Being known by long term results ...
Doug Freyburger
>
> ... I have not read Rydberg... actually, to be honest, Heidi
> and William, you guys are sorta turning me off of wanting to
> read him.
A saying that comes from a foreign religion:
"By your *fruit* shall ye be known."
In Asatru our saying could be summarized as:
{By your *actions* shall ye be known.}
Or is that what the oft-quoted stanza of the Havamal
really means?
{One thing I know that will live forever,
That is a man's reputation.}
It gets repeated in the Havamal and it gets translated
several different ways and I've paraphrased it in a way
that is not as explicitly about actions.
> I think the works need to speak for themselves.
Maybe. Consider that the actions of the Rydberg followers
have turned you off from reading his book.
Is it really the actions of Rydberg himself that are in question
here? I don't think so. He produced novels and poems good
enough that they made him a national icon still revered in
Sweden. So what that he wrote some crap about myths.
To me the long term results of the book outweigh the detailed
content of the book itself. I have a copy. I've read parts and
skimmed more. What I saw was it was a good compilation
of lore sources that he used to make up bizarre correlations.
Eric von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods played the same sort
of games with lore but wasn't nearly as good a compilation of
sources.
But what are the results? Point out that Rydberg's work on
myths is crap and some lunatics start hurling personal
insults and escalate to your job and family.
One wonders if Rydberg would be pleased or angry at having
such followers.
Think about it - If someone comes to ARA and says that Thor
is a crap comic book character, we think the poster is an idiot
but more often than not we pity the brain damage that's implied.
If someone comes to ARA and says that Rydberg's work on
myths is crap they get viciously attacked by Rydberg followers.
Do folks still read Hilter's Mein Kampf? I have not and the
reason is "By your fruits shall ye be known". I know what
happens when people follow the principles in that book. No
matter that the principles *seem* good to some, the result
is a worldwide disaster. Do folks still read Marx's book? I
had to as a part of the required reading in high school. The
principles *seem* good but attempts to implement them in the
real world resulted in Soviet nations that were the worst in
all of history. Yep, I'm Godwinning myself. Shrug.
The scale of the problem is orders of magnitude off, but
why should anyone read Rydberg when the result of calling
the work crap is to be viciously attacked? The long term
effects overwhelm the work itself. The work draws lunatics
so why read it?
Scott Lowther
>One wonders if Rydberg would be pleased or angry at having
>such followers.
>
>
Ask the same of Jesus (about, say, Jerry Falwell) or Muhammad (about,
say, bin Laden). Is it fair to judge the founder of a religion by how
his followers act? Individually... no. Ain't fair to judge a religion
based on *cherrypicked* followers. Asatru looks like crap if you only
look at the skinhead Nazitru wannabes. The best way to judge is to base
judgmeent based on an overall average, I'd suggest. So, currently we
have Bill and Heidi . Judge Rydbergitru based on them.
Rydberg doesn't come off so good, then...
>Do folks still read Hilter's Mein Kampf? I have not and the
>reason is "By your fruits shall ye be known". I know what
>happens when people follow the principles in that book.
>
I've not read MK, and my lack of interest is based on a similar
foundation to yours. However... given the historical val;ue of the book,
and the fact that it has influenced a great many *modern* people, from
the Nazitru to Saddam and President Tom of Iran... I suppose one of
these days I really aughtta. For example, it's often said by
Creationists that Darwin made the Nazi eugenics movement/holocaust
happen. But by reading MK... it becomes clear that Hitler was *himself*
a creationist. Had I not known some folk who were abl;e to point out
appropriate passages, I would not have known that. I'm sure there's more
to be learned.
>The scale of the problem is orders of magnitude off, but
>why should anyone read Rydberg when the result of calling
>the work crap is to be viciously attacked? The long term
>effects overwhelm the work itself. The work draws lunatics
>so why read it?
>
To find out *why,* maybe.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
bowman
> Do folks still read Marx's book? I
> had to as a part of the required reading in high school.
'Capital' in high school? That's harsh.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Scott Lowther
Doug Freyburger wrote:Do folks still read Marx's book? I had to as a part of the required reading in high school.'Capital' in high school? That's harsh.
bowman
> Had to read it when I was in high school. Don't remember much about it
> now, apart from I could see some pretty substantial flaws in it back
> then.
Interesting. When I was in high school you would be an object of suspicion
to be seen with it, let alone wading through the 1000 pages of arcane
analysis. I think we nibbled at the Manifesto in history. 'Das Kapital' and
'Mein Kampf' were icons of Evil.
> Also had to read Michener's "Chesepeake" and Dickens "Tale of Two
> Cities," both of which I saw as punitive actions by the teachers.
Obviously, 'Chesapeake' wasn't on the menu, though 'Sale of Two Titties'
was. I don't think I ever read it.
Some of the changes are interesting. A friend in his forties had to read
'Catcher in the Rye'. We knew about it, but it certainly wasn't on any high
school reading list. We weren't exactly innocent in high school, but both
students and teachers tried to maintain the illusion.
I watched 'Baby Doll', a 1956 film, last night. In '56, it was condemned by
the Legion of Decency, and Cardinal Spellman announced from St Patrick's
Cathedral that any Catholic viewing it was incurring a sin, if not the
danger of excommunication. It was pulled from many theaters and banned in
Sweden.
Eli Wallach plays a Sicilian and mutters a couple of Italian phrases that
may or may not be obscene, but the rest of the vocabulary would not be out
of place in the mouth of a polite 8 year old. No nudity, with the most skin
on display during a brief scene with Baker in baby doll pajamas. No two
people occupied the same bed at the same time. No homosexual references,
despite being written by Tennessee Williams. A kiss or two, but no physical
contact below the shoulder level.
Today, it would be considered offensive for its free use of 'nigger', 'boy',
and 'wop'.
Funny thing is the scene with Baker and Wallach fully clothed and upright on
a porch swing is hotter than a lot of current scenes.
New....@gmail.com
> The scale of the problem is orders of magnitude off, but
> why should anyone read Rydberg when the result of calling
> the work crap is to be viciously attacked? The long term
> effects overwhelm the work itself. The work draws lunatics
> so why read it?
Seems to happen to most every writer or teacher made into a Prophet,
and every book made Holy Writ. Since it doesn't happen to every writer
and every book, it would be interesting to find what common elements
such books share which inspire such fanaticism and intolerance.
Concerning Rydberg, when introduced to his work many years ago I
looked at it closely for a few weeks. I could see that if one were
first introduced to Norse mythology through Rydberg's UGM, a reverse
logic would operate in its favor as one verified Rydberg's
speculations through the lore rather than considering them after
familiarity with the lore. Like van Danikan or Icke, being immersed in
an imaginative and elaborate theory prior to familarity with the
broader subject makes one susceptible to fitting facts into the
imaginative theory as you learn them, as the writer did. Fortunately I
had, at that time, some familiarity with the primary sources, with
historical fact and archaeological theory, and UGM was pretty apparent
in its flaws.
The obsession that UGM inspires in one man and his ever-changing
handful of followers has made me feel as if I've spent far more time
on Rydberg than his work warrants.
Doug Freyburger
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> > Had to read it when I was in high school. Don't remember much about it
> > now, apart from I could see some pretty substantial flaws in it back
> > then.
>
> Interesting. When I was in high school you would be an object of suspicion
> to be seen with it, let alone wading through the 1000 pages of arcane
> analysis. I think we nibbled at the Manifesto in history. 'Das Kapital' and
> 'Mein Kampf' were icons of Evil.
Manifesto was required reading for everyone. I did Das Kapital
but maybe it was for extra credit. I got a lot more out of the
Cliff's Notes version. As for MF, maybe if I ever read the Koran
it will make it to my list of "maybe will, likely not".
> Some of the changes are interesting. A friend in his forties had to read
> 'Catcher in the Rye'. We knew about it, but it certainly wasn't on any high
> school reading list. We weren't exactly innocent in high school, but both
> students and teachers tried to maintain the illusion.
I'm in my 40s for one more year. Catcher was required reading.
So dull it was impossible to get a paper cut from it.
Skald Grimnir
> > and William, you guys are sorta turning me off of wanting to
> > read him.
>
> A saying that comes from a foreign religion:
>
> "By your *fruit* shall ye be known."
>
> In Asatru our saying could be summarized as:
>
> {By your *actions* shall ye be known.}
I like it as "By your actions will you be known." Because people
rarely take into account intention in the long run. Hell, look at
history, and all the great and terrible deeds. Yes, we know the
intention of some of them, or at least the publicized intention... but
not always, and not often. Not to mention a person may have said their
intention was one thing, but in reality it was another.
> Or is that what the oft-quoted stanza of the Havamal
> really means?
>
> {One thing I know that will live forever,
> That is a man's reputation.}
True enough.
> > I think the works need to speak for themselves.
>
> Maybe. Consider that the actions of the Rydberg followers
> have turned you off from reading his book.
>
> Is it really the actions of Rydberg himself that are in question
> here? I don't think so. He produced novels and poems good
> enough that they made him a national icon still revered in
> Sweden. So what that he wrote some crap about myths.
No, I have never questioned the actions of Rydberg. I see no reason
to. He wrote books. Those books must stand on their own.
> To me the long term results of the book outweigh the detailed
> content of the book itself. I have a copy. I've read parts and
> skimmed more. What I saw was it was a good compilation
> of lore sources that he used to make up bizarre correlations.
> Eric von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods played the same sort
> of games with lore but wasn't nearly as good a compilation of
> sources.
>
> But what are the results? Point out that Rydberg's work on
> myths is crap and some lunatics start hurling personal
> insults and escalate to your job and family.
A good point. A work should be judged on it's own merits and flaws.
But often our opinion on a work is influenced by other people. For
example, I love Robert Heinleins works. I read them a long time ago,
and developed a strong favorable opinion for them. Same with Ayn Rand
- I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 15, and I loved it. Since then,
I've met people who loathed both of them, some people who liked them,
and some people who have loved them. If I had not formed an opinion
beforehand, I am sure I would have been influenced in my like or
dislike of them.
We tend to be influenced by the people around us. And I tend to be
influenced more by reasoned discussion than by people who seem to
attack others. The attack approach puts me off, and reminds me of a
lot of religious extremists.
> One wonders if Rydberg would be pleased or angry at having
> such followers.
>
> Think about it - If someone comes to ARA and says that Thor
> is a crap comic book character, we think the poster is an idiot
> but more often than not we pity the brain damage that's implied.
> If someone comes to ARA and says that Rydberg's work on
> myths is crap they get viciously attacked by Rydberg followers.
Such is true. A proper response would be to try and explain why
Rydberg is good. Recommended sources, and citations to back up your
claims, if possible, or admit they are just your opinions. But those
wars are actually tiring me, and I've only been reading them for a
couple of days. I am afraid to even touch a Rydberg thread for all of
the name calling, striking out at others, calling people dishonorable
and dishonest.
I think people need to remember that everyone will have an opinion,
and not all will match your own. live and let live in those regards.
> Do folks still read Hilter's Mein Kampf? I have not and the
> reason is "By your fruits shall ye be known". I know what
> happens when people follow the principles in that book. No
> matter that the principles *seem* good to some, the result
> is a worldwide disaster. Do folks still read Marx's book? I
> had to as a part of the required reading in high school. The
> principles *seem* good but attempts to implement them in the
> real world resulted in Soviet nations that were the worst in
> all of history. Yep, I'm Godwinning myself. Shrug.
I've actually read Mein Kampf, but I was 12 or 13 at the time. I was
trying to understand the ideas of a facist leader. I'm a libertarian
in belief, although honestly, I have an online friend who is slowly
bringing me towards his thinking on Anarcho-Capitalism/Anarcho-Free
Markets.
Honestly, the book never made a big impression on me. I do not
remember a lot of it because it was so long ago, though.
> The scale of the problem is orders of magnitude off, but
> why should anyone read Rydberg when the result of calling
> the work crap is to be viciously attacked? The long term
> effects overwhelm the work itself. The work draws lunatics
> so why read it?
I am not sure. Sometimes I feel I do not want to read it. Other times
I do. It could be what Scott said... to find out *why.* But it could
also be the fact that I really do think a work should stand on its
own. Just because you dislike a man, does not mean his ideas have no
merit. Just because you dislike a mans followers does not mean his
ideas have no merit. However, if his ideas are flawed, then you can
judge the merit of the ideas truthfully.