The NeoPagan Family Tree Final Draft (?)

[MorningDove030202]

What do you think?

Update: I will edit to add a Roman Recon Branch. Also, this tree represents NeoPaganism is organized today and is not ment to imply any sort of chronological order of what came first.

I am considering chainging the name of the tree to "The Modern Pagan Family Tree" ....any objections? Would that be better for the Recons?

I'm going to chainge the note to read: Many reconstructionist groups and individuals do not consider themselves neo-pagan and prefer other terms such as Heathen or Polytheist. However, I thought it would be a greater insult to leave them out of this project.

I'm considering how to include "The Path of the Shaman" since the tree is no long "NeoPagan only"......

Dove

[Seren_]

I have a question....

What kind of "Witch" are you referring to that Wicca branches from?

[Morr]

if you would have called it "pagan" family tree... id pretty much be ok with it... however (and i know this has been discuissed before in your previous threads) - as an Irish Recon, I'd say that again - The Recon paths arent NEO.

[MorningDove030202]

I have a question....

What kind of "Witch" are you referring to that Wicca branches from?

By the Sub-Umbrella "Witch" I mean any and all "NeoPagan Witchcraft" Traditions.

Dove

[MorningDove030202]

if you would have called it "pagan" family tree... id pretty much be ok with it... however (and i know this has been discuissed before in your previous threads) - as an Irish Recon, I'd say that again - The Recon paths arent NEO.

Well, If I said Pagan I'd have to include everything that is not Christain, Islamic, or Jewish....and I didn't want to go there.

Dove

[mothwench]

if you would have called it "pagan" family tree... id pretty much be ok with it... however (and i know this has been discuissed before in your previous threads) - as an Irish Recon, I'd say that again - The Recon paths arent NEO.
yeah, but with the little disclaimer she put in the right hand corner, it seems okay. though i still think you'd be better off with just a short explaination as to why you're leaving out the hindu religions etc, than all this differenciating of pagan and neo-pagan.

edit: what i posted in the neo-shamanism thread.

[Seren_]

By the Sub-Umbrella "Witch" I mean any and all "NeoPagan Witchcraft" Traditions.

Dove

Ahh. :shift:

I would personally switch the two around; I don't see neo-pagan witchcraft as being from where Wicca originated from as your tree implies, but the other way round...but that's probably a whole different thread. And it depends on your perspective, I guess.

Edit: What about Religio Romana?

[MorningDove030202]

yeah, but with the little disclaimer she put in the right hand corner, it seems okay. though i still think you'd be better off with just a short explaination as to why you're leaving out the hindu religions etc, than all this differenciating of pagan and neo-pagan.

edit: what i posted in the neo-shamanism thread.

Ya, but what would that disclaimer say? I'm leave out Budists and Hinduists because what I realy mean is "Neo Pagan"? NeoPagan is a much more specific word for my audience at at Pagan Pride Day. Don't you think?

Dove

[MorningDove030202]

Ahh. :shift:

I would personally switch the two around; I don't see neo-pagan witchcraft as being from where Wicca originated from as your tree implies, but the other way round...but that's probably a whole different thread. And it depends on your perspective, I guess.

Edit: What about Religio Romana?

What's Religio Romana? Roman Recon? I've honestly never heard of that before.....

It's realy hard to say which came first, Wicca or Non-Wiccan NeoPagan Witchcraft, however I'm not trying to imply that either came first with my Family Tree. It's not suposed to represent chronological history. It's suposed to reflect how things are organized today. One might even argue that Witch (including both branches) came before anyone was using the term NeoPagan at all.

Dove

[mothwench]

Ya, but what would that disclaimer say? I'm leave out Budists and Hinduists because what I realy mean is "Neo Pagan"? NeoPagan is a much more specific word for my audience at at Pagan Pride Day. Don't you think?

Dove
no, i'd say it's best to leave them out cause they in fact, don't consider themselves pagan at all. (or at least, as far as i know, they don't.) and i daresay the definition "any religion that's not christian, jewish or islam" was made in ignorance of those major world religions.

[Seren_]

What's Religio Romana? Roman Recon? I've honestly never heard of that before.....

It's realy hard to say which came first, Wicca or Non-Wiccan NeoPagan Witchcraft, however I'm not trying to imply that either came first with my Family Tree. It's not suposed to represent chronological history. It's suposed to reflect how things are organized today. One might even argue that Witch (including both branches) came before anyone was using the term NeoPagan at all.

Dove

Thanks for clearing that up.

Religio Romana...Nova Roma....yes, they're basically Roman Recons. Here's a link, if you're interested:

http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/

If you're going to inlcude recon religions, then it should probably get a heads up. But like most recons, I doubt they class themselves as "neo" in any sense of the word.

[MorningDove030202]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Religio Romana...Nova Roma....yes, they're basically Roman Recons. Here's a link, if you're interested:

http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/

If you're going to inlcude recon religions, then it should probably get a heads up. But like most recons, I doubt they class themselves as "neo" in any sense of the word.

Facinating! Thanks for the link. I didn't know there were Roman Recon Organizations... though I suspected there were individuals... Thansk... I will add this to the Family Tree.

Dove

[aluokaloo]

Its not bad, and it is true that alot of Hindus and Buddhists don't see themselves as any type of pagan religion, but you didn't do a bad job

[Seren_]

Just to piss on your day even more, beliefnet has a Baltic/Slavic recon section as well...

[MorningDove030202]

Just to piss on your day even more, beliefnet has a Baltic/Slavic recon section as well...


Why would that Piss my day off? You must misunderstand what I'm doing... If I wanted to just create my opinon of a Neo Pagan Family tree I wouldn't be asking for input.

I find your statement rude. Who is is the one pissed off here?

Can you provide a link to said site on beliefnet?

Dove

[Nantonos]

What do you think?

Firstly, that its a brave attempt.

Second, that its bound to fail :ahhhh: - people will be at you forever to add more and more groups or subgroups, and if you don't, they will be upset; and if you do, other people will be upset that its too complex.

Thirdly, as the saying goes "it aint a tree, honey, its a braid". There are a lot of cross linkings and multiple inheritance. Part of the point of a tree diagram is that things which are closely related are close together in the tree. Your tree places eclectic neopagan and wiccan rather too far apart, for me.

Fourthly, a utilitarian analysis -what is it for? What can someone know after seeing it that they didn't know before? How could it be used to explain things to someone else? Who is your audience? Coming up with answers those questions you will have a better idea of how to develop the concept.

Fifthly, as a minor technical point, use GIG or PNG for this sort of diagram, not JPEG. Its actually smaller, and a whole lot less fuzzy.


Update: I will edit to add a Roman Recon Branch. Also, this tree represents NeoPaganism is organized today and is not ment to imply any sort of chronological order of what came first.

Useful clarification.


I am considering chainging the name of the tree to "The Modern Pagan Family Tree" ....any objections? Would that be better for the Recons?

Dove

It would be better for me because, as I said in your other thread (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=64091) I think the term neo-is meaningless. All religions evolve. Every heard someone say they follow neoJudaism?

Oh - if you want a tem for the branch that some of the recons grow from, you could look at NEPCC, a term that Richard Beaudette proposed on the Samanis_Gallica list.
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/r_beaudette/nepcc.html

[Seren_]

:bigredblu Perhaps it's my British humour....Actually, it probably is (or lack thereof...). I don't mean what I said in a negative sense, to piss you off. Just that I keep "spamming" you today, which might annoy you because I won't go away, kind of thing...and if you add something because I brought it up, then it's more work for you and it's a hassle...and I'm being what we call "wry". Or self-deprecating, depending on your viewpoint. Or annoying!

It's not my intention to annoy, upset or be rude to anyone. Just that I appreciate what you're doing, but opinionated people like me often make a hassle...

I apologise completely, unreservedly and without exception...in short, it really wasn't my intention to piss on your day at all. And I should probably learn to use more smilies on these boards. I'm really not as self-important as I sound, honest :D

The link you asked for is:
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion_list.asp?boardID=14286

It seems to be a small, but significant, community.

Hopefuly I make sense now...

[MorningDove030202]

My audience would be people at my local Pagan Pride Day who are passing by my Children's Event booth and might look at this tree displayed as a poster. I'm going to add a paragraph about each "sub-umbrella" (the main branches off the trunk)........

I am considering calling it "New Pagan Religious Movements" .....How's that?

If my goal is to make everyone happy, yes I fail. If my goal is to make and informed sence of all these paths for myself, and then to share my findings with others, and let them decide for themselves how they would drawl the tree.....then I suceede...... Infact I have learned alot by undertaing this little project, and because I have learned, I have succeded.

The tree is a tool....nothing more.... I might also use it at the UU I attend, because people there are very confused about what is a NeoPagan, a Pagan, and a Witch, Wiccan, etc.....



Dove

[Nantonos]

My audience would be people at my local Pagan Pride Day who are passing by my Children's Event booth and might look at this tree displayed as a poster. I'm going to add a paragraph about each "sub-umbrella" (the main branches off the trunk)........

Okay, that helps a lot. So, one big reason its a tree rather than just a series of paragraphs is that it is more eye catching and more likely to draw the attention of your target audience.

I guess it also make the 'nature religion' point.


I am considering calling it "New Pagan Religious Movements" .....How's that?

How about Pagan Religious Movements Today? That captures the immediacy and relevance, for a Pagan Pride day, and neatly sidesteps the whoe historical development and balance of old/new/reconstructed/plain made up involved.


If my goal is to make everyone happy, yes I fail.

Having just read the exchange about cross-cultural humor (who was it that said that the British and Americans are two people separated by a common language?) I should identify that as more of the self-deprecating and flippant British humour/humor so don't worry about it.


If my goal is to make and informed sence of all these paths for myself, and then to share my findings with others, and let them decide for themselves how they would drawl the tree.....then I suceede...... Infact I have learned alot by undertaing this little project, and because I have learned, I have succeded.

Well put. Yes, I agree.

Here is another similar diagram (it also has some humor built in)
"The Pagan Hierarchy - who looks down on who". The target audience here is very different - its the community itself.
http://seapagan.org/pagan-hierarchy/

The actual diagram is very large, so use the image zoom and scrrolling features if your browser has them.

[MorningDove030202]

Here is another similar diagram (it also has some humor built in)
"The Pagan Hierarchy - who looks down on who". The target audience here is very different - its the community itself.
http://seapagan.org/pagan-hierarchy/

The actual diagram is very large, so use the image zoom and scrrolling features if your browser has them.

That is an awsome web site! LOL I'm in there a couple of places..... LOL Though I don't realy look down on that many people. I just question the ones that claim they are part dragon or fairy and those abducted by aliens. There are some things I just don't belive in....nor need to know aobut.

Dove

[Seren_]

If my goal is to make everyone happy, yes I fail...
Dove

And to be fair, you always will. But at least you made the effort...

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I figured I should apologize for being so harsh earlier. You are only putting this together as you see things. I still feel that is disrespectful to call someone's path something they have explained it is not, and I still don't care much for your tree, but then again I guess I don't have to. :p

I think that a better title that might be more accurate is "Modern Pagan Religious Movements." Especially when you consider that the only description you can have for neo-pagan that is not bound to cause argument and disagreement is this: A neo-pagan is anyone who calls themselves one.

Also if I might suggest a way of rewording your disclaimer about recons. I think a better wording would be as follows:

Many reconstructionist groups and individuals do not consider themselves neo-pagan and prefer other terms such as Heathen or Polytheist. However, I thought it would be a greater insult to leave them out of this project.

That retains the spirit of including a disclaimer, but it also identifies just what it is they do consider themselves if not neo-pagan.

[MorningDove030202]

I figured I should apologize for being so harsh earlier. You are only putting this together as you see things. I still feel that is disrespectful to call someone's path something they have explained it is not, and I still don't care much for your tree, but then again I guess I don't have to. :p

I think that a better title that might be more accurate is "Modern Pagan Religious Movements." Especially when you consider that the only description you can have for neo-pagan that is not bound to cause argument and disagreement is this: A neo-pagan is anyone who calls themselves one.

Also if I might suggest a way of rewording your disclaimer about recons. I think a better wording would be as follows:

Many reconstructionist groups and individuals do not consider themselves neo-pagan and prefer other terms such as Heathen or Polytheist. However, I thought it would be a greater insult to leave them out of this project.

That retains the spirit of including a disclaimer, but it also identifies just what it is they do consider themselves if not neo-pagan.

Ok, I can make those chainges. I hope you understand why I hesitate to totaly leave them out of my tree. I know someone would stop me an say "Where are the recons?" at Pagan Pride Day...... Don't you agree?

Dove

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Ok, I can make those chainges. I hope you understand why I hesitate to totaly leave them out of my tree. I know someone would stop me an say "Where are the recons?" at People Pride Day...... Don't you agree?

Dove

Honestly I don't think there will be that many people who will ask about that, just based on the fact that most recons don't affiliate much with the neo-pagan community and a lot of neo-pagans don't like us anyhow. We apparently have the reputation of being stuffy, elitist people with rather large chips on our shoulders. I doubt we'd be missed at all. :lol:

[Ben Trismegistus]

It would be better for me because, as I said in your other thread (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=64091) I think the term neo-is meaningless. All religions evolve. Every heard someone say they follow neoJudaism?
I disagree. The difference is that Judaism never disappeared entirely and then was subsequently resurrected through the use of history and imagination.

Reconstructionist religions are Neopagan religions because they EMULATE ancient religions. Since it is impossible to know exactly how they ancients practiced, it's folly to say that the new practitioners started exactly where the ancient practitioners left off.

I agree with you, however, that this project is doomed to fail (sorry MorningDove), because you'll never get everyone to agree about something as basic as what religious sects count as "NeoPagan".

[MorningDove030202]

I disagree. The difference is that Judaism never disappeared entirely and then was subsequently resurrected through the use of history and imagination.

Reconstructionist religions are Neopagan religions because they EMULATE ancient religions. Since it is impossible to know exactly how they ancients practiced, it's folly to say that the new practitioners started exactly where the ancient practitioners left off.

I agree with you, however, that this project is doomed to fail (sorry MorningDove), because you'll never get everyone to agree about something as basic as what religious sects count as "NeoPagan".

As I have said before, I only fail if I try to make everyone happy, which I'm not. I'm trying to come up that would make the majority happy.... that would 51%. I think I've done that. Also, I've learned alot about the different paths by undertaking this little project/experiment, and learning is not failing.

Dove

[MorningDove030202]

I disagree. The difference is that Judaism never disappeared entirely and then was subsequently resurrected through the use of history and imagination.

Reconstructionist religions are Neopagan religions because they EMULATE ancient religions. Since it is impossible to know exactly how they ancients practiced, it's folly to say that the new practitioners started exactly where the ancient practitioners left off.

I agree with you, however, that this project is doomed to fail (sorry MorningDove), because you'll never get everyone to agree about something as basic as what religious sects count as "NeoPagan".

Oh and I agree with you that "neo" does make a significant difference between saying Pagan and NeoPagan. And you are correct about the emulation of ancient religion. We will never KNOW exactly how they worshiped or what their opinions or beliefs were. However this is irrelevent. It's the satisfaction and spiritual growth of the practicioner that makes a religion valid, not it's historical correctness, or lineage.

Dove

[Erebus]

"Modern Pagan Religious Movements."

If that's the new title, you're going to have to add shamanism and animism back into the tree, since they're definitely "modern" compared to the way they were originally practiced.

Why Shamanism never made it to the "recon" list is still beyond me.

[Nantonos]

I disagree. The difference is that Judaism never disappeared entirely and then was subsequently resurrected through the use of history and imagination.

The emphasis being on the 'entirely'.


Reconstructionist religions are Neopagan religions because they EMULATE ancient religions. Since it is impossible to know exactly how they ancients practiced, it's folly to say that the new practitioners started exactly where the ancient practitioners left off.

That is debatable. Firstly, whether reconse seek to emulate an ancient religion, or claim to follow it exactly, or claim to follow a modern development, depends on their particular slant (traditionalis, revivalist, etc).

Secondly and more importantly, this happened in other religions as well. Its impossible to know exactly how, say, the disciples of Christ worshipped in the years imediately after his death; indeed since the followers of Paul went around telling people that the original disciples were wrong and that Pauline christianity was better and more correct, its pretty sure in the wake of that early revisionism that christianity from say 100 on was morely emulating, in a very faulty way, whare the ancient practitioners left off.

My point was not to claim the old 'unbroken succession since the stone age' Pagan nonsene; my claim was that all the other religions have similarly fractured, revised, reconstructed and back-filled histories.

[Nantonos]

As I have said before, I only fail if I try to make everyone happy, which I'm not. I'm trying to come up that would make the majority happy.... that would 51%. I think I've done that. Also, I've learned alot about the different paths by undertaking this little project/experiment, and learning is not failing.


Kudos for doing this, and using polls etc to expand out what you are presenting, rather than taking the easy route and presenting Wicca==neoPagan.

Please don't take my comment about 'certain to fail' to heart. It was, as I explained, typically British dry ironic humor. If I thought the whole thing was worthless, I would not have bothered to reply at all. I was merely pointing out that you never please all of the people all of the time, and 'defining Pagan' is a thorny subject that has bruised many who attempt it.

[mothwench]

Here is another similar diagram (it also has some humor built in)
"The Pagan Hierarchy - who looks down on who". The target audience here is very different - its the community itself.
http://seapagan.org/pagan-hierarchy/

The actual diagram is very large, so use the image zoom and scrrolling features if your browser has them.
:foh: that's a pandora's box, that diagram! 8O

[MorningDove030202]

If that's the new title, you're going to have to add shamanism and animism back into the tree, since they're definitely "modern" compared to the way they were originally practiced.

Why Shamanism never made it to the "recon" list is still beyond me.

Well, first there is no religion or group of relgions called "Shamanism". As many have said it's a practice. Second, it's not a Recon religion becuase many of the aboriginal faiths that non aboriginies are practicing under this generic name "Shamanism" didn't die out, so they arn't "Re-Constructing" anything.

In a way I see the word "Shaman" as a title for the tribal clergyperson. It would be like having a faith called "Priestism". I bring up Animism, becuse I thought that was a better word to describe the "beliefs" of a "Shaman". So, my thought was that you have Pagan "Shamans" and Animistic "Shamans" and aparently some who deal with both spirits and divinities.

So, is saying "I practice Shamanism" akin to saying "I read Tarot cards"? Does it realy not denote any kind of beliefs? It's just something you do? Also, If someone claims "Shaman" it woudld be useful to know of what culture are they speaking of.... Like "I'm a Shaman of the Cherokee Tradition." or something like that. That defines things a bit better.

And the other issue is that if you do start using actual names of Tribes, then would someone be upset to find their tribe mentioned on this "Family tree of modern pagan religious movements"?

I'm more apt to add a branch called "Animistic" than "Shamanism". Or maybe make it a branch off of "Miscelanious". Are there any animistic faith organizations that don't also included Gods? The Church of Animism, or something?

LOL

Dove

[Athena-Nadine]

I disagree. The difference is that Judaism never disappeared entirely and then was subsequently resurrected through the use of history and imagination.

Reconstructionist religions are NeoPeople religions because they EMULATE ancient religions. Since it is impossible to know exactly how they ancients practiced, it's folly to say that the new practitioners started exactly where the ancient practitioners left off.

I agree with you, however, that this project is doomed to fail (sorry MorningDove), because you'll never get everyone to agree about something as basic as what religious sects count as "NeoPeople".
I just wanted to note that it can be argued that Hellenic polytheism and never disappeared entirely either.

http://www.creternity.com/article.phtml?articleID=7&page=1&catID=3

[Nantonos]

I just wanted to note that it can be argued that Hellenic polytheism and never disappeared entirely either.

http://www.creternity.com/article.phtml?articleID=7&page=1&catID=3

Excelent link! And a fine point to hone the argument, too. So yes, they have continuity. Does that continuity mean a modern Hellenic Recon can claim an unbroken descent and identical religious practices for 2500 years? No.

[MorningDove030202]

I just wanted to note that it can be argued that Hellenic polytheism and never disappeared entirely either.

http://www.creternity.com/article.phtml?articleID=7&page=1&catID=3

That's interesting, however I bet Greek recons arn't going to them for sources on the Hellenic religion..... and I doubt they are writing books about it encouraging people to practice their faith. However if someone did go live with them and learn their ways, then I would consider that one person not a Reconstructionist,in addition to the people of that culture.

Dove

[Athena-Nadine]

Excelent link! And a fine point to hone the argument, too. So yes, they have continuity. Does that continuity mean a modern Hellenic Recon can claim an unbroken descent and identical religious practices for 2500 years? No.
Of course it doesn't and I never would. What would be the point? That would be like my trying to claim an unbroken line of ethnic descent for any of the many ethnicities my genetic makeup consists of.

The point is, we do not know nearly enough about the inhabitants of the entire planet to accurately state that there is no continuity in any of the Reconstructionist religions.

[Athena-Nadine]

That's interesting, however I bet Greek recons arn't going to them for sources on the Hellenic religion..... and I doubt they are writing books about it encouraging people to practice their faith. However if someone did go live with them and learn their ways, then I would consider that one person not a Reconstructionist,in addition to the people of that culture.

Dove
*...nods...* Exactly. They aren't Reconstructionists. They are a people who has practiced their religion for thousands of years. That still doesn't change the fact that Hellenic polytheism did not completely die out. :)

They do stand up as a fascinating study, especially for an Hellene like me. :) If I weren't so terrified of going to Pakistan in these times, I'd find a way to go so I could learn all about how their beliefs and practices have evolved over the millennia. I would love to spend time with a people who has had the advantage of passing their knowledge down for generations.

[misschief]

i don't get the 'witch' to 'non-wiccan witch'. witches weren't wiccan. granted, many are now... but i am a witch.. i am not wiccan.. and i didn't spiral from a tradition of wiccan witches. if i am misunderstanding i apologize, but i think that part would need changed to be accurate.

[MorningDove030202]

i don't get the 'witch' to 'non-wiccan witch'. witches weren't wiccan. granted, many are now... but i am a witch.. i am not wiccan.. and i didn't spiral from a tradition of wiccan witches. if i am misunderstanding i apologize, but i think that part would need changed to be accurate.

If you look at the tree, it first says Witch and then there is a Wicca branch and a Non Wiccan Witch branch. I thought it was prety clear.... Or are you saying I shouldn't call it "Non Wiccan Witch" I could put Other Witch.....

Dove

[Nantonos]

If you look at the tree, it first says Witch and then there is a Wicca branch and a Non Wiccan Witch branch. I thought it was prety clear.... Or are you saying I shouldn't call it "Non Wiccan Witch" I could put Other Witch.....


What is the difference between the Witch and the (non-Wiccan/other) Witch category?

[misschief]

i guess what i was getting at was the same thing. a witch is a witch is a witch. all the little 'subdivision' of the craft are just that... branches of witchcraft. like.. in my opinion... wiccan witches hover in between wicca and witchcraft. a wiccan witch, in most cases, is branched off of wicca and not witchcraft. it does however go both ways. if you want this to be accurate... good luck. there is no one certain thing that another one comes from.

[MorningDove030202]

i guess what i was getting at was the same thing. a witch is a witch is a witch. all the little 'subdivision' of the craft are just that... branches of witchcraft. like.. in my opinion... wiccan witches hover in between wicca and witchcraft. a wiccan witch, in most cases, is branched off of wicca and not witchcraft. it does however go both ways. if you want this to be accurate... good luck. there is no one certain thing that another one comes from.

Well I'm trying to illustrate the many paths of the Modern Pagan Religious movments, so witchcraft that isn't a religion is not included. But there are Wiccan Witch Religious organization and also non Wiccan Witch Religious Organizations, so I wanted to make sure both were on the tree. I'm not trying to illustrate which came first or any kind of chronological historical information.....

Dove

[MorningDove030202]

What is the difference between the Witch and the (non-Wiccan/other) Witch category?

"Witch" is a Sub-Umbrella that branches into "Wicca" and "Non Wiccan Witch" but I was considering renaming "NonWiccan Witch" "Other Witch". It's just a matter of making it worded clearly. They are essentialy the same thing.

Dove

[equinox2]

Cool!
I’m glad someone is going through the work of putting something like this together.
Two points:
1. I’d include labels on the roots too. Mention things like the ancient polytheists (greek, norse, etc.), the druids (historical), stone rings (like Stonehenge, though there are literally hundreds of others too), goddess worship, etc.
2. even though I know you just mentioned you didn’t try to add chronological information, it is so natural on a tree diagram, and interesting. You might try to include it here or there, showing the later splits out in the twigs, and the first splits way back by the trunk.

Good luck! I like it. Even if others criticize it, remember, a first attempt is better than nothing, and unless they have a better one ready, they should be nice or shut up.

May the fire warm you-

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Cool!
I’m glad someone is going through the work of putting something like this together.
Two points:
1. I’d include labels on the roots too. Mention things like the ancient polytheists (greek, norse, etc.), the druids (historical), stone rings (like Stonehenge, though there are literally hundreds of others too), goddess worship, etc.
2. even though I know you just mentioned you didn’t try to add chronological information, it is so natural on a tree diagram, and interesting. You might try to include it here or there, showing the later splits out in the twigs, and the first splits way back by the trunk.

Good luck! I like it. Even if others criticize it, remember, a first attempt is better than nothing, and unless they have a better one ready, they should be nice or shut up.

May the fire warm you-

I would have to disagree with you saying we should be nice or shut-up if we don't like it. MorningDove asked for our opinions and thoughts. A person who asks for others opinions should always be ready to expect criticisms of their work.

[Nantonos]

Good luck! I like it. Even if others criticize it, remember, a first attempt is better than nothing, and unless they have a better one ready, they should be nice or shut up.


That is inappropriate, since feedback was expressly asked for! If you equate discussion with 'not being nice' then you are stifling discussion.

[MorningDove030202]

I think what he means is that, if you arn't going to be constructive then shut up.... At least that's how I interpreted it. And so far most people are being constructive. I would like to see some other people's trees as he suggested though...

On the question of "Animism and Shamanism" I came across http://www.pantheist.net/ and wondered if it should have a place on my tree?

Dove

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I wouldn't, just because I think of pantheism (and panentheism for that matter) as a philosophy and not a religion.

[equinox2]

MorningDove wrote:


I think what he means is that, if you arn't going to be constructive then shut up.... And so far most people are being constructive. I would like to see some other people's trees as he suggested though...

Yep, that's what I meant. I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining about anyone - I just wanted to offer support in case MorningDove felt like her hard word wasn't being appreiciated. I know what it feels like to work hard and then only hear criticism.

Constructive criticism is indeed what this thread is about and I think we are offering her some good, useful ideas. :huddle:

I apologize to anyone who thougt I was being mean - even to the person who hit me with negative karma.


MorningDove wrote:


On the question of "Animism and Shamanism" I came across http://www.pantheist.net/ and wondered if it should have a place on my tree?

Hmm - that's difficult. It does go back pretty far, and I think it is related enough to paganism to be on the tree. I also think it is a religion, not just a philosophy (and I'm a pantheist myself). This brings up a common problem - many religions draw from both their "mother" religion, and also from other, older traditions (like the pagan influences in Catholicism - how should that go on a tree? What about the Cathars that included eastern ideas?).

I think they can & should still be represented, and I think it is OK if the tree ends up looking more like a mangrove than an oak. After all, I think that is closer to the truth anyway. :thumbsup:

Love and light-

[Nantonos]

Constructive criticism is indeed what this thread is about and I think we are offering her some good, useful ideas. :huddle:

I thought so too. Which is why I was highly surprised at your "be nice or shut up" attempt to gag the conversation - in a thread where the original posted had explicitely asked for feedback and corrections!


I apologize to anyone who thougt I was being mean - even to the person who hit me with negative karma.

Not so much mean, more stifling a (largely positive) debate. Hence the red dot.

Apology accepted. :fpeace: