/pt/ – Petrarchan

>>8777 I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer where teenagers would go into the woods and drink and shag each other. Sounded like a real bacchanal. But yeah I concur with >>8779 that European paganism basically cannot escape the inherent LARPiness of being defined in opposition to the Christian-atheistic mainstream. It's impossible not to laugh when you hear modern pagans going on about their 'religions'. Ok so you believe in Thor and Odin and Loki. Ok. Do you. Do you really. lmao. lmao. I don't believe you.

>>8777 I don't know anything about the "latent" paganism of various cultures (though I am interested in it), that doesn't surprise me though lol. I wouldn't want to really "bring it back" en masse, I agree it's dead and revival doesn't work except in a synthetic way (that is, the original is always gone and the only way something is ever "brought back" is via some sort of nostalgic "recuperation"). >>8778 Not exactly, but I'm interested in what you're saying. Are you referring to a kind of Revolutionary French "raising" of concepts? a la "Cult of Reason"? Except, I assume you mean that it is occurring in a subconscious, descriptive kind of way, rather than a literal promotion by Robespierre. >>8779 >Paganism breathed its last as a mass phenomenon with romanticism... See, this is interesting, because I agree that paganism seems to have affects beyond its real "lifespan". And that's the only way it could conceivably (to me) have a revival now, in a sort of worship of its qualities rather than its actual divinity (or perception thereof). I can't say I know that in-depth much about the Romantics specifically, though I know thematically much of their work centered on a sort of return to pre-Christian or folk topics and themes. >but I do not think such change in thinking is even possible in the scale of a single lifetime. True, and I don't know what exactly a mass change in thinking or culture would look like, at least in atomized Western society. >>8780 >I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer ... In a way, this is kind of what I am thinking about when I think of a pagan revival. Not necessarily the "true to life" bringing back of gods worship, animal (or even human) sacrifice, and such, but an inversion of values and norms. In a way, I am unsure how to do one without the other. However, you're right in your second paragraph. The neo-Pagans, especially those who are organized, are amusing at best. And their motivations seem, as you say, to be mainly just contrarian reaction towards Christianity/Christian culture. I don't think that is a solid foundation, if one at all. Also, their general tendencies are embarrassing. see also: "witches" and Wicca. >>8781 Yeah, I was thinking after making this post, that I have known some people who veer individually (and seemingly naturally, not converted or intentional) towards the magical (and that overlaps with either a perception of or a an actual interest in the pagan). Also, some people in their personality seem to just correspond with a natural nature worship. It is interesting, or even funny, to me, that something like this: >she was regularly "communicating" with an entity that "knew things" and "protected her". is obviously a marker for insanity (or at least an "off-ness"), though in some circles this is also perfectly fine way of thinking. Probably your last sentence is the damning statement. People "talk" to their guardian angels to feel a sense of relief or justice, but we find it unconvincing or strange to think of gaining material things from immaterial beings. In some way, it does make me think the base definition of all psychological "trouble" is "this is something harmful or seen as wrong", and if it's not harmful or unacceptable, then I don't know exactly "what" it is.

>>8777 I don't know anything about the "latent" paganism of various cultures (though I am interested in it), that doesn't surprise me though lol. I wouldn't want to really "bring it back" en masse, I agree it's dead and revival doesn't work except in a synthetic way (that is, the original is always gone and the only way something is ever "brought back" is via some sort of nostalgic "recuperation"). >>8778 Not exactly, but I'm interested in what you're saying. Are you referring to a kind of Revolutionary French "raising" of concepts? a la "Cult of Reason"? Except, I assume you mean that it is occurring in a subconscious, descriptive kind of way, rather than a literal promotion by Robespierre. >>8779 >Paganism breathed its last as a mass phenomenon with romanticism... See, this is interesting, because I agree that paganism seems to have affects beyond its real "lifespan". And that's the only way it could conceivably (to me) have a revival now, in a sort of worship of its qualities rather than its actual divinity (or perception thereof). I can't say I know that in-depth much about the Romantics specifically, though I know thematically much of their work centered on a sort of return to pre-Christian or folk topics and themes. >but I do not think such change in thinking is even possible in the scale of a single lifetime. True, and I don't know what exactly a mass change in thinking or culture would look like, at least in atomized Western society. >>8780 >I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer ... In a way, this is kind of what I am thinking about when I think of a pagan revival. Not necessarily the "true to life" bringing back of gods worship, animal (or even human) sacrifice, and such, but an inversion of values and norms. In a way, I am unsure how to do one without the other. However, you're right in your second paragraph. The neo-Pagans, especially those who are organized, are amusing at best. And their motivations seem, as you say, to be mainly just contrarian reaction towards Christianity/Christian culture. I don't think that is a solid foundation, if one at all. Also, their general tendencies are embarrassing. see also: "witches" and Wicca. >>8781 Yeah, I was thinking after making this post, that I have known some people who veer individually (and seemingly naturally, not converted or intentional) towards the magical (and that overlaps with either a perception of or a an actual interest in the pagan). Also, some people in their personality seem to just correspond with a natural nature worship. It is interesting, or even funny, to me, that something like this: >she was regularly "communicating" with an entity that "knew things" and "protected her". is obviously a marker for insanity (or at least an "off-ness"), though in some circles this is also perfectly fine way of thinking. Probably your last sentence is the damning statement. People "talk" to their guardian angels to feel a sense of relief or justice, but we find it unconvincing or strange to think of gaining material things from immaterial beings. In some way, it does make me think the base definition of all psychological "trouble" is "this is something harmful or seen as wrong", and if it's not harmful or unacceptable, then I don't know exactly "what" it is.

>>8777 I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer where teenagers would go into the woods and drink and shag each other. Sounded like a real bacchanal. But yeah I concur with >>8779 that European paganism basically cannot escape the inherent LARPiness of being defined in opposition to the Christian-atheistic mainstream. It's impossible not to laugh when you hear modern pagans going on about their 'religions'. Ok so you believe in Thor and Odin and Loki. Ok. Do you. Do you really. lmao. lmao. I don't believe you.

>>8777 I don't know anything about the "latent" paganism of various cultures (though I am interested in it), that doesn't surprise me though lol. I wouldn't want to really "bring it back" en masse, I agree it's dead and revival doesn't work except in a synthetic way (that is, the original is always gone and the only way something is ever "brought back" is via some sort of nostalgic "recuperation"). >>8778 Not exactly, but I'm interested in what you're saying. Are you referring to a kind of Revolutionary French "raising" of concepts? a la "Cult of Reason"? Except, I assume you mean that it is occurring in a subconscious, descriptive kind of way, rather than a literal promotion by Robespierre. >>8779 >Paganism breathed its last as a mass phenomenon with romanticism... See, this is interesting, because I agree that paganism seems to have affects beyond its real "lifespan". And that's the only way it could conceivably (to me) have a revival now, in a sort of worship of its qualities rather than its actual divinity (or perception thereof). I can't say I know that in-depth much about the Romantics specifically, though I know thematically much of their work centered on a sort of return to pre-Christian or folk topics and themes. >but I do not think such change in thinking is even possible in the scale of a single lifetime. True, and I don't know what exactly a mass change in thinking or culture would look like, at least in atomized Western society. >>8780 >I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer ... In a way, this is kind of what I am thinking about when I think of a pagan revival. Not necessarily the "true to life" bringing back of gods worship, animal (or even human) sacrifice, and such, but an inversion of values and norms. In a way, I am unsure how to do one without the other. However, you're right in your second paragraph. The neo-Pagans, especially those who are organized, are amusing at best. And their motivations seem, as you say, to be mainly just contrarian reaction towards Christianity/Christian culture. I don't think that is a solid foundation, if one at all. Also, their general tendencies are embarrassing. see also: "witches" and Wicca. >>8781 Yeah, I was thinking after making this post, that I have known some people who veer individually (and seemingly naturally, not converted or intentional) towards the magical (and that overlaps with either a perception of or a an actual interest in the pagan). Also, some people in their personality seem to just correspond with a natural nature worship. It is interesting, or even funny, to me, that something like this: >she was regularly "communicating" with an entity that "knew things" and "protected her". is obviously a marker for insanity (or at least an "off-ness"), though in some circles this is also perfectly fine way of thinking. Probably your last sentence is the damning statement. People "talk" to their guardian angels to feel a sense of relief or justice, but we find it unconvincing or strange to think of gaining material things from immaterial beings. In some way, it does make me think the base definition of all psychological "trouble" is "this is something harmful or seen as wrong", and if it's not harmful or unacceptable, then I don't know exactly "what" it is.

>>8777 I don't know anything about the "latent" paganism of various cultures (though I am interested in it), that doesn't surprise me though lol. I wouldn't want to really "bring it back" en masse, I agree it's dead and revival doesn't work except in a synthetic way (that is, the original is always gone and the only way something is ever "brought back" is via some sort of nostalgic "recuperation"). >>8778 Not exactly, but I'm interested in what you're saying. Are you referring to a kind of Revolutionary French "raising" of concepts? a la "Cult of Reason"? Except, I assume you mean that it is occurring in a subconscious, descriptive kind of way, rather than a literal promotion by Robespierre. >>8779 >Paganism breathed its last as a mass phenomenon with romanticism... See, this is interesting, because I agree that paganism seems to have affects beyond its real "lifespan". And that's the only way it could conceivably (to me) have a revival now, in a sort of worship of its qualities rather than its actual divinity (or perception thereof). I can't say I know that in-depth much about the Romantics specifically, though I know thematically much of their work centered on a sort of return to pre-Christian or folk topics and themes. >but I do not think such change in thinking is even possible in the scale of a single lifetime. True, and I don't know what exactly a mass change in thinking or culture would look like, at least in atomized Western society. >>8780 >I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer ... In a way, this is kind of what I am thinking about when I think of a pagan revival. Not necessarily the "true to life" bringing back of gods worship, animal (or even human) sacrifice, and such, but an inversion of values and norms. In a way, I am unsure how to do one without the other. However, you're right in your second paragraph. The neo-Pagans, especially those who are organized, are amusing at best. And their motivations seem, as you say, to be mainly just contrarian reaction towards Christianity/Christian culture. I don't think that is a solid foundation, if one at all. Also, their general tendencies are embarrassing. see also: "witches" and Wicca. >>8781 Yeah, I was thinking after making this post, that I have known some people who veer individually (and seemingly naturally, not converted or intentional) towards the magical (and that overlaps with either a perception of or a an actual interest in the pagan). Also, some people in their personality seem to just correspond with a natural nature worship. It is interesting, or even funny, to me, that something like this: >she was regularly "communicating" with an entity that "knew things" and "protected her". is obviously a marker for insanity (or at least an "off-ness"), though in some circles this is also perfectly fine way of thinking. Probably your last sentence is the damning statement. People "talk" to their guardian angels to feel a sense of relief or justice, but we find it unconvincing or strange to think of gaining material things from immaterial beings. In some way, it does make me think the base definition of all psychological "trouble" is "this is something harmful or seen as wrong", and if it's not harmful or unacceptable, then I don't know exactly "what" it is.

>>8777 I don't know anything about the "latent" paganism of various cultures (though I am interested in it), that doesn't surprise me though lol. I wouldn't want to really "bring it back" en masse, I agree it's dead and revival doesn't work except in a synthetic way (that is, the original is always gone and the only way something is ever "brought back" is via some sort of nostalgic "recuperation"). >>8778 Not exactly, but I'm interested in what you're saying. Are you referring to a kind of Revolutionary French "raising" of concepts? a la "Cult of Reason"? Except, I assume you mean that it is occurring in a subconscious, descriptive kind of way, rather than a literal promotion by Robespierre. >>8779 >Paganism breathed its last as a mass phenomenon with romanticism... See, this is interesting, because I agree that paganism seems to have affects beyond its real "lifespan". And that's the only way it could conceivably (to me) have a revival now, in a sort of worship of its qualities rather than its actual divinity (or perception thereof). I can't say I know that in-depth much about the Romantics specifically, though I know thematically much of their work centered on a sort of return to pre-Christian or folk topics and themes. >but I do not think such change in thinking is even possible in the scale of a single lifetime. True, and I don't know what exactly a mass change in thinking or culture would look like, at least in atomized Western society. >>8780 >I knew a lithuanian guy who said they still had festivals at midsummer ... In a way, this is kind of what I am thinking about when I think of a pagan revival. Not necessarily the "true to life" bringing back of gods worship, animal (or even human) sacrifice, and such, but an inversion of values and norms. In a way, I am unsure how to do one without the other. However, you're right in your second paragraph. The neo-Pagans, especially those who are organized, are amusing at best. And their motivations seem, as you say, to be mainly just contrarian reaction towards Christianity/Christian culture. I don't think that is a solid foundation, if one at all. Also, their general tendencies are embarrassing. see also: "witches" and Wicca. >>8781 Yeah, I was thinking after making this post, that I have known some people who veer individually (and seemingly naturally, not converted or intentional) towards the magical (and that overlaps with either a perception of or a an actual interest in the pagan). Also, some people in their personality seem to just correspond with a natural nature worship. It is interesting, or even funny, to me, that something like this: >she was regularly "communicating" with an entity that "knew things" and "protected her". is obviously a marker for insanity (or at least an "off-ness"), though in some circles this is also perfectly fine way of thinking. Probably your last sentence is the damning statement. People "talk" to their guardian angels to feel a sense of relief or justice, but we find it unconvincing or strange to think of gaining material things from immaterial beings. In some way, it does make me think the base definition of all psychological "trouble" is "this is something harmful or seen as wrong", and if it's not harmful or unacceptable, then I don't know exactly "what" it is.

>>8800 This is true. I suppose, yes, I was pretty narrowly considering only the European and descended world. I don't hear much about the Hindus or Buddhists much in my neck of the woods, though there are quite a few of the "New Age" types, who seem to be doing some sort of orientalist version of the "East". I won't speak with any authority on the non-monotheism outside of the West, because frankly I don't know much about it, though I'm not opposed to it and would like to learn more.

We need to understand that paganism is NOT a religion. "Paganus" is literally "rural country person". Its a state of mind that you view the world through with whatever common folk traditions and legends within your area. While there were pagan cities with the cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome, the Eleusinian Mysteries in Greece, the Druidic orders in Gaul. It is important to note the foundation of the cities were at one point small villages too. Home's Iliad and Odyssey are exactly this for greeks and were written down as early as 700-500BCE. Many of the rulers throughout Europe coveted it, similar to how the Christian bible is today. But literacy was still typically only for the upper class, and there was no push to make everyone literally believe it (there was no evangelization). Plato's Republic was written around 400BCE and it gives us the idea of 'The Noble Lie' (a foundational myth intended to ensure social harmony and civic loyalty). One of the main things it specifies is the need for the lie to appear as ANCIENT, thus making the societal hierarchy seem natural, divine, and unchangeable rather than a recent, manipulative invention. Virgil's Aeneid was written around 100BCE and took a lot from homer's work, but more importantly, it utilizes plato's noble lie at its core... This is where we get the term Greco-Roman. The foundation of the 'western world'. It is still relevant, and we still have influence from it today, which I will elaborate on later. So in a way, paganism never died. >Judaism The Long story short which is not within this post is that judaism OT is also utilizing plato's noble lie and was only written down ~ 400BCE. The earliest records of anyone using a name within the torah is only around 300BCE (Gad Barnea, professor at the University of Haifa, admits as much). The mythical state of israel/atlantis with their king david/atlas. One can talk about how they have done telephone for 500 years before writing their religious myth down, but this must also be applied to the pagan myths as well. Academically, this is only applied for israel and their oral tradition. For example, anyone stating judaism is older than Homer is arguing in bad faith and more than likely trying to climb some career ladder. I can talk about this later more thoroughly, but it's beside the point of this post. Christianity's New testament wasn't written down until 100 AD and at this time it was exclusively a Jewish sect. Christianity saw a need to reform all jews to refocus on the torah (OT). One jew in particular (Paul/Saul) is the primary author of the NT (writing 13/27 books in it). It is important to note that Paul/Saul was initially AGAINST christians and even participated in the first 'official' killing of a christian (Saint stephen). The interesting change that paul did was he sought to evangelize the whole WORLD not just the jews. That is where you get the birth of universalism within the west. One should also question the motives of someone who goes from being one of the primary oppositional figures of something to the most fervent leader of it later. But I digress. >Instituting Christianity 'Paganism' was being met with more and more literate people, many of them making rationalistic and literal arguments against it. Greek paganism switches their foundational myths with christianity at some point. Roman christians were an exclusive jewish culture of a BLM-style iconoclasm that gets adopted by the state in 300AD. This was a top-down instituting of christianity by a powerful lobby of reformed jews. In a way, the unholy alliance seen between zionist christians and jews is at the core of roman christianity. Look no further than Cicero's famous quote "how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions" said in 60BCE referring to jews. There are many more quotes like that not just within rome but also greece. If you look at how Christianity spread initially, it was very violent, but towards the end, you start to see an appropriation of pagan symbols rather than a destruction of them. Many aspects of Christianity maintain a pagan corpus with a veneer of jewish/Christian identity. >Future of paganism Now for the revival you speak of... you're talking about the old stories of your people. Well many are lost, and if they're found by any institutions, they will more than likely be destroyed. The one thing they can't destroy is your mind and imagination. The myths and stories come from your people, and you represent an unbreakable link as a descendant of your ancestors. The myth is never truly lost as long as you can imagine what it is. The veneer of christainity needs to be lifted from its pagan roots. That is where your myth and legends are preserved. Read the bible not as a christian, but as an investigator. Try and find nuggets of paganism preserved within them. Some of the first depictions of a halo are with perseus, achilles, and helois. Many gods died and resurrected. So the core of a 'pagan revival' is NOT as much an intellectual endeavor. There are many internet pagans (an oxymoron). But again, to reiterate my initial point. "Paganus" is literally "rural country person." Leave the cities for your revival. >"Watch", he is said to have declared, "so that you know how cheap the body is to men who have their eye on great glory". Mucius thrust his right hand into a fire which was lit for sacrifice and held it there without giving any indication of pain. Porsena was shocked at the youth's bravery, and dismissed him from the Etruscan camp, free to return to Rome, saying "Go back, since you do more harm to yourself than me". >>9378 O9A was ran by feds

>>9658 I didn't know about the etymological roots of "pagan", but that is exactly what I'm (OP) interested in. Specifically, paganism as worldview, rather than assortment of myths and "beliefs" sewed together in archaeological hindsight. I guess I'm not surprised that the urbanization / city-rural divide plays a strong part in that; it seems to be something which follows man throughout history and his historical development. >Many aspects of Christianity maintain a pagan corpus with a veneer of jewish/Christian identity. Something I considered only after making this thread is the commingling which ensued in the New World, with (American) Indian and Christians. There is a great difference in the ways the Anglo Protestants and the Spanish Catholics decided to convert/impress the natives (mostly a matter of whether to assimilate or not), and the latter often led to the existence of cultures which were nominally Catholic and functionally pagan. In the Southwest, which is where I am mainly familiar with this, the Catholic churches are filled with very interestingly filled with recapitulations of biblical scenes through a decidedly Indian style. Of course, this is also an area where there are actually Indians who still practice their indigenous religions in a virtually unbroken chain, so I assume that has had an impact on the Church's attempts to bring them into the fold. >you represent an unbreakable link as a descendant of your ancestors. The myth is never truly lost as long as you can imagine what it is. I was just reading Freud's Moses and Monotheism, and he makes a similar argument. That myth essentially always stays with a culture and that a culture will always bring forth the repressed myth in new ways. Of course, he's not making a prescriptive argument or statement, but describing a kind of "progression". Naturally though he folds together all of belief, whether pagan or Christian, into "that which brings forth neuroses". >Watch", he is said to have declared... Tacitus?

>>9682 I didn't know about the etymological roots of "pagan", but that is exactly what I'm (OP) interested in. Specifically, paganism as worldview, rather than assortment of myths and "beliefs" sewed together in archaeological hindsight. I guess I'm not surprised that the urbanization / city-rural divide plays a strong part in that; it seems to be something which follows man throughout history and his historical development. There's an etymology thread up right now. It's garbage though. But I will say, (as someone who is very interested in linguistics/phonetics), the real key to understanding the past is to understand the old words that we still use today and look at their cognates. Words like God, Deity, Spirit..etc. Are all wrapped in almost obscurity and now carry different meanings (albeit similar). And the different meanings make all the world of difference once you consider this is the foundation of religious ideas. Take 'God' for example. The root is germanic, has many mutative forms even phonetics shift from languages meaning different things as well. german gott, swedish gudd, english god, icelandic guð (the ð is proceeds with 'eth') and think about gothi/goði(priest but much more than that if you read). So, who are 'good' 'goths' from 'gotland' and their cousins the 'geats'? No, I'm not just rhyming words. If not having identical meanings they are shared roots. 'deity' is a whole other can of warms and is even older.. Also, lets not jump to conclusions about my beliefs just for pointing out the root words for 'god' in modern english language. Maybe this addresses your 'separation between the spiritual and the material' you had in the OP to a degree. >great difference in the ways the Anglo Protestants and the Spanish Catholics decided to convert/impress the natives (mostly a matter of whether to assimilate or not) Look into the celtic deity "esus". God of what? >Sacrifices. Oh and how did he like his sacrifices? >'in particular, that Esus's victims were suspended from a tree and bloodily dismembered. ' Hmmm... Also, Look at the origins of the celtic cross (and how much older is it than christianity). Turns out the irish specifically (but also some celts) had their own holy communion and eucharist BEFORE christianity. Again, these are things for you to investigate yourself. >Freud In my humble opinion...pop-culture quack. Jung is more my alignment.

>>9744 Interesting idea, are you ascribing a "true" paganism to something like Platonism/Neoplatonism?

>>9754 Missed green texting the first part of the post. > didn't know about the etymological roots of "pagan", but that is exactly what I'm (OP) interested in. Specifically, paganism as worldview, rather than assortment of myths and "beliefs" sewed together in archaeological hindsight. I guess I'm not surprised that the urbanization / city-rural divide plays a strong part in that; it seems to be something which follows man throughout history and his historical development. But I will say, (as someone who is very interested in linguistics/phonetics), the real key to understanding the past is to understand the old words that we still use today and look at their cognates. Words like God, Deity, Spirit..etc. Are all wrapped in almost obscurity and now carry different meanings (albeit similar). And the different meanings make all the world of difference once you consider this is the foundation of religious ideas. Take 'God' for example. The root is germanic, has many mutative forms even phonetics shift from languages meaning different things as well. german gott, swedish gudd, english god, icelandic guð (the ð is proceeds with 'eth') and think about gothi/goði(priest but much more than that if you read). So, who are 'good' 'goths' from 'gotland' and their cousins the 'geats'? No, I'm not just rhyming words. If not having identical meanings they are shared roots. 'deity' is a whole other can of warms and is even older.. Also, lets not jump to conclusions about my beliefs just for pointing out the root words for 'god' in modern english language. Maybe this addresses your 'separation between the spiritual and the material' you had in the OP to a degree.