Keeping for posterity
A Good conversation between me and "Siggy" he has a blog that is quite good here.
From: Siegfried Goodfellow <wyrdmeginthew@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Worth
To: scrwtape@sunflower.com
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 6:06 PM
Hael Rod,
Good to hear from you.
I'll respond firstly to the last : "I'm not necessarily asking you to authoritatively
answer (indeed I am viewing you as a companion in this reflection not
as a superior)"
Absolutely, and most important! Indeed I am honored to be in this position of intellectual/theological/contemplative companionship. Thank you.
I think that your phrasing of the Norns' activity is far more appropriate than the sloppy language I used :
"Does she give or does she reveal or determine? In my understanding the Norns rarely act but rather assemble what is already there."
I couldn't agree more. This converges with my way of thinking about these things. Shedding
Christian habits of deliberate creation takes attention. Norns notate, speak, and choose/select according to Voluspa. They do have a creative role reflected in this choosing/selecting, but that is only one third of their enumerated powers, of which observation and speaking what they observe being the bulk.
The Norns are closest to the process we call Wyrd, but they are not the Gods OF Wyrd in the sense of creating it. We must always be on guard against a Christian absolutism that tries to place a deity or divine figure in a position of absolute determinism. I think this is very important because it does indeed have political ramifications. The Christian model is that of a benevolent tyrant who is solely responsible for everything in the universe (except for evil, which is then the responsibility of the OTHER tyrant, and all we get are a choice between tyrants. Is Jesus then the "good cop" that against Yahweh the "bad cop" tries to get us to convert from the "bad tyrant' to the "good tyrant"?). I'm working to articulate a theory whereby the Norse universe is far more "federated", with separation of powers, and more "oversight" and "redirection of flows" at appropriate levels rather than a "total control" model.
I'd like to see a heathenism that is "wyrd-centric" rather than "theocentric". If I'm repeating myself from an earlier exchange, please forgive me. The Overwhelmingly Mysterious Process of Becoming that we call Reality but which is just plain Weird when you think about it is the center. Thus, in unsophisticated language, we are centered on "this world", although "this world" doesn't mean Midgard, but the entire universal process of becoming that includes life on Midgard but goes far beyond it : the Tree and all its Wells.
Then the Norns are simply "in love" with this process (not in a sentimental sense, but in that deep, attentive quality we see in love) and work with it and work through it. I think of a particular Romantic painting of the Norns :
I like the sense of dance and "London Bridge" in this painting (although what is up with the
fire beneath them?). There is a sense of "flowing-with" rather than "commanding over".
I think these distinctions you and I are exploring here are extremely important in their
ramifications for getting the deeper sense of governance as regulation, guidance, and oversight rather than interference and determinism.
--- On Sat, 11/8/08, Rod Landreth <scrwtape@sunflower.com> wrote:
From: Rod Landreth <scrwtape@sunflower.com>
Subject: Re: Worth
To: wyrdmeginthew@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 7:28 AM
Siegfried,
First, Because I am starting school again much of my time is not my
own, so please understand why I have not got back to you as quickly as
I perhaps should have. I happen to be done with homework early and I
wanted to tackle your lengthy post.
What follows below is brief and somewhat "cut off" I plan on tackling
the rest of your initial long post and further conversation we have
when I'm not in school for the Holiday Break. I really wish to go
into some of thee things ... just currently don't have as much time to
do it as I wish.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Siegfried Goodfellow
<wyrdmeginthew@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your most gratifying letter ; your honoring of my words is
> worthful to me.
Keep speaking them, for they are indeed full of worth and I for one am
glad that you are saying them.
> He goes by the name of "Uncle
Thor", and his email
> address is allgauge@bigfoot.com.
I appreciate the reference, but do to my long friendship with
Jordsvin, I am well acquainted with "Uncle Thor." Mostly I am
engaging in conversation with you because as I mentioned in my last
post I have been dealing with very young heathens who are less then a
year "old." I spend a great deal of time in Heathen 101 land, which
is great for them but taxing for me. I long for more meaty
conversation with people who will challenge me and make me stretch my
own understandings.
> My academic precision in the following may be lacking, and
> needing of both refinement and support, but nevertheless, off the cuff, my
> sense is that Skuld gives both good and bad scild or sculd.
Does she give or does she reveal or determine? In my understanding
the Norns rarely act but rather assemble what is already there. Since
Skuld is the youngest
(and a Valkyrie to boot, if we are to believe
Snorri) it makes sense she would have the easiest and less complex
duty. As it is the job of the Valkyries to chose the worthiest of men
to take to Valhol, it makes sense that the sister to Urd, and
Verdhandi apply this skill to one's unveiling Orlog. What is one's
man's "bad" scyld, could be another's "good" scyld.
That
determination is based on what Skuld's sisters give her to work with.
Skuld narrows down what is probable based on what she is given, ever
vigilant Verdhandi then takes these probabilities and when action
takes place connects what is now certain to the other certainties that
need to be connected to it. Then the eldest, Urd, smooths, prepares
and otherwise "stores" all that has occurred. She may further
connect
to possibilities as they impact certainty, she may modify or
"correct"
things (attach more connections or similar) as
differing
understandings of "the past" are grasped or come to light.
So ultimately I think the Norns are "reactive" instead of deciding
things. They don't "make" decisions only reflect based on Wyrd,
certainty and probability what occurs.
I'm just discussing and clarifying not putting what you are saying
down.
> Some of these
> "debts" are no doubt ancestral, and many of them are the result
of our own
> foolishness, and many of these are the kinds of debts we really ought to
pay
> off to be more free.
Again, I agree, but it still implies we are always in some sort of
hole. Are we always in debt to something or someone? Is worth the
amount or lack of debt one has? Rhetorically, how can we take this
from the negative of debt to some sort of positive. Something that
have little of (or more of) be good? Speculation, does having less
"debt" mean that one's Aldr improves.
If one views the part of
the
soul complex, the Aldr, as a sort of personal hourglass of our "life"
do we add grains or make what is available "improved" when we
"lessen"
our debt? if so, then how do we have any control of that special
grain?
> On the other hand, potential itself can be seen as a
> kind of debt that we must pay. Tacitus speaks of Chattian warriors who
went
> to battle in order to pay the debt that being born implies (this certainly
> should not be interpreted in a Christian fashion!!) : in other words, that
> life is a great gift, and a gift calls for a gift in some way or another.
That is why one's life must not be given lightly but be bought in the
most difficult way. Again, it does ascribe the rather fatalistic
viewpoint the Northern people seemed to have. Life is important, but
there are things greater. Again, I'm looking at a way that is not
Grim and Gothic
to describe this whole exchange.
> The heathen concept of wergild implies that if we have made a mistake, and
> therefore incurred a debt, we can pay off that debt.
This is why I put forward that a heathen does not *just* apologize but
must provide action and a desire to genuinely "fix" what was done
wrong. In the doing of any task, a mistake can be made. You have to
put forth extra effort to make the mistake either disappear or
accommodated for.
In our modern guilt-based culture, when one makes a mistake and
apologizes it is placed on the person the to whom the mistake occurred
to absolve the person who made the mistake. They are "guilted" into
this by the person who made the mistake by putting the power in the
other person. That wronged person then must either accept and absolve
the mistake maker. The pressure is to accept the guilt and then in a
usury fashion hold it over the mistake
maker. The actual mistake is
rarely dealt with in this arrangement only movement of guilt. This is
why I rarely apologize but instead offer what I can do to rectify the
mistake, often coming up with my own solutions for the person to chose
from. I accept and own my mistake, not give the control over it to
another.
This shift in thinking is difficult to heathen newbies. In fact, it
is difficult in our modern society, which has several hundred years of
guilt-based morality.
> Another way of looking at these is that
> they are niding-crimes, because they involve cowardice : in the first case
> by cowardly avoiding the truth in a court of law through deception, in the
> second case by cowardly taking another's life without giving them a
chance
> to defend themselves, and in the third case by cowardly not seeking out
> one's own partner.
So where does the lesser crimes but no
less damaging fit in? Where
deception for gain against another occurs. Things like malicious
gossip. Or victimless crimes (except perhaps for the person doing
them) of poor decision making. What about actions performed during
mental illness? Is one a coward when they are having a bi-polar
episode?
By and large, modern heathen communities don't deal on the level of
murder or death. We deal with list trolls,
anti-authoritarianism, and unfettered free-will. The latter two while
annoying are quite represented in the Lore, but even then was as
disruptive as it is now to keeping and getting things moving.
> There is no doubt that they would look at
> whether a person made an attempt to make good on their errors even in
these
> matters.
{Rod strokes his beard}
Rhetorical and speculative, what about people who continually and
often deliberately make mistakes but then
"attempt" in some way to
"make good?" They prey upon people's "good will" and
manipulate it
for their own gain. How can one ascertain what is in "good faith"
and
what is in "just words"
> This is, of course, going by a strict "loric" approach ; but
while
> we are advised to call upon and consider the lore, we are not bound by it
as
> Christians are to their scriptures but must also consult our hearts to
find
> a deeper rede.
That is what I am wishing to discuss. Going deeper, establishing new
ground and Rede. I am being theologically reflective as you are being
a sounding board for me. Thus the many "Rhetorical" and
"Speculation." I'm not necessarily asking you to authoritatively
answer (indeed I am viewing you as a companion in this reflection not
as a superior) but trying to dig deeper.
From: Siegfried Goodfellow <wyrdmeginthew@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Worth
To: scrwtape@sunflower.com
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 6:06 PM
Hael Rod,
Good to hear from you.
I'll respond firstly to the last : "I'm not necessarily asking you to authoritatively
answer (indeed I am viewing you as a companion in this reflection not
as a superior)"
Absolutely, and most important! Indeed I am honored to be in this position of intellectual/theological/contemplative companionship. Thank you.
I think that your phrasing of the Norns' activity is far more appropriate than the sloppy language I used :
"Does she give or does she reveal or determine? In my understanding the Norns rarely act but rather assemble what is already there."
I couldn't agree more. This converges with my way of thinking about these things. Shedding
Christian habits of deliberate creation takes attention. Norns notate, speak, and choose/select according to Voluspa. They do have a creative role reflected in this choosing/selecting, but that is only one third of their enumerated powers, of which observation and speaking what they observe being the bulk.
The Norns are closest to the process we call Wyrd, but they are not the Gods OF Wyrd in the sense of creating it. We must always be on guard against a Christian absolutism that tries to place a deity or divine figure in a position of absolute determinism. I think this is very important because it does indeed have political ramifications. The Christian model is that of a benevolent tyrant who is solely responsible for everything in the universe (except for evil, which is then the responsibility of the OTHER tyrant, and all we get are a choice between tyrants. Is Jesus then the "good cop" that against Yahweh the "bad cop" tries to get us to convert from the "bad tyrant' to the "good tyrant"?). I'm working to articulate a theory whereby the Norse universe is far more "federated", with separation of powers, and more "oversight" and "redirection of flows" at appropriate levels rather than a "total control" model.
I'd like to see a heathenism that is "wyrd-centric" rather than "theocentric". If I'm repeating myself from an earlier exchange, please forgive me. The Overwhelmingly Mysterious Process of Becoming that we call Reality but which is just plain Weird when you think about it is the center. Thus, in unsophisticated language, we are centered on "this world", although "this world" doesn't mean Midgard, but the entire universal process of becoming that includes life on Midgard but goes far beyond it : the Tree and all its Wells.
Then the Norns are simply "in love" with this process (not in a sentimental sense, but in that deep, attentive quality we see in love) and work with it and work through it. I think of a particular Romantic painting of the Norns :
I like the sense of dance and "London Bridge" in this painting (although what is up with the
fire beneath them?). There is a sense of "flowing-with" rather than "commanding over".
I think these distinctions you and I are exploring here are extremely important in their
ramifications for getting the deeper sense of governance as regulation, guidance, and oversight rather than interference and determinism.
--- On Sat, 11/8/08, Rod Landreth <scrwtape@sunflower.com> wrote:
From: Rod Landreth <scrwtape@sunflower.com>
Subject: Re: Worth
To: wyrdmeginthew@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 7:28 AM
Siegfried,
First, Because I am starting school again much of my time is not my
own, so please understand why I have not got back to you as quickly as
I perhaps should have. I happen to be done with homework early and I
wanted to tackle your lengthy post.
What follows below is brief and somewhat "cut off" I plan on tackling
the rest of your initial long post and further conversation we have
when I'm not in school for the Holiday Break. I really wish to go
into some of thee things ... just currently don't have as much time to
do it as I wish.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Siegfried Goodfellow
<wyrdmeginthew@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your most gratifying letter ; your honoring of my words is
> worthful to me.
Keep speaking them, for they are indeed full of worth and I for one am
glad that you are saying them.
> He goes by the name of "Uncle
Thor", and his email
> address is allgauge@bigfoot.com.
I appreciate the reference, but do to my long friendship with
Jordsvin, I am well acquainted with "Uncle Thor." Mostly I am
engaging in conversation with you because as I mentioned in my last
post I have been dealing with very young heathens who are less then a
year "old." I spend a great deal of time in Heathen 101 land, which
is great for them but taxing for me. I long for more meaty
conversation with people who will challenge me and make me stretch my
own understandings.
> My academic precision in the following may be lacking, and
> needing of both refinement and support, but nevertheless, off the cuff, my
> sense is that Skuld gives both good and bad scild or sculd.
Does she give or does she reveal or determine? In my understanding
the Norns rarely act but rather assemble what is already there. Since
Skuld is the youngest
(and a Valkyrie to boot, if we are to believe
Snorri) it makes sense she would have the easiest and less complex
duty. As it is the job of the Valkyries to chose the worthiest of men
to take to Valhol, it makes sense that the sister to Urd, and
Verdhandi apply this skill to one's unveiling Orlog. What is one's
man's "bad" scyld, could be another's "good" scyld.
That
determination is based on what Skuld's sisters give her to work with.
Skuld narrows down what is probable based on what she is given, ever
vigilant Verdhandi then takes these probabilities and when action
takes place connects what is now certain to the other certainties that
need to be connected to it. Then the eldest, Urd, smooths, prepares
and otherwise "stores" all that has occurred. She may further
connect
to possibilities as they impact certainty, she may modify or
"correct"
things (attach more connections or similar) as
differing
understandings of "the past" are grasped or come to light.
So ultimately I think the Norns are "reactive" instead of deciding
things. They don't "make" decisions only reflect based on Wyrd,
certainty and probability what occurs.
I'm just discussing and clarifying not putting what you are saying
down.
> Some of these
> "debts" are no doubt ancestral, and many of them are the result
of our own
> foolishness, and many of these are the kinds of debts we really ought to
pay
> off to be more free.
Again, I agree, but it still implies we are always in some sort of
hole. Are we always in debt to something or someone? Is worth the
amount or lack of debt one has? Rhetorically, how can we take this
from the negative of debt to some sort of positive. Something that
have little of (or more of) be good? Speculation, does having less
"debt" mean that one's Aldr improves.
If one views the part of
the
soul complex, the Aldr, as a sort of personal hourglass of our "life"
do we add grains or make what is available "improved" when we
"lessen"
our debt? if so, then how do we have any control of that special
grain?
> On the other hand, potential itself can be seen as a
> kind of debt that we must pay. Tacitus speaks of Chattian warriors who
went
> to battle in order to pay the debt that being born implies (this certainly
> should not be interpreted in a Christian fashion!!) : in other words, that
> life is a great gift, and a gift calls for a gift in some way or another.
That is why one's life must not be given lightly but be bought in the
most difficult way. Again, it does ascribe the rather fatalistic
viewpoint the Northern people seemed to have. Life is important, but
there are things greater. Again, I'm looking at a way that is not
Grim and Gothic
to describe this whole exchange.
> The heathen concept of wergild implies that if we have made a mistake, and
> therefore incurred a debt, we can pay off that debt.
This is why I put forward that a heathen does not *just* apologize but
must provide action and a desire to genuinely "fix" what was done
wrong. In the doing of any task, a mistake can be made. You have to
put forth extra effort to make the mistake either disappear or
accommodated for.
In our modern guilt-based culture, when one makes a mistake and
apologizes it is placed on the person the to whom the mistake occurred
to absolve the person who made the mistake. They are "guilted" into
this by the person who made the mistake by putting the power in the
other person. That wronged person then must either accept and absolve
the mistake maker. The pressure is to accept the guilt and then in a
usury fashion hold it over the mistake
maker. The actual mistake is
rarely dealt with in this arrangement only movement of guilt. This is
why I rarely apologize but instead offer what I can do to rectify the
mistake, often coming up with my own solutions for the person to chose
from. I accept and own my mistake, not give the control over it to
another.
This shift in thinking is difficult to heathen newbies. In fact, it
is difficult in our modern society, which has several hundred years of
guilt-based morality.
> Another way of looking at these is that
> they are niding-crimes, because they involve cowardice : in the first case
> by cowardly avoiding the truth in a court of law through deception, in the
> second case by cowardly taking another's life without giving them a
chance
> to defend themselves, and in the third case by cowardly not seeking out
> one's own partner.
So where does the lesser crimes but no
less damaging fit in? Where
deception for gain against another occurs. Things like malicious
gossip. Or victimless crimes (except perhaps for the person doing
them) of poor decision making. What about actions performed during
mental illness? Is one a coward when they are having a bi-polar
episode?
By and large, modern heathen communities don't deal on the level of
murder or death. We deal with list trolls,
anti-authoritarianism, and unfettered free-will. The latter two while
annoying are quite represented in the Lore, but even then was as
disruptive as it is now to keeping and getting things moving.
> There is no doubt that they would look at
> whether a person made an attempt to make good on their errors even in
these
> matters.
{Rod strokes his beard}
Rhetorical and speculative, what about people who continually and
often deliberately make mistakes but then
"attempt" in some way to
"make good?" They prey upon people's "good will" and
manipulate it
for their own gain. How can one ascertain what is in "good faith"
and
what is in "just words"
> This is, of course, going by a strict "loric" approach ; but
while
> we are advised to call upon and consider the lore, we are not bound by it
as
> Christians are to their scriptures but must also consult our hearts to
find
> a deeper rede.
That is what I am wishing to discuss. Going deeper, establishing new
ground and Rede. I am being theologically reflective as you are being
a sounding board for me. Thus the many "Rhetorical" and
"Speculation." I'm not necessarily asking you to authoritatively
answer (indeed I am viewing you as a companion in this reflection not
as a superior) but trying to dig deeper.