THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.mythology,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (lorax) Subject: Re: CDeville: Astarte Date: 8 May 1996 16:16:01 -0700 kaliyuga 49960507 (perhaps we're losing sight of the claims. let me try to reassess) KRShane (krshane@aol.com): |>...the central claim of most of the better *scholarship* on early |>Goddess worship is that the figure of the Goddess *as symbol/archetype* |>is so similar in a vast variety of cultures and eras that one can posit |>a basic human *experience* that gives rise to belief in a Goddess figure, taking this one in particular, what I hear being claimed is that the worshippers of these various gods had a similar RELATIONSHIP to hir goddess, and more, that the goddesses had some similarities due to proximity. I can accept this, actually, especially as the GiT pointed out, when we lose the term 'archetype', though I'd hear arguments to the contrary. |>and further that cultures of common biological, geographic, and |>cultural heritage will evince this archetype in forms that |>are in essence "the same Goddess". how could this ever be proven? how many different cultures are there which share common biological, geographical and cultural heritage? is there a *control* culture which we may observe to recognize and falsify/support this? how are 'thealogists' supporting it? rrosen@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Goddess in Training): |So you are arguing that through experience, people develop certain |deities that are similar? If so, then why do you use a Jungian term such |as "archetype" for that hypothesis? Archetypes in the Jungian sense imply |the a priori existence of said archetypes, not that they are developed |through experience. Jungian psychology is very essentialist and |Idealistic, practically Platonic at times, so seeing the word "archetype" |associated with a phenomenon that is experiential in nature is rather |disconcerting to me. perhaps the archetype becomes the goddess whereas otherwise the archetype remains hidden within our interior/subconscious/unconscious/jello. |Most sources that I've seen have considered Ashtoreth to be the |demonization of Astarte by the monotheistic prophets of the Hebrews.... I've noticed that many labels and names are demonizations by the JCI 'Patriarchy'. The name PAGAN, the word MAGIC, amongst others I'm sure. |As far as I know, no one in this thread has been attempting to prove that |they are not different culture's forms of the same deity. Most sources |seem to link Astarte, Ashtaroth, Ishtar, Inanna and often Anath as being |different names or forms of the same goddess but in different cultures. and this claim itself is ambiguous. what does 'the same goddess' mean here? that there was a wide-spread religion which crossed over into several cultures and whose practices and mythos were shared? |Of course the same deity appears under different names in different cultures. I argue that this may be a facile rendering of 'the same deity' and that while it is already ambiguous within religious tradition where one deity ends and another begins (aside from historical and/or mythological analyses which support concepts often totally unfounded by archealogical evidence), saying that 'the same deity appears under different names in different cultures' amounts to the same kind of 'essentialism' which you ascribe to Jung and his 'archetypes'. there is no evidence that the gods exist in anything but our minds, and where our minds are concerned there are not these formalized boundaries historically or as a present globe. |This does not mean, though, that there were no other goddesses worshiped by |these people or that all goddesses in all cultures are forms of this goddess. |The latter, though, is a claim that many "Great Goddess" adherents are wont |to make. It's a claim that, IMNSHO, does not stand up to close scrutiny. Isn't there more to this? Could someone please explain (without trying to convince us of the historical and/or archeological/psychophysical data) what or who this 'Great Goddess' is? Is this like the God of the Hebrews whose form might vary but whose identity was always Torah-based? |>Anything more than that is thealogy - and notoriously difficult and |>unrewarding to pursue in terms of "evidence" and "proof". |Indeed. ooooo, 'thealogy'. scahwee. what is that aside from goddess-worshippers making up their own history about themselves and gods? isn't this the same project set out by countless religious from day one and about which many goddess-worshippers/Neopagans daily complain? I can see a need for a 'new mythology', but I'm unsure that, given the globalization of culture, abstraction into 'Great God' and 'Great Goddess' is really going to solve anything. If we prove the existence via logic of the Great Goddess in archeological digs will this mean that we should consider Her 'more real' or somehow 'more deserving of our worship'? just what is everyone trying to establish here by this argument? generali- zations about simplistic terms capable of being placed into sound-bytes are very popular. attempting to add to this by conjecturing some sort of religious quality intellectually where it did not in fact exist historically can be a very important art-project, but if one begins to support it like many religious support their favorite history it becomes much worse than 'thealogy', it becomes PROPAGANDA. tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com lorax of the evul wikkunz ------------------------- "Wicce" (feminine) and "wicca" (masculine) is Anglo Saxon, not Celtic. It meant "bender," "sorcerer," "changer," with a neutral-to-negative coloration, *not* "wise." The Anglo Saxon word for "wise" was "wys" or "wyz", as in "wizard," meaning "wise one." Oh, and "wiccan" was originally the plural, not the adjectival form. ibonewits@icu.com (Isaac Bonewits): alt.religion.druid
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|