Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the diversity and quantity of cosmologies, in your sense, that exist in the world -- I'm not even convinced that any two people have precisely the same cosmology; even what seems like a small difference can have a large effect, if consistently applied. Of course, intellectual beliefs and the beliefs one demonstrates through how one lives can diverge.
A question I've been considering for a long time is how people with different cosmologies can live together, or at least live without conflict, war, and violence, in a healthy way. It was Daniel Quinn in his book 𝘐𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘦𝘭 who pointed out that one of the underlying cosmological tenets of Western civilization is that "there is only one right way to live". It seems like this is everywhere nowadays in our politics -- everyone is trying to prove that they have the truth and are right; their way is the only way, and any other way is evil and terrible, etc.
How can we step back from this? But more importantly, how can we live together when we have such incredibly different cosmologies and political theologies?
I think that's exactly it, that we now believe that there's some universal / singular truth that can be agreed upon.
A book I had the honor of publishing -- and soon republishing -- called True to the Earth, by Kadmus, lays out a very strong case that pluralism was the default state of pagan systems. This springs from the fact that they already accepted a plurality of gods, many of whom were often in opposition to each other in certain matters. Since gods have virtues (or values), and since these virtues/values often conflict, the ground level proposition in such societies was that there could never be "one true way" of seeing things or acting in the world. The goal instead was to balance all these often diverging ways so that their conflicts didn't lead to strife.
There's no real attempt to balance things now, only to figure out who's right/good and wrong/evil.
It's been a while since I read it, but I remember in his book God Against the Gods, Jonathan Kirsch described ancient polytheism as a "spongy mass of tolerance and tradition."
I'd be curious if you have a cosmological explanation for a feature of political conversation that irks me endlessly. And that is, the habit of assuming that whatever bad things are done in the name of 'enemy' state XYZ, it shows something fundamental about their cultural character or their at least politicians or their political system and is 'actually bad'. While all of the brutalities enacted in the name of Western Civilisation never ultimately say something about either it, or even, frankly, the statesmen who commit them. They are all just somehow 'things that happened'.
I utterly despise this rhetorical trick. Maybe it's just bog standard moral myopia and propaganda though and not that deep. But honestly, in my bad moods I feel like blaming Christianity for it and it's preoccupation with sin. Certainly the ancient Romans just went without all that fudging in their brutality.
There are two parts to it. Remember, first of all, that within Christianity, sins are "redeemed" through Christ's sacrifice. So, basically, everything that a Christian does which is "bad" no longer counts because it's been forgiven.
Secondly, since the Christian god is thought to "use" evil people for the betterment of his own people (for example, the Babylonian and Assyrian kings were seen as "tools" to punish the Jews for backsliding in their faith, or think of how that god was said to "harden the heart" of the Pharaoh), the evil of others is in a different category altogether from the evil of the chosen.
Put those two together and you can start to see how this artificial division repeats relentlessly throughout Christian-derived political understandings.
I am somewhat, yes, and we were once in contact but I worry some of the American antifa-heathens might have convinced him I'm a fascist.
Also, by the way, there are two animist Rune Rasmussens. That one is Rune Hjarnø Rasmussen; the other, who is a brilliant poet that writes with RITONA and will have a book out with us soon, is Rune Kjær Rasmussen.
The Wi Spa stuff really was a turning point in the US -- so many people rushing to judgment on all sides and ready to fight before any information had come out.
I don't know if you've seen this, but Darren Merager, the person arrested, gave an extensive interview after the arrest that includes some wild details, including the fact that Antifa protesters mistook Merager for a right-wing protester during the protests ...
Oh dear, how silly. That would be most unfortunate. You and Rune Hjarnø seem like natural allies. Or, perhaps, I think that because of the affinity I have for you both. I would love to hear you guys discuss things!
Thanks for the essay Rhyd, looking forward to what's to come!
I have been looking more closely at Eastern Orthodoxy lately, and I have been struck at how some of the fundamental tenets that Protestants and Catholics hold are simply not the same in EO even if they sometimes share the same name. And in exploring how the doctrines between the different supposedly Christian traditions differ, I have come to really question the Western Christian assumption that all these different traditions really are different versions of Christianity, and instead are different traditions that all claim to be following Jesus Christ. Specifically, I would like to push back on the notion that "Western Christianity" represents Christianity. Just like how one can have faith that they are a woman and be mistaken, one can have faith in Jesus Christ and be mistaken that they are a Christian if they are not following Christian tradition.
For instance, EO believes in a different relational Trinity and, more relevant to this essay, a different conception of Original Sin. In EO understanding, we all suffer from the effects of Adam's sin in being human, but we are not guilty of anyone's sins but our own.
A book that has really helped me understand the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and other traditions is Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape by Andrew Stephen Damick and published by Ancient Faith Publishing. Doesn't do a very good job of representing animism, but I didn't expect it to, it's best for comparing the different supposedly Christian traditions.
Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the diversity and quantity of cosmologies, in your sense, that exist in the world -- I'm not even convinced that any two people have precisely the same cosmology; even what seems like a small difference can have a large effect, if consistently applied. Of course, intellectual beliefs and the beliefs one demonstrates through how one lives can diverge.
A question I've been considering for a long time is how people with different cosmologies can live together, or at least live without conflict, war, and violence, in a healthy way. It was Daniel Quinn in his book 𝘐𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘦𝘭 who pointed out that one of the underlying cosmological tenets of Western civilization is that "there is only one right way to live". It seems like this is everywhere nowadays in our politics -- everyone is trying to prove that they have the truth and are right; their way is the only way, and any other way is evil and terrible, etc.
How can we step back from this? But more importantly, how can we live together when we have such incredibly different cosmologies and political theologies?
I think that's exactly it, that we now believe that there's some universal / singular truth that can be agreed upon.
A book I had the honor of publishing -- and soon republishing -- called True to the Earth, by Kadmus, lays out a very strong case that pluralism was the default state of pagan systems. This springs from the fact that they already accepted a plurality of gods, many of whom were often in opposition to each other in certain matters. Since gods have virtues (or values), and since these virtues/values often conflict, the ground level proposition in such societies was that there could never be "one true way" of seeing things or acting in the world. The goal instead was to balance all these often diverging ways so that their conflicts didn't lead to strife.
There's no real attempt to balance things now, only to figure out who's right/good and wrong/evil.
It's been a while since I read it, but I remember in his book God Against the Gods, Jonathan Kirsch described ancient polytheism as a "spongy mass of tolerance and tradition."
I'd be curious if you have a cosmological explanation for a feature of political conversation that irks me endlessly. And that is, the habit of assuming that whatever bad things are done in the name of 'enemy' state XYZ, it shows something fundamental about their cultural character or their at least politicians or their political system and is 'actually bad'. While all of the brutalities enacted in the name of Western Civilisation never ultimately say something about either it, or even, frankly, the statesmen who commit them. They are all just somehow 'things that happened'.
I utterly despise this rhetorical trick. Maybe it's just bog standard moral myopia and propaganda though and not that deep. But honestly, in my bad moods I feel like blaming Christianity for it and it's preoccupation with sin. Certainly the ancient Romans just went without all that fudging in their brutality.
Oh, I absolutely think it's from Christianity.
There are two parts to it. Remember, first of all, that within Christianity, sins are "redeemed" through Christ's sacrifice. So, basically, everything that a Christian does which is "bad" no longer counts because it's been forgiven.
Secondly, since the Christian god is thought to "use" evil people for the betterment of his own people (for example, the Babylonian and Assyrian kings were seen as "tools" to punish the Jews for backsliding in their faith, or think of how that god was said to "harden the heart" of the Pharaoh), the evil of others is in a different category altogether from the evil of the chosen.
Put those two together and you can start to see how this artificial division repeats relentlessly throughout Christian-derived political understandings.
Thanks! That makes a lot of (unpleasant) sense.
Are you familiar with Rune Rasmussen's work? I think the content in this video speaks to some of what you are delineating here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8GKbimnMj8
I am somewhat, yes, and we were once in contact but I worry some of the American antifa-heathens might have convinced him I'm a fascist.
Also, by the way, there are two animist Rune Rasmussens. That one is Rune Hjarnø Rasmussen; the other, who is a brilliant poet that writes with RITONA and will have a book out with us soon, is Rune Kjær Rasmussen.
Long story, but the three latest reasons are:
1. I defended a friend, Edward Butler, when they accused him wrongly of being a fascist (https://rhyd.substack.com/p/polytheistic-pluralism)
2. I've criticized American Antifa in general (https://abeautifulresistance.org/site/2021/9/6/antifa-anarchism-and-the-desperate-search-for-an-enemy)
3. I critiqued Alexander Reid Ross, whose ideas are used heavily by Ryan Smith and other "antifascist heathen" leaders: https://abeautifulresistance.org/site/2021/3/16/mission-creep
The Wi Spa stuff really was a turning point in the US -- so many people rushing to judgment on all sides and ready to fight before any information had come out.
I don't know if you've seen this, but Darren Merager, the person arrested, gave an extensive interview after the arrest that includes some wild details, including the fact that Antifa protesters mistook Merager for a right-wing protester during the protests ...
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/exclusive-transgender-fugitive-who-spurred-wi-spa-riots-bares-all/
This whole matter forms a large part of the discussion in one of the chapters of my upcoming book by the way.
Oh dear, how silly. That would be most unfortunate. You and Rune Hjarnø seem like natural allies. Or, perhaps, I think that because of the affinity I have for you both. I would love to hear you guys discuss things!
Maybe I'll reach out to him and invite him on The Re/al/ign...
Magnifique!
Just the other day I was wondering about the political economy of (a Christian) Heaven, and th implications for us, here, ‘below’.
Thanks for the essay Rhyd, looking forward to what's to come!
I have been looking more closely at Eastern Orthodoxy lately, and I have been struck at how some of the fundamental tenets that Protestants and Catholics hold are simply not the same in EO even if they sometimes share the same name. And in exploring how the doctrines between the different supposedly Christian traditions differ, I have come to really question the Western Christian assumption that all these different traditions really are different versions of Christianity, and instead are different traditions that all claim to be following Jesus Christ. Specifically, I would like to push back on the notion that "Western Christianity" represents Christianity. Just like how one can have faith that they are a woman and be mistaken, one can have faith in Jesus Christ and be mistaken that they are a Christian if they are not following Christian tradition.
For instance, EO believes in a different relational Trinity and, more relevant to this essay, a different conception of Original Sin. In EO understanding, we all suffer from the effects of Adam's sin in being human, but we are not guilty of anyone's sins but our own.
A book that has really helped me understand the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and other traditions is Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape by Andrew Stephen Damick and published by Ancient Faith Publishing. Doesn't do a very good job of representing animism, but I didn't expect it to, it's best for comparing the different supposedly Christian traditions.