RSS

Category Archives: Cosmological Worldview

Equinox

The question of the significance of the equinoxs has been raised recently on the Caer Feddwyd forum. The general consensus was that these were largely insignificant for the majority. I am one though, for whom this is not true. My own seasonal rituals have always been solar based and I don’t particularly connect with some of the cultural fire festivals. I believe that this is because my own interactions are and continue to, mainly, eminate through the medium of the land and the collective of ancestors. This means the interactions are based in physicality, and because the sun is a physical entity, I believe this is why the solar festivals are significant for me. The collective of ancestors were also, initially, based in physicality (although it is my understanding that not all of them have experienced the physical) so the link continues for me.

It is my experience that the equinoxs are a time when the year tips from light to dark or vice versa and this time of change is experienced by me pretty much as a time that most Pagans would associate with Samhain, the thinning of the veils. Another connection that makes my experiences with the equinoxs so much more than the general experience within Brython is that both of my parents were born on each of the equinoxs so it’s possible that my experiences are somewhat unusual.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 17, 2011 in Cosmological Worldview

 

Inbetween

My recent change in both marital, employment and living conditions have afforded me with time to do things that have always had to be put on the “backburner” previously. Foremost of these has been the time to visit some of the places associated with spiritual aspects of my developing Brythonic aspects.

 

As chance would have it and by completely independent paths, another member of Brython, through a change of marital status was also afforded opportunity through freed time, to be able to do a similar thing. So we decided that it would be interesting to jointly visit these places with a view to sharing our differing perspectives. So it has been my pleasure to visit some places with Potia over the last few months and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

As has been attested to here with my posting, my own perspectives tend to be afforded through interactions with a, mostly, nameless collective revealed as an ancestral collective and through the medium of the land. I have never been afforded any names so as to link in with deity. Potia’s interactions though, have been almost exclusively deity driven interactions, so we figured that visiting these places jointly should result in at least one of us be interactive.

What we didn’t figure though, was that each of us would facilitate the others interactions in a way not previously available to us independently. So, as a result, I have now had interactions with named deities and Potia has connected to the medium of the land stronger than at any time previously.

This has resulted in a shared perspective that neither of us would have even remotely considered as possible previously. I think it is fair to say that the repocussions of this are still being felt and will continue to do so as our Shared Personal Gnosis (SPG) moves forward.

 

It was during sone of these visits, concentrating on North West England and South West Scotland, that I experienced interactions with the deity known as Maponus. He has subsequently appeared at varying locations, some most unexpected such as in a relief at Vindolanda. The nature of Maponus, along with some other essentially Brythonic deities, has always been somewhat ambiguous

.

A visit to Lochmabon resulted in me receiving information that told me the nature of deity interactions with this deity were facilitated by the process of “Inbetween”.

 

This made imediate sense in so much as Maponus was traditionally thought to inhabit several realms, a being that may be now be thought of today, as being transdimensional (between realms or dimensions) . At the time though, I had the feeling that this was not the complete end to the meaning of this information.

 

It has become our initial belief through SPG, that the land and the entities associated with it, are mostly feminine in nature (though not exclusively so. However in a Brythonic framework, this matches best at this time, our experiences). As such, these entities are understood to be associated with the right of Sovereignty through the medium of the land. On the whole, and again not exclusively, deity tends to be masculine in nature and mostly associated with Dominion and the granting of such to a culture or individual.

In the context of earlier times, this would have been a framework widely understood on a practical level as interactions with both masuline and feminine deities would have been integral to life being sustained through living on and through, the land. It is a concept that fits well with most people (in my limited experience) who currently describe themselves as Pagan today.

 

However, our context has been drastically changed in the last 100 odd years and although we understand through cultural empathy and scholarly study of these earlier times these earlier concepts, to be able to use these concepts in a 21st century context is becoming increasingly more difficult. To interact with a deity whose characteristics were that of granting the conditions to be able to create a bountiful harvest for the common good has now, mostly, been drastically negated through modern agricultural practices and chemical additives that create the right conditions for the majority of the time.

 

Thus, the interactions between the feminine land and the masculine deity, through fertlity rituals and the like, have been mostly negated to the role of cultural curiosity. This inter-related fertlity cycle has been made mostly “impotent” by modern practices. And it has occurred to me that this impotence may have resulted in the current disconnection felt by people today. This is more keenly felt by those, IMO, using the term pagan as a self descriptor.

 

Because we no longer have sole reliance on the availing weather conditions for the production of food in this country, with lots of food being imported so as to provide for us in the comparably wealthy west, our interactions with these deities has now altered. Now, I for one, am not suggesting that we move back to this framework of leaving our food needs to the whims of nature, I appreciate as much as anyone else, the benefit of being able to purchase food at anytime of the year. Neither am I suggesting wholesale abandonment of such processes, that would be, IMO, an inachievable pipe dream.

 

It has, therefore, occurred to me that our role in these interactions has placed us in a place of being “inbetween” ourselves. Our current cultural position means that we are not reliant on the whim of otherworldly beings and, as such, these other beings are now in a position themselves of being culturally and ritually impotent in many ways.

 

This disconnection, though not consciously for most, results in interactions that may, for the want of a better word, be somewhat “lacking” in both meaning and relevence, a disconnection in very real terms. UPG suggests to me that this has been facilitated voluntarily by these otherworldly beings so the question now is, “How do we create a means in a 21st century context, by which to take some responsibility for ourselves in both re-eatablishing the links with these beings, though in a more reciprical way, that pays respect to earlier ideas whilst at the same time, moves these interactions into a framework that is more in keeping with life today?”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 5, 2011 in Cosmological Worldview

 

The Lens of the Land

My time at the moment is taken up with preparations for my upcoming talk at The Druid Network’s Conference in November. The subject will be my Religion of the Soil hypothesis, which is not official Brythonic agreed cosmological worldview, but my own developing understanding and as such, is meeting some resistance, as historically does most changes of agreed perspectives. I have been applying the hypothesis to various scenario’s and have found it to be providing a differing perspective and as such, is hugely useful as , IMO, perspectives inevitably change with the submission and interpretation of new information.

One major change of perspective is the realization that the idea of a communal ancestral ideaology means that the physical substance of soil, if viewed as the physical interacting remains of the ancestors, may in modern terms be viewed as an interactive component in transmutation. To put this crudely, the soil may have been thought of as acting as a lens for the process of interactions. This strengthens the assertion that the earthern banks evidenced in henges were more than just a structure with which to enclose an area, but were actually integral in the process of transmuting the information that may have been provided by the ancestors in rituals and everyday interactions. As such, I find my animistic understanding to resonate with this perspective as it suggests both a means and method of process that is in keeping with my own experiences.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 18, 2010 in Cosmological Worldview

 

Polytheism – the only logical position (A modern definition).

The term Polytheism is a term that for many conjures up images of a belief system that may / should be consigned to history. In a world where monotheism has provided various frames of reference that stipulates that the top of any otherworld hierarchial system must, by default, be the ultimate in “power” and therefore should be the only “true” way, is one that for many, is no longer applicable.

The actions and the internal power bases of these religious frameworks documented throughout recorded history point to widespread failings in both interpretation and direction. These failings have led to death on scales that only major natural disasters compare to. Without wanting to apportion any sort of blame here, which is neither my intention nor interest, I am going to document why I have been led to the conclusion that Polytheism is the only logical position for me to hold in regard to otherworld interpretation.

As is documented on this site, I take an interest in the latest scientific advances and discourses. The modern scientific age is one that has, through various channels and circumstances, led to an understanding in the natural world that is demonstrable beyond the intuitive. This has led to advances in technology which take our interactions with this planet and all the processes present herein and beyond, to an altogether new level. Some of these advances are being made on the backs of theoretical models that cannot work without major rethinks into the reality of existence.

One such example is Quantum Computing. The principles of how this works is one that even within my lifetime, would have been dismissed as fanciful and based in imagination and yet, we now find that the possibility for such a machine and the idea that a position or particle could exist in a minimum of two states simultaneously, enforces the position that our perception of the physical realm we exist in is not the actual totality of that existence.

This may lead one to re-evaluate the nature of their interactions, with areas of existence that were previously based purely on intuitive perspectives, now being moved into theoretical scientific areas. Of course, any scientist for whom his / she’s livelihood depends upon these areas, steers well clear of any theological interpretations because these interpretations are difficult to qualify and therefore moves their work out of the measurable and (primarily) observable.

So, with the rise of theoretical models used to generate the evolution of technology, the changing nature of existence continues to be shown and demonstrated to us. This evidence then challenges us to reconsider our belief’s about the nature of this existence.

If we are fortunate enough to read what may be considered good quality literature about these scientific subjects, hopefully written by individuals in a position to write authoratively, then it becomes clear that the case for different realms of existence is now much stronger, whether these realms are described as alternative or many universes / worlds or whatever the current scientific language deems appropriate at this time.

The probability of such realms actually existing has now moved from the restrictions of questionable religious frameworks into the more open environment of the scientific disciplines. It would appear that the majority of current scientists now implicitly recognize the existence of realms not previously evidenced beyond the historically dubious writings of some religions. The weight of evidence is moving to strengthen the case for the existence of realms of reality that, although not sharing exactly the conditions we currently live in, never the less by their speculated existence, don’t violate the commonly held laws of nature evidenced throughout our own universe.

If the conditions needed to accommodate the creation and substinance of such alternative realms / universes are indeed universal, then the weight of probability would suggest that the possibility of different forms of life existing there would be strong. Their conditions of existence would be different from ours simply because their environment would dictate how they would experience their lives. Therefore, their experiences may share some commonality to us, but in some instances may be completely different.

The closer the environmental conditions to our own universe, the closer the potential commonality between any potential life forms. Therefore, it occurs to me, that the only question is whether the individual has, through personal or reasoned discourse, experienced any interactions with other potential life forms. The more that these theoretical scientific ideas are shown to be grounded in a reality that may be used for, say, technological evolution, the greater the probability that other forms of environments condusive to some form of life, may actually be based in reality.

These environments will be proven by scientific methods and as such, their consequences may be assessed scientifically thus taking some of the interpretations of these interactions away from some of the unproven religious conjecture evidenced elsewhere.

Therefore, if we accept that the potential for the existence of different “other-world” realms is increasing with scientific discourse, then using the model of life evidenced on Earth, it would be entirely consistent to assume that any or all life existing in these other realms would not be restricted to just one interpretation or example. Speaking personally, this is the strongest reason why I rejected the monotheistic model. I cannot think of any situation where life has occurred that has resulted in just one interpretation. It goes against the regenerative nature of life evidenced here on Earth. Therefore, if one places the notion of a God into another realm of existence, the model of life presented to us implies that this example of another independent life form would not stop at just one example. I would suggest that it would be a more reasonable position to assume that there would be more than one example or individual.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 29, 2010 in Cosmological Worldview

 

Personal Cosmology

Following my recent posts filed under Scientific Discussion, I now turn my attention to clarifying my continuing developing cosmological world view. The last year has seen me doing more reading than in probably any year in the last 20 years. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been a purpose for this, though it is a purpose that until I started this blog, wasn’t immediately obvious to me.

It is interesting to read the latest scientific revelations and increasingly they are confirming the general ideas that the wiser sages over time have been asserting, that this thing called life is a primarily illusional thing. The nature of existence is a common pursuit for both science and religion and for a period of time, the idea of keeping any form of religious overtones out of mainstream science was a framework that worked well. However, as with most things in life, the edges are now beginning to blur with our developing technology enabling us to go beyond our limited vision and to observe that which has remained hidden from human eyes.

I have found that studying the latest scientific advances is resulting in a clearer picture for my developing spirituality and I am finding that far from being polar opposites, the developments in science are complementing and adding to my personal cosmology which is becoming both more cohesive and better structured.

My work with Brython is one that started with the desire to find out if there was any native spirituality associated with Britain. I had found that the context of the main religions was not appropriate to me (that is not to say they are not to others, this was a purely personal viewpoint). So I looked into Paganism and for an initial period, this gave me pointers as to the potential that lay within the very broad parameters of that term. Soon after that initial foray, I came across Druidry and this seemed to be “pushing the right buttons” being an ideology specifically linked to Britain. However, the further I studied, the more the realization that this particular path was one that was more subject to personal revelation than to quantified frames of reference. As an engineer by trade, for me to develop any sort of cohesive and relevant spiritual framework, it had to have its basis in more than just subjective experiences.

Fortunately, my attention was drawn to Brython and it’s public forum at Caer Feddwyd and here I found discussion that was based around facts with an idea to reconnect with Britain’s lost spirituality using the proven and speculated results of the likes, but not exclusively, of archaeology and other available scientific areas. This type of interaction suited me because it referenced back to documented evidence and it didn’t exhibit the usual flame wars evidenced elsewhere on Pagan forums where subjective disclosure is treated as fact and is generally not up for either discussion or analysis.

My dealing with Brython therefore, pointed me in a direction whereas I started to read and comprehend scientific disclosure in the likes of biology, physics and even chemistry, areas that as a student did not hold a great fascination for me at that particular period in my life.

The more I have read, the more the pieces of this spiritual jigsaw have fallen into place. I feel that I am now at a stage whereas I can now start to attempt to create a “whole” picture. I don’t believe that this picture will remain static as more revelations from both science and other associated areas will require analysis and the model will require movement to accommodate these new pieces of information. That is part of the beauty of life, it is not static and it would appear to me that part of the purpose of life is to experience and adapt to the changing circumstances and environments.

It soon became clear to me that the animistic viewpoint, one that advances the notion that all materials possess in greater or lesser degrees some degree of consciousness was one that I could relate to from both a subjective and substantiated viewpoint. This possession of the animating force evidenced in living things led me to consider through study of primarily biology, the mechanisms needed to be in place for this transference to take place. People discuss and postulate upon the nature of consciousness, but I would rather establish working mechanisms that provide a means by which to establish if such a thing has the potential to manefest, than to take for granted that it actually does.

This led to the my first post. As I stated, the idea that consciousness is seated primarily in the brain comes about by the illogical conclusion that consciousness only manefests itself through the higher functions of the brain, such as thoughts. Yet, if we look at the processes involved in creating and then maintaining these pathways and the fact that the brain is in a constant state of recycling with a chemical activity that is akin to a boiling vat of chemicals, then if one adopts the materialistic viewpoint that once that synaptive pathway has been created it is there permanently, the documented evidence disputes this. It is known that every part if the brain is recycled regularly therefore it is dismantled and then rebuilt completely. Synaptive pathways are thought to be formed by experiences, so if they are dismantled, the logical position would assume that for that same pathway to be rebuilt, that same experience must have to be experienced again precisely. Groundhog day on a colosal scale!

So, if this is an illogical ideal, then what may constitute a possible answer? One possible answer I would suggest, would be the notion that the cells, being the primary providers of information, may store these experiences like a mini hard drive for the renewal processes of the brain to draw upon and supply the blue print for the reformation of these synaptive pathways. This suggests also that these experiences are not primarily seated within the brain, but become assimilated by the whole biological body. Consciousness may be viewed as the operating system a computer uses to operate the overall system, with the independently operating cells (CPU’s) providing the user information. This information is then processed by consciousness (the operating system) through both user interfaces (I am thinking of this like a computer screen that presents information to the higher functions) and storage of that information (the unconscious aspect of consciousness used to run the programs in the background).

Therefore, I would suggest we have a possible mechanism for the interaction between consciousness and biological body.

In my next post, I then went on to speculate as to a possible delivery method for consciousness by comparing the known attributes of both consciousness and gravity. Quantum mechanics, which is used to qualify a lot of what is termed “new age” ideas, is getting quite specific about how particles seem to possess the ability to pop into and out of reality. People in the know openly state that if you think you know how quantum mechanics work, then you obviously don’t! So whilst being a fascinating subject full of possibilities, I would prefer to base my conclusions on presently quantifiable scenarios when at all possible. This is why I chose to compare attributes instead of potential make up.

Finally, I went on to suggest some potential mechanisms that may explain how the third part of consciousness, that being time, may interact with this process. The most important mechanism here was that of the zipping process of different realities. If the position that all outcomes for all interactions are an actual physical reality somewhere in this or other universes is correct, then the ability of the individual to collapse similar realities at a set rate hints at a possible mechanism for this interaction to take place in. It would appear logical that different rates of collapsing or zipping different realities together would result in different subjective experiences. Further more, if this is the case, then assuming that the rate of zipping or collapse is not a universal constant, different rates may result in different realities. Someone or something that could zip or collapse realities at a different rate to you would experience reality differently from you and may not even be real to you in the normal sense of the word.

Would that mean therefore, that their existence was a reality or not?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2010 in Cosmological Worldview

 

Polytheism – A Personal Liberty?

One of the descriptions used by myself to attempt to convey my still developing world view is the term polytheist. Historically, the term referred to the worship of multiple deities, the pantheon of Gods evidenced by, for example, the Norse traditions.

 

 

I suspect that this interaction took the form of what may be thought of as a practical living arrangement. That is to say, votive offerings and communication, either through the individual concerned or the religious figure of the community acting as intermediary for the individual concerned. Unlike the structured ritualistic services of the Abrahamic religions designed for the attendance of multiple individuals, I suspect that the nature of these earlier interactions took the form of either the individual or at the most, the family unit.

One may now consider it to be reasonable to assume that the arrangement was one that mirrored the practical nature of the existence of life at that time. That is to say, the names and personalities of their Gods would have been as well known and talked about as much as the family living across from them. Their Gods would have taken on different personalities or qualities and would have been accessed when the need arose, with specific rituals saved for specific times and the attendance of multiple individuals.

 

The rise and subsequent popularity of the Abrahamic religions, took away this practical daily interaction and placed the deity into the realms of the supernatural, making access available, primarily through the appointed representative of said religion. The consequences of this were obvious, not least, placing control of the individual’s access to deity through the structure of an organization that spanned large areas of inhabitation. The teachings of said religion was one that took it’s basis from the documented scriptures, thus, interpretations of the meanings of these scriptures to the general populace was placed in the hands of those very same appointed representatives.

 

As this viewpoint, placing a single deity at the centre of theological discourse, took prevalence over the general populace, the names and personalities of these earlier Gods restricted themselves to the smaller groups of individuals who, for whatever reason, chose to continue with this earlier form of interaction. So, polytheism found itself restricted very much to isolated local populations or individuals. This is now representative of today’s society.

 

The change in cultural ideas in the 20th century and beyond and the emergence of the scientific method have led people to reconsider and redefine their relationship with the realms of the spiritual. Their method of consideration is now based upon the notion of reason and it’s application. This has led many to reject the literal truth of the scriptures because of the obvious inconsistencies involved therein and to a certain extent, resort back to a relationship mirrored in earlier times, i.e. one of a personal practical nature.

 

My own viewpoint has followed this route also. The prevalence of the scientific viewpoint, and more importantly, it’s methodology, leads one to base one’s reasoning within the structures of what is reasonably evidenced. To some, this takes priority over all methods and their reasoning strictly adheres to this. I suspect that most of us display the qualities shown by our ancestors generally, that is to say, a pragmatic approach.

 

So, why am I self identifying as a polytheist now? Well, my polytheism is now subject to a modern interpretation. I have never been able to either identify to or interact with, the anthropological identification of deity. Using the strict interpretation of polytheism, my self identification may now look to be on even unsure foundations. Why should this be? Well, over a period of time, I have come to realize my own interactions are based more about what would be considered to be spirits of place or the Genius Loci of Roman description.

 

These were placed in the realms of the Gods under the general interpretation of polytheism, so as such, I consider the description to still be relevant for my own use.

Using the model of life evidenced to us by the scientific method, we observe that life, however it manifests itself in the natural world, rarely, if ever, stops at a single example. The nature of life is one of diversity and reproductive success through a variety of processes and therefore, one may reasonably assume that there only need to be one form of life to be identified and it is more than reasonable to predict further examples of life resulting from this initial example.

 

Therefore, if evidence of a life form is placed before me that meets the criteria to qualify as an independent entity, I would consider it to be reasonable to assume there would be further examples of said life forms and as such, meet my definition of polytheism. My polytheism therefore, is defined by the reasoned assumption that the entities experienced by me are independent existing entities and using the example of life as we perceive it on Earth, I cannot perceive of it as a single example. Therefore, they must exist in multiples.

 

My modernistic viewpoint, however, also structures me to the conclusion that my relationship with said life forms take the form of a relationship based, as far as reasonably practicable, on an equal basis with both parties contributing without compromising the other by a subservient approach.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 14, 2010 in Cosmological Worldview