![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Are Modern Pagans Secretly Monotheists?
A really interesting side conversation sparked up on my post about paganism and otherkin that I think deserves its own stage. JC Jones writes (in part):
I’ve always been intrigued by the reasons behind modern-day pagans’ seeming allergy to polytheism, particularly in light of the fact that all the pre-Christian European beliefs systems about which anything is known with certainty were undeniably polytheistic. I think the search for evidence of widespread worship of a Great Goddess has something more behind it than simple desire to see a female personification of the divine. There seems to be a monotheistic bias which runs even deeper than the bias favoring male authority– a desire to find or artificially inflate some ruling figure in every religious tradition, one who ultimately calls all the shots and knows exactly what is going on.
These are great questions, and here is the interpretation I’ve constructed that makes the most sense to me. I tend to think that the rise of monotheism most likely mirrors the rise of the ego as the principle mode of human consciousness. “No other gods before me” and all that good stuff. We even have it institutionalized into law nowadays - in terms of how you can (theoretically) have “temporary insanity” or “crimes of passion” because you were suddenly overtaken by a complex (god) aside from the ego. Our law basically says that you almost weren’t human or at least not responsible while such actions take place.
So I think for people today who are trying to say they are polytheists or pagans or whatever, they are overcoming more than a simple matter of religious choice. They are overcoming thousands of years of psychic patterning favoring the ego complex and denigrating the others. In kind of a strict reading of this theory, I really doubt that anybody calling themselves pagan could really be considered mentally polytheistic in the same way as older cultures were, unless they are regularly practicing spirit/god possession rituals. Even then, how many of these so-called pagans would ever allow the spontaneous explosion of Mars-consciousness in their daily lives? However much they may go for it in small ritual containers, they wouldn’t dare allow something like that to erupt in their regular life, and overthrow all the social structures their egos have built. If that were the case, most polytheists would be raving lunatics, wandering the streets (or locked away), rather than middle-class people comfortably holding down tech jobs or having graduated from liberal arts colleges, dabbling in sci-fi and fantasy literature.
Towards that end, theres a great Von Neumann quote:
Originally, consciousness did not possess enough free libido to perform any activity - plowing, harvesting, hunting, waging war, etc - of its own “free will,” and was obliged to invoke the help of the god who “understood” these things. By means of ceremonial invocation, the ego activated the “help of the god” and thus conducted the flow of libido from the unconscious to the conscious system. The progressive development of consciousness assimilates the functional gods, who go on living as qualities and capacities of the conscious individual who plows, harvests, hunts and wages war as and when he pleases.
I think a lot of modern pagans might pay lip service to invoking various gods for various activities, but I think it’s rare-to-nonexistant that they would actually come under the power of the god of the harvest every time they mowed their lawn, or became the lord of the hunt when they went to grocery store. The consequences would be disastrous.
I guess what I’m saying could be boiled down to the following questions to reflect on:
- Do monotheism and polytheism reflect psychological states or modes of consciousness, rather than just religious systems?
- If so, what mental composition characterizes people who participate in either monotheism or polytheism?
- Has either of these styles of religious expression and psychological organization evolved over time? Is the monotheism of the Hebrews the same as the monotheism of today? Is the polytheism of the ancient Europeans the same as of neopagans or wiccans today?
- How could we go about “proving” any such changes if they have occurred?
- Are there people who either intentionally or spontaneously revert or carry on the older styles of either of these systems?
For anyone interested in exploring these questions further, I’ve assembled a collection of resources where you could start here. Also check out this Guide to Living With a Multiple (as in multiple personalities) from JC Jones’ site. Interesting correlations to our above discussion.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Funny things is that lots of people who regularly practice spirit/god possession rituals in the world today don’t consider themselves pagan at all, they consider themselves Catholic!
December 20th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Does being pagan necessarily entail being continually possesed by different gods? I thought it was simply the worship of multiple deities? Perhaps I’m using too loose a definition of the word pagan.
That said, even in pagan cultures of old, was it everyone in the religion who had these mystical sessions of possession? Or was it the priests and priestesses only?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Someone could be influenced and under the sway of the god of the harvest as they plowed a field, for example - could even hear his voice and advice about what to plant or weed - but that’s not the same thing as full-blown possession (or mounting), which necessarily implies loss of motor-coordination, seemingly irrational behavior and usually full amnesia too.
But things like that aren’t supposed to erupt in your regular life even in societies that believe in and pratice spirit possession! They happen once a week or once a month in a structured ritual context - when and if they happen outside that its considered a problem to be fixed as the spirit must be controlled or placated somehow.
Uncontrolled and uncontrollable spirit possession would disrupt society, which is why the religions which incorporate this have techniques which have been worked out via trial and error over the course of many hundreds (if not thousands) of years to bring it on and make it stop.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Why would Mars even want to possess thius myposthetical modern pagan, if he or she is so scared and ambivalent about the idea of it that they would even think that what they would “allow” would matter to the god of Blood and Iron?
“Oh jeez, I dunno, I identify with Mars, but y’know, he’s really more of an archetype to me… anyway I have plans this afternoon…” I mean, sheesh! If I were Mars I wouldn’t mount someone with such a mealy-mouthed attitude either!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Max, great points about spirit possession being required to have ritual containers in order for society to work. Maybe I didn’t phrase it properly, but what you articulated was more or less what I was going for.
Maybe we need to look back much farther than paganism or even past proto-tribal societies for our answers. Maybe for society to have even evolved in the first place, these naturally occurring outbreaks would have been funnelled into appropriate ritual contexts. Maybe that is the beginning of society - let out the warrior god only when you’re fighting or playing sports, let out the sex god when you’re married, and so on.
I guess my point was more that in older societies, people still had greater access to these ritual containers - they were still a valid integral part of culture. But they’ve become less and less so over the centuries. Until we see people today trying to spontaneously create ritual contexts for these things: paganism, furries, otherkin, etc. Maybe the point is not so much that these god-modes erupt in everyday life, so much as we are able to re-integrate appropriate ritual times for them to be explored without disrupting society.
But I guess my big question remains though: can a polytheism which is restrained by the boundaries of the ego ever really BE a polytheism? Maybe it’s a meaningless question, I don’t know.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Thats a great question. Its kind of like “can a gnosis which is restrained by the boundaries of the ego ever really BE a gnosis?”
Not to set up a strawman. Planty of people get posessed or experienced mystical rapture and gnosis and that doesn’t render them unable to cope with society or consensus reality. It just means that for some brief time they did let go of their ego and experienced something else, afterwards the ego is still there but their framework-construct of reality is looser and they know (instead of guess) that the normal things we see are only the tip of the iceberg.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Yeah that’s a good point I think also. You could also look at Jungian psychology, wherein the ego is more or less overcome, but that doesnt render you less effective, it makes you stronger because its integrated into the larger self.
I guess I just don’t see a really strong grappling of these issues within pagan literature. But maybe I’ve also been looking in the wrong place.
At the same time, there are post-Jungians like James Hillman who claim that Jung’s model of integration into a larger (monotheistic) Self are wrong - that the fragmented nature of the psyche is the way to go.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s281136.htm
December 20th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
HOLY CRAP! That’s so totally on target. Wow, it’s going to take me a while to assimilate that.
So in other words, the reason you can’t have a drug-fueled orgy at the office is because it’s going to make everybody realize that running an office doesn’t matter.
So, to safeguard our institutions, the things that are most dangerous to those institutions are themselves placed in institutions! So basically the notion that religion protects you from or keeps you away from God wasn’t just an accidental corruption of religion - it was actually the basis of religion!
December 20th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
LOL, funny you should mention that:
http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpbataille5.htm
So, rituals are almost a way to purge the unassimilable sacred to restore order to society and make work possible.
http://www.ctheory.net/printer.aspx?id=119
December 20th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
So Jesus didn’t die for anybody’s sins… he died because he had to die in order for society to continue to be able to function, and for history itself to continue. The high priests were in fact probably fully aware that he was God incarnate, and that’s why he had to be destroyed.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Funny too that this goes back directly to my discussion of the uselessness of meaning a couple days ago.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
That’s a pretty good Von Neumann quote. I’m going to have to get that book back from the library and finish reading it. Certainly, there are states of consciousness that are not available to me without the aid of a certain inner her, and without maintaining a harmonious relationship with her, she will save them for herself only, or they will not be available at all.
I’d have to question the assertion that a true polytheistic consciousness would necessarily have trouble functioning in society, though. If the complexes are truly the same stuff as the ego, then they have the same potential for development—even conscious development—as the ego, and it is the ego’s habitual hoarding of the light of consciousness to itself that is responsible for their darkness. This is again due to my personal experience: she is self-aware, and can be related to and reasoned with even though she is not very egoic at all.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Tim: I tend to think that the rise of monotheism most likely mirrors the rise of the ego as the principle mode of human consciousness. “No other gods before me” and all that good stuff.
[…]
Also check out this Guide to Living With a Multiple (as in multiple personalities) from JC Jones’ site. Interesting correlations to our above discussion.
Your argument seems to be based on the premise of projection; thus, an individual who self-identifies with the ego will project a singular God image, whereas an individual with a dissociative disorder will project multiple God images. Have I understood you correctly?
I’m probably not as familiar with paganism as you are but I likely have more insight into the fragmented psyche than you — at least, the fragmented psyche according to Jung’s model. If projection is the sole factor at work, at least it’s reasonably predictable: Shadow; Anima/Animus; Mana figures; the Self/God Image. Note that the latter is one image, but it’s one image comprised of all of the former images to create a larger, unified whole.
I wonder if what you’re aiming to point at is an existence comprised of nested dimensions, multi-dimensionality, or perhaps, multiple-levels of existense? It’s an area I struggle to put into words for myself these days. So far, the best model I’ve found to describe it has been the work of Clare Graves model of spiral dynamics.
In my estimation, multi-dimensionality is not the equivalent of a split personality disorder. Rather, it allows more options for determining the most appropriate response to any given situation.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Well, I try not to make “assertions” per se. I’m more just working through ideas. I don’t claim any special knowledge about any of this.
Not really, that’s just your projection!
Again, I’m not making any argument. I’m merely hoping to open up a space and provide a creative fuel for exploration. I don’t know the answers, don’t have the answers and probably never will when it comes to this subject matter. I certainly find it fascinating though.
PS. I’m no fan of spiral dynamics.
Also, I don’t mean to pick on you TM, but wanted to respond to this:
Why do you feel the need to establish who knows more about what? Why can’t we all just participate on an equal footing?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
I dunno, that’s an interesting interpretation. Bataille is a tricky guy, like Nietzsche he is usually seen as anti-Christian but in some other ways he seems to take the premises of Christianity a lot more seriously than most Christians.
I think his POV was similar to Nietzsche’s in a way - “There is only one Christian and he died on the cross.” Jesus’ sacrifice was the loss of his own subjectivity, total absorption through sacrifice in the world of the divine. And this sovereign, dangerous act was ruined and diluted by later priests who insisted on trying to rationalize it and grant it some kind of utilitarian, rational purpose - “Oh, he died for mankind’s sins.” In Bataille’s view people are end in themselves not means to ends so to say Jesus died for anything is a total blasphemy.
OTOH maybe the priests really knew that EVERYONE is god incarnate - maybe that was Jesus’ dangerous, contaminating message. And the crucifixion was a way to put a taboo around that.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Awesome. It’s just like anybody’s death then, really. Trying to decide specifically what the meaning of it was is like going to a hospital and asking what an old man died for:
“Well, he had cancer.”
“No, not what did he die from, what did he die for?”
“Uh, he died so the next patient could have his bed.”
Just sounds stupid when you try to hammer it into a fixed explanation like that. It is what it is.
Shit, it’s like that part in Exodus 3 where Moses is talking to God:
Moses knows that he needs a container to put God into before he can bring it back into society. So God gives him the thinnest possible container he can: “I am that which am.” But at the same time, the way that God is expressed into that society is through the Law - the series of cultural taboos preventing people accidentally unleashing the sacred and destroying the society.
Dig, that makes more “sense” or sounds more fun, whichever you prefer.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Tim: Why do you feel the need to establish who knows more about what? Why can’t we all just participate on an equal footing?
Because we’re not all on an equal footing? For example, who would you rather talk to about gnosticism? Me — who knows hardly anything about it, or Jeremy — who seems to know one heck of a lot more about it than I do? Are Jeremy and I on an equal footing when it comes to the subject of Gnosticism? Inasmuch as we’re both capable of typing and contributing to any conversation in that vein — yes. In regard to the quality of material that post contains as based on the extent of personal study or actual participation in Gnostic ceremonies…? Obviously not.
The subject matter of this particular conversation is related to lunacy, fragmentation of the psyche (what may be more correctly understood as a separation of ego stances) and dissociative identity disorder which has nothing to do with schizophrenia, which, in turn, has little to do with “raving lunatics” unless you’re basing that assessment on Hollywood stereotypes. Meantime, unless you have personal experience with any of the above, or have been studying any of the above, I think it’s reasonable to note that we are not on an equal footing.
Manning: Your argument seems to be based on the premise of projection
Tim: Not really, that’s just your projection!
Are you sure that’s not merely a defensive reaction? You’d linked the concept of a “Numero Uno” ego with the concept of a monotheistic god. You did the same with a polytheistic deity and multiple personality disorders. That suggests to me that you are referring to a process of projection in accordance with the individual perspective, but it’s always possible that I’ve misunderstood or that you’re still feeling your way around the concept and can’t yet express it fully.
Tim: Again, I’m not making any argument.
Do you equate “argument” with “fight” or with “an idea being put forth”? I equate it with “an idea”.
Tim: I’m no fan of spiral dynamics.
I find it to be a useful model for interpreting different levels of motive and behavior, but not everyone does.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Are you sure that you calling my reaction defensive (when it was clearly just a joke) isn’t actually a defensive reaction on your part?
From what I’ve seen of your online interactions, you seem to have a habit of assuming that other people don’t know what they are talking about. Rather than suggesting in what seems to be a flippant manner that my knowledge is based on “Hollywood stereotypes” I would have found it more useful if you simply shared what your own background is in the subject, personal experience, etc - and then shared your insights. People can then judge for themselves whats useful to them, rather than you being the one to make the initial value judgement. I’m not trying to reprimand or attack here, I’m just trying to share my own philosophy about what makes for a useful conversation on a difficult and slippery topic.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Tim: From what I’ve seen of your online interactions, you seem to have a habit of assuming that other people don’t know what they are talking about.
Okay. I can live with that. After all, we’re all on equal footing and a demiurge is nothing more than an insatiable desire to get nasty with demi moore.
From what I’ve seen of your online interactions, you seem to have a habit of assuming that other people don’t know what they are talking about. Rather than suggesting in what seems to be a flippant manner that my knowledge is based on “Hollywood stereotypes” I would have found it more useful if you simply shared what your own background is in the subject, personal experience, etc - and then shared your insights.
I left about 50 links in your forum on the subject of schizophrenia — if you want to know more, you are welcome to click on them. There is also a page linked to my user name that leads to a fairly detailed page as related to my personal experience that is also, fully clickable and has been since I began posting a few days ago.
Meantime, at this point I have read plenty of your articles — both current and archived. I don’t feel I’m making assumptions. As for the rest, I really have no further interest in discussing the matter. I suggest that you go with whatever it is you find to “fit” most comfortably for you.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Oh good! I’m glad we’re in agreement then.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:15 am
Symbolised by putting god in a box! (The Ark)
December 21st, 2005 at 12:37 am
Don’t see any connection between polytheism and multiple personality disorder. See, it is only monotheistic presuppositions which make pluralism seem like fragmentation. There is no contradiction between polytheism and having a strong ego structure; in fact, I would say that too strong a need for a totalizing divine presence indicates a weakness in ego structure, a craving for something to reinforce it.
That said, I do find a discomfort with real polytheism among many neopagans, but I attribute that to monotheistic indoctrination and to the fact that polytheistic theology has not been articulated in a compelling fashion. When this comes, the rest will follow, I think.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:40 am
Oh shit, how did I forget that!
December 21st, 2005 at 2:34 am
The high priests were in fact probably fully aware that he was God incarnate, and that’s why he had to be destroyed.
If they admitted it to themselves, could they keep doing it?
As to the original post, it didn’t make any sense at all to me until I got to Jones’ second sentence. Admittedly, I don’t know many Wiccans. Perhaps the groups I know have spells to prevent the fabled Wiccan “zerging” of J. Brad Hicks’ tales.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:09 am
To be honest, I was actually very inspired by an earlier post of yours on the subject of polytheistic versus monotheistic psychology, and James Hillman’s quote on multiplicity as the natural condition of the human mind. I am not sure if I am wholly convinced of this, but I’ve read a bit of circumstancial evidence suggesting that the concept of ’self’, as we conceive of it in the West, is not universal; and that there may be a connection between concepts of plural selves and of plural gods. I can’t recall if you’ve ever posted this one before, but it caught my notice at some point: Selves in Bali. The ’self’ in Bali is viewed as being largely or wholly dependant on context; one’s reasons for behaving as they do, outside the context of social situations where particular behaviors are required, are assumed to be a private, or even unknowable matter, and one is not called on apparent contradictions between behavior expressed publically and privately.
This bit rather stuck with me:
Another point of interest: Did the discovery of atoms facilitate a worldview in which minds and selves were seen as single, indivisible units, each unconnected to others? Descartes, Locke and Leibniz all used variations of this metaphor; their influence cannot be underestimated. “As pointed out by Hobart (1990), this position presupposes a neat, pre-social division between the individual and the group (or collective); in other words, the Lockean assumption of this dichotomy believes that it assumes that one can talk about persons pre-socially.”
In a society where one ego is presumed to correspond with one body, any form of poly-identity becomes an aberration to be explained away. We start from the presumption that “one body, one self” is the natural course of development, and then we try to figure out what has gone “wrong” with anyone who shows a different pattern. One of the theories being quite seriously batted around was along the lines that the formation of a single self constitutes some kind of important ‘developmental stage’ (an idea serving double duty by denying selfhood to children in one fell swoop)– that a child naturally ‘discards’ those states which do not seem to fit– and that multiplicity represents an ultimate ‘failure’ to consolidate the child’s natural plurality of ego states, an arresting of development.
The concept that one ‘cuts off’ parts of the personality which are socially unacceptable, which led to the original theories about ‘fragmentation’ and ‘dissociation’– the selfish, hedonistic id impulses, which are often violent or sexual in nature– has always seemed to me to be a natural extension of a theology which asserts that humanity’s intrinsic nature is a fallen one, and that life constitutes an ongoing battle to suppress our corrupt impulses. It’s the same basic idea; it’s just been rewritten into a secular context. Thus, doctors like Morton Prince could theorize that an excess of repressed impulses might result in these impulses forming a ’second personality’– or third, or fourth. (Doesn’t explain, though, why Sally described herself as being a walk-in spirit, not originating in the body.)
I’ve been trying for some time to locate a copy of the Suryani and Jensen book, Trance and Possession in Bali, which suggests that posession trance in Balinese society is an intrinsically related phenomenon to what the Western world calls ‘multiple personality.’ Their view of multiplicity seems similar to that of William James: that every self comprises a multiplicity of selves, but the parts form the larger whole. Of course, I am inclined to be slightly biased in my viewpoint that not all multiplicities are the same. One may choose to interpret it as many who represent the complexity of one, or simply to interpret it as many, as with polytheism.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:50 am
One’s lack of speciality or detailed knowledge does not place them at a lower “footing”. There are basically two kinds of “footings”, those who GNO, and those who don’t GNO (and perhaps those who know they don’t GNO). And seeing that we’re all “searchers”, I doubt any of us GNO. That being sad, yes there are differences in knowledge, but the ability to be an integral part to a growing conversation lies not in detailed knowledge, but creative application of what you do know. The only way a conversation can grow is through creating connections outside the limited details of specific topic. That’s when you begin to see “what’s between the lines”.
So I would have to agree with Tim and say we’re all on equal footing, just standing on different grounds (knowledge bases).
December 21st, 2005 at 8:45 am
Woah, thx for the link, j.c. jones!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:40 am
i think what tim means re TM is that it’s cool to have more of a background than someone else in something, ’cause that’s how we learn from one another, but try not to be a patronizing dick about it.
just a thot.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Ktulu: [i]So I would have to agree with Tim and say we’re all on equal footing, just standing on different grounds (knowledge bases).[/i]
I would beg to differ. For example, I walked into this place roughly a week ago. In my second post I asked aloud if Tim was aware that Jung saw a connecting link between alchemy and kabbalah. This was enough to prompt Jeremy to jump up and proclaim [I’m paraphrasing here] “[i]That Tim had been talking about Jung, alchemy, and kabbalah since before I was born.[/i]” When I responded that I’d only been talking about the same subjects for a few years and linked to a site where I had been discussing those subjects, this prompted Jeremy to insist, “[i]This wasn’t a pissing war[/i]”
That brief bit of dialogue between myself and Jeremy seems to have been enough to prompt Tim to insist: [i]From what I’ve seen of your online interactions, you seem to have a habit of assuming that other people don’t know what they are talking about.[/i]
Meantime, I’ve noticed that Tim uses terms related to “mental illness” somewhat loosely; juxtaposing, for instance, sociopathy against schizophrenia, associating dissociative identity disorders with possession states, and equating raving lunatics with people who wander the streets or should be locked up. I have to say, I’ve been talking with schizophrenics for a few years now and the “raving lunatic” is an exceedingly rare exception. Perhaps this explains why, when one of the regular contributing members of this group discloses that they’ve had a traumatic spiritual experience that included a powerful experience of altered states of consciousness and ended with hospitalization and medication, Tim is not able to identify with that experience nor offer any helpful suggestions to that individual.
Ktulu: [i]There are basically two kinds of “footings”, those who GNO, and those who don’t GNO (and perhaps those who know they don’t GNO). And seeing that we’re all “searchers”, I doubt any of us GNO. That being sad, yes there are differences in knowledge, but the ability to be an integral part to a growing conversation lies not in detailed knowledge, but creative application of what you do know. The only way a conversation can grow is through creating connections outside the limited details of specific topic. That’s when you begin to see “what’s between the lines”.[/i]
In Tim’s forum, I’ve left a thread titled “The Luminosity of the Black Goddesses”. For those who are capable of reading between the lines it is the story of a descent into the unconsciousness that specifically identitifies the only guide who can get you through that experience, and some of the treasures to be found there. That “story” is not based on book study or discussion but rather, on the personal experience of a six-week inner journey. Those who are familiar with such journeys will “gno” that is is the equivalent of a shamanistic initiation and a direct experience of gnosis. Which is why I’m opposed to ill-informed people disseminating “truths” about “mental illness” or the routine hospitalization and medication for the crime of coming into spontaneous and powerful states of consciousness.
Meantime, can a conversation occur here on equal ground? Given that the ground technically belongs to one individual and his friends will rally round to bolster his position if someone suggests he’s misinformed… I think I’d be wasting my time. This is but one blog among thousands and there are numerous other places I can go where I don’t have to worry about offending someone and being cast as a “troublemaker” if, by chance, I’m more knowledgeable in an area than they are.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:38 pm
What the fuck man? Did this person explicitly ask for me to solve their problem for them? Absolutely not. And her and I have been in contact for months on a wide variety of topics including that. I think its extremely arrogant for me - or anyone - to believe that I can solve somebody elses situation like that, over the internet by throwing a bunch of links at them. Or, for that matter, that it needs to be solved. What do you know of her life, or of mine for that matter? People come here and read a few articles and think they know my entire life history and all my experiences and the sum of my knowledge. And even if you did somehow manage to divine all that magically, I will be the first to admit that I know nothing, and that I’m wrong all the time and its that recognition which enables me to search, explore, create and have important conversations.
And yeah, you can throw a big fit and run and hide on some other website because you feel persecuted. Or, you can realize that we’ve been trying to communicate with you about things that we feel are meaningful. You’re perfectly welcome to stay and join in our conversations and add to them - which you absolutely have done. I just don’t appreciate the game of who knows the most. It’s a waste of time when we could be actually talking about things that are interesting and exciting and that go so far beyond any of us that we look ridiculous in comparison.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Funny thing is most occult religions claim that the human being has more than one soul, e.g., the Secret Gospel of John says man has 7 souls, Mongolian shamanism says we have 9 souls, etc. I wonder why that is?
Some of the most talented trance mediums I know are also total bullheaded egomaniacs (and I mean that in a good way).
Speak for yourself, I gno the score!
See also Thomas Szasz
December 21st, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Tim: And yeah, you can throw a big fit and run and hide on some other website because you feel persecuted.
Let’s be perfectly clear Tim — I’m not choosing to leave because I feel persecuted. I’m choosing to leave because a.) it’s your site; b.) Jeremy is your buddy; c.) Neither one of you seems to be capable of recognizing your own projections. Experience has taught me that once someone is engaged in a conversation with their own projected material, it’s pointless to try and engage them in any further dialogue. They’ll just keep saying things like, “This isn’t a pissing war,” without recognizing that the “piss” began with their introductory comment; “I’m not trying to reprimand or attack” while they’ve been engaged in that very activity; or Isn’t it ignorant of others to make assumptions while ignoring the ones they’ve leapt to. I suggest that you and Jeremy go with this one: “Manning sure is a dick!” I assure you, I’ve been called far worse and it’s not going to bother me.
Tim: I think its extremely arrogant for me - or anyone - to believe that I can solve somebody elses situation like that, over the internet by throwing a bunch of links at them.
Really? Perhaps we’re seeing from a different perspective then. What I see in those links is solid information that counters what mainstream psychiatry and culture will throw at people who undergo spontaneous visionary states. What I also see is that a.) You appear to have a following and this has cast you into the role of a leader; b.) as a leader you have a certain degree of responsibility to those who might look up to you and admire you for any reason whatsoever; c.) you’re running a spiritual community — do yourself a favor and learn a little about spiritual emergencies so that when or if a member of your community goes through one, maybe you can offer them something more than the idea that “mental illness” is the equivalent of “raving lunacy”. But don’t take my word for it Tim — feel free to wander through Daniel Pinchbeck’s forum and consider carefully the impact that two suicides in nine months can have upon a flourishing online community, the individual who runs it, the individuals in crisis, and the family members and friends they left behind. It might make you think twice about what you say about the “mentally ill”.
Now… I’m moving on because I don’t feel comfortable here. I don’t feel I can comfortably to be who I am here without someone wanting to bust my ass for it. It’s not persecution, it’s recognition. Thanks.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:20 pm
??? Oooookay . . . not sure exactly how i fit into all of this, but whatever. glad to have been of service.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Don’t you understand Jeremy, this is all your fault!
December 21st, 2005 at 8:05 pm
First they came for the furries, but I didn’t say anything, because I was not a furry…