is governed by universal laws, regardless of the source. This perspective can be summarized in a table:

Based on this superficial understanding of religion and science, we can expect two disjoint spheres of interest that would not have much to do with each other, as illustrated in the figure above.

In this view, science and religion occupy different realms. This view gives complete sovereignty over the non-human domain to science. It leaves the unobservable phenomena to religion, with the condition that it might be claimed by science at any time. The current state of the relationship, however, refutes this simplistic perspective. Both science and religion make assertions that supposedly belong to the other and we perceive conflicts. Examples of perceived conflicts include the following:

- Spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.

- Sun-centric vs. Earth-centric cosmology or astronomy.

- Old universe or Earth vs. young universe or Earth.

- Evolution vs. the miraculous creation of animals and humans.

- A world-wide flood.

- …

We can illustrate the perceived conflict in figure two.

Both the simplistic views of science and religion, as well as their perceived conflicts, are due to shallow understandings of scientific and religious knowledge. Let us first examine the idealized scientific process as the source of the scientific knowledge. The idealized view of the scientific process as taught at many schools is illustrated in the figure below: In this view, the process starts when the scientist makes an observation or becomes aware of a phenomenon that they can not explain with their current knowledge. They first define the problem clearly and hypothesize about potential explanations. They then design experiments to test this hypothesis. They conduct those experiments and make observations. An analysis of these observations may produce one of two outcomes: Either the proposed explanation is valid or invalid. If the proposed explanation is found to be invalid totally or partially, it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation is started. If at one point the hypothesis is validated, then the results are communicated to the scientific community. Other scientists repeat the same or similar experiments with the same goal: Validating the hypothesis. If other scientists also reach the same conclusions then the hypothesis gains certainty and may eventually be viewed as an established theory. An important yardstick for the formation of a new theory is its predictive power. When the theory is young, it is used to make predictions. When these predictions turn out to be accurate then the theory establishes itself. Otherwise it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation starts.

While the idealized process of scientific research appeals as an objective means of building knowledge, it suffers from some important weaknesses: The first one is that real scientists rarely follow this idealized procedure. Even when they do, many human factors, such as prejudices and non-scientific concerns, for example, material gain and reputation may interfere with the objective interpretation of the results. A third, and possibly the most important limitation, is that many subjects are infeasible or impossible to study under idealized conditions. Consider the theory of evolution for instance. It is impossible to re-create the conditions on the Earth at the time when life first appeared on its surface. It is impossible to observe generation after generation of creatures and to observe whether evolution really took place. What we can do instead is to examine the available fossil record, the Earth’s surface and make logical inferences. But as we move away from the systematic and repeatable observation or controlled experiments, our confidence in our knowledge decreases. Hence we witness a plethora of perspectives and explanations, even among believers of the Darwinian evolution, of what really took place. Generalizing from this example, we can see that the various pieces of so-called “scientific” knowledge are not at the same level in terms of their certainty. Instead, they form a field of certainty, like circles around a center, where the most certain pieces of knowledge are located. Moving away from the center, the amount of control over experimental conditions and the repeat-ability of observations decrease as does confidence in the knowledge. The following figure illustrates this concept of certainty fields for scientific knowledge.

The confidence field phenomenon is not limited to scientific knowledge. Revelation forms the basis of religious knowledge, but revelation is conveyed to humanity via messengers, their scriptures, their inspirations, their words, and conduct. While the revelation itself is not subject to uncertainty, the human factor introduces uncertainty mainly in three mechanisms:

1. The deterioration or intentional manipulation of certain religious sources.

2. Human misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain divine statements.

3. Confusion of human interpretation with the literal revelation or prophetic tradition.

Upon considering the certainty fields of science and religion we can look back at the perceived conflict between them. Now we realize that the perceived conflicts lie at those places where either the scientific or the religious knowledge, or both, are not completely certain in their assertions. When we enumerate all of the perceived conflicts and examine them carefully, we can attribute each one to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

Let’s take the example of the theory of evolution again as a popular and contemporary matter. On the science side we see that many of the assertions of the theory carry a high degree of uncertainty. We are definitely not at the center of the certainty field of scientific knowledge. On the religious side, the clear assertion is that God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth, as well as its inhabitants. The way by which God has chosen to create, however, is not as clear. We don’t know, for instance, whether God also works through a mechanism that includes evolutionary elements. Some believing scientists argue that God works through what they call “micro evolution” to adapt or eliminate certain species. Some evolutionists, on the other hand, refer to a concept of “lucky accidents” to explain certain aspects of evolutionary history that cannot be explained within the framework of blind chance and natural selection.

[foretolds]

ROMEO LAUFEYSON called into ORACLE FM. They were a little bit SELFISH & NONCHALANT at first, but we kept them talking until they got a little COMICAL & WELL READ.  They said they’ve been working as JOURNALIST, and thinking about aligning themselves with LOKI/THEMSELF since they have been living in Nova Satus for FIFTY YEARS ( ON AND OFF ), and from what we can tell, they still give off huge THE BRUSH OF FANG AGAINST PULSE, PUSHING THE ICE CREAM OFF A CHILDS CONE & THE BACKROOM AT A DRAG SHOW . [RUBY ROSE, DIETY, NON BINARY, UNKNOWN, THEY/THEM ]

this intro is a little bit difficult for me, because im trying to resist writing the typical long ass bio, so instead im going to bullet point some shit. that being said, don’t judge me, love you, mean it, thanks. 

loki is a product of an asynja and a jotunn, which technically would only make them half deity, but the aesir has always accepted them as one of their own, and that was...that, pretty much. well, until things get complicated later, stay tuned. despite the fact that they were generally always accepted, the questionable line of heritage was one of the first stones thrown, when it comes to the black sheep they have painted themselves as.

loki is married, or was, but that was quite some time ago, and it is no secret that said marriage is not given the traditional sense of commitment. loki’s feelings are mixed when it comes to their given wife, as she has been brutally loyal to them through all the bullshit that comes with that, but something about that blind loyalty never did sit right with them (imagine, you dumb ass). 

despite the above listed marriage, loki is open to both platonic, sexual, romantic, and any other relationships with people. however, these are very much “choose your own adventure” because you never quite know what you are going to get from them. that, and it is either a task keeping their attention or a task getting rid of it, depending on what unfortunate end that you land on. that, and the wavering of loyalty and intention can certainly be off putting.

loki is fairly indifferent when it comes to the way most people see good and evil, though the years have shifted opinion in several different ways, and they are more than happy to debate the ups and downs with anyone intelligent enough to have the conversation. that’s the caveat though, being worthy of the time and the seriousness of conversations that hold weight and gravity. 

while the worship of loki as a deity themselves is quite questionable and sometimes even seen as shameful depending on who you asked, they have worked hard to shift this narrative to assist them, especially since the fall of the power for all of the deities. that being said, things like the marvel interpretation and several cartoons portraying them are highly encouraged and inviting, because if you think about it, the followings to these things are akin to worship, and they aren’t above twisting any and everything to get what they want, or what they need (power, in this instance). 

on one side, the assumption that loki cares only for themself is accurate. however, like any good character, there is depth and layers to such a statement. there are certainly things that they could give a fuck less about, and they will openly admit that. there are also things they think are trivial and not worth giving a fuck about but should probably (flaws, embrace them, or something). so while seflishness and manipulation is there, there is also heart, and affection, when you look in the right places, and when applied to the right people. 

the conflict with fenrir was a turning point, albeit silently, for loki. there was no real reason besides the ever changes tides of fate and the fickle nature of visions and prophecy, to have chained their son or punished him for things that he had yet to do. perhaps there really is always room for change, but the wolf was never given the chance, and instead painted the villain that he would become. that being said, the little known truth is that loki was kept from the attempts to bind him, blinded and deafened on the entire matter until it was too late. as stated, this was the turning point, where they started to make the moves to go against the force they’d known, and made the decision to fight against them if and when the end does come. it was, however, lokis tampering that assured they would never find a way to kill their son, regardless of whether that little shit knows it yet, or not.

through the years, despite not really being particularly boastful about it, loki has made it a mission to accumulate several different useful people, places, and things. that means, they have went out of their way to get tools that might help them in not only regaining power, first and foremost, but fighting the battles they were not previously prepared for. they have studied, they have learned, they have practiced, and they have made an actual effort to protect themself, their interests, and their people (lucky you or unlucky you, if this happens to pertain to you). 

loki is covered in tattoos that are similar to the ones that ruby has (full sleeves and whatnot), but these are both chaotic and meaningful. each one has a story that will be told for a price, but depending on both mood and setting, they might be true, or they might be whatever bullshit fairytale that they had come up with at that point and time. however, it’s important to note that they do have some sort of ink for each child, sigyn, and other family members/important figures in their timeline.

fuck that little bitch baldur, and everyone who has a problem with it. this was the point in loki’s life that they started to harbor the chip on their shoulder for that which is deemed as perfect, or too precious. that being said, they aren’t a fan of the pristine, and the praise that comes with perfection or even the christian ideal of “godly”. also, not a huge fan of christianity (obviously), and angels can get fucked twicey.

obviously not a big fan of the gender binary, and very much the first one to stand up in defense of those that have been persecuted for their identities, personal choices (to a point), or who they are in general. that being said, catch them (surprisingly enough) donating money, time and effort to anything that involves this. 

STRENGTHS

“deceiver” deity physiology

shapeshifting

lie manipulation/detection

magic use/detection

all chaotic powers 

supernatural beauty/combat

trickster archetype

WEAKNESSES

disbelief

destiny manipulation/decision

divine power negation

deity consumption

certain magic/binding

divine power absorption

themfuckingself (this seems stupid but loki gets in loki’s own way, mentally and emotionally to the point of major flaw on several occasions)

[thefeckisthis]

manifestation and religion

disclaimer: im going to write my opinions on religion and if you consider yourself a believer - dont get offended as we all have different experiences and beliefs. also, i will be mentioning some stuff that most people find weird and unusual so please keep your mind open and leave your judgment somewhere else.

i wrote quite a bit and then my clumsy ass accidentally closed all tabs and everything was gone so this time ill write my intro in short version. so we all heard the saying ‘’be careful what you wish for it may come true’’. well it does come true and it has proved to me so many times, and before i get to the basics of law of attraction and manifestation I am going to say a bit of background how i got to it all.

as most of my country i was raised christian and had to practice the religion until i was 14/15 and got my holy confirmation so after that i was finally happy that i did not have to go to church if i did not want to. my family is not super religious, we do follow the holiday traditions and such as its normal in our country, but personally i dont give them much meaning. two of my family members are religious and i am grateful because in a place as my hometown our parents gave us free will when i came to religion (after our confirmation only :P) .

 with all my experience and research i came to realise that christianity is most rotten, corrupted, vile and disgusting religion there is. there are exceptions that were better than rest, that is a small number unfortunately. i always considered myself agnostic, there is no defined god but there is something bigger than humankind and its still unknown. and you look at all the religions you will find that mostly all of them have same stories, people and facts, just bit amended  to their culture.  so to explain a bit, here is internet definition of agnosticism # Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."  and no, atheist is not the same. heres couple of pictures giving some insights 

so now that we have that sorted out i would like to stress out that i never had anything against people who believe in god or dont believe in god, i have friends who are strong believers and friends who are atheist, its just called being adult and accepting people as they are. not enough people can do that. 

so i did lots of research on religions and i do like polytheism  ( Polytheism is the worship of or belief in multiple deities, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religions and rituals) so i always had huge interest in roman and Greek deities, Egyptian as well and for a while was reading about Hinduism. of course i read a lot about all other older civilizations and most of them are based on polytheism. 

during my exploring i came across a doctrine about paganism (havent fully finished all the books and here is a link if anyone would be interested in buying https://despot-infinitus.com/proizvod/paganizam-u-teoriji-i-praksi-doktrina-paganizma/) and i really liked the whole idea of it and i am still actively considering of becoming a white witch/wicca and reading those books inspired adding bit more on my pentagram tattoo, which is actually representing five elements so with added moons it represents triple goddess symbol.

many people ask me is that devils sign and am i a satanist, and that is ridiculous assumption based on only one symbol. and as a matter of fact i have been  reading about satanism itself as well (of course i have) and its quite surprisingly peaceful religion and makes more sense than christianity does. to read more about their rules (which are way better than 10 commandments) click here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism#Basic_tenets

those who know me a bit better know that i love paranormal stuff and that i have strong connection with it and that caused a lot of paranormal experiences in my life (i bring all the ghosts to your yard aaayyy) so i recently also discovered demonology ( Demonology is the study of demons or beliefs about demons. They may be human, or nonhuman, separable souls, or discarnate spirits which have never inhabited a body.) and that you can actually learn how to practice it and cant lie that also interests me as well as you contact demons and entities and you work together to learn about world and history and you give them chance to peacefully experience the world (they literally posses you and that way they get to taste food and emotions etc)

yes this is quite informative post as well. and yes, you will all probably deem me insane after reading all this. and what i noticed is that all of them mentioned above work on the principle of cooperation, you have to give to receive. and i dont mean like you have to make blood sacrifices to get your wishes, i mean you have to put in some effort in it and show good intentions and most important of all  - you have to show some respect.

so to finally get to the reason why you are all here. manifestation and law of attraction.

there were loads of instances in my life where i noticed small details that most of people wouldnt notice and after googling them one word kept coming up - universe. so automatically when you start look into that law of attraction and manifestation  come up as well, they all g hand in hand like little happy family.

So law of attraction is something you all definitely had experience with. Basically its what you put out to the world is what you get. Simple change of mindset can change everything in your life. Have you noticed when you are happy and spreading happiness everything around you seems nicer, people are nicer to you, nice things happen and then when you are in bad mood everything is going bad.

Sounds familiar? That is law of attraction for you people. you’re releasing/giving good vibes to the atmosphere and people around you so universe makes sure to give good things back. notice that give and take relationship here? Dont be fooled tho, its not always as simple as it sounds. it is especially hard when you get into that deep hole of feeling bad a and depressed. it is really hard to change your train of thoughts and get yourself to think positive. universe wont award you for one good thought, it has to be series of it and you really need to feel them. you truly need to be in a good moment to get something back from universe.

say thank you to people serving you, ask people how are they, show that you care, pick up a paper from street and throw it in a bin, smile to everyone, pet a random animal on a street, anything counts. and dont do it just because you expect something huge from universe as most of the time universe will give back with good things as well, someone will help you, smeone will compliment you, you’ll get free cup of coffee, just random things like that. you will be surprised that good things will come to you in a moment you need. it also makes you more grateful for everything in your life and makes your everyday nicer and more positive.

then we come to manifestation. 

thiiiiiis my people is bit more complicated than just law of attraction, but one without other does not go. there is no definition of the manifestation, but it is a fact that if you want something really bad universe will give it to you. i had universe manifest so many of my things that i wanted, just took a bit of time. maybe it has happened for you too. sit and think how many things did you wish for and you have them now? there are certainly more than few things that come to your mind. i can easily name at least 10 things that universe manifested for me without even realizing that was it.

there are many ways to manifest something and it is impossible for me to write everything about it in this post as it is bit more complicated than law of attraction, but i will try to outline some things and believe me when you google manifestation you will find loads of examples and you can read for days about it. 

every single wish you want to manifest you can, it just requires some work and that is the hardest part. there are many ways of manifesting something, scribbling, drawing, visualizing, meditating and many more - you need to find something that works the best for you. you need to have clear vision of what you want (general idea wont work), you have to want it really strongly and you need to start working towards it, even little steps - remember when i said you have to give to receive, same with universe. it wont just drop it in your lap because you decided it would be beneficial for you. 

and have in mind very important thing universe will always provide and it will give you what you deserve when you are ready for it.

so yes, it means it can take waaaay longer than you expect it, it may not be hours, days it may be years, it just means that you are not ready for it yet but that doesnt mean universe is not working on bringing it to you. all the work you put into it will definitely be worth it.

for example i fell in love in marketing in university and always wanted a job in that field. it did not get easy to me at all. i spent long five years applying for the jobs and either getting rejections or no answer. and believe me that could put me in such bad mood sometimes that i just wanted to give up on everything. add to that anxiety struggles and that makes it even harder. and as mentioned in the last year i worked on myself mentally, my anxiety has been on lower levels for a while and it does spike up now and then and it messes things up, but i’ve been happier mentally then i ever was in last 5 years and towards end of the last year more and more good things started to come my way and then i finally got that long awaited job.

i am still looking a proper way to thank universe for making it happen for me as that is also important thing for manifestation.

going to use myself as example - being a cheerleader, moving to another country, going to enrique iglesias concerts, visiting loch ness and Neuschwanstein Castle and many more were just big wishes at one point and so far they all came true and i couldnt be happier. it can be small things as well, once i tried to test it and i wanted to manifest a drink date. so i kept thinking how i will go for a drink with someone next week. and it happened, next week i went for a drink with a guy i just met, completely unexpectedly. i didnt specify anything else other than gooing for a drink at that was the only thing that happened.

once wished for more money (also nothing specific stupid me haha) and after two days i found €5 on the floor. not much but universe did provide what i wanted :D

as i’ve said, manifestation is more complicated than law attraction and requires strong mind and strong will, so not only that you get what you wish and work for - it makes you a better person as well! To end this i am going to leave couple of links you can visit and see more about them, or if you’re more adventurous just google manifestation and enjoy your journey :) https://medium.com/thrive-global/9-principles-of-conscious-manifestation-3d2df7a4a87

https://elysesantilli.com/what-is-manifestation/

https://blog.mindvalley.com/manifestation/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZNFXNnKOLdA5ZD7Sn2p5aQ/videos

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvptCAXYmDZMOffniGRfomQ/videos

[mielleuccello]

Another TED Talk About My Undying Support for Daenerys Targaryen

One of the only things I do enjoy about Daenerys’s arc on Game of Thrones is the conversation it has generated regarding governance, leadership, and morality. I’ve been reading and reading trying to wrap my head around this ending in a way that doesn’t feel so *ick*, and I’ve seen about a 50/50 split between camps of people who believe Dany represented war and violence in a story about how war and violence is very bad, and then people who think Dany represented revolutionary processes in a story about how central politics and nepotism will always reject sincere change. I think the conversation alone is profound enough for me to find some solace and closure in the finale.

Option 1 (War/Violence Dany) is *at least* satisfying in that it teaches us about the pointlessness of trying to bring positive change through violence. Even where we--the viewer--have had a full scope on Dany’s intent, background, and thought processes for almost her whole life, we know that there was a pointlessness to killing the entirety of King’s Landing (and potentially all of Westeros). We knew Dany could’ve just settled for taking the throne and engaging in revolution the hard way like she did in Slaver’s Bay, and we were all shocked and disappointed that she chose not to in the end--but narratively it can’t have been too surprising, because she absolutely hated the political process in Meereen.

We saw first-hand her hardship in trying the slow-burn method in Essos--a situation in which she was considered morally good because she was only trying to free slaves and create equality between classes. We saw how resistant the existing, remaining government was to change. We understood how messy making that type of change happen was for all involved (what with economic struggle, plagues, riots, coups, etc.), so there may have been a level of logic to trying her second revolution in Westeros a more ruthless way.

It was also made immediately clear to Dany that Westeros was not as interested in revolution as Slaver’s Bay was, since the poorest classes were technically free and independent and have consistently cared very little for their central government no matter what--this is a point made throughout the series and it was directly mentioned to Dany by Jorah Mormont.

"The common people pray for rain, health, and a summer that never ends. They don't care what games the high lords play."

In Essos, the poorest class was very emotionally invested in Daenerys’s success, which helped her launch her initial revolution. Add this into the fact that the smallfolk are much more invested in their nobility and local government, and that same local government consistently rejects any type of a central government to rule over them (Robert is killed by high lords plotting, Joffrey is killed by high lords plotting, Myrcella and Tommen are killed in the middle of high lords plotting, Robb Stark, Jon Snow, Margaery Tyrell and her family)....and well....Dany’s campaign would be a cocktail for failure if she tried to install herself as queen in a peaceful way. So instead, Daenerys asserting a forceful rule backed by a powerful, unstoppable weapon is definitely a way to bring the lords of Westeros to heel.  You can’t plot against a mothaf**kin’ dragon! What she fails to realize is that doing so alone and unsupported and misunderstood is what makes her tyrannical--the people she’s trying to “save” are not in on the plan, and inevitably reject her and remove her too, because they think she’s just trying to come to power for power’s sake. She’s given them no reason or evidence to think otherwise yet. The nobility would also never want her revolution if it means the destruction of the status quo, and the people don’t care what happens either way if it doesn’t affect them.

Option 2 (Revolutionary/Che Guevara Dany) is interesting because it leaves Dany in the role of a tragic, misunderstood hero even more so than Option 1. In this vein of thought, Dany offered Cersei the chance to surrender, and Cersei instead tried to display herself as a threat. She tried to use innocents and weapons-manufacturing to deter Daenerys, and Dany made an example of her--she sent a clear message to Westeros that nothing would save them if they did not fall in line. There would be no plotting against her, and there would be absolutely no mercy if they engaged in their old games. The wheel would be broken whether the existing lords liked it or not. Perhaps this is cruel and forceful, but it would prevent the high lords from using their smallfolk again (”a mercy to the future generations”)--and would help the smallfolk see the invalidity of their existing government (a government that uses its people as an ineffective meat shield against a dragon queen.) The lords may not ever love her, but they wouldn’t be using their smallfolk to maintain their own power ever again. That is what’s important. The Starks showed us that love and loyalty does not a leader make. Ned Stark, Robb Stark, and Jon Snow all inevitably failed their people and directly caused them long-term suffering via war and unrest (right before the Great War wiped out an already-weakened north, no less!) Even our “just and good” northern lords have not helped the conditions of the smallfolk at all. They are inept.

The stellar thing here is that all of these points are corroborated by the most stable and just king Westeros has had in generations--Robert Baratheon!

He knows how the incompetent lords of Westeros would react to a Targaryen invasion.

From the smallfolk wiki page:

When Cersei Lannister asks Robert why he is so worried about the prospect of a Targaryen-aligned Dothraki army, he explains that should the Dothraki cross the Narrow Sea, the nobles can retreat to their castles, but then a great many of the smallfolk would be slaughtered and those that are left will turn on their absentee king and possibly decide to join Viserys. 

He also knows how to keep them abiding by his rule:

"Honor? I've got Seven Kingdoms to rule! One king, Seven Kingdoms! Do you think honor keeps them in line? Do you think it's honor that's keeping the peace? It's fear! Fear and blood!"

Let it be fear!

I like this the most because it solidifies The Battle of King’s Landing as more-Hiroshima less-slaughterhouse--it immediately ended a long, horrifying war and prevented the escalation of worse types of warfare purely out of fear for an overwhelming weapon. This also implies that had Dany lived, she wouldn’t necessarily have to continue burning up cities, because the lords would already know what was coming for them. The central character perspectives in the finale made us believe Dany intended to burn other people, but that’s a relatively baseless assumption. (For example, she only crucified the masters when they crucified children to deter her campaign. She did not crucify masters when they revolted against her. She did execute one of them as a statement but could have slaughtered all of them to negate all opposition against her, if she were truly a mad, power-hungry queen. We also can’t even compare the two situations, since Daenerys was considerably less powerful at the time--having no Dothraki army, no extra allies or naval fleet, and no fully-grown, trained dragons yet. Her power at the end of GOT is enough to bring the lords in line on its own, without political statements and maneuvering.)

Furthermore, her disdain for the existing smallfolk of Westeros is explained when in comparison to those of Slaver’s Bay. These people really don’t give a s**t about making the world better, whereas the people of Slaver’s Bay follow Dany’s dream to the very end (and beyond).

The citizens of King’s Landing are completely indifferent towards supporting a disgusting human being like Cersei, whereas the people of Slaver’s Bay displayed passion and morality similar to what Dany is feeling. All these things together explain why Dany decides that “they don’t get to choose [what’s good.]” Because they just don’t care about good or bad for everyone else. They are the ones who let people like Joffrey, Cersei, and the Boltons take power with apathy. So only the people who do care get to decide what’s good for the world.

And FINALLY, for some additional thoughts, I like either of these points of conclusion for Dany’s arc and motivations because it helps create an idea of cosmic destiny. She was on the trajectory towards something massive and world-changing--the birth of her dragons, her visions, and epic journey full of magic and supernatural guidance all were pointing her towards some type of world change. It is the existing status quo--the darker, political side of humanity....the game--that kills her for it, despite her intentions and abilities.

(Perhaps there’s some divine intervention about to happen a la resurrection anyways!)

[qqueenofhades]

Medieval Magic Week: Witchcraft in Early Medieval Europe

Apologies for not getting to this last week, but I will try to be at least semi-reliable about posting these. If you missed it: I’m teaching a class on magic and the supernatural in the Middle Ages this semester, and since the Tumblr people also wanted to be learned, I am here attempting to learn them by giving a sort of virtual seminar.

Last week was the introduction, where we covered overall concepts like the difference between magic, religion, and science (is there one?), who did magic benefit (depends on who you ask), was magic a good or a bad thing in the medieval world (once again, It’s All Relative) and who was practicing it. We also brought in ideas like the gendering of supernatural power (is magic a feminine or a masculine practice, and does this play into larger gendered concepts in society?) and did some basic myth-busting about the medieval era. No, not everybody was super religious and mind-controlled by the church. No, they were not all poor farmers. No, not every woman was Silent, Raped, and Repressed. Magic was a common and folkloric practice on some level, but it was also the concern of educated and literate ‘worldly’ observers. We can’t write magic off as the medieval era simply ‘not knowing any better,’ or having no more sophisticated epistemology than rudimentary superstition. These people navigated thousands of miles without any kind of modern technology, built amazing cathedrals requiring hugely complex mathematical and engineering skill, wrote and translated books, treatises, and texts, and engaged with many different fields of knowledge and areas of interest. They subjected their miracle stories to critical vetting and were concerned with proving the evidentiary truth of their claims. We cannot dismiss magic as them having no alternative explanation or way of thinking about the world, or being sheltered naïve rustics.

This week, we looked at some primary sources discussing ‘witchcraft’ beliefs in early medieval Europe, which for our purposes is about 500—eh we’ll say 1000 C.E. We also thought about some questions to pose to these texts. Where did belief in witchcraft – best known for early modern witch hunts – come from? How did it survive through centuries of cultural Christianisation? Why was it viewed as useful or as threatening? Scholars have tended to argue for a generic mystical ‘shamanism’ in pre-Christian Europe, which isn’t very helpful (basically, it means ‘we don’t have enough evidence, so fuck if we know!���). They have also assumed that these were ‘superstitions’ or ‘relics’ of pagan belief in an otherwise Christian culture, which is likewise not helpful. We don’t have time to get into the whole debate, but yes, you can imagine the kind of narratives and assumptions that Western historiography has produced around this.

At this point, Europe was slowly, but by no means monolithically, becoming Christian, which meant a vast remaking of traditional culture. There was never a point where beliefs and practices stopped point-blank being pagan and became Christian instead; they were always hybrid, and they were always subject to discussion and debate. Obviously, people don’t stop doing things they have done a particular way for centuries overnight. (Once again, this is where we remind people that the medieval church was not the Borg and had absolutely no power to automatically assimilate anyone.) Our first text, the ‘Corrector sive medicus,’ which is the nineteenth chapter of Burchard of Worms’ Decretum, demonstrates this. The Decretum is a collection of ecclesiastical law, dating from early eleventh-century Germany. This is well after Germany was officially ‘Christianised,’ and after the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire as an explicitly Christian polity (usually dated from Charlemagne’s coronation on 25 December 800; this was the major organising political unit for medieval Germany and the Carolingians were intensely obsessed with divine approval). And yet! Burchard is still extremely concerned with the prevalence of ‘magical’ or ‘pagan’ beliefs in his diocese, which means people were still doing them.

The Corrector is a handbook setting out the proper length of penances to do (by fasting on bread and water) for a variety of transgressions. It can seem ridiculously nitpicky and overbearing in its determination to prescribe lengthy penances for magical offenses, which are mixed in among punishments for real crimes: robbery, theft, arson, adultery, etc. This might seem to lend legitimacy to the ‘killjoy medieval church oppressing the people’ narrative, except the punishments for sexual sins are actually much lighter than in earlier Celtic law codes. If you ‘shame a woman’ with your thoughts, it’s five days of penance if you’re married, two if you aren’t, but if you consult an oracle or take part in element worship or use charms or incantations, it could be up to two years.

Overall, the Corrector gives us the impression that eleventh-century German society was a lot more worried about whether you were secretly cursing your neighbour with pagan sorcery, rather than who you’re bonking, even though sexual morality is obviously still a concern, and this reflected the effort of trying to explicitly and completely Christianise a society that remained deeply attached to its traditional beliefs and practices. (There’s also a section about women going out at night and running naked with ‘Diana, Goddess of the Pagans’, which sounds awesome sign me up.) Thus there is here, as there will certainly be later, a gendered element to magic. Women could be witches, enchantresses, sorceresses, or other possible threats, and have to be closely watched. Nonetheless, there’s no organised societal persecution of them. Formal witch hunts and witch trials are decidedly a post-Renaissance phenomenon (cue rant about how terrible the Renaissance was for women). So as much as we stereotype the medieval world as supposedly being intolerant and repressive of women, witch hunts weren’t yet a thing, and many educated women, such as Trota of Salerno, had professional careers in medicine.

The solution to this problem of magical misuse is not to stop or destroy magic, since everyone believes in it, but to change who is legitimately allowed to access it. Valerie Flint’s article, ‘The Early Medieval Medicus, the Saint – and the Enchanter’ discusses the renegotiation of this ability. Essentially, there were three categories of ‘healer’ figure in the early Middle Ages: 1) the saint, whose miraculous power was explicitly Christian; 2) the ‘medicus’ or doctor, who used herbal or medical treatment, and 3) the ‘enchanter’, who used pagan magical power. According to the ecclesiastical authors, the saint is obviously the best option, and believing in/appealing to this figure will give you cures beyond the medicus’ ability, as a reward for your faith. The medicus tries his best and has good intentions, but is limited in his effectiveness and serves in some way as the saint’s ‘fall guy’. Or: Anything the Doctor Can (Or Can’t) Do, The Saint Can Do Better. But the doctor has enough social authority and respected knowledge to make it a significant victory when the saint’s power supersedes him.

On the other hand, the ‘enchanter’ is basically all bad. He (or often, she) makes the same claim to supernatural power as the saint, but the power is misused at best and actively malicious and uncontrollably destructive at worst. You are likely to be far worse off after having consulted the enchanter than if you did nothing at all. Both the saint and the enchanter are purveyors of ‘magical’ power, but only the saint has any legitimate claim (again, according to our church authors, whose views are different from those of the people) to using it. The saint’s power comes from God and Jesus Christ, the privileged or ‘true’ source of supernatural ability, while the enchanter is drawing on destructive and incorrect pagan beliefs and making the situation worse. The medicus is a benign and well-intentioned, if not always effective, option for healing, but the enchanter is No Good Very Bad Terrible.

The fact that ecclesiastical authors have to go so hard against magic, however, is proof of the long-running popularity of its practitioners. The general public is apparently still too prone to consult an enchanter rather than turn to the church to solve their problems. The church doesn’t want to eradicate these practices entirely, but insists that people call upon God/Christ as the authority in doing them, rather than whatever local or folkloric belief has been the case until now. It’s not destroying magic, but repurposing and redefining it. What has previously been the unholy domain of the pagan is now proof of the ultimate authority of Christianity. If you’re doing it right, it’s no longer pagan sorcery, but religious miracles or devotion.

Overall: what role does witchcraft play in early medieval Europe? The answer, of course, is ‘it’s complicated.’ We’re talking about a dynamic, large-scale transformation and hybridising of culture and society, as Christian religion and society became more prevalent over long-rooted pagan or traditional beliefs. However, these beliefs arguably never fully vanished, and were remade, renamed, and allowed to stay, without any apparent sense of contradiction on the part of the people practicing them. Ecclesiastical authorities were extremely concerned to identify and remove these ‘pagan’ elements, of course, but the general public’s relationship with them was always more nuanced. When dealing with medieval texts about magic, we have a tendency to prioritise those that deal with a definably historical person, event, or place, whereas clearly mythological stories referring to supernatural creatures or encounters are viewed as ‘less important’ or as the realm of historical fiction or legend. This is a mistake, since these texts are still encoding and transmitting important cultural referents, depictions of the role of magic in society, and the way in which medieval people saw it as a helpful or hurtful force. We have to work with the sources we have, of course, but we also have to be especially aware of our critical assumptions and prejudices in doing so.

It should be noted that medieval authors were very concerned with proving the veracity of their miracle narratives; they did not expect their audiences to believe them just because they said so. This is displayed for example in the work of two famous early medieval historians, Gregory of Tours (c.538—594) and the Venerable Bede (672/3—735). Both Gregory’s History of the Franks and Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People contain a high proportion of miracle stories, and both of them are at pains to explain to the reader why they have found these narratives reliable: they knew the individual in question personally, or they heard the story from a sober man of good character, or several trusted witnesses attested to it, or so forth. Trying to recover the actual historicity of reported ‘miracle’ healings is close to impossible, and we should resist the cynical modern impulse to say that none of them happened and Gregory and Bede are just exaggerating for religious effect. We’re talking about some kind of experienced or believed-in phenomena, of whatever type, and obviously in a pre-modern society, your options for healthcare are fairly limited. It might be worth appealing to your local saint to do you a solid. So to just dismiss this experience from our modern perspective, with who knows how much evidence lost, in an entirely different cultural context, is not helpful either. There’s a lot of sneering ‘look at these unenlightened religious zealots’ under-and-overtones in popular conceptions of the medieval era, and smugly feeling ourselves intellectually superior to them isn’t going to get us very far.

Next week: Ideas about the afterlife, heaven, hell, the development of purgatory, the kind of creatures that lived in these realms, and their representation in art, culture, and literature.

Further Reading:

Alver, B.G., and T. Selberg, ‘Folk Medicine As Part of a Larger Complex Concept,’ Arv, 43 (1987), 21–44.

Barry, J., and O. Davies, eds., Witchcraft Historiography (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007)

Collins, D., ‘Magic in the Middle Ages: History and Historiography’, History Compass, 9 (2011), 410–22.

Flint, V.I.J, ‘A Magical Universe,’ in A Social History of England, 1200-1500, ed. by R. Horrox and W. Mark Ormrod (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 340–55.

Hall, A., ‘The Contemporary Evidence for Early Medieval Witchcraft Beliefs’, RMN Newsletter, 3 (2011), 6-11.

Jolly, K.L., Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996)

Kieckhefer, R., Magic in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)

Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., The Occult in Mediaeval Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005)

Storms, G., Anglo-Saxon Magic (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1947)

Tangherlini, T., ‘From Trolls to Turks: Continuity and Change in Danish Legend Tradition’, Scandinavian Studies, 67 (1995), 32–62.

[dicecast]

D&D Cosmology (Homebrew)

   There are three realities, each of which is sub divided by 3, which in turn is sub divided by 3, because the multiverse loves that number...a lot.  Native of Planes other than the Material Plane are called Outsiders, who are defined by A) Being made of the essence of a plane B) Lacking free will C) being able to be summoned

Objective Morality: The fundamentals of the world

The objective world cannot be altered by circumstance or larger reality, these are absolutes in an otherwise fluid world.  It includes

The Outer Planes: These are the objective afterlives, based upon your morality, 9 major ones in total.  The rulers and desitiens of the realms are called Exemplars and they personify a certain morality.  Demons are always Chaotic and Evil, Archons are always Lawful and Good, Aeons are always True Neutral etc.  The Outer Planes are largely defined by The Blood War, the largest war in history between the Lawful Evil Devils, and the Chaotic Evil Demons.  Evil is far more powerful than good and could wipe out good in an instance if they ever unified...but they don’t. The Outer Planes are further divided but that is too nuanced to get into now.  Archons, Demons, Daemons, Devils, Raksha, Ashura, Asuras, Daevas, Devas, Angels, Celestials, Fiends, and Qlippoth are all examples of Exemplars

The Inner Planes: These are the elemental planes, which make up the fundamentals of reality itself, these elements define magic, alchemy, physics, everything.  The locals here are called Elementals, and they embody their concepts.  The world is divided by into 5 sets of 4 elementals combos, with void at the center making 21.  Earth, Water, Air, and Fire is one system.  Positive (healing), Negative (Decay), Light, Dark is another.  Time, Space, Ooze (Life), Ash (Death) is another system.  Void is the center of all, supposedly there was another system (Quintessence) but it was killed.  Fire Elementals, Void Elementals, Wood Elementals, Ash Elementals are all examples of elementals, not that clever.  Supposedly their is an Oblivion plane here but that doesn’t exist, I swear.  

The Middle Planes, these are rotating planes which move around the Material Plane like planets, they embody various concepts that mortals are obsessed with, like Dreams, Madness, War, Weather etc.  The Natives are known as Others

Subjective reality: Will Power and personality

This realm is define by personality and the inner psyche of mortals themselves.  Weird fellows.  

The Far Sphere , The Hedge, The Fae Realms: The Fae are strange mysterious entities who are tied to unhealthy patterns of human behavior, each type of Fae embodies an unhealthy coping mechanism.  Each of the 9 Courts is subdivided into Seelie and Unseelie versions, unseelie Fae are actively malicious and cruel while Seelie fae are….also actively malicious and cruel but wear a smiley face.  

The Near Sphere, A’lam Al-jinn: The “Hidden Realm” this is the domain of the Jinn, who are generally pretty cool, they act like more extreme versions of mortal intellectual thought.  There are 16 realms each based on a different terrain (Swamp Jinn, City Jinn, Rural Jinn, Tundra Jinn, Ocean Jinn, Mountain Jinn, Cave Jinn etc) none of which are necessarily good or evil.  It depends on the Jinn

The Spirit World: The realm of the spirits keep the multiverse running, but are changing, altering, and shifting creatures.  They are subdivided into 5 types, Transformation Spirits (Dragon Age), Preservation (Chinese Mythology), Evolution (Native American) , Destruction (Central Asian Spirits) and Creation (African).  Spirits are alien but but there is always a method to their madness.  The Wheel of Reincarnation is located here.  

Conceptual Reality

Reality is what we perceive it to be, existence by consensus.  It also seems the most repetitive of the worlds, with the same themes repeating themselves over and over again (Thanks Jung)

The Divine Tree: This massive spiritual tree is the realms of the Gods, and their Servitor...well servants.  Mortals can avoid going to the afterlife if they worship a god, and may dwell with their god or Gods for millennia, but even gods die and the soul will find their way to the next realm eventually.  Some argue that the tree isn’t actually a real tree, but a metaphor for some greater conceptual entity that we can’t understand, oh sweet lord Kabbalistic theology is so esoteric I can’t even.  Supposedly there are two other types of gods that exist, the 13 Elder Gods which embody Taboos and are locked away, and The Old Ones who seem to embody primordial fears and senses, but that isn’t true.  

The Color Wheel: Supposedly the 12 great colors have some sort of raw power that governs the world, but that is just dumb.

The Great Houses: Supposedly there are 4/4 types of entities that embody base assumptions, but really who would be dumb enough to believe that, I mean seriously now.

Relative Reality

Doesn’t exist, that would be fucking stupid, everybody knows relative reality isn’t real, it would ruin the whole 3 theme we have going for us, god why are people so fucking stupid…..but if it did existed

The Realm of the Primordials: Haven’t come up with a name for it yet, the Primordials were the co creators of Gods, but after a great conflict called “The Dawn War” they were overthrown and killed, with their realm neglected and abandoned now

The Realm of the Titans: The Titans used to rule over the Gods, but the gods rebelled and replaced them, the 13 Elder Gods

The Realms of the Dead: Ok, these ones we definitely know exist, but it totally isn’t relative I swear, that would just be stupid.  Reapers, Shinigami, Psychopomps aren’t relative, what are you talking about?

The Material Plane

Where all of the realms come together, the Material Plane is mostly made up of mortals, animals, Dragons, Giants, Mormons, Plants, Beasts, Undead, and Sylvans, the latter being personifications of the Material Planes and tend to be guardians of nature.  Most Mortals are either created by gods for a purpose (Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Goblins, Halflings, Gnomes, Bugbears) or were created by the “Seven Creator Races” strange entities who made a lot of animal themed entities.  Humans are a weird exception, they seem to just be animals who evolved to sentience which is why most other races see them as inferior.  Dragons were the very first mortals and the world exists for them, and Giants are the caretakers of the Material Plane (they don’t do a very good job).  There are 25 “ISlands of Time” which are special Material Plane PLanets created to embody a specific theme, but all of them are slowly merging

Sigil: The Single greatest city EVAR, it is the center of the multiverse and it is where the entire world mixes into one.  Governed by the 16 hilariously ineffective factions, this city is the most important and least competent entity in the world

The Transitive Realms

These realms are more places of travel than true realms, you use these to get around

The Astral Plane: A giant silvery ocean of existence, mortals and souls travel around this realm which connects the entire multiverse, but it is so vast that it is very hard to get around

The Ethereal Plane: The first place souls go to before they travel to the Realms of the Dead, this is like an alternative version of the Material Plane, a ghostly creepy realm.  

The Plane of Shadows: Made up of what we can’t quite see, this realm is a strange alternative version of the Material Plane that is shadowy, gloomy, obsessed with card games, and seems to be based on the Road Not Taken

The Plane of Mirrors: This realm is one of twisted altered possibilities, strangely enough  it is NOT an alternative of the Material Plane for some reason.  

Other Realms

For some reasons, not everything fits into this neat happy theme...but there time will come

Mundus: The home of strange entities called the Daedra, Eetra, and Aedra, these simultaneously alien but also deeply human entities claim to belong to an alternative morality that no longer exists

Faerie and the Shadowfell.  These two realms are where Fairies and Hags come from respectively, Fairies live off positive emotions, while Hags live off negative, but don’t mistake that for morality.  

Taterus: Supposedly a race of entities attempted to overthrow the Gods themselves, and were imprisoned, but they could come back at any point

Malfeas: Once Upon a Time, the Material Plane had special entities who guided and controlled it, called Protogenoi.  However due to some sort of accident (Gods did it) most of them were overthrown, with only Gia left.  The remaining Protogenoi were locked away inside the bowls of their leader and have since transformed into creatures known as Yozi, twisted world ending abominations of what they should have been.  Scholars have noticed how repetitive mythology seems to be, and are fairly certain reality itself is taking the piss.  

The Underworld: Some of those Protogenoi were actually killed rather than imprisoned, but because they are tied to the universe itself, they cannot die.  So their corpses created this terrifying realm where souls cannot rest, most Undead come from here

The Wyrld: The very edge of reality itself, this is a land were stories become real and the world itself shifts to accommodate the rules of drama.  Ruled by the Raksha.  

The Lying Darkness: wait...what?

The Far Realm: Seriously WTF, this alien eldritch realm is basically another multiverse entirely, and its very existence breaks ours and visa versa.  The creatures there are totally alien and likely as scared of us as we are of them.  

The Netherworld (Not sure about the name: This is the alternative afterlife of some alien mortals who don’t quite fit in, like Mind Flayers or Beholders.  Thing Purgatory from Supernatural

Eden: Once Fate existed and it was located here , but now lays in ruins.  

Zen-Mu: The realm of the 4 Houses.  Or possible the home of the primordials

Yu-Shan: THe home of the Celestial Bureaucracy, it is the home of the other 4 houses.  

The Dark Tapestry: I don’t know what that is?

The Deep Below: Before there was existence, there was water, and those waters exist outside the multiverse itself

Outsiders

Outsiders are the native creatures of the planse and they might resemble mortals in many way.  They have personalities, they think, they can even form relationships and have FEELINGS.  But they aren’t like mortals in one critical way, they lack Free Will.  Mortals can change their mind, have character arcs, and discover new perspectives, Outsiders cannot, they embody their plane.  So a Devil embodies Lawful Evil, they can’t not be Lawful and Evil personified.  A devil might save a person’s life or give money to charity but they cannot do so for its own sake, and a Devil will never act in a chaotic manner, Devils don’t spontaneously do things, everything they do is according to some lawful system.  Similarly, a Water Elemental is all about water, they can have a personality and goals, but it all comes back to water in the end.  

Summoning outsiders

There are three different ways an outsider can come to the Mortal World.  

Called Creatures: This is what happens with your basic “Summon monster” spell, a spiritual projection of the creature shows up, does some stuff, and then leaves after a set amount of time.  Short of incredibly powerful magics, Called creatures cannot be permanently hurt, they just go back home when killed or when their time runs out

Summoned: This is basically calling a creature but on a permanent basis, a spiritual projection of the being arrives on the plane and walks around doing stuff, it’s basically like they are here in the flesh.  Summon creatures when ‘killed’ don’t actually die, they just go home to their own realm, and are unable to be summoned again for 100 years.  Sounds great, except that summoned creatures are extremely susceptible to certain spells which can instantly banish them.  Against a summoned creature, with the right spells, you can basically instantly send them back to their home domain, no problem.  

Arrived Creature:  They are here, in the flesh, totally here.  This means no weaknesses, and much much more powerful than their reduced Summon form.  This is very rare, normally you need a special ritual to fully bring an outsider to the Material plane or a very powerful being to drag them here.  This makes them more powerful but if they die, they die for good.  Sometimes they can arrive via portals, which can be very scary if a whole lot of them arrive at once.  

Last Notes

Outsiders usually can’t come to the Material Plane without Permission and in large numbers, there are billions of them and they could easily conquer the Material Plane if they had half a chance.  But sometimes portals do open int oa new world, and that leads to a Planar Wars, the worse wars.

Oh wait, no, one last thing, the BLood War.  The Largest War in all time is between the Demons and the Devils.  Lawful Evil, vs. Chaotic Evil, this war is larger than any other conflict in history and threatens to destroy the multiverse some day.  If these two sides unified for even a day, they would take over the entire world.  

[dwellordream]

“…In modern English, we often use oath and vow interchangeably, but they are not (usually) the same thing. Divine beings figure in both kinds of promises, but in different ways. In a vow, the god or gods in question are the recipients of the promise: you vow something to God (or a god). By contrast, an oath is made typically to a person and the role of the divine being in the whole affair is a bit more complex.

…In a vow, the participant promises something – either in the present or the future – to a god, typically in exchange for something. This is why we talk of an oath of fealty or homage (promises made to a human), but a monk’s vows. When a monk promises obedience, chastity and poverty, he is offering these things to God in exchange for grace, rather than to any mortal person. Those vows are not to the community (though it may be present), but to God (e.g. Benedict in his Rule notes that the vow “is done in the presence of God and his saints to impress on the novice that if he ever acts otherwise, he will surely be condemned by the one he mocks.” (RB 58.18)). Note that a physical thing given in a vow is called a votive (from that Latin root).

(More digressions: Why do we say ‘marriage vows‘ in English? Isn’t this a promise to another human being? I suspect this usage – functionally a ‘frozen’ phrase – derives from the assumption that the vows are, in fact, not a promise to your better half, but to God to maintain. After all, the Latin Church held – and the Catholic Church still holds – that a marriage cannot be dissolved by the consent of both parties (unlike oaths, from which a person may be released with the consent of the recipient). The act of divine ratification makes God a party to the marriage, and thus the promise is to him. Thus a vow, and not an oath.)

…Which brings us to the question how does an oath work? In most of modern life, we have drained much of the meaning out of the few oaths that we still take, in part because we tend to be very secular and so don’t regularly consider the religious aspects of the oaths – even for people who are themselves religious. Consider it this way: when someone lies in court on a TV show, we think, “ooh, he’s going to get in trouble with the law for perjury.” We do not generally think, “Ah yes, this man’s soul will burn in hell for all eternity, for he has (literally!) damned himself.” But that is the theological implication of a broken oath!

So when thinking about oaths, we want to think about them the way people in the past did: as things that work – that is they do something. In particular, we should understand these oaths as effective – by which I mean that the oath itself actually does something more than just the words alone. They trigger some actual, functional supernatural mechanisms. In essence, we want to treat these oaths as real in order to understand them.

So what is an oath? To borrow Richard Janko’s (The Iliad: A Commentary (1992), in turn quoted by Sommerstein) formulation, “to take an oath is in effect to invoke powers greater than oneself to uphold the truth of a declaration, by putting a curse upon oneself if it is false.” Following Sommerstein, an oath has three key components:

First: A declaration, which may be either something about the present or past or a promise for the future.

Second: The specific powers greater than oneself who are invoked as witnesses and who will enforce the penalty if the oath is false. In Christian oaths, this is typically God, although it can also include saints. For the Greeks, Zeus Horkios (Zeus the Oath-Keeper) is the most common witness for oaths. This is almost never omitted, even when it is obvious.

Third: A curse, by the swearers, called down on themselves, should they be false. This third part is often omitted or left implied, where the cultural context makes it clear what the curse ought to be. Particularly, in Christian contexts, the curse is theologically obvious (damnation, delivered at judgment) and so is often omitted.

While some of these components (especially the last) may be implied in the form of an oath, all three are necessary for the oath to be effective – that is, for the oath to work.

A fantastic example of the basic formula comes from Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (656 – that’s a section, not a date), where the promise in question is the construction of a new monastery, which runs thusly (Anne Savage’s translation):

These are the witnesses that were there, who signed on Christ’s cross with their fingers and agreed with their tongues…”I, king Wulfhere, with these king’s eorls, war-leaders and thanes, witness of my gift, before archbishop Deusdedit, confirm with Christ’s cross”…they laid God’s curse, and the curse of all the saints and all God’s people on anyone who undid anything of what was done, so be it, say we all. Amen.”

So we have the promise (building a monastery and respecting the donation of land to it), the specific power invoked as witness, both by name and through the connection to a specific object (the cross – I’ve omitted the oaths of all of Wulfhere’s subordinates, but each and every one of them assented ‘with Christ’s cross,’ which they are touching) and then the curse to be laid on anyone who should break the oath.

…With those components laid out, it may be fairly easy to see how the oath works, but let’s spell it out nonetheless. You swear an oath because your own word isn’t good enough, either because no one trusts you, or because the matter is so serious that the extra assurance is required.

That assurance comes from the presumption that the oath will be enforced by the divine third party. The god is called – literally – to witness the oath and to lay down the appropriate curses if the oath is violated. Knowing that horrible divine punishment awaits forswearing, the oath-taker, it is assumed, is less likely to make the oath. Interestingly, in the literature of classical antiquity, it was also fairly common for the gods to prevent the swearing of false oaths – characters would find themselves incapable of pronouncing the words or swearing the oath properly.

And that brings us to a second, crucial point – these are legalistic proceedings, in the sense that getting the details right matters a great detail. The god is going to enforce the oath based on its exact wording (what you said, not what you meant to say!), so the exact wording must be correct. It was very, very common to add that oaths were sworn ‘without guile or deceit’ or some such formulation, precisely to head off this potential trick (this is also, interestingly, true of ancient votives – a Roman or a Greek really could try to bargain with a god, “I’ll give X if you give Y, but only if I get by Z date, in ABC form.” – but that’s vows, and we’re talking oaths).

…Not all oaths are made in full, with the entire formal structure, of course. Short forms are made. In Greek, it was common to transform a statement into an oath by adding something like τὸν Δία (by Zeus!). Those sorts of phrases could serve to make a compact oath – e.g. μὰ τὸν Δία! (yes, [I swear] by Zeus!) as an answer to the question is essentially swearing to the answer – grammatically speaking, the verb of swearing is necessary, but left implied. We do the same thing, (“I’ll get up this hill, by God!”). And, I should note, exactly like in English, these forms became standard exclamations, as in Latin comedy, this is often hercule! (by Hercules!), edepol! (by Pollux!) or ecastor! (By Castor! – oddly only used by women). One wonders in these cases if Plautus chooses semi-divine heroes rather than full on gods to lessen the intensity of the exclamation (‘shoot!’ rather than ‘shit!’ as it were). Aristophanes, writing in Greek, has no such compunction, and uses ‘by Zeus!’ quite a bit, often quite frivolously.

Nevertheless, serious oaths are generally made in full, often in quite specific and formal language. Remember that an oath is essentially a contract, cosigned by a god – when you are dealing with that kind of power, you absolutely want to be sure you have dotted all of the ‘i’s and crossed all of the ‘t’s. Most pre-modern religions are very concerned with what we sometimes call ‘orthopraxy’ (‘right practice’ – compare orthodoxy, ‘right doctrine’). Intent doesn’t matter nearly as much as getting the exact form or the ritual precisely correct (for comparison, ancient paganisms tend to care almost exclusively about orthopraxy, whereas medieval Christianity balances concern between orthodoxy and orthopraxy (but with orthodoxy being the more important)).”

- Bret Devereaux, “Oaths! How do they Work?”

[ibelong2u]

Ancient Indian Scholars

The contribution of ancient Indian scholars could have been a lot more impactful in present-day scientific understanding if they had given more importance to articulating their research methodology.

In the absence of proofs, many Indians have started believing over the generations that these ancient scientists gained access to this knowledge through supernatural means such as devotion to a Divine authority or prayerful meditation - an assumption some religious groups capitalize on to promote Hindu rituals, meditation workshops, spiritual retreats, etc.

Sure, meditation does help in mental clarity and introspection, but I don't think it is possible to calculate the planetary movements just by sitting with your eyes closed.

There's no doubt, that scholars like Ramanujan have made groundbreaking contributions. I just keep wondering how much manifold their impact would have been if they had articulated their analysis and thought process. Students might have been able to use the methodology and make great contributions of their own.

Ayurveda is another example. As with most Vedic texts, one gap in Ayurveda is that information is presented as authoritative truth, without any reference to how the treatments were formulated. Research methods are not articulated.

[kalvincent]

Orc Society Part 3: Children, Religion, and Politics

Children

Because of an orc’s shorter gestation time, and the slightly higher rates of twins or triplets, most orc children grow up with a number of siblings. Competition among orcish young is fierce, especially in seasons when there isn’t quite enough food to go around.

Orcish education for their children mostly boils down to sticking a tool or sword in their hand as soon as they are old enough to wield it. By age twelve or thirteen, an orc is expected to be contributing actively to their community, often on the front lines of war.

All of this isn’t to say that orc parents aren’t loving, but that they show it in a different way. Orc life is hard, and often short, and parents try to teach their children how to be tough, and how to survive. The mothers and fathers want to know that when they pass on, their child will be able to take care of themselves, and prosper even in the harshest of circumstances.

Orc youth seem less intelligent by comparison to those of other races because their societal training emphasizes combat and direct practical knowledge. Knowing how to swing a blade or repair armor is important and valued, while learning how to read might be considered a waste of time.

Religion

Orc religion, like their other traditions, varies strongly between clans. Gods of fire and war are most popular, but others are also worshipped. Some crueler clans might worship demon lords of fire, pain, war, or blood, in return for great power. Turning to these twisted idols is often a decision of desperation, when a clan is on the brink of starvation or collapse.

Other clans might worship natural elements, turning to religious leaders with a great connection to nature (such as druids). While still warlike, these clans often have a much greater respect for nature than most of their kin. These druid leaders tend to gravitate towards more brutal aspects of nature, like fire, catastrophes, or hunting.

Shamans, priests, and druids garner great respect among their clans. Because arcane magic is so rare among orcs, these divine magic users represent their only access to supernatural aid.

Politics

Orc clans typically have one of two types of clan leader, depending on their particular traditions. Many are led by warlords, who have emerged victorious from many battles, and fought their way to the top. Others are led by religious figures, whose connection to divine energies qualify them for leadership positions. Both types of leader must be proven in combat, or would never be able to command respect from the hordes.

Orcs who are proponents of peace, or at least slowing down the constant warfare, are almost never able to achieve any political power. In orc society, fighting means you have honour, while refusing to fight marks you as a coward. As a result, those among the orcs who are less violent lose status, and can’t sway their laws and customs.

Stigma

Many orcs face undue stigma in non-orcish societies, stemming from a number of racist stereotypes. These assumptions usually come from the cultures who have long warred with orcs (namely elves and dwarves), and tend to exaggerate orcish aggressiveness, and downplay their intelligence.

When one looks past these stereotypes and homogenous assumptions, they can find that orcs come in all shapes and sizes. They can be cruel of course, but also kind. Aggressive or passive, generous or selfish.