Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creating A Mythology Reboot (For Any Pantheon).

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Creating A Mythology Reboot (For Any Pantheon).

    Concerning various mythologies & pantheons, cultural & values dissonance plays a huge role & may greatly hamper ones enthusiasm for following a pantheon that otherwise looks appealing. One may, foe example, look to the Classical Pantheon but have an inability to get around the instances in which the deities are jealous jerkasses, sociopaths & rapists....often overshadowing their more appealing qualities. However, the Greco-Roman Myths & deities are still quite appealing for many reasons but one might have a hard time relating to said deities if they come across as jerks.

    For me, at least, the benevolent aspects of a deity need to be greater than the malevolent & a deity should teach us about ourselves, show some ethical elements or example & at times, get some comeuppance or at least learn something when they screw up. I know that Pagan/Polytheistic pantheons run on a different ethical standard from, say the Abrahamic, Parsis & Dharmic Paths. The Pagan pantheons tend to embody both good & evil and, since there is hardly an equivalent of a Devil/Demiurge/Hindu Asuras/Rakshas/Angra Mayu/etc. the Divine has to pick up the slack in regards to evil.

    That said, because of the span of time & changing cultures, one might find, after some study, that the Pantheon of choice, to their dismay, seems to have little redeeming character in regards to benevolence OR what constitutes what is "right" in the original myths is alien, impractical or totally deranged to today's mindset.

    Often, myths were written & rewritten to reflect changing mores & politics. Deities often change or merge with others. Myths & pantheons may go from a somewhat gender-egalitarian character to a more patriarchal one (and vice versa). Other deities are adapted & readapted. The Abrahamic deity was originally inspired from the ancient Canaanite pantheons.

    With this in mind. I think all the Pantheons & their myths should be rebooted a bit. Rewritten & revised for the modern era while still retaining the look, feel & essence of the original. Using the Classical Pantheon, for example, the deities can be rewritten as having more positive qualities to off-set the negative ones. They can still be their usual, bickering selves but they need to have a good, honorable side as well. There needs to be a reason & purpose for their behavior. Zeus can still be "Mr. Casanova" but he should be more of an alluring seducer than an outright rapist....and his aspect as a just but fair leader, keeper of order & such emphasized. This is just an example.

    I think all myths can be rewritten to reflect a divine that's easier to understand & relate to. To reflect the ethics, gender politics & understanding of the modern-day believer. Still in many ways true to the original but with a few changes in details & the character of the folks in said tale.

    I've used the Greco-Roman Pantheon as my main example because they're the first that come to mind. More often than not, they're more malevolent than benevolent. They do stuff "just because". No learning, no nothing. They torment mortals & immortals alike for kicks & one gets a rather dim impression of them. Of course, this is just my opinion & I in no way intend to insult the pantheon or it's followers. There's also a lot of cool stuff about the Classical Pantheon & Path as well. Even I see the appeal in some general things.

    What do you think of this idea?
    :flowers: HI GUYS!:flowers:

  • #2
    i believe that viewing the Gods as mere tools to our understanding is nothing less than hubris. they are who they are and it is not for us to repaint them.

    applying modern whims and pop-culture morals to the old stories denies them and depletes us. it is NOT incumbent upon the Gods to act in accordance to our politically correct needs.

    so where does it end?
    does the next generation apply their 'needs' to the old pantheon as well? at this rate there will be nothing left of the old stories, the traditions, after only a few decades.
    that is not how we received them, so we should pass them on 'uncorrected'.

    imo.
    some people are like slinkies -
    not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when they are pushed downs the stairs.

    True enlightenment comes from discovering principles which challenge your spiritual view, not from inventing principles to confirm it.



    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Theres View Post
      i believe that viewing the Gods as mere tools to our understanding is nothing less than hubris. they are who they are and it is not for us to repaint them.

      applying modern whims and pop-culture morals to the old stories denies them and depletes us. it is NOT incumbent upon the Gods to act in accordance to our politically correct needs.

      so where does it end?
      does the next generation apply their 'needs' to the old pantheon as well? at this rate there will be nothing left of the old stories, the traditions, after only a few decades.
      that is not how we received them, so we should pass them on 'uncorrected'.

      imo.
      I agree with you. The Gods really...are timeless. They no need of "modenization" because they are perfect as they are. They are, after all...Divine.

      I really feel that the lack of respect for all that is divine is going to create a sort of boomerang effect.
      "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common:
      instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views,
      which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering."

      Comment


      • #4
        I disagree. Part of what makes the gods so timeless is their ability to retranslate themselves for every era. How Zeus acted back in ancient Greece would be considered rape today, but for the time and culture it was no worse than Bill and Monica. Sleezy, sure, but not criminal. The intersection of sex and power is as significant today as it ever was.

        Comment


        • #5
          Dion Fortune, in her book 'The Mystical Qabbala', said this...

          "The nearer the source the purer the stream. In order to discover first principles we must go to the fountainhead. But a river receives many tributaries in the course of its flow, and these need not necessarily be polluted. If we want to discover whether they are pure or not, we compare them with the pristine stream, and if they pass this test they may well be permitted to mingle with the main body of waters and swell their strength."

          if you pollute the headwaters you destroy the benchmark.
          therefore you can certainly create your own pantheon if you wish, or any kind of 'fanfic' you like, but leave the original myths alone please.
          some people are like slinkies -
          not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when they are pushed downs the stairs.

          True enlightenment comes from discovering principles which challenge your spiritual view, not from inventing principles to confirm it.



          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry I've already seen plenty of fairy tales that have been rebooted to make them more PC and they suck horribly because of it.

            In truth this whole scenario reminds me of the many want-a-bee pagans who have tried to incorporate all their Christian dogma along with the happier and friendlier god / goddess who cares about them and is a big brother / sister model. Sorry white light, lovely dovey gods / goddesses just do not cut it for me. I'll stick with the ancient edda's, saga's and stories for the truths they reveal are just as valid today as they where when written in antiquity. It just requires the practitioner to spend a bit of time and actually learn about thier god / goddess and not try to make them something they are not, ie human with all of our morality and ethics colored by each generation.

            But I admit I am intrigued by your constant attempts to paint divinity into your model. I think this is the second or third time you've presented this concept of changing the gods / goddesses to make your own pantheon and redefining what and how they should and should not act based upon your own criteria. One of those times involving Indian and Persian pantheon's if I recall correctly where we had this same type discussion.

            edited to add:

            yep basically a re-hash of this thread http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.ph...stly-The-Vedas along with the thread on karmic return http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.ph...ople-amp-Karma .
            Last edited by monsnoleedra; October 19th, 2012, 05:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              i saw it written somewhere...

              "True enlightenment comes from discovering principles which challenge your spiritual view, not from inventing principles to confirm it."
              some people are like slinkies -
              not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when they are pushed downs the stairs.

              True enlightenment comes from discovering principles which challenge your spiritual view, not from inventing principles to confirm it.



              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MonSno_LeeDra View Post
                Sorry I've already seen plenty of fairy tales that have been rebooted to make them more PC and they suck horribly because of it.

                In truth this whole scenario reminds me of the many want-a-bee pagans who have tried to incorporate all their Christian dogma along with the happier and friendlier god / goddess who cares about them and is a big brother / sister model. Sorry white light, lovely dovey gods / goddesses just do not cut it for me. I'll stick with the ancient edda's, saga's and stories for the truths they reveal are just as valid today as they where when written in antiquity. It just requires the practitioner to spend a bit of time and actually learn about thier god / goddess and not try to make them something they are not, ie human with all of our morality and ethics colored by each generation.

                But I admit I am intrigued by your constant attempts to paint divinity into your model. I think this is the second or third time you've presented this concept of changing the gods / goddesses to make your own pantheon and redefining what and how they should and should not act based upon your own criteria. One of those times involving Indian and Persian pantheon's if I recall correctly where we had this same type discussion.

                edited to add:

                yep basically a re-hash of this thread http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.ph...stly-The-Vedas along with the thread on karmic return http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.ph...ople-amp-Karma .

                Ah, yes....I remember this conversation, I forgot all about it. Sorry.

                Well, I wasn't necessarily proposing changing the deities completely. They should be left as they are because their depictions and character are so much who they are about. You see, I come from the mindset that Deity & more of a nebulous thing and that various deities, pantheons & such are really metaphors & symbols that reflect the society that creates them. Deity makes Human in It's Image & Human makes Deity in it's own Image. I'm a Pantheist & a non-literalist. I realize that not everyone shares my view. Many are Polytheists & literally see the Deities are real literal beings living "out there". I, on the other hand, believe in the concept of "All Gods are One God & all Goddesses are One Goddess & together, They are One".

                However, I realize that maybe it's best to create a Pantheon from scratch. I can still borrow various concepts from existing Pantheons.

                I can even accept the Pantheons as they are and see them as levels of Pantheons. Everything being emanations. The Higher Pantheon that is Universal & not culture-specific & the many Pantheons, Greco-Roman, Celtic, Canaanite, Yoruba, Aztec, etc. as a lower emanation (reflecting both the higher & baser aspects of humanity).

                You don't have to agree with me on everything or anything. I admit I don't know everything & perhaps I'm too logical, individualistic or chaotic.
                :flowers: HI GUYS!:flowers:

                Comment


                • #9
                  No need to appologize or be sorry for forgetting about a previous conversation. For some reason things like that stick in my head and flag out when I see it.

                  For me I see all the gods / goddesses as individuals and unique. I suppose in many ways it's like the notion that I resemble my father in appearance and in how we view things. Yet I am not my father regardless of how much we are alike. My brother resembles our grandfather in many ways yet again he is not our grandfather. Thus the notion that all gods / goddesses are one entity seem's wrong on so many levels to me. In many ways it seems simply more of the Judeo-Christian influence upon supposed pagan practices with a singular divine presence that has many faces or atributes, ie Father-Son-Holy Ghost all rolled up into one, then projected as a universal force with different manifestations about the globe.

                  Yet in the long run to me the whole concept of a singular divine entity simply serves to allow a person to refuse accepting the fallout of thier own actions. They can always place it upon that singular force that takes multiple forms. A presence that can be molded to be the blessing and forgiving facet of life or the corruption who rewards those who obey its will. Very much like the Christian concept of the daming and forgiving God who stands at the top of the hiearchy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SpukiKat75 View Post
                    You see, I come from the mindset that Deity & more of a nebulous thing and that various deities, pantheons & such are really metaphors & symbols that reflect the society that creates them.
                    i come from the mindset that They created us, never the other way around.
                    i used to think differently, and you can search through my prior posts here (albeit VERY long ago) and find a different mindset completely. but i got into a discussion once with a former member here regarding the Jungian view of deity, a view i used to swear by. and she replied something to the effect of "well yes, if you only see God as an archetype...", and i thought about that for some time. finally i saw the point she was making and EVERYTHING changed for me.
                    if you can't see them as more than this then maybe a theistic viewpoint isn't for you. piety is everything.

                    Originally posted by MonSno_LeeDra
                    For me I see all the gods / goddesses as individuals and unique. I suppose in many ways it's like the notion that I resemble my father in appearance and in how we view things. Yet I am not my father regardless of how much we are alike. My brother resembles our grandfather in many ways yet again he is not our grandfather. Thus the notion that all gods / goddesses are one entity seem's wrong on so many levels to me.
                    word.
                    Last edited by Theres; October 20th, 2012, 03:29 AM.
                    some people are like slinkies -
                    not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when they are pushed downs the stairs.

                    True enlightenment comes from discovering principles which challenge your spiritual view, not from inventing principles to confirm it.



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SpukiKat75 View Post

                      What do you think of this idea?
                      It's a model that will work perfectly until you actually have to deal with them
                      "One between two worlds chants, "fire walk with me""

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Guys, I think I may have had an epiphany.

                        I will write this in sort of a list form so I can make a clear argument & be fully understood.

                        * I have been looking at deities and their morality through a morally dualistic, Abrahamic/Dharmic lens.
                        * Pagan deities work on a different paradigm.
                        * One must look through that latter paradigm to understand or "get" them.
                        * Pagan deities embody both "good" & "evil". There's no deity of pure goodness & light or devils in Pagan pantheons.
                        * We are a reflection of them....made in their image. Thus, if humans can be both "good" & "evil", deities can, too.
                        * If you respect the Deities, they will respect you. If you want to bring out their "good" side, you must earn it. Many of the same laws of human interaction works with the Deities. Respect is earned.
                        * The Deities don't need to change, there's a reason why they are the way they are & those attributes are essential.
                        * If all is one and if I see myself as a Pantheist & Monist, then it makes sense that....as above, so below....applies to the hereafter, deities, whatever.
                        * I should think in terms of "Positive" & "Negative" rather than "Good" & "Evil".
                        * This is no license to think like a ruthless "Ragnar Redbeard", being "Positive" with "Positive" actions is just good common sense. Be kind to one another because it "feels good" & brings social & mental stability. That said, there's no threat of hellfire if you're a complete jerk or worse.
                        * I need to get a "Pagan" brain....I need to un-learn some things & accept some things.
                        Last edited by SpukiKat75; October 23rd, 2012, 09:39 AM.
                        :flowers: HI GUYS!:flowers:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SpukiKat75 View Post
                          Guys, I think I may have had an epiphany.

                          I will write this in sort of a list form so I can make a clear argument & be fully understood.

                          * I have been looking at deities and their morality through a morally dualistic, Abrahamic/Dharmic lens.
                          Believe it or not that is actually a common situation for newly converted practitioners. Not the Dharmic aspect but the Abrahamic influence upon thier practices.

                          * Pagan deities work on a different paradigm.
                          That is pretty true. Though I think its more of a social construct of those times that is different in regards to how mankind viewed their divinities.

                          * One must look through that latter paradigm to understand or "get" them.
                          A great deal of research definately has to be done to get as clear a picture as possible of the ancient mindset and worldview.

                          * Pagan deities embody both "good" & "evil". There's no deity of pure goodness & light or devils in Pagan pantheons.
                          I don't think one can truly equate 'good' and 'bad' as part of the ancient world view. Especially given that many times 'good' and 'evil' where seen in the light of right practice and manners vice actions. The concept of devils and demons is vastly different than that which is found in most Christian world views yet deamons and similiar are very much a part of the world view of the ancients.

                          * We are a reflection of them....made in their image. Thus, if humans can be both "good" & "evil", deities can, too.
                          This one I truly do not know. It seem's very biblical to think we are cast in thier images and form. Espcially given the many anamorphic forms that the gods / goddesses are seen to take in the various stories and artistic representations that survive of them.

                          * If you respect the Deities, they will respect you. If you want to bring out their "good" side, you must earn it. Many of the same laws of human interaction works with the Deities. Respect is earned.
                          That one I tend to disagree with. In many ways I do not think the gods / goddesses care if you respect them as long as you practice in the right manner. I very much tend to think they do not respect us in the sense that most humans would think.

                          * The Deities don't need to change, there's a reason why they are the way they are & those attributes are essential.
                          I do agree with that since I consider them to be eternal. There for their atributes would be eternal not changed with each generation of humanity and our limited concepts of right and wrong which change frequently. If they changed as much as our own morality does then the cosmos would be in trouble all the time without order in my opinion.

                          * I should think in terms of "Positive" & "Negative" rather than "Good" & "Evil".
                          That is one I find to be useful. Good and evil tend to be measure's that change to frequently in how they are defined and qualified. What is good today is bad tomorrow and will be something entirley different a few years form now. Heck what is good and bad by description has changed quite a bit from when I was born in 1959 to what it is today.

                          * I need to get a "Pagan" brain....I need to un-learn some things & accept some things.
                          Ironically that is something that is to be found in many walks of life. It's not just a pagan mindset but a universal one when we try to move from one paradyn to another regardless of the changes or what is being changed. Sometimes I think it's not so much a matter of unlearning but in expanding the parameters of how we think, how we analyze things and how we determine what is what.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            An additional though,

                            One also has to consider what words mean now and what they meant then. You keep refering to Zeus and Rape yet the very word means something different today than it did then. Similar to how the word 'virginity' is defined differently today than in the past.

                            Consider that Circe and Medea are both listed frequenlty as Witches today yet in antiquity they were an Enchantress and Sorcoress not witches. Medea as an Sorcoress was skilled in herbs and posions and used them to her advantage. Circe was a Enchantress who used other magical means as well as potions to do her bidding. Yet the word Witch simply became stamped over those capabilities thus they are known as witches. Yet the original word in Greek actually meant something like poisoner, same as the original biblical meaning of the word.

                            Rape is another of those words that holds differing meanings. For instance to some the story of Demeter, Persphone and Hades is about rape as defined by the notion of a man taking to him a wife without the mother's permission, not about taking of a wife by force. To some it's about the flight of a child from the home of her mother to escape the demands placed upon her by said mother, again in part without the concent or permission of the mother. Then to some its about the modern defination of the word rape.

                            Even the very story has to be evaluated to discover some of the truth. For instance in the early stories it's only Helios who hears and see's Hades take Persphone from the field. In later stories Hecate / Hekate is added as hearing her cries from within her cavern and guides Demeter to Helios to see who did it. In yet other stories it's the nymph Arethusa who has been transformed into a stream of water by Artemis and hears Persphone's cries as she passes through the underground. Coming to the surface she tell's Demeter of what she knows asking her not to punish mankind because of her grief and where to find Persphone. Yet in each Persphone is raped and taken by Hades though the purpose and manner of defining 'rape' is changed.

                            Heck even the notion of civilized and uncivilized is different today than it was in antiquity. For instance according to Greek perspective civilized was Greece anything not Greece was uncivilized. Civilized was also the boundary of city and civilization and the wilderness which was undeveloped and pretty empty of humans. Even social order and placement was different in antiquity with regard to who was civilized and who was not.

                            Simply to many changes and un-truths by looking at the past with today's definitions of what a word or concept means. One has to find out what it meant then and use that to evaluate the stories and legends.
                            Last edited by monsnoleedra; October 24th, 2012, 11:19 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MonSno_LeeDra View Post
                              An additional though,

                              One also has to consider what words mean now and what they meant then. You keep refering to Zeus and Rape yet the very word means something different today than it did then. Similar to how the word 'virginity' is defined differently today than in the past.

                              Consider that Circe and Medea are both listed frequenlty as Witches today yet in antiquity they were an Enchantress and Sorcoress not witches. Medea as an Sorcoress was skilled in herbs and posions and used them to her advantage. Circe was a Enchantress who used other magical means as well as potions to do her bidding. Yet the word Witch simply became stamped over those capabilities thus they are known as witches. Yet the original word in Greek actually meant something like poisoner, same as the original biblical meaning of the word.

                              Rape is another of those words that holds differing meanings. For instance to some the story of Demeter, Persphone and Hades is about rape as defined by the notion of a man taking to him a wife without the mother's permission, not about taking of a wife by force. To some it's about the flight of a child from the home of her mother to escape the demands placed upon her by said mother, again in part without the concent or permission of the mother. Then to some its about the modern defination of the word rape.

                              Even the very story has to be evaluated to discover some of the truth. For instance in the early stories it's only Helios who hears and see's Hades take Persphone from the field. In later stories Hecate / Hekate is added as hearing her cries from within her cavern and guides Demeter to Helios to see who did it. In yet other stories it's the nymph Arethusa who has been transformed into a stream of water by Artemis and hears Persphone's cries as she passes through the underground. Coming to the surface she tell's Demeter of what she knows asking her not to punish mankind because of her grief and where to find Persphone. Yet in each Persphone is raped and taken by Hades though the purpose and manner of defining 'rape' is changed.

                              Heck even the notion of civilized and uncivilized is different today than it was in antiquity. For instance according to Greek perspective civilized was Greece anything not Greece was uncivilized. Civilized was also the boundary of city and civilization and the wilderness which was undeveloped and pretty empty of humans. Even social order and placement was different in antiquity with regard to who was civilized and who was not.

                              Simply to many changes and un-truths by looking at the past with today's definitions of what a word or concept means. One has to find out what it meant then and use that to evaluate the stories and legends.
                              True about the rape thing. In fact, at one time, "rape" meant simply "kidnapping" rather than a violent sexual assault. I also am thinking to myself, these are Deities, they probably have neat seductive powers that make non-consensual sex more pleasant rather than the horrid crime it is....sort of like Sevengali or Dracula's way of charming a woman into his bed or whatever. That said, these tales are often retold with different details & reflect the mindset & culture they came from. Heck, Hades was probably a sexy dark lord who seductively spirited away Persephone & she eventually got the hots for him & became a loving wife. Who knows?

                              Instead of changing the stories, perhaps it's better to reinterpreted what's being described...alternate character interpretations.

                              For one thing, why are Satyrs & Fauns always described as being butt-ugly? Why can't they be really hot-looking goat-men? They're red-hot slabs o' sex, right? What's the point of the fugliness? I prefer the idea of the big hunky, masculine, studmuffin bad-boy playa Satyrs & their cuter, sweeter, gentler, twinkier Faun counterparts....both wild, fuzzy but beautiful & sexy. I mean, keep them hairy, wild party-animal goat-men but make them pleasanter to look at.
                              :flowers: HI GUYS!:flowers:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X