This is a stupid question but I'm going to ask anyway thread

[CuAnnan]

guardian_rose

As far as Cu's resources, I haven't called bullshit on him only because I am still trying to track down copies of both those books. Yeah, I could order them on amazon, I'm just not made of money right now and would prefer to try to get it through library access first.

ISBN please.
Ireland's library system is fantastic. If my local library doesn't have the book, then within a week they will.
So. ISBN.
Then I'm going to check out the book.
Then I'm going to quote it to prove you're a liar.  

[CuAnnan]

guardian_rose

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

These lies are what make you a racist.
The term Gaelic comes from the word Goedelic. Which is Goedelic for the Goedelic language.  

[Gho the Girl]

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

These lies are what make you a racist.
The term Gaelic comes from the word Goedelic. Which is Goedelic for the Goedelic language.

The "d" is silent yes?

I never understood how whomever decided what these languages would look like or be spelled like in english, because they almost never look how they sound. At least to me.  

[CuAnnan]

Gho the Girl

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

These lies are what make you a racist.
The term Gaelic comes from the word Goedelic. Which is Goedelic for the Goedelic language.

The "d" is silent yes?

I never understood how whomever decided what these languages would look like or be spelled like in english, because they almost never look how they sound. At least to me.

It became silent, I don't know how it's pronounced in Goedelic.  

[guardian_rose]

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

These lies are what make you a racist.
The term Gaelic comes from the word Goedelic. Which is Goedelic for the Goedelic language.

Ok, Cu. Im tired of this bull s**t of me being called a racist. Prove it. Get me banned from Gaia. If its true, I won't be here any more to contest your point. If you are wrong, we will know soon enough.

As for the ISBN, are you talking about:

Pillars of Faith is ISBN 0769770002
The Philosopher and the Druids is ISBN 0743262808.  

[CuAnnan]

guardian_rose

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

These lies are what make you a racist.
The term Gaelic comes from the word Goedelic. Which is Goedelic for the Goedelic language.

Ok, Cu. Im tired of this bull s**t of me being called a racist. Prove it.

That's already been done.
By Paradox.
In simple English.

guardian_rose

As for the ISBN, are you talking about:

Pillars of Faith is ISBN 0769770002
The Philosopher and the Druids is ISBN 0743262808.

And the "encyclopedia" your "rendition" of "the Táin" please?  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

Are there gods that are considered natural?

Yep. There are whole theologies that have deities wherein they are completely synonymous with the natural world.

Three different theological structures come to mind.
1) Some forms of Pantheism- quite literally, God is the natural world.
2) Panentheistic theologies, where while deity transcends the natural world, it is also contained within it.
3) Forms of Hard Polytheism wherein the names of a given patronage are synonymous with the individual. Hypnos comes to mind. Sleep is a natural phenomena, and to the best of my knowledge there is no mention of phenomenal cosmic powers beyond his mere function. (Hellenics and Classic's majors, correct me by all means)

Quote:

Capable of doing things not explained by scientific empirical reasoning. I'd assume it would apply because of its generality, it's based on a system of world comprehension that appears to have traveled across cultures.

If I say "See Above", would that be a cop out or just short hand?

Quote:

Quote:

I would assume so, if the definition includes worship as a necessary characteristic. I suppose one could make a stipulation to "previously worshiped" as a way to make classification more effective and inclusive.

I don't see a problem with this, mostly because this "essence" that would create similarity between a being and YHVH or Odin has yet to be described or qualified in any way. What would this "essence" be, how much UPG backs it? How much evidence backs it? What is it based on?

Logically speaking, to discount a deity as being one simply for lack of worship relies on an argument from silence or an argument from ignorance.

As for the "essence", when it comes to UPG, mine only extends that to other deities. That is to say, Rroma folklore vaguely alludes to a divine essence and distinguishing qualities between mortals and gods- as do many other mythologies. Hell, some mythologies even allow for the transformation from a mortal into a god.

Quote:

That's a tough question. It's especially difficult because it really states the overall problem. That there is no overarching definable quality about the word deity in its application over all cultures.

To the point that I wonder whether one can use the word atheistic or theistic in any reliable way.

I've always taken it to relate to the concept of a divine essence and it has always been just fine for me.

Quote:

That is the operative problem I am facing. Are the Aspects deities, if the definition I had been operating under is incorrect? But really, there seems to be no replacement for the incorrect definition and therefore, no real way to say if the Aspects are deities or not.

If we are working from a divine essence standpoint, examining the origin of Aspects might work.  

[TeaDidikai]

Scorplett

Druids Name: Bresal Etarlam
Sources:
#Metrical Dindshenchas vols 1 - 7 (Congba).
# Leabhar na hUidre: p 121a-127b (Dublin, Royal Irish Academy).
# Stowe D IV 2: f 74Ra-78Vb (Dublin, Royal Irish Academy).
# Book of Leinster, f 20a46 ff (Trinity College Dublin).
Acts:Mound builder

Druids Name: Cathbad
Sources:
# Leabhar na hUidre: p 121a-127b (Dublin, Royal Irish Academy).
# Stowe D IV 2: f 74Ra-78Vb (Dublin, Royal Irish Academy).
# Book of Leinster, f 20a46 ff (Trinity College Dublin).
#The Táin Bó Cuailgne. (most translations)
#Lady Gregory - Cuchulain of Muirthemne, first published 1902.
Acts: Court adviser, Teacher, Seer, Murderer, Trickster, Rapist, Father, Seducer.

Druids Name: Maeltne
Sources:
#Lebar Geabla (The book of Invasions)
Acts: Advisor to the Tutha De Dannan

Druids Name: Figol
Sources:
#Ancient Irish Tales, ed. T.P. Cross & C.H. Slover 1936 (republished Barnes & Noble 1996)
#Lebar Geabla
Acts:Advisor to the Tuatha Dé Danann, Sorerer, Layer of curses.

Druids Name: Ferches
Sources:
#Leabhar Laignech c.12th Century a.d. - story attributed to Cormac mac Culennain, king bishop of Cashel (d.90 cool
Acts: A Warrior-Druid, Killer of a King of a mound of Sidshe

So some Druids were builders of mounds, others were Warriors, some were Seers and some were generally the wise and educated. There are little to no common traits that all those whom fact would name as having been a Druid would share with another of the same title.
They were not the only mound builders, warriors, seers etc. All of these things are also things that other people did. So being these things did not make a person a Druid.

 

[Recursive Paradox]

guardian_rose

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

These lies are what make you a racist.
The term Gaelic comes from the word Goedelic. Which is Goedelic for the Goedelic language.

Ok, Cu. Im tired of this bull s**t of me being called a racist. Prove it. Get me banned from Gaia. If its true, I won't be here any more to contest your point. If you are wrong, we will know soon enough.

Are you ******** serious? I just proved word for word that you are racist. I just proved word for word that you are engaging your privilege and entitlement and behaving in a racist fashion. I provided resources and source material to further establish this point and then addressed every single one of your attempts to delegitimize those resources and source materials.

And so, you just avoid responding to me at all and continue to fire rebuttals at Cu about your racism? Rebuttals that have been directly addressed in my post that you didn't respond to? You're either blind or you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever seen.  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

You're either blind or you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever seen.

Is there really any question?  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

Are there gods that are considered natural?

Yep. There are whole theologies that have deities wherein they are completely synonymous with the natural world.

Well that throws a monkey wrench into the gears right there.

Quote:

Three different theological structures come to mind.
1) Some forms of Pantheism- quite literally, God is the natural world.
2) Panentheistic theologies, where while deity transcends the natural world, it is also contained within it.
3) Forms of Hard Polytheism wherein the names of a given patronage are synonymous with the individual. Hypnos comes to mind. Sleep is a natural phenomena, and to the best of my knowledge there is no mention of phenomenal cosmic powers beyond his mere function. (Hellenics and Classic's majors, correct me by all means)

Alright, so then that section of the statement isn't viable. I can't think of a way to salvage it. I'm thinking I'm going to have to redefine some things in Etherism.

Quote:

If I say "See Above", would that be a cop out or just short hand?

Short hand. The above material addresses directly the second point I made too.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't see a problem with this, mostly because this "essence" that would create similarity between a being and YHVH or Odin has yet to be described or qualified in any way. What would this "essence" be, how much UPG backs it? How much evidence backs it? What is it based on?

Logically speaking, to discount a deity as being one simply for lack of worship relies on an argument from silence or an argument from ignorance.

Then I probably shouldn't do that then. XD So let's slash the worship part out of it too.

Quote:

As for the "essence", when it comes to UPG, mine only extends that to other deities. That is to say, Rroma folklore vaguely alludes to a divine essence and distinguishing qualities between mortals and gods- as do many other mythologies. Hell, some mythologies even allow for the transformation from a mortal into a god.

So I guess the question I'm facing is this, how to I describe this divine essence in such a way that I can determine if Etherism would be polytheistic, pantheistic, nontheistic or atheistic?

Quote:

Quote:

That's a tough question. It's especially difficult because it really states the overall problem. That there is no overarching definable quality about the word deity in its application over all cultures.

To the point that I wonder whether one can use the word atheistic or theistic in any reliable way.

I've always taken it to relate to the concept of a divine essence and it has always been just fine for me.

How does one define this divine essence? For instance, some Essences (in Etherism) are fundamentally different from humans (and other physicals) because their dual reflection involves forces, energies and concepts instead of a reflection made of a mixture of matter and energy (like a rock or a plant).

Aspects are fundamentally different from Essences because they are a primary reflection, representing the grand whole of a given force, energy, type of matter, type of thing, concept and etc, instead of just being one instance of that given thing or whatever. This makes them fundamentally different from humans (in our present form) because we are many representing several principles (Life, function, mammal, chemical system, etc).

In some ways you could say humans are the Physical Reflecting Essences of the Humanity Aspect.

So how does this material jibe next to divine essence?

Quote:

If we are working from a divine essence standpoint, examining the origin of Aspects might work.

They come into existence at the same time the thing they reflect does. When Gravity came into existence, Gravity's Aspect did as well. I couldn't say which came first and it's possible that neither did and they came into being at the same time.

Essences are smaller scale associated spiritual reflections of smaller scale examples of an Aspect's force, energy or thing (Gravity Essences come in many interesting forms, all related to gravity, Singularity Essences being particularly obnoxious)

It is possible to ascend to a level of power that one could essentially be an Aspect, where you have a level of connection to a given force, element, thing (or even fundamentally changing our own spiritual format enough that you become an Aspect of Yourself) so I suppose in that way one could call it Divine Essence.

An Aspect of Oneself. Wherein you have elevated, empowered and built on the Self in such a level of growth that it can no longer be identified as human and therefore would require another Aspect. And the uniqueness of Selves of such a type would make it impossible for an Aspect to form for all of them due to their extreme differences, requiring a single Aspect (i.e. you). This is actually also the reason why there isn't an Aspect of Aspects, because the fundamental differences are too great to encompass them in one.

So, if we call that achieving Divine Essence, then I guess that would mean that the elemental Aspects aren't gods but the Self based Aspects are? Oh metaphysics, you make my head hurt sometimes.  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

You're either blind or you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever seen.

Is there really any question?

I gave him the benefit of the doubt and the doubt was doused in water and thrown into a pile of pure sodium.

Oh look, now it's raining on that pile. Good times.  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

So I guess the question I'm facing is this, how to I describe this divine essence in such a way that I can determine if Etherism would be polytheistic, pantheistic, nontheistic or atheistic?

I'd look at origins myself.

Quote:

How does one define this divine essence? For instance, some Essences (in Etherism) are fundamentally different from humans (and other physicals) because their dual reflection involves forces, energies and concepts instead of a reflection made of a mixture of matter and energy (like a rock or a plant).

Aspects are fundamentally different from Essences because they are a primary reflection, representing the grand whole of a given force, energy, type of matter, type of thing, concept and etc, instead of just being one instance of that given thing or whatever. This makes them fundamentally different from humans (in our present form) because we are many representing several principles (Life, function, mammal, chemical system, etc).

In some ways you could say humans are the Physical Reflecting Essences of the Humanity Aspect.

So how does this material jibe next to divine essence?

Then you would end up saying that gods are the beings that embody the Divine Aspect. There seems to be a linguistic qwerk that doesn't fit right- but at it's most basic, humans manifest the humanity aspect- we relate to this as a physical manifestation. Deities manifest the divine aspect- we relate to this in ways that are specific to said deity in the same way we relate to humanity in specific ways based on the individual human.

This of course would differ form thoughtforms in that what generates the Deity is independent of humanity.
I did read what you wrote before this- I just couldn't translate it.  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

So I guess the question I'm facing is this, how to I describe this divine essence in such a way that I can determine if Etherism would be polytheistic, pantheistic, nontheistic or atheistic?

I'd look at origins myself.

Attempts to logically articulate UPG mostly. I imagine I've been influenced by some of the religions I looked into when I left Christianity but I haven't been able to glean how defined those influences were. They all were likely very subtle.

Quote:

Quote:

How does one define this divine essence? For instance, some Essences (in Etherism) are fundamentally different from humans (and other physicals) because their dual reflection involves forces, energies and concepts instead of a reflection made of a mixture of matter and energy (like a rock or a plant).

Aspects are fundamentally different from Essences because they are a primary reflection, representing the grand whole of a given force, energy, type of matter, type of thing, concept and etc, instead of just being one instance of that given thing or whatever. This makes them fundamentally different from humans (in our present form) because we are many representing several principles (Life, function, mammal, chemical system, etc).

In some ways you could say humans are the Physical Reflecting Essences of the Humanity Aspect.

So how does this material jibe next to divine essence?

Then you would end up saying that gods are the beings that embody the Divine Aspect. There seems to be a linguistic qwerk that doesn't fit right- but at it's most basic, humans manifest the humanity aspect- we relate to this as a physical manifestation. Deities manifest the divine aspect- we relate to this in ways that are specific to said deity in the same way we relate to humanity in specific ways based on the individual human.

That's... an interesting approach. And it would create not only logically viable coexistence between Deities and Aspects but actually integrate the metaphysics of the concept of a deity with the concept of an Aspect in a way that works pretty damn well.

Thank you for the insight. 3nodding I think this might be a bit of a breakthrough.

Quote:

This of course would differ form thoughtforms in that what generates the Deity is independent of humanity.

So that makes me wonder: Concept Aspects are freed throughtforms? After all, they arose from concepts derived from sentient beings (including humanity) and became independent from humanity's control once the concept grew into a culture spanning concept.

Or really, are concepts ever freed from humanity? Then again, if thoughtform is just human made concepts, then it's possible that Concept Aspects arose from concepts that Deities and other beings articulated and therefore wouldn't be thoughtforms at all.

And suddenly the cosmology and metaphysics of Etherism becomes a great deal more complex. o_o

Quote:

I did read what you wrote before this- I just couldn't translate it.

No worries. I was having a hard time articulating things in my pathway thread, which is part of why I'm doing discussions like this. It helps me make Etherism translatable to people that aren't me, something that is a serious necessity before I publish.

If no one gets it, well then I wasted paper. XD  

[TeaDidikai]

Welcome.

Is there anything still up in the air?