So, remember when I said I was going to say one little thing and then nothing else on the issue currently causing strife within the Polytheist community? (As if we didn’t already have enough unnecessary divisiveness going on?)
Yeah . . . I lied. I’d say I’m sorry, but “sorry” doesn’t mean a whole lot when I go right on doing what I told everyone I wasn’t going to do.
What prompted me to not keep holding my tongue? A conversation with friends and a stranger over this piece that Gwen Idasfotri wrote, in conjunction with a few related conversations on the subject with friends and acquaintances on different social media platforms. All of these people I have respect for as people, and for those who are my friends, as friends (who are also quite intelligent, of that there is no doubt), but I can’t agree with their not-quite-established premises on the existence and worshipability of egregori, and the incorporation of popular culture elements into belief structures and practice — I’ll get to my reasoning on that in a little while. Or a long while. I have quite a few things to say.
First, I’d like to address a few things that caught my eye with regard to Gwen’s piece.
“THERE ARE NO SELF-CONSCIOUSLY FICTIONAL WORKS OF LITERATURE IN THE ANCIENT WORD”
As much as I’m sure both of us would like it to be so, that statement isn’t expressly true. And not just of the Ancient word — definitely the Medieval word, and the Modern word too.
Let’s go with an example or two of “the Ancient word” to start, and then a Medieval example, since we Moderns are all abundantly aware of the fictions present in our own time.
The Contendings of Heru and Set is a prime example of a work of literature that probably wasn’t “[a] story [that] was meant to be emotionally/spiritually/ontologically relevant, to urge changes in behavior, [and] to deepen people’s relationships with the more-than-human world.” It was “true” in the sense of symbolically talking about real social issues and injustices of the time, it is “true” in the sense that “this text literally exists,” but it wasn’t “true” in a liturgical/religious sense.
The nature of the behavior of the Gods in The Contendings was completely at odds with the way the speech and conduct of the Gods was portrayed by both State and regional theologies during the Ramesside Era, namely during the reign of Ramses V, around the time this story was penned. In his introduction to his translation of The Contendings, E. F. Wente noted that “the behavior of the great Gods is at points so shocking that it is hard to imagine that no humor was intended.” (Simpson, 108) While humor is an important tool of instruction in Modern times, and while we may find many aspects of Ancient Egyptian religion “funny,” it was probably not considered part of formal belief and religion and their instruction to the Ancient Egyptians. Inscriptions on temple walls demonstrate a wide discrepancy between the two styles of narrative. In temple inscriptions, the speech of the Gods is highly formal, and Their behavior best described as “buttoned-up.” In The Contendings, the God Set and His supporters, among Them the Sun God Ra, are portrayed as impotent, indecisive, mismanaging buffoons. One should take note that Set was one of the more highly esteemed Gods of the Ramesside Kings; this is an important detail.
The story may have likely been reflective of common attitudes toward the Government at that time, and the contempt and frustration people felt toward the ruling class. Egyptologist of Oxford University and Cambridge University Geraldine Pinch states “it is most likely that criticism in the text is aimed at the King and his representatives who chose to identify themselves with the Sun God and His council of advisory deities.” (79) Non-royal Egyptians had no open outlets for protest and dissension against the injustices of their time, such as the inordinate delay of legal cases by the Ancient Egyptian justice system which are indirectly criticized through Heru-sa-Aset’s complaint in the story. (Pinch, 83) For the individual who wrote this story (since the overwhelming majority of people were illiterate, and only an educated person of one of the higher tiers of society could’ve had the skills to create this), this story served the purpose, whether in whole or in part, of being political diatribe, not holy writ with inherent spiritual or religious significance, despite the fact that it contains elements from established myths of earlier periods from various regions. The fact that the Gods were the characters in this story did not, and does not, make the story inherently spiritual or religious, any more than it can be assumed Marvel’s Thor was written by its creators with the intention of serving any liturgical/theological purpose.
Homosexuality was considered taboo beyond belief by the Ancient Egyptians, and yet Set and Heru-sa-Aset are shown engaging in it within the tale — Set walking away with the entirety of the humiliation, since He was the one Who had been dominated and emasculated. Not only was Set raped and outsmarted by another male; He was raped and outsmarted by a younger male, reinforcing Set’s weakness and inadequacy as a masculine male and as a legitimate leader. (Manniche, 22) I ask my audience to recall now that Set is one of the Ramesside Kings’ tutelary Gods, and to think about what Set’s being dishonored infers about the quality and popularity of the leadership at the time.
To the Ancient Egyptians, homosexuals, while acknowledged to exist, were believed to be both figures of mockery and individuals incapable of genuine love. We see similar motifs in other pieces of Ancient Egyptian folklore, such as The Tale of Neferkare and the General Sasenet, the comical story of a secret affair between a King and his male lover. Instances of intimate or consensual homosexual relationships such as that present within The Tale of Neferkare and the General Sasenet, along with the homosexual passivity demonstrated by Set in The Contendings, were largely condemned by religious texts as an absurd and aberrant pursuit of inappropriate sexual desire. (Myśliwiec, 33) And what the Ancient Egyptians considered weakness and foolishness inherent within homosexual passivity, such as that displayed within The Contendings by the God Set, was certainly not Godly behavior. To portray any person, much less a God, in such a degenerate act, while perhaps amusing, was greatly insulting within the context of formal religion and practice at the time. The Contendings wasn’t somehow designed to “deepen people’s relationships with the more-than-human world.” Such portrayals, while perhaps not at odds with Modern sensibilities, were at odds with Ancient Egyptian religious and social sensibilities. Such portrayals incited derisive laughter and condemnation among Ancient Egyptians, not transcendent understanding of the soul, the Gods, and the Multiverse.
It should be apparent by now that this particular work of literature was probably not intended for liturgical/theological instruction, and this point is further underscored by the fact that the work was not written in the liturgical language of classic Middle Egyptian. Rather, it was written in the vernacular language of the Late New Kingdom Period. (Pinch, 79) It should also be reiterated that the rate of literacy was abysmally low throughout Ancient Egyptian History, not just during the Ramesside Era, though the Old Kingdom Period boasted the lowest estimated literacy rate: anywhere from 1% — 10% of the Egyptian population, versus the approximate 80% — 90% literacy rate many Western nations are accustomed to now, to put things into perspective. (Piccione, 1995) The literacy rate of the New Kingdom Period was not a great deal higher than the Old Kingdom Period rate. The likelihood of this work inspiring any form of piety at the time it was written is suspect.
Now, let us trek on over to Medieval Europe for further elucidation.
Professor Emeritus of Folkloristics at the University of Iceland, Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson, makes an important distinction that Manniche, Myśliwiec, Pinch, and Wente all hint at but don’t say as clearly. Myths are stories which possess liturgical/theological value as well as cultural identity value. Folklore, on the other hand, while it certainly has cultural identity value, has essentially no liturgical/theological value. When folklore does approach belief, it usually discusses superstition rather than piety and formal religion. Aðalsteinsson best illustrates this in his discussion of Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda:
“The folktale motifs in Snorri’s [Prose Edda] deserve particular attention. They show how early the mythology of Old Norse religion was infiltrated by folklore motifs. This was no more than might be expected once the myths were no longer regarded as holy and true, while continuing to be an element of cultural entertainment. But the blending of myths with folktale motifs means that we must move with caution when investigating this material. Special care must be taken not to associate too readily the original mythology of Eddic poems with the material in Snorri’s Prose Edda, which has been infiltrated with folklore motifs. We should in all seriousness be wary of following various scholars who have accepted folklore in Snorri’s Prose Edda as a simple addition to the material of Vǫluspá.”
(Aðalsteinsson, 131 – 2)
This is, of course, to say nothing of the fact that skalds in Medieval Scandinavian societies and chroniclers and senachie in other Medieval societies could be bought off to spin total fictions about their patrons in order to falsely inflate their legitimacy (Trevor-Roper, 9 – 19); documents that are in every sense of the word false, such as “The Donation of Constantine;” and the total lack of verifiable truth in some accounts and the borrowing from unrelated chronicles, as was done by Dudo in his biography of Rollo of Normandy. Medieval Historians know, just as Medieval people knew, that these were false accounts. If and when they were accepted by society at large, they were accepted almost entirely for political reasons by the parties such forgeries benefited, not because of any inherent or higher “truth.”
In conclusion, yes, there were intentionally fictionalized stories and accounts. While I only gave a few examples from Ancient Egypt and Medieval Europe, it doesn’t take a large or difficult amount of research to compile veritably countless examples which reinforce this point. There were stories that were not regarded as “true” at any given point in time, much less as stories “meant to be emotionally/spiritually/ontologically relevant, to urge changes in behavior, [and] to deepen people’s relationships with the more-than-human world.” There were stories that were “just stories” in the Ancient and Medieval worlds, just as there are stories that are “just stories” today.
As the old adage goes, “sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”
“THE TARGET OF WORSHIP IS ALWAYS SOMETHING GENUINE. ACTS OF WORSHIP ARE ALWAYS GENUINE.”
Speaking in absolutes is often dangerous and quite frequently ends in messy false statements. One famous example that illustrates the inherent flaws contained within absolute statements comes from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, when he discusses the self-evident nature of Truth:
Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition “Truth does not exist” is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth.
Gwen’s absolute focuses on what is “genuine.” “Genuine” is a nebulous concept. What exactly do we mean by “genuine,” here? “Genuine” can mean any number of things. “Genuine” can mean “correctness.” It can mean “sincerity.” It can mean “permissibility.” It can mean “validity.” It can mean “truth” (which is also a horribly nebulous concept). It can mean “having the qualities and value claimed.”
A friend of mine who happens to support the use of popular culture elements and the tenability of egregori made a very good series of points about the confusion arising from this use of “genuine” when we were discussing the issue on Facebook. She wrote:
“Does the anti-gay, anti-woman Christian genuinely believe that his belief and way of life is for the best? Obviously, or he wouldn’t fight so hard to protect his right to be an asshole. ‘Genuine’ doesn’t mean it’s valuable to anyone else, or even to humanity at large. Just that it is honestly believed or real to the person doing the act of worship. ‘Genuine’ doesn’t mean ‘I agree’ or ‘for the greater good.’ An act committed as an act of worship is genuine to the person doing it, even if it’s heinous to the rest of society, isn’t it? While all acts might technically be genuine, that doesn’t imply that they are healthy, advisable, or in your best interest. Sincerity doesn’t automatically mean sanity. I have no problem with having laws that regulate how we express our acts of worship when those expressions interfere with the free will of others. Hence, do what thou wilt, and enjoy your time in prison if you choose to express your innate worshipful nature via murder or torture, you know?”
The impression I’m getting from Gwen’s article and other articles of similar conviction — and I might very well be misunderstanding Gwen’s intended point in particular. Please do forgive me if I am wrong — is that people are conflating “acceptable” and “permissible” with “genuine,” and an obligation for dissenters to acknowledge what is asserted but not proven.
In other words, “my belief/practice/ideology is genuine, therefore it is permissible and you must accept the validity of my belief/practice/ideology.“
If that is the case, it is not categorically true. Neither in informal terms nor by way of rhetorical Logic.
Basically, we arrive at truth and falsehood through logical rhetoric, since we’re working with abstracts rather than strictly tangible, quantitative, empirical facts and evidence that can be played around with in a laboratory.
This is a case of “if/then.”
I’m going to use the homophobia and racism promoted by some religions as an extreme example. DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT SUGGESTING GWEN OR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS HER STANCE IS A HOMOPHOBE OR RACIST. THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. Homophobia and racism are examples of beliefs and practices which homophobes and racists feel are genuine and true, but the overwhelming majority of society, as well as the scientific community, have since established are not genuine and true. Just because something exists does not mean it is explicitly genuine and true, much less valid and permissible.
If all beliefs and practices asserted to be genuine are in fact genuine as well as permissible and valid, as I believe Gwen’s article implies, then the premises of beliefs/practices/ideologies such as racism and homophobia, since they fall under the category of “ALL,” are also valid.
If we establish that certain beliefs/practices/ideologies are not genuine, valid, and permissible, such as racism and homophobia extant within many world religions, the statement “ALL acts of worship are genuine” is a false statement. Why? Because by saying “these beliefs/practices/ideologies over here are wrong, and these over here are more likely to be right,” we are establishing the existence of an external universal standard. We are establishing exceptions, and exceptions to something that asserts “ALL” undermines that assertion completely. It is no longer “ALL,” and the absolute statement becomes absolutely false.
By stating that such beliefs/practices/ideologies such as racism and homophobia within religion are not genuine, permissible, and valid, we are establishing that, yes, there are right ways to do things, and wrong ways to do things. Yes, there is an external universal standard that differentiates right/wrong, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid, genuine/not-genuine, and so on. We are establishing that there is simply no “anything goes” principle at work, as any form of relativism maintains.
And while racism and homophobia are rather extreme examples of exception, they are certainly not the only ones, and this premise extends far beyond them. This applies to all beliefs, practices, and ideologies — that there are “genuine, permissible, and valid” ones, that there are ones which are not, and that there is an external universal standard which determines which is which.
In regard to “ALL targets of worship are genuine,” we encounter the same problem of ambiguity of meaning, and the same inherent problem presented by an absolute statement. Say that someone takes up the worship of a disease, such as tuberculosis, cholera, or dysentery. These diseases are, in fact, objectively real. In this sense, they are “genuine.” But is it valid to worship a disease? Is it permissible to worship a disease? Can a disease even receive worship? Is such a practice/target of worship “genuine” in this sense? This issue of what “genuine” is, means, and implies raises more questions than it settles.
GETTING TO THE POINT
It’s been established that this is not about comic books, videogames, television shows, and fandoms in and of themselves. Many of those who incorporate egregori into their personal practice — the ones I’ve spoken with, at least — have asserted that they’re not out to devalue “organic” Gods and Spirits and other Powers. We’re against the idea of labeling the Gods as fictitious and inferior to man-made constructs, at least. It should already be established that, whether right or wrong in their assertions and assumptions, people who go around worshiping egregori and incorporating popular culture elements into their practice are not going to bring about the ultimate destruction of Polytheism, or initiate Ragnarök (which I already criticize the validity of, haaa), or cause Apep to swallow the Solar Barque, or anything of the sort. They’re not a real and imminent threat to my own beliefs and way of life, or anyone else’s. I worry somewhat that the worship of fictitious characters and the incorporation of popular culture elements into Polytheism will register as “bad P.R.” But, society already thinks we’re insane no matter what we say or do, so, it might not make that much difference in the end. I cannot say.
I certainly don’t agree with their belief in the concept of egregori. I find the belief and practice largely unfounded — and on a personal level, a big part of me thinks it’s silly — since I personally have not seen a convincing, sound logical argument asserting the tenable possibility of the existence and validity of egregori in particular. I personally maintain that while stories and games and fandoms have cultural meaning, and while Divine beings can assume virtually any form They choose when it suits Them : stories/games/fandoms do not intrinsically possess religious meaning or inherent truth, and these forms do not possess inherent, independent Divinity that is capable of receiving worship on its own. However, asserting “I think it, therefore it exists” isn’t a substantive enough argument for the genuineness, validity, and permissibility of a belief or practice.
It is good that a number of people are realizing now that, “hmm, I’m too emotionally invested in this to consider this rationally. I’m going to take a step back and collect my thoughts. I’ll come back to this later with a fresher, calmer mind.” There are many who still need to do this, though they may not want to admit it, to themselves or anyone else. I mean, no one wants to be that guy. Having been that guy before, far more than just once, I can say with absolute certitude that it’s not the end of the world, and people will not hate you forever. It’s just a matter of finding a rational center, coming back with a level head and open ears, and striving to be civil.
While people are going to their corners to cool off and think matters through, I would like to suggest that people begin to explore this issue properly. What exactly do I mean by that? I am convinced that there are specific questions that need asking and answering — civilly and rationally, through the use of logical rhetoric — if anyone is going to arrive at a productive end with this controversy:
- What are the qualities/properties of being? What are the qualities/properties of non-being, if we can even define them?
- What are Forms and Concepts? What roles and influences, if any, do they have?
- How are these qualities/properties acquired and maintained? Under what conditions? By what standards? How do we know?
- How do beings come into existence, and what is the origin of being? What, where, when, why, and how?
- Are the Forms and Concepts which ascribe haecceity (thisness) and quiddity (whatness) to things and beings themselves independent things and beings because they have the power to ascribe qualities/properties? Do they actually have the intrinsic power to ascribe them? If not, who/what does? Does anything?
- Do qualities/properties even objectively exist? (Problem of Universals)
- What is consciousness? What can or cannot possess consciousness? What capability and independence does consciousness have, if any? Can a part of any being’s consciousness break away from itself and become its own consciousness? Does all consciousness belong to itself, ergo all consciousness is incapable of separating a part of itself from itself? How and from what do we arrive at any logical conclusion to these questions?
- What is worship? What does worshiping an entity/non-entity actually do? What criteria make an entity/non-entity capable of receiving worship?
And I’m sure there are a few I missed. Hopefully my readers get the gist of the questions I listed and can craft relevant questions from there.
These questions aren’t going to be answered overnight. A lot of this is Philosophy 101 material, and a lot of this is a colossal mindfuck that will take a lot of time, a lot of homework, and a lot of hair-tearing to get through. We must start at square one, essentially reinvent the wheel, if we’re going to bring everyone up to speed and get this controversy closer to a rational resolution. Granted, of course, that those involved in this debacle legitimately care enough to do the work this task requires. Some do legitimately care and will make great strides for evolving theologies and philosophies within Modern Polytheism. Some people will just shove sticks up their asses and whine about it because they enjoy having sticks up their asses and whining about things. Me? I want to see the community learn how to be productive instead of self-sabotaging and anti-intellectual.
There is, of course, no guarantee that the use of logical rhetoric will make the case for egregori any more legitimate or any more accepted by the overarching Polytheist community than the subject is now. There likely will not be any unanimous resolution, given that the answers to these and similar philosophical questions will vary wildly on the bases of religious denomination, adherence to “Hard Polytheism” or “Soft Polytheism,” and other qualifiers. Not all theologies are the same, so not all the answers are going to be the same between them. Camps will arise as a result — as with any theory or set of theories, especially those addressing intangible abstracts whose truths (if any) cannot be arrived at through quantitative experimentation in a laboratory. Although, even the “hard sciences” aren’t immune to such entrenchment, as we are all well aware. Which camps will be logically closer to ascertaining “truth,” only time will tell, if time tells anything at all. There are camps now, true, but they are disordered and reactionary. The majority of them don’t have any coherent, properly reasoned logical arguments that effectively justify their positions.
We simply may not have enough minds with enough competence and knowledge in the realm of Philosophy and Logic to do it (I sincerely question my own capability in the matter, to be completely honest). But, if any of us are going to accomplish this with any semblance of success, we have to do this the proper way, as the esteemed disciplines of Logic and Philosophy demand. The way most of the ongoing conversations relating to this controversy are being conducted at present is . . . very painful to observe, to put it kindly.
To beat a dead horse further, I’m personally not of the mind to accept the possibility of egregori, as matters currently stand. I’m not “gung-ho” about using popular culture and fiction as religious framework. If others want to do so, that’s their prerogative and I won’t try to bully anyone out of it. In the event that those in belief of their existence and in favor of their use are able to present a reasoned logical argument asserting their philosophical validity, while I probably won’t personally incorporate these elements into my belief structure/practice, I will accept the premises as at least tenable, and cede that I was mistaken. But only when presented with a body of reasoned logical statements, and not an instant before.
WORKS CITED
Aðalsteinsson, Jón Hnefill. A Piece of Horse Liver — Myth, Ritual, and Folklore in Old Icelandic Sources. Translated by Terry Gunnel and Joan Turville-Petre. Reykjavík : Háskólaútgáfan Félgasvísindastofunn, 1998.
Manniche, Lise. Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt. New York : Columbia University Press, 1987.
Myśliwiec, Karol, and Geoffrey Packer. Eros on the Nile. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 2004.
Piccione, Peter A. “Excursis III: The Status of Women in Ancient Egyptian Society.” 1995. Web. http://web.archive.org/web/19970630114400/http://www.library.nwu.edu/class/history/B94/B94women.html. Date of access : May 21, 2013.
Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Myth — A Very Short Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press, 2004.
Simpson, W. K. (ed.) The Literature of Ancient Egypt. London : New Haven and London, 1972.
Trevor-Roper, Hugh. The Invention of Scotland — Myth and History. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2008.
