Re: Polytheism: How hard do you like it?

In a recent entry on her blog, Morpheus Ravenna explores the question about hard polythesim and her answers to questions about it. This entry isn't designed to specifically critique her exposition, although I think it is lacking in depth at a few points, but rather to answer the question for myself.

I'd also like to point out that we Morriganists are not the only ones looking at this question, but Norse Heathens do too. Galina Krasskova comes to mind as one who also posits hard polytheism, and we might do well not to have to re-invent the wheel, but look at the work others have done as well, whether we agree with it all or not.

The problem isn't one of ontology, as Ravenna mentions, but one of epistemology. For the benefit of those just coming to these terms, ontology is the study of existence, what “is”; and epistemology is the study of knowledge – how do we know what “is”. To me the arguments about the Gods are something that logic and rhetoric are necessarily going to fail at. We can make analogies to ecology or physics in matters of scale, but ultimately the sciences are designed from the beginning to use objective evidence, or better empirical evidence, to study empirically verifiable facts of nature. Then lens of science is very good at the physical, tangible, repeatable and verifiable, but divinity stands apart from this. Likewise the experience of divinity stands apart from empirical testing.

The problem here is this: is an analogy from physics or ecology or whatever a good map to try to explore relationships between the divine and us? I propose the answer is no, because the “map” is drawn for different terrain than we are exploring. A topographical map of the Andes does not help me explore the sea bottom of the Atlantic. I might learn a little of mapmaking in the process, but ultimately the areas are too different to be of use.

Philosophy may help a little. Our question is an epistemological one: how do we “know” the nature of the Gods, and are they truly real, and are they truly singular agents? And much more importantly to this discussion, is personal gnosis a valid way of “knowing”?

Simple coincidence of experience, such as I see a tree with green leaves and white flowers, is usually good enough to establish agreement when dealing with the physical facts of nature, because we have inherent trust of our senses. We then verify with another agent who trusts his senses- you see the tree with green leaves and white flowers too, therefore it must be “real”. The basis of any claim is empirical, so the evidence for the claim is empirical. Easy.

With a gnostic experience, the entire event takes place within consciousness, and cannot be referred to outside of that consciousness except by analogy. Dreams are a good example – are dreams “real”? Well if we set our “real” threshold as “did the experience happen”, then yes. If we set the threshold to “is there physical evidence to support the claim of existence” then the question gets dicey – electromagnetic signals may be measured during the dream, but those signals are not going to verify the existence of talking caterpillars, no matter what the claimant says.

Ancients were less troubled by empirical data, and dreams and gnosis was a critical part of their approach to the world as one of meaningful relationships, and more importantly the value of meaning. The Gods spoke to us, even if none but us could hear, and we knew it was them because the message was meaningful. It didn't matter if it came from a bit of undigested meat, or a psychotropic drug, or the voice of Zeus, the meaning was what one held onto, was “proof”.

As modern primitives – folks who look back at ancient religion, our argument for gnosis can't be rooted in an epistemology that works for modern post industrial science. We chose this path because it has meaning, something outside of the “proof” based systems of most.

Parenthetically, I laugh at the fundamentalist Christians who hold up examples of miracles of Christ in modern days to testify the existence of their God and Savior. Faith is an internally transforming process, not a sideshow, and depends upon work and attention to one's internal world. The snake-oil salesmen notwithstanding, anyone who bases faith on parlor tricks is truly fooling himself, and I'm pretty sue the Nazarean didn't mean for that to be the basis of faith. I'm also pretty sure he didn't say he was Jehovah either.

Back to our discussion – we can also take a warning from the previous paragraph. Our gnosis is OUR OWN gnosis. No one can digest your dinner for you, or dream your dreams. We can discuss and share stories about the experience, but these are pale reflections in a dark mirror. And this is why we often hear “That's not MY experience with” fill in the blank. Of course not. What I prefer to hear is “This is what I took from the experience”, a more meaning-driven assessment of gnosis, and more like how our ancient ancestors looked at the world around them.

If we want to talk with the old Gods, we need to speak their language.

And back to polytheism. I don't really care how anyone in the soft poly, universalist, archetypicalist, or monist views address the Gods. Their gnosis has led them to that conclusion, mine has led me to mine. My Goddess is singular, conscious, full of agency, rooted in the land, and present in my life, because I have asked Her to be. I do not care if there's a model that matches the structure of the Gods, because I do not need it. I have been shown directly that She is not the same as any other Goddess, or God, now or throughout history. I have asked, and clearly had it explained to me.

So my advice is: ask your Gods. You might be surprised at the answer.

And in matters of contradiction; contradictions are signs of failing of logic in misapplication or misidentification. Since we are dealing not with things-as-they-are but the appearance of things i.e. we cannot directly share gnosis, only impressions drawn from gnosis that fit language well enough to share, then contradiction is inevitable. Call it the signature of the Gods – the experience defies language and in many ways is far deeper than anything you can package neatly with language.

To me, that is far more valuable.