This is the final part of my Personal Brythonic Relationships series and represents my thoughts (at this time) in relation to all that I have posted before.
It is my contention that the adoption of a polytheistic approach when creating a Brythonic framework with which to nurture a relationship with both / either deity or landscape, is probably more conducive and more relative for the understanding of the of the earlier generations ideas and possible interactions, than a monotheistic approach which would place it’s emphasis upon the interactions with a single entity. This idea would not have been representative of the ideas of those earlier generations.
One may not actually have particularly strong polytheistic belief’s, but if the framework is as accurate as we can construct from current available information, this would then appear to offer the best potential from which constructive interactions could be based upon, and one would hope, create an acceptable and usable format for both parties.
If the basic premise of deity being present in the environment is accepted by the individual through either personal interactions or qualified through reasoned subjective discussion, then it would appear to be consistent to assume that using the model of life on Earth as one’s basis, there could be the potential for a multitude of life forms that could meet the criteria used to qualify those same life forms with earlier and modern definitions of deity.
The difficulty is that the mindset of the modern individual, I suspect, would be different in both it’s approach and understanding of what actually constitutes “life” from earlier generations. The reasoned rational approach would tend to disqualify a lot of interactions as nothing more than coincidence or chance, and indeed, that would probably be correct in a lot of instances. The recent approach that separate entities work independently of and from each other, is now being challenged through the framework of quantum physics and anomalies such as quantum entanglement seem to suggest that this premise is not correct. This would, therefore, not only provide a challenge for that same individual to understand and develop their own framework, but would also challenge how that relationship was to be structured from both parties.
Unfortunately, the rationalist approach sometimes lends itself to a blanket approach to all interactions, with rationality taking precedence in the thought processes and therefore placing before the individual, several alternative explanations.
The resultant increase in options may lead to a sense of further egoic isolation as the individual struggles to create a coherent structure with which to base all these differing inputs. The result often leads to the abandonment of any frames of reference in which the individual considers interactions of a “supernatural” context to be present and that same individual may then may actively restrict their terms of reference to actual biological processes both qualified and quantifiable by the present scientific processes.
However, the numbers of people now actively engaged in trying to work in different frames of reference through the myriad of alternative concepts, would tend to lend itself to the suggestion that, indeed, the terms of reference are in the process of being changed, possibly by both parties.