See you at http://filianic.blogspot.com. No further posts will appear on this site; if you are a subscriber to this blog, go to the new site and use its RSS feed.
Thanks!
Sarah
Latest Entries »
This is somewhat off topic, but I wrote this for my class discussion and I feel this brings up a very interesting discussion on the nature of human morality, free will and original sin.
For those who are not familiar with this topic, this is in response to Karen Armstrong’s new book, 12 Steps towards Compassion.
According to the etymology of English, compassion comes from its Latin roots, meaning “to suffer together.” This is mentioned in Armstrong as well. Yet, in a religious terminology — Christianity or otherwise — compassion is framed as an act reserved for a sentient being, that is, humans and super-human entities such as God or Boddhisattva. The discussion of opening up the definition of compassion to include non-human species would create an enormous theological and moral challenge. First of all, does that mean all species are capable of conscious compassion, as opposed to what could simply be an environmental adaptation? If not, where would one draw line to delineate the capacity for compassion? It is often said that species with a vertebrae can feel pain, while bugs and shrimps probably would not, due to the lack of advanced neurological system. Does that mean compassion is merely a biological response, or as many religious traditions would teach and assert, that it is a matter of morality — and as such necessarily a product of a free-will choice?
I have read some of the articles that purport to prove that non-human animals are capable of “compassion” in a same way as humans would. But it is unclear as for if it is merely a reflex driven by instinct. Then again, is compassion also a human instinct? If then, I would open up another can of worms:
If moral behaviour such as compassion is deeply embedded and hard-wired in human genes, then is the concept of “sin” essentially a deviation from one’s instinct? This would create a massive challenge for who believe in original sin, but would be a great boon for the proponents of “original blessings” such as Matthew Fox. Historically, Christianity fought nature instead of embracing it, and this was augmented by the Protestant industrial ethics of conquering the nature to produce wealth. So the real question may not even be, for theologians, whether cats or rabbits or dolphins are capable of “compassion” (in whatever the capacity) but rather whether “free will” is overrated and whether “the nature” is intrinsically evil and against God’s will.
Now this is getting interesting….
Okay. This is hopefully (I know this is an incorrect use of English, but bear with me.) the last time I am changing the name of this blog at least for a while.
I gave a thought on this for several weeks. I did put kind of silly placeholder names such as “The Thing Thing” or “The Ignition” in the interim just because I felt that the “Oregon Collyridians” was no longer an appropriate name for the blog.
The reality is that when I started this blog I was straight out of a Christian denomination, so the Collyridian label was a way to comfortably link my past connection with the Christian heritage with the newly developing spirituality and thealogical understanding. The more and more, as the time passed, however, the idea of Collyridianism felt less relevant. After all, I have never been a Roman Catholic and my emotional attachment to Mariolatry was next to none in comparison with the fervent devotions given by the pre-Vatican II Catholics.
I am more open to the idea today of being a Filianist, but not necessarily in a way practised or envisioned by the likes of the Aristasians or the Lux Madriana, One of the common sentiments I have fielded over years about Filianism or Deanism from outside the Aristasian community was that it did not feel like a real religion, did not address real-life concerns and questions of life — but rather a product of a fantasy subculture and even a pseudo-religion set up as an ancillary cultural prop to facilitate the role-playing games. I would like to change that. Filianism — and the older writings by the pre-Bridgehead Aristasians, such as those of Alice Lucy Trent — indeed saved my sanity and changed my life.
But we (or at least most of us, including so-called Aristasians who post in the Heartbook) live in a real world with real challenges of life. I have had more than a fair share of hard times and I am familiar with oppressions and difficulties of this world. The problem with historical Filianic communities was that it was merely an escape from the real world — whether or not one attributes that to some extraterrestrial source or to an overly romanticized “good old days.” Don’t take me wrong — Alice Lucy Trent is absolutely right in expressing a need for a healthy image-sphere and she proposes a solution that was viable for some people. Today’s deracinated world is unfortunately a “Pit” infested with psychic poisons, as she writes in the Feminine Universe. But unless we wage a serious spiritual warfare against that manifestation of the forces of darkness, and instead dumb ourselves down in a sweet yet infantile refuge, then the Pit will remain Pit and the sound doctrine is not being proclaimed. At least, in the pre-Bridgehead era, as much as it sounded snobby and elitist, there was some dose of Pit criticism that made people think for themselves.
This also led me to explore what are the true essences of the Filianic faith in all its simplicity. Much of Filianism is embellished with cultural and idiosyncratic elements — whether in the CFC or in Aristasia or in Lux Madriana. What are our messages in the nutshell, that everyone can take and run with it? While I do not discount the importance of wholesome liturgies rich in symbolic archetypes, rituals without a good understanding of essentials of the faith would be empty religious practices without meaning.
Hence after I kept playing with the words, I propose that this blog be renamed “Reformed Filianism Today” (RFT), as it captures the mission and callings of this site.
Lately I am giving a serious consideration on whether I might soon step down as the de facto leader of the Collyridian Filianic Communion. This has been long past due, and I have not quite done anything about CFC except to maintain the bare bone existence.
But there are a number of issues that lead me to believe that the CFC deserves a better leadership if it were to grow.
1. My life is, quite frankly, in a constant flux to say the least — and quite hard to predict any future development. CFC deserves someone who has a more or less stable and established lifestyle.
2. As I continue in my graduate coursework, I am beginning to have a better understanding of many ideas with which I was not at all familiar in the past. Integrating all this learning has brought me to a place where I am no longer quite sure about my own beliefs and spiritual paths. While this may be just a phase that every student goes through (as I did in the past) this would not make a good denominational leader, even if this makes a good scholar. The functions of IFCF is better geared towards research and development, but that does not mean the entire CFC needs to be unduly influenced by my seeming lack of coherence and stability.
3. In recent years I have experienced a major fallout from the so-called Aristasians (though not necessarily with the old, real Aristasians of the past). As they are perhaps the better established branch of Filianism, someone with a better working relations with them should head the CFC.
4. The more I study the more I begin to see the failure of so-called Perennial Traditionalism’s claims. The reality is that, while being an overly romantic movement that only emphasize certain aspects of the traditional society and cosmology, it is thoroughly a modern phenomenon — just as Christian fundamentalism was a product of the post-industrial world. While immensely valuable in understanding mythology and comparative religion, it cannot become a cult of anti-modernism. The truth is that Aristasians are not alone in defending the femininity and the feminine spirituality against the masculist trend of the second-wave feminism; they indeed find an unlikely ally in Australian eco-feminist Val Plumwood, whose ideology is seemingly diametrically opposed to what one might call traditionalism. Over years, I have seen the so-called Aristasians decline in influence and relevance as their “traditionalism” devolved into a fantasy role-play escapism that is now only possible with the help of the “type-3 bongo” infrastructure such as Second Life and Japanese anime. For whatever the ideals I had once set my mind to pursue and advocate, my heart is honestly no longer there. This is kind of sad, but it is true and I admit to this.
The Rt. Rev. Georgia Cobb, of the Elegant Lady Feminine Seminary (ELFS) in Atlanta, has recently posted a very succinct comparison between the Goddess of neo-paganism and Wicca, and that of Filianism.
I copied the following section from a Goddess Spirituality webpage.
http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~religion/newifo/religions/paganism/index/goddess/essay.shtml
“Women of covens are offered strong role models such as the Goddess and the Witch. These women may never have had strong and positive images of female power, due to the oppression of women. “When political leaders have usually been figureheads for the most part; women religious leaders have usually been considered ‘minor’ or ‘eccentric opposed to the male ‘gurus’ or ‘messiahs’” (Adler 184). Through the coven, women can become any Goddess they want to be through role playing and modeling themselves after them. “Whether the images exist in a kind of atavistic memory thousands of years old (as many women believe) or are simply powerful models that can be internalized, women are beginning to create ritual situations in which these images become real” (Adler 184). The priestess of the coven can become a symbol of strength and teaching for the members of the coven. Through rituals of dance, meditation and song women can awaken the Goddess within.”
This is a brief expression of the attitude of many Pagans towards The Goddess. She is not viewed as a real person, but as an image or symbol of powerful femininity. And, when a woman models herself after a particular goddess she can become that Goddess. Therefore, goddesses become real through feminine human imaginings and feminine human rituals.
The Deanic understanding of Our Mother God is the other way around. She is The Real. She is both a person and so much more. Sacred images and symbols are reflections of Her Essential Femininity. All Power is Her. She created Maid in Her image. Women become real by remembering who’s daughters we are. By virtue of Her Spirit working within us as we humbly devote our lives to Her, we grow more like her (return to our true selves).
And then their are the Heathens ho view the gods and goddesses as individual personalities (their ancestors), imperfect and fallible, lacking in knowledge, limited in time and space, and immortal as themselves.
Deanist, on the other hand, understand Our Mother God to be Perfection, All Wise, All Powerful, Present Everywhere, and Eternal.
These are just a few of the things that make Deanists different from the typical Pagan or Heathen.
Bishop Georgia
In Aristasian sayings, this is summarized by an even succinct question, “Did you make Goddess, or did Goddess make you?”
Of course, the above comparison primarily deals with the “non-realist” thealogy, once mainstream within the feminist spirituality discourse. As Paul Reid-Bowen points out, this is something on decline, while a more “realist” thealogy in which the underlying unity behind “the Goddess in many names” is again making a comeback.
Underneath this discussion, though, it brings out a few interesting questions about the nature of religion and mythology. Every religion, to much extent, reenacts the archetypes through ritual acts — and thereby embodies certain elements of the divine through such rituals. Likewise, we also tend to create our gods in our own image and cultural biases — including and perhaps more notoriously, Christians of all stripes, who make out their god to be anywhere between Che Guevara and Donald Trump, depending on their ideologies and visions of what a “kingdom of God on earth” might be.
Since a few weeks ago I have been experimenting with a name for this weblog, which used to be the Oregon Collyridians.
For now, it is A’bedun Elahilathi i Ehenethi, which translates to “a farmland of thealogy and philosophy” in La’adan.
This adorable video is from “Joseon Gayo” (Korean Songs) TV program on (presumably) the Korean Central Television in Pyongyang (though there remains a possibility that this was aired on the Mangyongdae TV, which generally focuses more on cultural programming and is only available in Pyongyang). It is highly unusual in the total absence of the usual WPK propaganda or even the mention of the Leaders.
I am trying to get the words translated at least to a somewhat rudimentary level, but in the mean time, I am certain that most people can get the message simply from the visuals. The video almost feels like it is straight out of Aristasia.
Seeking A Friend (Dongmu Saeng’gag)
동무생각노래: 김순희 Sung by Kim Sun Hee
작사: 리은상 Words by Ri Un Sang
작곡: 박태준 Music by Pak Thae JunThe girls in the video: Ri Myong Ok and Yun Kyong Ae
봄의 교향악이 을려퍼지는
청라언덕우에 백합필적에
나는 흰나리꽃 향내 맡으며
너를 위해 노래 노래 부른다청라언덕과 같은 내 맘에
백합같은 내 동무야
네가 내게서 피여날 적에
모든 슬픔이 사라진다더운 백사장에 밀려들 오는
저녁조수우에 흰새 뛸적에
나는 멀리 산천 바라보면서
나를 위해 노래 노래 부른다저녁조수와 같은 내 맘에
흰새갈은 내 동무야
네가 내게서 떠돌 때애는
모든 슬픔이 사라진다소리없이 오는 눈발사이로
밤의 장안에서 가등 빛날 때
나는 높이 성궁 쳐다보면서
너를 위해 노래 노래 부른다밤의 장안과 같은 내 맘에
가등갈은 내 동무야
네가 내게서 빛날 때에는
모든 슬픔이 사라진다
Welcome to those who have been loyal readers of the Scriptorium Filianicus.
For all future contents come to http://oregoncollyridians.wordpress.com/category/scriptorium-filianicus, as the Scriptorium Filianicus has been consolidated with this blog in order to simplify the administration.
The title of this blog has been temporarily changed while I give thoughts on whether it should continue to be “Oregon Collyridians.” Much of traffic to this site comes from those who are looking for Collyridianism on Google or Bing, but this blog contains very little if anything on that topic. I feel that this is misleading.
When this blog began I was far more in alignment with the “orthodoxy” (of some sort) that is promoted by Aristasian websites such as Mother-God.com. During the past year however I have discovered that there are far more in common between feminist-oriented neo-paganism in North America (at least the “realist” one) and “monotheism” such as Filianism. The reality is that there are very few, if any, genuine polytheists or pantheists among the Western-educated and Christian-influenced women despite their attempts at distancing themselves from just about everything Western and Christian, in the name of feminism.
While many Aristasians and other traditionalists have long criticized feminism for destruction of femininity and therefore handing a decisive victory to patriarchy, such views are in no way exclusive property of perennialists or traditionalists; newer, radical feminist voices such as Val Plumwood have also pointed to the same direction.
In other words it is simply a waste of time and effort to oppose the enemies that do not really exist, when there are many many other issues to deal with. I am increasingly beginning to see the foolishness of our assertion of doctrinal superiority and lack of willingness to work together with various communities around us for a common goal.
In the mean time, I personally do not see much posts related to Collyridianism by its definition on this site, so I would be disappointing some people who are actually looking for one. I have never been a Roman Catholic, so I do not know very well how much of religious and sentimental attachment there is for Mary, but I am pretty sure one would find what comes very close to Collyridianism among those who came from that background.
