Freyja's children in lore ...
Néo
Following a few already discussed questions
related to Norse lore, including possible
children from Freyja, I recently bumped into
a few interesting pages in Wikipedia, like:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersimi
(Sorry, in French - either a glitch in cross
references, or no equivalent page in English
for now.)
It gives some information about Hnoss and
Gersimi, said to be two daugthers of Freyja
and Ód (the latter being most probably Odin,
as already discussed and kindly confirmed to
me).
The sources mentioned in this page are Snorri
Sturluson (Ynglinga saga, Gylfaginning) as
well as some Thulurs from the Middle Ages.
The page mentioned above contains other links,
which point towards other pages in French that
do not possess proper English equivalents yet.
If one considers the very smaller number of
French speaking people versed in Norse lore,
as compared to English speaking people, it was
a bit of a surprise to see that there was more
information in French than in English about
those bits of Norse lore... anyway.
So my questions to Astru people woud be, more
specifically:
- To which extent such rather ancient works
from Snorri Sturluson, as well as Thulurs, are
considered as reliable sources of mythological
lore, as seen from an Asatru perspective.
- Would there be any clue/detail whatsoever
somewhere, enabling one to actually know how
to make a difference between those two sisters.
(Any precisions given by the etymology of the
names Hnoss and Gersimi highly appreciated.)
Thanks in advance for any answer.
--
Néo
Doug Freyburger
>
> Following a few already discussed questions
> related to Norse lore, including possible
> children from Freyja, I recently bumped into
> a few interesting pages in Wikipedia, like:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersimi
> (Sorry, in French - either a glitch in cross
> references, or no equivalent page in English
> for now.)
>
> It gives some information about Hnoss and
> Gersimi, said to be two daugthers of Freyja
> and Ód (the latter being most probably Odin,
> as already discussed and kindly confirmed to
> me).
The association of Od and Odhinn is not certain but
it seems most likely among the obvious choices.
If you know it by personal contact so much the better.
> The sources mentioned in this page are Snorri
> Sturluson (Ynglinga saga, Gylfaginning) as
> well as some Thulurs from the Middle Ages.
>
> The page mentioned above contains other links,
> which point towards other pages in French that
> do not possess proper English equivalents yet.
> If one considers the very smaller number of
> French speaking people versed in Norse lore,
> as compared to English speaking people, it was
> a bit of a surprise to see that there was more
> information in French than in English about
> those bits of Norse lore... anyway.
There is also plentiful information on the Aesir in
Spanish so I am not surpised. The boundary
between Keltic and Germanic is fluid (more so since
the invention of the railroad and steam ship) and it
was an arbirtary division by the Romans so
interest across the Rhine is not surprising.
> So my questions to Astru people woud be, more
> specifically:
>
> - To which extent such rather ancient works
> from Snorri Sturluson, as well as Thulurs, are
> considered as reliable sources of mythological
> lore, as seen from an Asatru perspective.
While the introduction to Snorri's (Prose) Edda is
controvertial in giving the source of the Aesir among
humans in Asia, later chapters are usually viewed
as the best quality lore sources available. It's
among the best known lore sources anywhere.
I am not familiar with Thulurs.
> - Would there be any clue/detail whatsoever
> somewhere, enabling one to actually know how
> to make a difference between those two sisters.
With the lesser known deities personal contact
works best in my opinion. If you've already run out
of data in the lore, go to the source that the lore
originally came from.
Néo
Doug Freyburger a écrit :
> Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>> Following a few already discussed questions
>> related to Norse lore, including possible
>> children from Freyja, I recently bumped into
>> a few interesting pages in Wikipedia, like:
>>
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersimi
>> (Sorry, in French - either a glitch in cross
>> references, or no equivalent page in English
>> for now.)
>>
>> It gives some information about Hnoss and
>> Gersimi, said to be two daugthers of Freyja
>> and Ód (the latter being most probably Odin,
>> as already discussed and kindly confirmed to
>> me).
>
> The association of Od and Odhinn is not certain but
> it seems most likely among the obvious choices.
> If you know it by personal contact so much the better.
Well, as a matter or fact, I was given quite a few
bits of info by personal contact in spirit, the only
remaining issue was, they Up Above were not really
in a hurry to give me some specifics (names) within
the Asatru lore. Yes, I have some direct info about
this lineage... I'm presently cross-checking data
on the Norse side. The Ancient Greek lore seems to
match perfectly if one excepts the Artemis/Apollo
puzzle, which I could solve in a very personal way
thanks to quite some data, so to put things briefly
here, the whole story as told from Up Above seems to
fit neatly by now with these other elements of the
Indo-European lore.
>> The sources mentioned in this page are Snorri
>> Sturluson (Ynglinga saga, Gylfaginning) as
>> well as some Thulurs from the Middle Ages.
>>
>> The page mentioned above contains other links,
>> which point towards other pages in French that
>> do not possess proper English equivalents yet.
>> If one considers the very smaller number of
>> French speaking people versed in Norse lore,
>> as compared to English speaking people, it was
>> a bit of a surprise to see that there was more
>> information in French than in English about
>> those bits of Norse lore... anyway.
>
> There is also plentiful information on the Aesir in
> Spanish so I am not surpised. The boundary
> between Keltic and Germanic is fluid (more so since
> the invention of the railroad and steam ship) and it
> was an arbirtary division by the Romans so
> interest across the Rhine is not surprising.
Fine. I'm fluent with French. Maybe my remark will
trigger some interest by English speakers for making
pages in Wikipedia - English version on such topics,
like for instance on those two sisters.
>> So my questions to Astru people woud be, more
>> specifically:
>>
>> - To which extent such rather ancient works
>> from Snorri Sturluson, as well as Thulurs, are
>> considered as reliable sources of mythological
>> lore, as seen from an Asatru perspective.
>
> While the introduction to Snorri's (Prose) Edda is
> controvertial in giving the source of the Aesir among
> humans in Asia, later chapters are usually viewed
> as the best quality lore sources available. It's
> among the best known lore sources anywhere.
OK. This is really good news for my searches then.
> I am not familiar with Thulurs.
Me neither, of course. From what I understand, these
were transmitted orally for quite some time, so they
must be rather difficult to examine on an academical
level.
>> - Would there be any clue/detail whatsoever
>> somewhere, enabling one to actually know how
>> to make a difference between those two sisters.
>
> With the lesser known deities personal contact
> works best in my opinion. If you've already run out
> of data in the lore, go to the source that the lore
> originally came from.
Well, in fact, I have a few clues. What's intriguing
(subjectively speaking) is that nothing in Norse lore
seems to be known about those two, except of course
their beauty. :-)
Here are relevant bits that I could collect through
sources in spirit, some of which I hope I can cross
check in real life some time in the future - in terms
of soul bearers, to be fully accurate here.
The two sisters are very close from each other (as
well as their mother). Both know very well how to
fight in a battle. There also seems to be a strong
likedness in their overall built - quite tall, rather
muscular but very feminine anyway, nice curves.
One difference here could mean something, I can't
tell. Maybe something can be found via etymology...
From what I was shown, and I mean this beyond their
fascinating abilities to appear exactly like they want
to, one has (strawberry) blonde hair, while the other
one has dark hair. Assuming that the Greek lore is a
sound basis and from those other searches, I can tell
that Artemis would be the blonde haired one, and Eos,
the dark haired one.
My present issue here being that for now, from all that
I have been shown up to now, I can't match the two ones
on which I already know a few things, with those two
names coming from the Norse lore. This is where any
clue could prove especially handy, considering what I
already found out here and there.
> (...)
--
Néo
Néo
> (...)
>
> The Ancient Greek lore seems to
> match perfectly if one excepts the Artemis/Apollo
> puzzle, which I could solve in a very personal way
> thanks to quite some data,
This also refers to my personal solution about
Gleipnir's enigma. As a matter of fact, I did not
post it on alt.religion.asatru for now, also due
to the fact that one step of my personal solution
relies on deciphering this Ancient Greek myth -
which is not directly related to Asatru lore.
--
Néo
Néo
answers here are...
I did quite a few searches on the etymology.
What I found to date seems to easily confirm
the basic meanings of Hnoss and Gersimi, but
I could not find any answer to the following:
- How does one write Hnoss and Gersimi with
the help of Futhark runes - excuse me for my
ignorance here, but if it's clear that the
Ynglinga saga was originally written in Old
Norse, I'm still guessing which alphabet was
used there since I could not check it in a
totally accurate way by examining a bilingual
edition somewhere on the Web, like I have
done for some Greek texts for instance.
Maybe I could not figure out how to properly
use this site, but... I can't seem to find
the Ynglinga saga when performing a search
with "Snorri Sturluson" on:
http://skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/
(Basically, I could use any bilingual - Old
Norse and English - version of the text).
I already dedicated a few hours (years ago)
to discovering the Ancient Futhark alphabet,
so I think I should be able to learn a few
things on my own simply by looking at the
runes - they might tell me a few things.
And it does not seem correct (appropriate) to
me to begin playing with the runes instead of
knowing from which correct historical source
I should start.
This would also tell me how to be sure that I
pronounce correctly these two names. I assume
that the G in "Gersimi" is a hard G, not a
soft G.
Maybe this is is a totally separate issue,
but even when selecting a Nordic character
set in my browser, I can't properly display
some (phonetical, I guess) characters in
pages like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse
Thanks in advance for any answer !
Cross-posting added to:
alt.divination.rune-magick
--
Néo
Néo
> (...)
>
> From what I was shown, and I mean this beyond their
> fascinating abilities to appear exactly like they want
> to, one has (strawberry) blonde hair, while the other
> one has dark hair. Assuming that the Greek lore is a
> sound basis and from those other searches, I can tell
> that Artemis would be the blonde haired one, and Eos,
> the dark haired one.
Well, exploring Wikipedia in whatever other languages
were available seemed a good idea, the Danish version
(no source mentioned though) tells that Gersimi has
blond hair, and Hnoss, dark hair (I used an automated
translation tool that provided very understandable
results).
Since apparently nothing else is told about those two
in the lore, I expect this hair color detail to be the
most distinctive clue I may (ever) find at this level.
I explored a few dictionaries in order to check more in
detail the meanings of those two names, Gersimi & Hnoss.
I'm happy with what I could find on the following online
Old Norse-English dictionaries:
Title: An Icelandic-English Dictionary
Author: Richard Cleasby and Gudbrand Vigfusson
Year: 1874
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/texts/oi_cleasbyvigfusson_about.html
A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic (1910, 551 pp),
by Geir T. Zoėga
http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/
The English-Old Norse dictionary from Ross G. Arthur
http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/language/English-Old_Norse.pdf
Search now solved, except... the Runes part, of course.
--
Néo
Doug Freyburger
>
> - How does one write Hnoss and Gersimi with
> the help of Futhark runes - excuse me for my
> ignorance here,
No fixed spelling rules in runic writing so your guess
is literally as good as anyone elses until and unless
you find a runestone from ancient times with those
names.
> but if it's clear that the
> Ynglinga saga was originally written in Old
> Norse,
Composed does not mean written. Snorri worked
an oral tradition that was dying for lack of written
material and he wrote in Roman letters.
> I'm still guessing which alphabet was
> used there since I could not check it in a
> totally accurate way by examining a bilingual
> edition somewhere on the Web, like I have
> done for some Greek texts for instance.
For Old Norse use the Younger Futhark. For magical
work probably the Elder Futhark for any era. For
Old Saxon the Anglo-Frisian Futhark made famous by
The Hobbit. For any Germanic family pre-800 CE the
Elder Futhark.
Thing is I don't know that the sagas ever were written
out in rune staves.
> Maybe I could not figure out how to properly
> use this site, but... I can't seem to find
> the Ynglinga saga when performing a search
> with "Snorri Sturluson" on:
>http://skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/
> (Basically, I could use any bilingual - Old
> Norse and English - version of the text).
Snorri Sturlsson did not compile or write all of the
sagas. Some have anonymous authorship.
> I already dedicated a few hours (years ago)
> to discovering the Ancient Futhark alphabet,
> so I think I should be able to learn a few
> things on my own simply by looking at the
> runes - they might tell me a few things.
Exactly.
> This would also tell me how to be sure that I
> pronounce correctly these two names. I assume
> that the G in "Gersimi" is a hard G, not a
> soft G.
My extremely unskilled guess is hard G.
Néo
> Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>> - How does one write Hnoss and Gersimi with
>> the help of Futhark runes - excuse me for my
>> ignorance here,
>
> No fixed spelling rules in runic writing so your guess
> is literally as good as anyone elses until and unless
> you find a runestone from ancient times with those
> names.
Fine! I have seen the same phenomenon happening with
for instance family names written in the genealogical
records in English or French of past centuries, where
the name had previously been transmitted orally and
the idea of exact spelling was not their main issue
(rules of thumb), hence slight variations.
From your answers, it's now quite easy to see that I
stumbled into several usual beginner's mistakes, one
after the other. For instance, no way I can apply the
methods that I followed when I some work on ancient
Chinese texts (Yi Jing) - first finding an academic
version of the text, as good as could be, then copying
it alongside a translation using Unicode fonts...
>> but if it's clear that the
>> Ynglinga saga was originally written in Old
>> Norse,
>
> Composed does not mean written. Snorri worked
> an oral tradition that was dying for lack of written
> material and he wrote in Roman letters.
Thanks for stating it - from your explanations, I can
now see that it was implied from the start by the very
fact that no academic version of those ancient texts
included allusions to it having ever been written in a
runic alphabet.
>> I'm still guessing which alphabet was
>> used there since I could not check it in a
>> totally accurate way by examining a bilingual
>> edition somewhere on the Web, like I have
>> done for some Greek texts for instance.
>
> For Old Norse use the Younger Futhark. For magical
> work probably the Elder Futhark for any era. For
> Old Saxon the Anglo-Frisian Futhark made famous by
> The Hobbit. For any Germanic family pre-800 CE the
> Elder Futhark.
I had only examined the Elder Futhark yet, since it
made sense to start from this one. And If I need to,
following your advice, I'll have a deeper look at the
Younger Futhark. Even if I'm a fan of Tolkien and if
history of ancient times is fascinating per se... my
main aim here being merely to study some information
kept in lore and related to Norse Deities.
In fact, my previous issue could be summed up as me
trying to find the supposedly perfect and flawless
bi-unique bijection between a romanisation and the
runes that would have been used instead (if used).
Since there is no such thing... OK. I found the
Junicode font and I'm presently doing my own little
character tables so as to ease any future work on
runes.
The consonants are not difficult to determine from a
romanised text, it's mostly the vowels here - due to
the spelling variations found in dictionaries and
ancient texts, like for instance here, with Gersimi,
Gørsimi, Gørsemi. The "ö" being simply another way
to write down the "ø" if I got it well.
Since you explained that exact spelling could not be
a major issue due to the small amount of historical
references written in runes, I'll take it for granted
that once the consonants are rightly determined, a
little touch of poetic licence is allowed for vowels.
So... I only had to figure out a few remaining newbie
level details, like (_not_) using a doubled consonant
for the final "ss" of "Hnoss" for instance.
> Thing is I don't know that the sagas ever were written
> out in rune staves.
Point well noted. I underestimated the fact that Old
Norse was first an oral language, and overlooked the
fact that Elder Futhark was in fact related to the more
ancient Proto-Norse, written language coming gradually
and (relatively speaking) later and maybe to a lesser
extent into the big picture - that is, if compared to
other ancient languages like Greek or even Chinese -
for instance considering that to date, there are only
350 surviving inscriptions in Elder Futhark.
>> Maybe I could not figure out how to properly
>> use this site, but... I can't seem to find
>> the Ynglinga saga when performing a search
>> with "Snorri Sturluson" on:
>> http://skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/
>> (Basically, I could use any bilingual - Old
>> Norse and English - version of the text).
>
> Snorri Sturlsson did not compile or write all of the
> sagas. Some have anonymous authorship.
Like in other similar lore... where the compiler
did the very best work he could, according to the
then existing circumstances (as opposed to some
wishful thinking showing up centuries later, based
on a romantic and immature idealization of the past)
and we should be really grateful for the work done.
> (...)
>
>> This would also tell me how to be sure that I
>> pronounce correctly these two names. I assume
>> that the G in "Gersimi" is a hard G, not a
>> soft G.
>
> My extremely unskilled guess is hard G.
Fine. I studied some German a long time ago, and
this was also my guess. I think the best rule of
thumb here could be to check the pronunciation in
Icelandic, where the evolution of the language
across centuries was apparently the slowest.
Again, thanks for your help, Doug. I'm confident
your willingness to answer also depended on the
extent to which I was showing I was doing my own
homework, and it's all for the best, the actual
results being subjectively important to me.
--
Néo
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>
> > No fixed spelling rules in runic writing so your guess
> > is literally as good as anyone elses until and unless
> > you find a runestone from ancient times with those
> > names.
>
> Fine! I have seen the same phenomenon happening with
> for instance family names written in the genealogical
> records in English or French of past centuries, where
> the name had previously been transmitted orally and
> the idea of exact spelling was not their main issue
> (rules of thumb), hence slight variations.
Spelling variations are plentiful with my own family name
and almost all other European names. www.freyburger.com
is a winery in Alsace and the pictures of the family look like
folks who would not stand out at our own American family
reunions. But Freyberger, Freiburger and several other
variations abound. Even though most Amercian Asatruar
pronounce Frey as Fray based on Icelandic pronunciation
guides I pronounce it Fry based on my own name. Shrug,
chuckle.
> From your answers, it's now quite easy to see that I
> stumbled into several usual beginner's mistakes, one
> after the other. For instance, no way I can apply the
> methods that I followed when I some work on ancient
> Chinese texts (Yi Jing) - first finding an academic
> version of the text, as good as could be, then copying
> it alongside a translation using Unicode fonts...
I'm not convinced it's newbie and I'm not convinced it's
mistake. There is plentiful subject matter on the I Cing
and Tao Te Ching to work with. In comparison there is
sparse material on the runes and some of the runic
material sucks. Compilations of runic enscriptions are
rare and/or expensive. And since so many runestones
say things like "Uncle Sven went to Shirt Land and
disappeared. His niece Thoragerd raised this stone."
such compilations are dull. And for our spiritual
purposes there's the fact that archeology must seek a
mundane meaning or explanation even when it's clear
an inscription is intended as a spell.
> > Composed does not mean written. Snorri worked
> > an oral tradition that was dying for lack of written
> > material and he wrote in Roman letters.
>
> Thanks for stating it - from your explanations, I can
> now see that it was implied from the start by the very
> fact that no academic version of those ancient texts
> included allusions to it having ever been written in a
> runic alphabet.
Southern writing is plentiful in carved inscriptions, but
much of it is abbreviated and almost none of it is
prose narratives. Southern writing was done on paper
or papyrus or parchment and some survived in warm
dry climats. Northern writing tended to be on sticks
because of the knive-carved nature of runes and very few
wooden carvings survived. How much was ever written
but did not survive? No one will ever know lost likely.
There are definitely pictures and small inscriptions that
appear to reference well known stories from the lore, so
we do know how old some of the tales are.
> ... my
> main aim here being merely to study some information
> kept in lore and related to Norse Deities.
That being tied to ancient names the older staves
are probably better. I don't get the impression that
finding newer "spellings" are your goal in that sense.
> In fact, my previous issue could be summed up as me
> trying to find the supposedly perfect and flawless
> bi-unique bijection between a romanisation and the
> runes that would have been used instead (if used).
> Since there is no such thing... OK. I found the
> Junicode font and I'm presently doing my own little
> character tables so as to ease any future work on
> runes.
Chuckle. That's not even available between Cyrillic
and Roman or Greek and Roman.
> The consonants are not difficult to determine from a
> romanised text, it's mostly the vowels here - due to
> the spelling variations found in dictionaries and
> ancient texts, like for instance here, with Gersimi,
> Gørsimi, Gørsemi. The "ö" being simply another way
> to write down the "ø" if I got it well.
This reminds me of the movie Stargate where an
exporation team encounters people who speak a form
of ancient Egyptian. It's known from the Rosseta
Stone that ancient Egyptian is related to Coptic but
how much vowel drift and how many replaced words ...
> So... I only had to figure out a few remaining newbie
> level details, like (_not_) using a doubled consonant
> for the final "ss" of "Hnoss" for instance.
What I learned in school German (my great grandparents
refused to speak German/French/etc having moved to
America) is the double s is a rule done to acheive uniform
spelling. English has many such spelling rules that work
poorly at best "I before E except after C". Since runes
fell out of use long before standardized spelling rules
such mechanisms will not be found on ancient inscriptions.
> > Thing is I don't know that the sagas ever were written
> > out in rune staves.
In fact the sagas as such are histories of Iceland, Norway,
Danemark and Sweden from a time when Roman writing
was already known. They do have mythical parts but
the main stories are from times near the conversion.
> Point well noted. I underestimated the fact that Old
> Norse was first an oral language, and overlooked the
> fact that Elder Futhark was in fact related to the more
> ancient Proto-Norse, written language coming gradually
> and (relatively speaking) later and maybe to a lesser
> extent into the big picture - that is, if compared to
> other ancient languages like Greek or even Chinese -
The poems and songs of the Eddas could be a different
story. The Saemdunr Edda no used as the primary text
for the Poetic Edda (best known lore) was written in
Roman characters but who knows if it was available in
runes. Those runes would have been Younger Futhark
at the time. The Snorri Edda, Prose Edda (next best
lore) was written to stop the decline of an oral tradition.
Saxo Grammaticus from the mainland was written in
Latin not Norse. All older than the sagas.
> for instance considering that to date, there are only
> 350 surviving inscriptions in Elder Futhark.
Plus older inscriptions going back through Etruscan
ruins and Turkic ruins *if* you accept the hypothesis
of that lineage for the rune staves. Still tiny compared
to the vast amount of material in Latin, Greek, Coptic
Egyptian and so on.
> ... I think the best rule of
> thumb here could be to check the pronunciation in
> Icelandic, where the evolution of the language
> across centuries was apparently the slowest.
Agreed.
> Again, thanks for your help, Doug. I'm confident
> your willingness to answer also depended on the
> extent to which I was showing I was doing my own
> homework, and it's all for the best, the actual
> results being subjectively important to me.
"Asatru. The religion with homework." It's at the same
time a serious statement and a wisecrack.
Néo
>
> Spelling variations are plentiful with my own family name
> and almost all other European names. www.freyburger.com
> is a winery in Alsace and the pictures of the family look like
> folks who would not stand out at our own American family
> reunions. But Freyberger, Freiburger and several other
> variations abound. Even though most Amercian Asatruar
> pronounce Frey as Fray based on Icelandic pronunciation
> guides I pronounce it Fry based on my own name. Shrug,
> chuckle.
And it would be irrelevant and pointless to try to oppose
these families based on their different pronunciations of
the same (written) family name, each one being duly used
to its own tradition and habits. :-)
>> From your answers, it's now quite easy to see that I
>> stumbled into several usual beginner's mistakes, one
>> after the other. For instance, no way I can apply the
>> methods that I followed when I some work on ancient
>> Chinese texts (Yi Jing) - first finding an academic
>> version of the text, as good as could be, then copying
>> it alongside a translation using Unicode fonts...
>
> I'm not convinced it's newbie and I'm not convinced it's
> mistake.
Well, it's not about flagellating myself, as we all learn
(hopefully) through trial and error - I simply meant this
approach did not suit the specifics of the written sources
of Norse lore and the corpus written in runes.
> There is plentiful subject matter on the I Cing
> and Tao Te Ching to work with.
Yes... maybe too much. :-)
Originally, I wanted to use the practical knowledge that
I had gained from using the Yi Ching as a divination tool
and what could be learned from existing translations, with
all their known defects, in order to produce something more
faithful to the text, which (if properly put in perspective)
was supposedly understood by people with various levels of
education (or so I thought then).
Apart from time constraints, I stopped working on the Yi
Jing (a long time hobby) at a moment time where I had to
recognize I had obtained good results on the "classical"
layer (translated the text of the figures and a rather big
part of the Ten Wings) with the humble aim to get rid of
the most obvious interpolations where those commentaries
tried to dictate the meaning of the text for "ideological"
reasons (Confucianism becoming the official ideology of a
centralized state) without much consideration for the very
meaning of the text. I had followed an empirical approach
in which I wanted to keep to the simple truth that the Yi
Jing originally was a shaman's tool, a results-oriented
approach to overall strategy.
I then began to browse more deeply into some of the recent
findings of scholars, hoping to benefit from more "cleanup"
work due to archeological discoveries and academic studies.
This was only to discover that the layer on which I had
worked so far was in fact much more frail than what it had
pretended to be all way long. In fact, the original layer
(which existence was proved by the very fact that it had
helped the Zhou dynasty to seize power from the previous
Shang dynasty) dated from the 12th century BC, and one
millenium later, the very meaning of quite some characters
in the original text had been reconstructed by scholars
who were quite often lost with the original text.
So I now had something usable that referred... not to the
original work, but a reconstruction made nearly 2000 years
ago (which historical importance was real and guenuine in
several domains, like philosophy, governance etc.) But my
"clever amateur" work with the classical Chinese language
and a curious mind could not enable me to go further.
> In comparison there is
> sparse material on the runes and some of the runic
> material sucks. Compilations of runic enscriptions are
> rare and/or expensive. And since so many runestones
> say things like "Uncle Sven went to Shirt Land and
> disappeared. His niece Thoragerd raised this stone."
> such compilations are dull. And for our spiritual
> purposes there's the fact that archeology must seek a
> mundane meaning or explanation even when it's clear
> an inscription is intended as a spell.
Very well said. I think this issue permeates whole parts
of archeology, including the origins of mankind... lots
of issues that our present times' mainstream thought does
not seem interested/able to learn.
On the "mundane meaning" issue... I have met (over the
Internet) a very friendly and gifted Yi Jing scholar with
which I exchanged a few e-mails. He told me that the
shamanic approach of the Yi had been so overlooked by
most scholars that it could not harm if I tried to see
what I could obtain. So I tried...
The first "message" that I got said in a very straight
(nearly brutal), matter of fact way that the Yi Jing
was first and foremost a (most efficient) weapon. This
was not a big discovery, only a very good reminder.
After I had come to realize how partial my previous
work had been, I tried to establish a spiritual contact
with the three major Taoist philosophers, Lao Zi, Lie
Zi and Zhuang Zi. I prepared it in length... including
dishes that they would presumably like (a Beijing duck
and a drink). I got what I had deserved... while I was
preparing the food, Lilith popped in and kept wanting
to eat mouthfuls of it before it was finished, which
made me ranting. When I faced my guests, I introduced
both of us, then everybody was busy stuffing oneself.
Then my spiritual father popped in, along with six big,
black horses... I never grasped that bit. End of vision.
It's only during a second contact with Lao Zi that I had
a chance to talk about work. I explained him the results
so far of my translation work. His answer was that I had
done what was required in order to obtain a satisfactory
knowledge of the Laws of Change (yin and yang and all
that). Which was a very strong compliment, and it also
meant that I could forget about the idea to publish
something (in line with my assigned priorities anyway).
I began to come back to the commentaries, trying to find
some sort of esoterical clue... and it was there, buried
in plain sight, the part where they explain (for what's
worth) how this mysterious book had come into existence.
Through (telepathic) contacts with "spirits of light".
They even gave (via a character which use in the text
could not be considered as standard) the origin of this
possible contact - Orion.
Shortly afterwards, I received the clearest telepathic
message I ever got so far. I could ask, as often as I
wanted to, the message to be rewound if ever I had not
fully understood one word. I could accurately hear the
words, I could see the speaker, as well as perceive her
thoughts down to their smallest nuances.
So... I was dictated a short text that (brilliantly)
exposed "their" point of view about what was, to them,
a proof of a non-aggressive interference in the course
of events, here on Earth. As could be checked by the
very fact that this superiority thereby thus given to
this Ancient Chinese civilization had never been used
by its beneficiaries, in the many centuries that did
follow, in order to try to conquer the whole world by
brute force. And "they" now wanted to bring forth this
solid proof (as shown by time) that they were able to
initiate such non-aggressive interferences on us all.
A context-independent expert system was something too
much in advance (an anachronism if there ever was one)
for a bronze age civilization to produce it by itself.
The whole thing had been buried until it was time to
be revealed - a moment where Earthlings would know not
only what an expert system was, but also had found out
the intrinsic limitations of what they could build so
far (costly and hyper-specialized systems) - as opposed
to one that was operational in problems that we consider
as not directly computable (only via thick layers of
statistics), because of the heavy role played by the
human factor and of the so huge number of parameters
involved (in strategy issues).
Of course, I can't prove anything, maybe the whole idea
will seem convincing (by itself) to some. I can only add
that I very well knew the author of this message, so as
far as I'm concerned, I knew I could trust her, but this
is only me, of course.
The last joke with this story is, when I told the whole
story to this scholar, he replied by telling me that he
was also using such communication methods at a personal
level (not detailing any further what he got so far with
such experiments) and that he would appreciate if such
stuff could be presented according to academic criteria
for publication. Which was a sort of practical joke... I
could have (painfully) tried to study more in-depth the
initial commentary in Chinese, but I obviously lacked
the full background (and the experience).
>> (...)
>
> Southern writing is plentiful in carved inscriptions, but
> much of it is abbreviated and almost none of it is
> prose narratives. Southern writing was done on paper
> or papyrus or parchment and some survived in warm
> dry climats. Northern writing tended to be on sticks
> because of the knive-carved nature of runes and very few
> wooden carvings survived. How much was ever written
> but did not survive? No one will ever know lost likely.
>
> There are definitely pictures and small inscriptions that
> appear to reference well known stories from the lore, so
> we do know how old some of the tales are.
Patient work with indirect clues...
>> ... my
>> main aim here being merely to study some information
>> kept in lore and related to Norse Deities.
>
> That being tied to ancient names the older staves
> are probably better. I don't get the impression that
> finding newer "spellings" are your goal in that sense.
Exactly. I wanted to come as close as was reasonably
possible to the way it would have been written down.
Mind you, writing it down in runes was a sort of nice
extra, the most important was about finding the name
with as much certainty as possible in such cases.
>> In fact, my previous issue could be summed up as me
>> trying to find the supposedly perfect and flawless
>> bi-unique bijection between a romanisation and the
>> runes that would have been used instead (if used).
>> Since there is no such thing... OK. I found the
>> Junicode font and I'm presently doing my own little
>> character tables so as to ease any future work on
>> runes.
>
> Chuckle. That's not even available between Cyrillic
> and Roman or Greek and Roman.
:-)
>> The consonants are not difficult to determine from a
>> romanised text, it's mostly the vowels here - due to
>> the spelling variations found in dictionaries and
>> ancient texts, like for instance here, with Gersimi,
>> Gørsimi, Gørsemi. The "ö" being simply another way
>> to write down the "ø" if I got it well.
>
> This reminds me of the movie Stargate where an
> exporation team encounters people who speak a form
> of ancient Egyptian. It's known from the Rosseta
> Stone that ancient Egyptian is related to Coptic but
> how much vowel drift and how many replaced words ...
This movie shows a few interesting ideas, though - I'd
say - not always put forwards in the best possible ways.
I once was told some quite interesting things about the
concept of star gates and possible alien artefacts here
on Earth (and attempts to control them), unfortunately
the person (as I could check for myself) was both in the
know about a few things, and not at all reliable.
Maybe Ancient Egypt was seen by many scholars as more
fascinating (fashionable) than those of its inhabitants
in modern times who were the descendants of the Ancient
Egyptians...
>> So... I only had to figure out a few remaining newbie
>> level details, like (_not_) using a doubled consonant
>> for the final "ss" of "Hnoss" for instance.
>
> What I learned in school German (my great grandparents
> refused to speak German/French/etc having moved to
> America) is the double s is a rule done to acheive uniform
> spelling. English has many such spelling rules that work
> poorly at best "I before E except after C". Since runes
> fell out of use long before standardized spelling rules
> such mechanisms will not be found on ancient inscriptions.
Thanks for confirming. I must say I found this piece of
information by sheer luck, while browsing a dictionary.
>>> Thing is I don't know that the sagas ever were written
>>> out in rune staves.
>
> In fact the sagas as such are histories of Iceland, Norway,
> Danemark and Sweden from a time when Roman writing
> was already known. They do have mythical parts but
> the main stories are from times near the conversion.
Layers upon layers... (not unlike my Chinese puzzle).
Well, such is Life.
>> Point well noted. I underestimated the fact that Old
>> Norse was first an oral language, and overlooked the
>> fact that Elder Futhark was in fact related to the more
>> ancient Proto-Norse, written language coming gradually
>> and (relatively speaking) later and maybe to a lesser
>> extent into the big picture - that is, if compared to
>> other ancient languages like Greek or even Chinese -
>
> The poems and songs of the Eddas could be a different
> story. The Saemdunr Edda no used as the primary text
> for the Poetic Edda (best known lore) was written in
> Roman characters but who knows if it was available in
> runes. Those runes would have been Younger Futhark
> at the time. The Snorri Edda, Prose Edda (next best
> lore) was written to stop the decline of an oral tradition.
> Saxo Grammaticus from the mainland was written in
> Latin not Norse. All older than the sagas.
One thing I'm not sure I understand well is how Younger
Futhark came to drop "theoretically useful" (for lack of
a better expression) consonants...
>> for instance considering that to date, there are only
>> 350 surviving inscriptions in Elder Futhark.
>
> Plus older inscriptions going back through Etruscan
> ruins and Turkic ruins *if* you accept the hypothesis
> of that lineage for the rune staves. Still tiny compared
> to the vast amount of material in Latin, Greek, Coptic
> Egyptian and so on.
I also bumped into Orkhon runes... I was amazed... I
decided I would not dwelve into those for now.
Yes, it could be that Norse folks of old times were
less eager than other civilizations to write tons of
stuff.
>> ... I think the best rule of
>> thumb here could be to check the pronunciation in
>> Icelandic, where the evolution of the language
>> across centuries was apparently the slowest.
>
> Agreed.
It makes sense. Well, I'm happy I survived my "101
Runes" crash course then. :-)
>> Again, thanks for your help, Doug. I'm confident
>> your willingness to answer also depended on the
>> extent to which I was showing I was doing my own
>> homework, and it's all for the best, the actual
>> results being subjectively important to me.
>
> "Asatru. The religion with homework." It's at the same
> time a serious statement and a wisecrack.
This is one of the wisest advices one could give to
anybody - whatever the topic. I see it as the best
thing one could do in order to avoid fossilization
- a common issue with religions.
I'm not trying to push for my neo-shamanic path by
saying this here (and it would be pointless since it
would be utterly meaningless to try that), but Gawds,
there indeed is an awful lot of homework in it.
--
Néo
Allan
"Néo" <ni...@adresski.ru> wrote in message
news:48c70081$0$7094$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
Jumping in on this here, rather than getting it in the neck for top posting.
There would obviously be a great deal of 'Norse,' lore in France, as the
Normans were essentially Viking settlers, this would have the been exported
to Spain, and Portugal, via the Templar Knights.
In regard to Doug's comment on the Celts and Germanic tribes there is a flaw
in the argument regarding cross over. The Celts never committed any of their
sacred texts to writing, Ogham was only used in commerce, and war. What has
been transcribed was done by the early missionary priests, who had their own
agenda.
IMHO the Celtic and Norse deities are seperated by a chasm wider than the
grand canyon. There are a few Roman sources of the time which point to the
Celtic belief in re-incarnation, which was acknowledged by Julius Ceasar as
the reason the Celts fought like demons. Vikings had to get stoked on
'shrooms. Celtic lore did not die out with Christianity, the last recorded
pagan idol was destroyed, along with the priest, during the reign of Henry
Vlll. It happened in Narberth, Wales, and contemporary reports state it was
for political, rather than religious reasons. It seems safe to assume the
tales were kept circulating long after the event. A good example being those
recorded in the Mabinogi in the 18C & 19C. Which differ in many respects to
the traditional Anglo Saxon versions, especially regarding Arthur and his
knights.
It also needs stating that modern 'druids,' are a Victorian invention.
That said, I freely admit my own prejudices here, IMHO the only good Viking
is a dead one, and 1200 years isn't long enough to wipe that grudge out
either. I flatly refuse to set foot in Italy for the same reason! There are
no references to Celtic practices, apart from those made by other races,
who, for their own reasons, had no reason to be truthful, or understanding
of the Celtic system. Any comparison is pointless, and, essentially, non -
existent. IMHO
Allan
Néo
>
> "Néo" <ni...@adresski.ru> wrote in message
> news:48c70081$0$7094$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>>> Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>>>> (...)
>
> Jumping in on this here, rather than getting it in the neck for top
> posting.
Who would want to transform such a peaceful discussion
into a fight? <g>
> There would obviously be a great deal of 'Norse,' lore in France, as
> the Normans were essentially Viking settlers, this would have the
> been exported to Spain, and Portugal, via the Templar Knights.
Well, genetically speaking, the biggest part of my genes
seems to be from Normandy (the famous Nordmen) and Gaul...
I don't think I'm overlooking it, it could mean more to me
than I actually think it does, I can't tell.
For one thing, I have granted more importance to finding
out about my spiritual roots (various incarnations, and
ultimately, my spiritual lineage, a long quest going all
the way up to possibilities in terms of soul bearing).
This being an utterly subjective and personal approach,
of course.
Also, France's mentality seems to me as being much less
inclined than in North-Western Europe to grant its proper
place and importance to those ancient cultural roots. Too
much catholicism, free-masonry and/or else... Plus some
(already discussed, if I remember well) quite superficial
attempts in the late 19th century to instrumentalize this
ancient past into some short-sighted political issues,
ending in the famous "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois" sentence
that made its way into official schoolbooks that were
read by primary school teachers in the West Indies where
they have this French flag.
On top of that, I keep thinking that the Templar Knights
tried to bring back some Gnostic stuff from the Crusades
in the Near East, and that this was one of the reasons
why they met such a sad fate.
> In regard to Doug's comment on the Celts and Germanic tribes there is
> a flaw in the argument regarding cross over.
I'll let all of you try to sort this out... I have no
idea about what one should/could think of this issue.
> The Celts never
> committed any of their sacred texts to writing, Ogham was only used
> in commerce, and war. What has been transcribed was done by the early
> missionary priests, who had their own agenda.
Which in turn, reminds me of the "neo-con propaganda"
found in Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallicum (the only
text in latin that I ever studied at school)... where
the Gauls were utterly demonized in order to better
serve the thirst for military conquest clearly shown
by his author, whatever the cost in terms of human
lives and the "soft" cultural genocide that followed.
> IMHO the Celtic and Norse deities are seperated by a chasm wider than
> the grand canyon. There are a few Roman sources of the time which
> point to the Celtic belief in re-incarnation, which was acknowledged
> by Julius Ceasar as the reason the Celts fought like demons. Vikings
> had to get stoked on 'shrooms. Celtic lore did not die out with
> Christianity, the last recorded pagan idol was destroyed, along with
> the priest, during the reign of Henry Vlll. It happened in Narberth,
> Wales, and contemporary reports state it was for political, rather
> than religious reasons. It seems safe to assume the tales were kept
> circulating long after the event. A good example being those recorded
> in the Mabinogi in the 18C & 19C. Which differ in many respects to
> the traditional Anglo Saxon versions, especially regarding Arthur and
> his knights.
>
> It also needs stating that modern 'druids,' are a Victorian
> invention.
I have seen such attempts in France, stemming from
some group of free-masons. I would not bet on their
overall moral integrity, so to speak.
> That said, I freely admit my own prejudices here, IMHO the only good
> Viking is a dead one, and 1200 years isn't long enough to wipe that
> grudge out either. I flatly refuse to set foot in Italy for the same
> reason! There are no references to Celtic practices, apart from
> those made by other races, who, for their own reasons, had no reason
> to be truthful, or understanding of the Celtic system. Any comparison
> is pointless, and, essentially, non - existent. IMHO
>
> Allan
Taking into account the historical issues that you
mention, if your point is that Celtic traditions
may indeed seem even more difficult to revive than
for a few other Ancient IE cultures... I'd follow
you here. I only hope you will keep your sword in
its case a little longer. :-)
My own attempts at examining possible connections
between the Ancient Greek and Nordic mythologies
could well be judged harshly. I gave up for now the
idea of writing down my conclusions in detail, but
in a nutshell, I of course had to admit that during
the course of human history, many external factors
had mixed up or garbled lots of things for purely
political/non-spiritual motives.
Apart from this, a personal guess of mine was that
Deities could - and did, over time - exert their
spiritual influence over many "tribes", at the very
least, within the same IE group - of course, doing
that under various shades, each time taking into
account various specific issues, cultural mindsets
and all, but potentially always with the idea of a
bigger picture within. In other words, I did not
like the idea that Deities were that parochial...
And I began to see if and how a more global picture
could be found.
Judging from what could be obtained through direct
contacts in the World Above, the answer seems to be
a vibrant "yes, but"... "Yes" for the possibility of
such a synthesis. "But"... only in ways considered
as appropriate by them (Up Above), that is including
in terms of picking the right moment for it all, etc.
A situation in which They always hold all the keys
enabling the whole process to happen (or not).
Of course, I tried to never forget that some of the
discrepancies observed had been caused by various
"horizontal" (non-spiritual, but society-level)
considerations, for example in things like the
respective importance granted to male and female
Deities in Classical (post-archaic) Greece, which
had known some evolutions due to the development
(like in other cultural mindsets at roughly the
same periods in time) of the patriarchal mindset.
But it also appeared to me that another series of
apparent discrepancies when trying to establish some
connections between two sets of mythologies could
well be totally on purpose. More than discrepancies,
there were interesting details that stemmed not from
what was actually told, but from what was untold. In
other words, it's like within each IE mythology that
I happened to examine, as told and kept during ages,
there were "holes" that would prevent anybody from
establishing some connections until a time (our time)
would come, in which the diffusion of the (surviving)
lore would reach new heights (I mean not only through
the loss of influence of mass monotheism as compared
to a few generations before, the better opportunities
to learn foreign languages, but more generally, the
wider than before availability of written documents,
then the age of the Internet). This, coupled with
some fresh input from Up Above, would enable at least
a few ones to get a global pictures better than what
had previously been possible any time before since
ages. (Or not... those were my two cents anyway.)
--
Néo
Allan
> Allan a écrit :
>>
>> "Néo" <ni...@adresski.ru> wrote in message
>> news:48c70081$0$7094$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>>> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>>>> Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>>>>> (...)
>>
>> Jumping in on this here, rather than getting it in the neck for top
>> posting.
>
> Who would want to transform such a peaceful discussion
> into a fight? <g>
If your beliefs aren't worth defending then what is? :)
Every 400 or so years there has been an attempt to 'overthrow Rome.' Patrick
and the Celtic missionaries were just one in a long line that ended in the
reformation.
>
>
>> In regard to Doug's comment on the Celts and Germanic tribes there is
>> a flaw in the argument regarding cross over.
>
> I'll let all of you try to sort this out... I have no
> idea about what one should/could think of this issue.
>
>
>> The Celts never
>> committed any of their sacred texts to writing, Ogham was only used
>> in commerce, and war. What has been transcribed was done by the early
>> missionary priests, who had their own agenda.
>
> Which in turn, reminds me of the "neo-con propaganda"
> found in Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallicum (the only
> text in latin that I ever studied at school)... where
> the Gauls were utterly demonized in order to better
> serve the thirst for military conquest clearly shown
> by his author, whatever the cost in terms of human
> lives and the "soft" cultural genocide that followed.
The Gauls had the sense to send their sons' to Ynys Mon, the druid
'university.' It was the only unification extant among the Celtic tribes.
Again it's a big difference from the Germanic peoples.
I didn't intend starting a battle at all, but it's something I feel
vehemently about. OK I haven't looked for similarities, then again I've
never felt the need, or inclination, to study Norse lore to that extent. It
goes beyond personal squabbles over newsgroups too. It really is a soul
thing, and that's the only way I can explain it.
>
>
> My own attempts at examining possible connections
> between the Ancient Greek and Nordic mythologies
> could well be judged harshly. I gave up for now the
> idea of writing down my conclusions in detail, but
> in a nutshell, I of course had to admit that during
> the course of human history, many external factors
> had mixed up or garbled lots of things for purely
> political/non-spiritual motives.
>
> Apart from this, a personal guess of mine was that
> Deities could - and did, over time - exert their
> spiritual influence over many "tribes", at the very
> least, within the same IE group - of course, doing
> that under various shades, each time taking into
> account various specific issues, cultural mindsets
> and all, but potentially always with the idea of a
> bigger picture within. In other words, I did not
> like the idea that Deities were that parochial...
Deities are not parochial, but we can only understand any deity to the
limits of our own understanding. Culture, and upbringing can be abandoned
and relearned in the quest for knowledge. Ever since the first human looked
up at the sky and wondered what it was all about, and felt \ heard their
answer it's been a series of Chinese whispers ever since, simply because we
are all different. IMHO
>
>
> And I began to see if and how a more global picture
> could be found.
>
> Judging from what could be obtained through direct
> contacts in the World Above, the answer seems to be
> a vibrant "yes, but"... "Yes" for the possibility of
> such a synthesis. "But"... only in ways considered
> as appropriate by them (Up Above), that is including
> in terms of picking the right moment for it all, etc.
> A situation in which They always hold all the keys
> enabling the whole process to happen (or not).
The 'but,' is the important thing, and everyone's 'but,' is different.
Hold on only to that which is permanent works for me. My way of looking at
it is to ignore all the Chinese whispers generated through the ages, and
just look up into the sky. Maybe that should mellow my attitude about the
Celts, and what they held sacred, and, when the sky falls on my head, I'll
consider it.
--
> Néo
>
Néo
>
> "Néo" <ni...@adresski.ru> wrote in message
> news:48c7ca1f$0$7096$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>> Allan a écrit :
>>>
>>> "Néo" <ni...@adresski.ru> wrote in message
>>> news:48c70081$0$7094$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>>>> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>>>>> Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>>>>>> (...)
>>>
>>> Jumping in on this here, rather than getting it in the neck for
>>> top posting.
>>
>> Who would want to transform such a peaceful discussion into a
>> fight? <g>
>
> If your beliefs aren't worth defending then what is? :)
I got more than my share of mud throwing recently. I'm
simply wise enough to know when it's worth picking the
sword. :-)
>> (...)
>>
>> On top of that, I keep thinking that the Templar Knights tried to
>> bring back some Gnostic stuff from the Crusades in the Near East,
>> and that this was one of the reasons why they met such a sad fate.
>
> Every 400 or so years there has been an attempt to 'overthrow Rome.'
> Patrick and the Celtic missionaries were just one in a long line
> that ended in the reformation.
I'm not sure about the reformation, we could leave such
issues to the hard-core monotheists who enjoyed so much
spilling blood between themselves about it all... all
the more since you'd need to develop your idea here, in
order for me to grasp it better.
What's the ongoing attempt to "overthrow Rome" then ?
Stopping NATO's barbarians at the gates of Russia ? Or
maybe even helping the truth about 9/11 emerge ? OK,
I'm most certainly missing your point anyway. And this
thread does not seem to want to degenerate anyway. ;-)
>> (...)
>
> The Gauls had the sense to send their sons' to Ynys Mon, the druid
> 'university.' It was the only unification extant among the Celtic
> tribes. Again it's a big difference from the Germanic peoples.
It could be. I mean, I'm listening... learning what I
can here and there, from you as well as any others...
still experiencing this weird feeling of foreignness
that seems to be my present fate. I can't pretend that
for instance either the knowledge my own genetic roots
pointing towards Norse and Gallic people, or having
lived in Brittany since nearly 15 years, seemed to
bring concrete results as far as my integration into
"something local" is concerned.
Only my recent attempts at exploring IE mythologies,
which stemmed from subjective needs that gradually
arose somewhere along my path, made me begin to root
myself into "the beginning of something".
>> (...)
>
> I didn't intend starting a battle at all, but it's something I feel
> vehemently about. OK I haven't looked for similarities, then again
> I've never felt the need, or inclination, to study Norse lore to that
> extent. It goes beyond personal squabbles over newsgroups too. It
> really is a soul thing, and that's the only way I can explain it.
OK, I see your point better. Maybe a remembrance of a
past life is making its way into your conscious mind.
The only "common point" so far could be a strong urge
to express "this is what's important to me", straight
from one's heart, each and any of us possibly having
a different tale to tell.
>> My own attempts at examining possible connections between the
>> Ancient Greek and Nordic mythologies could well be judged harshly.
>> I gave up for now the idea of writing down my conclusions in
>> detail, but in a nutshell, I of course had to admit that during the
>> course of human history, many external factors had mixed up or
>> garbled lots of things for purely political/non-spiritual motives.
>>
>> Apart from this, a personal guess of mine was that Deities could -
>> and did, over time - exert their spiritual influence over many
>> "tribes", at the very least, within the same IE group - of course,
>> doing that under various shades, each time taking into account
>> various specific issues, cultural mindsets and all, but potentially
>> always with the idea of a bigger picture within. In other words, I
>> did not like the idea that Deities were that parochial...
>
> Deities are not parochial, but we can only understand any deity to
> the limits of our own understanding. Culture, and upbringing can be
> abandoned and relearned in the quest for knowledge. Ever since the
> first human looked up at the sky and wondered what it was all about,
> and felt \ heard their answer it's been a series of Chinese whispers
> ever since, simply because we are all different. IMHO
Agreed. To me, a given lore is like a bride made up of
ropes, it should be taken care of because it gives us
some access to a sort of Platonician cave where Deities
have piled a few gems. Like in the story about the moon
and the finger if you like. At one stage, one simply has
to know how to venture across such a bridge in order to
pass over a precipice... yet a bridge is only that, a
bridge. Time and experience may enable anyone to cross
several ones, but one at a time, beginning to wonder if
several bridges end up to the very same cave - or to
different ones.
>> And I began to see if and how a more global picture could be found.
>>
>>
>> Judging from what could be obtained through direct contacts in the
>> World Above, the answer seems to be a vibrant "yes, but"... "Yes"
>> for the possibility of such a synthesis. "But"... only in ways
>> considered as appropriate by them (Up Above), that is including in
>> terms of picking the right moment for it all, etc. A situation in
>> which They always hold all the keys enabling the whole process to
>> happen (or not).
>
> The 'but,' is the important thing, and everyone's 'but,' is
> different.
I'd say it could be the same "but" as seen from above,
yet it would take as many forms and shapes for the
individuals concerned. I have seen a few people very
eager to learn the underlying intricacies, the ones I
saw so far were quite eager to see if there were ways
to actually fool them Up Above. Once I understood that,
I was quite less sad when thinking about everything
that they Up Above did not seem eager to tell me about
this kind of little secrets. YMMV.
If I read him well, Doug brought me rather similar
advice on the same topic of "whispers"... echoes...
Well, the World Above seems to be more permanent than
life here, in this plane, and me considering it as the
only true reference plane did not harm me yet, or so
it seems at least. For the rest, all the rest... yeah,
let's wait until Heavens open up/the sky falls over
our heads, then we'll know more about it all, I'd say.
--
Néo
Doug Freyburger
>
> It gives some information about Hnoss and
> Gersimi, said to be two daugthers of Freyja
> and Ód (the latter being most probably Odin,
> as already discussed and kindly confirmed to
> me).
A bit of searching suggests that the names mean
something like this -
Od - Inspiration, fury
Freya - Passion, pleasure
Hnoss - Treasure, gold
Gersimi - Gems, beauty
Set aside for the moment that these are the names of
spirits who are in some sense people and go by the
meaning. It gives a very clear view of how material
success is acheived in the world - A modern expression
is the book "Do what you love. The money will follow."
The path to material wealth is marrying your own
inspiration with your own passion. Pour fury into your
work, work for the pleasure of it, and your product will
be superior enough to make you rich. Its the difference
between a Calling and a Job.
This doesn't have to actually be about physical wealth
either. Which shaman is the one to bring treasure out
of the spirit realm? The one steeped in tradition acting
out of duty, or the one who pours all of his/her passion
into the inspiration? Yeah, I know, give me both in the
same person whenever possible ...
Taken at these levels the names alone are advice of
great value. Any good lore will have layer after layer of
symbolic meaning and poetic truth when not taken
literally and this is a good example of that principle in
this lore.
In school I was taught that the ancient god(desse)s were
nothing more than explanations of the parts of the world
that people did not understand. As a result, when
science progressed to understand electricity, static
discharge, sparks, sound waves when air rebounds into
the vacuum created by an electric arc, that was the day
that Thor vanished in a puff of logic. And all the other
deities vanished as similar times across the centuries.
The last time I asked him Thor found this notion to be
hilarious. Thor is just as present now as he ever was.
His personality reminds people of thunder and that's not the
same thing as explaining away thunder.
So I have doubt that Hnoss and Gersimi are spirits or
people or whatever whose personalities remind people
of treasure and gems. Whether that really makes them
the children of Odr and Freya I can't say.
My theory is that spirits don't have material bodies in their
natural form. They "exist" but I don't know what the word
"exist" means in this context. Lacking physical bodies,
does their lineage as described in the lore really mean
parentage? I don't think so, not in human terms as such.
So with personalities and names that make such a strong
and beautiful lesson, the parentage in this case may well
have been figured out for the lesson not out of direct
contact. Or the information out of direct contact may have
been intended to deliver this lesson of how to conduct one's
life.
Néo
> Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>> It gives some information about Hnoss and
>> Gersimi, said to be two daugthers of Freyja
>> and Ód (the latter being most probably Odin,
>> as already discussed and kindly confirmed to
>> me).
>
> A bit of searching suggests that the names mean
> something like this -
>
> Od - Inspiration, fury
> Freya - Passion, pleasure
Thanks for having dwelved into these names.
> Hnoss - Treasure, gold
> Gersimi - Gems, beauty
At first, I thought it was me who tended to mix it
all up, but it looks like those words are similar
enough to see their corresponding meanings overlap
to some extent.
As seen in a few dictionaries... (I copied excerpts
that seemed to be relevant in a work file)
Gersimi
Cleasby Vigfusson:
usually ger-semi
costly wire, coils of wire being used as money
a costly thing, jewel
Geir T. Zoëga:
gør-semi, -simi (pl.-semar), f. costly thing,
jewel, treasure
Ross G. Arthur:
treasure
Hnoss
Cleasby Vigfusson:
a costly thing, esp. in plur. of a lady's ornaments
the prize of glory
Geir T. Zoëga:
costly thing, ornament
Ross G. Arthur:
ornament
My aim is not to start any lenghty semantical discussion
here, only to point out the closeness of meanings. Like
if it all was firstly indicating a closeness between the
two sisters, a clear intent to give them nice, evocative
names, and if all the rest was but shades in poetry.
> Set aside for the moment that these are the names of
> spirits who are in some sense people and go by the
> meaning. It gives a very clear view of how material
> success is acheived in the world - A modern expression
> is the book "Do what you love. The money will follow."
> The path to material wealth is marrying your own
> inspiration with your own passion. Pour fury into your
> work, work for the pleasure of it, and your product will
> be superior enough to make you rich. Its the difference
> between a Calling and a Job.
>
> This doesn't have to actually be about physical wealth
> either. Which shaman is the one to bring treasure out
> of the spirit realm? The one steeped in tradition acting
> out of duty, or the one who pours all of his/her passion
> into the inspiration? Yeah, I know, give me both in the
> same person whenever possible ...
>
> Taken at these levels the names alone are advice of
> great value. Any good lore will have layer after layer of
> symbolic meaning and poetic truth when not taken
> literally and this is a good example of that principle in
> this lore.
I second this approach here, at least for a good start
in symbolism and wisdom. I'd even see it as some sort
of proof of a relevant coexistence and interpenetration
of various levels of meanings. Density, opportunities
for synchronicities... not something that can be kept
within a tiny box, at a single level (I reckon I'm
maybe expressing my thoughts very badly here).
> In school I was taught that the ancient god(desse)s were
> nothing more than explanations of the parts of the world
> that people did not understand. As a result, when
> science progressed to understand electricity, static
> discharge, sparks, sound waves when air rebounds into
> the vacuum created by an electric arc, that was the day
> that Thor vanished in a puff of logic. And all the other
> deities vanished as similar times across the centuries.
> The last time I asked him Thor found this notion to be
> hilarious. Thor is just as present now as he ever was.
> His personality reminds people of thunder and that's not the
> same thing as explaining away thunder.
Exactly... what we know is that they (here, Thor) used
an analogy (here, between a being named Thor in Norse
religion and the idea/symbol/concept of thunder, at
least as understood by the people to which it was given
and, more generally, when it was given to them).
> So I have doubt that Hnoss and Gersimi are spirits or
> people or whatever whose personalities remind people
> of treasure and gems.
There are not many living human beings who can access
the World Above via shamanic-type techniques. And I'd
say they may be showed a tiny amount of what could be
worth seeing. Not mentioning what they actually grasp
of what they are shown, nor that what they are shown
could be best understood within specific circumstances
that may include specific aims as seen from Up Above.
My very personal answer is, I'd consider them as two
individual spirits (or beings) about which so little
is known... What is the World Above, to which extent
this other plane of existence can be understood from
the Middle World - our plane ? Which kind of proofs
can we think of ? I think shamans can have glimpses
of it, which poets can put into stories. According to
my understanding, things always have like that, even
at the times where contacts between those two Worlds
seemed to be more frequent and more acceptable for
the mindsets of most people concerned (like in some
Viking settlement of 1000 years ago) than in today's
world.
The best one could hope to achieve would be... some
educated guesses. Room for doubts, discussions...
Seen from this careful perspective, how (I wonder)
could one begin to envision temporary incarnations
of such souls (the possible presence among living
persons of such spirits) ? What could be some of
the most relevant criteria ? Yet the idea that for
instance the spirit of Fenris could be presently
incarnated here, on Earth, was not considered as
utter bullshit when I mentioned it, exactly the way
it had been presented to me... I can only add that
this concept is known in some other traditions like
for instance "avatars" in hinduism.
> Whether that really makes them
> the children of Odr and Freya I can't say.
I'd be tempted to say it would basically be their own
business - something meaningful and relevant to them
(within their family clan). If it proves difficult to
achieve a reasonably consensual answer to the previous
question within, let's say, a group of Asatruar, then
maybe it would be best to leave this other, much more
difficult question open.
I have been shown the difference between what happens
in ordinary reality, where two biological parents do
give birth to a body that is going to be inhabited by
a soul, and in the World Above, where a soul is given
birth in a more or less similar process. Of course, I
can't prove anything, only add that I was told a few
similar stories and they all seem to match. According
to what I have experienced and seen, I've got a son
"somewhere"...
> My theory is that spirits don't have material bodies in their
> natural form. They "exist" but I don't know what the word
> "exist" means in this context.
What I have seen is more or less what you are writing
here. The biggest issue would be that "they" up above
apparently do have some bodies in some sense, only "not
exactly like our ones"... These could be "dynamic"
bodies, in the sense of bodies which shape would be
"dynamically" defined (in "real time") by the spirit
who "inhabits" them (a multi-layer "model").
This is how things have been presented to me, Up Above.
I did not find any bugs with the concept yet. It would
prove handy, in that it would both explain how (as is
obvious unless all shamans are madmen or high on magic
mushrooms of some sort) a given spirit can, depending
on circumstances, show up under many appearances, yet
all the appearances that a given spirit generally takes
are considered to be both always more or less related to
each other and to form something consistent, considered
as a whole.
> Lacking physical bodies,
> does their lineage as described in the lore really mean
> parentage? I don't think so, not in human terms as such.
Exactly... There would be some similarities with what we
can experience here on Earth, but with some differences.
Conception... birth... growth towards maturity... but no
ageing forced by biological constraints... eternity...
and the possibility to incarnate themselves here on Earth
for limited periods of time (human lifespans).
> So with personalities and names that make such a strong
> and beautiful lesson, the parentage in this case may well
> have been figured out for the lesson not out of direct
> contact.
If the levels of meanings and realities mix up nicely,
maybe the very best would be to keep as treasures of
wisdom what we can grasp about it all for now, and leave
the other questions open. I think this would be the most
careful and the smartest option. One day, we might know
more... maybe (simply) very soon after the death of our
present body if we are then deemed ready.
> Or the information out of direct contact may have
> been intended to deliver this lesson of how to conduct one's
> life.
As I said... according to me, all these levels do not
necessarily contradict each other.
--
Néo
Bruce
Hmm, Freyja? Norse and Saxon myth. I'd like to read more
on this concept. I'm sure alt.religion.wicca would as well.
But until I learn more out of respect for the subject
I won't bother to cross post quite yet.
Peace be with you all..
They call me Bruce
Doug Freyburger
>
> So I have doubt that Hnoss and Gersimi are spirits or
> people or whatever whose personalities remind people
> of treasure and gems. Whether that really makes them
> the children of Odr and Freya I can't say.
The typo in my response above - I skipped the word no.
"So I have no doubt ..." changes the meaning significantly.
Thinking over the difference remains on topic for ARA but
likely not for ARS - How many deities are there, how many
names are purely symbolic, how many names end up
pointing to the same spirit, and most importantly of all
how does this jive with the idea that the fewer UPGs a
heathen has and the longer lasting they are the more
meaningfully others treat them while the more UPGs a
heahten reports the more they end up getting viewed as
fluff?
On the one hand I view polytheism as the Occam's
Razor answer to religion - The simpler answer tends to
be the right one and across the millenia some mystics
report many deities, some report one, and the ones that
report one often disagree on its personality. The simplist
explanation for this observed data is deity is many
(with a competing atheist explanation that they are all
wrong that I won't address). It's far more complicated
to observe all mystics across the millenia and pick a few
to be right and the rest to be wrong. (Also not getting
into the issues of what are spirits, what are deities, who
are mystics which is core material for ARS that does not
much apply on ARA).
On the other hand simpler is better also applies to how
many mystical experiences get reported by a person.
Some mailing lists use the terms "concrete head" and
"sieve head" for the extremes of someone who never
experiences more than a vague presence and feeling of
acceptance at a Blot and of someone who chats with
deities weekly or daily. The idea is that a small number
of experiences that only apply to one person and that
make long lasting changes in his life are easier to accept
than lots of statements that apply to many.
Consider my "concrete head" experiences: I've had two
major ones. One that I share about when I was told to
follow 20 years that ever since I've been Asatru, the other
that I chose to keep private that has had a similar scale
of change in my life. Consider my "sieve head" experience:
On several occasions I've mentioned that I've asked Thor
or whoever about some subject and just some answer. In
the case of Eir the answer I got was to stop bothering her,
so some of those answers get easy to believe. The rest
aren't experiences I expect folks to take seriously.
The gripping hand is where these two principles meet -
Many deities with the fewer the reports from them the better.
It makes discussion about a handful of well know deities
sensable but the more deities discussed the more iffy it
gets (and here I deliberately decline to discuss any mapping
among pantheons that is Neo's point of interest in this
discussion). The Asatru compromise is that there is a
heirarchy of sizes for spirits ranging from Ettins like Odin
or Surt who seem to be able to appear anywhere through
national patrons like Nehellenia through family patronesses
or Disir through the land wight living in that big rock in the
back yard. A message I get from the land wight living in
that big rock in the back yard isn't going to be important
to the growth of the lore generation to generation.
So in the end my accidental statement "So I have doubt"
works if and only if it's pointed back at myself not pointed
at others. For me the fewer contacts the more important.
For me good contact with a lesser known deity is likely to
be with one incorrectly recognized. For me contact with
a lesser deity is less likely to give me the sort of certainty
that I get when thinking that I've been called to follow the
Aesir. I suspect these "for me" clauses are common within
Asatru and it helps keep the fluffiness down to a dull roar.
I don't have clue how they might map to regularly practicing
shamans. I fare forth on occasion but with frequency that
has gradually decreased over the years.
I've written that the longer I've been in Asatru the less
certain I've become about the nature of the Aesir. I
continue to understand they "exist" in a way that I think
is an observation than an act of faith, but the more I ponder
it the less I know what "exist" means. I've written that
Asatruar know our lore was composed by a bunch of drunk
poets and written down by a bunch of drunk monks so we
know none of it should be taken literally but we still discuss
it in fine detail nearly as if its tales were real. The longer I
do this sort of discussion the less I get how that symbolic
versus real thing works, just that some way I don't
understand it does indeed work. The longer I do this sort
of discussion working with name meanings and finding
very good life advice, the more I understand the names were
picked to remind about that advice not because the names
exist for the purpose of that advice. Sigh. To have the
certainty I had as a newbie about anything ...
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
>
> Hmm, Freyja? Norse and Saxon myth. I'd like to read more
> on this concept. I'm sure alt.religion.wicca would as well.
> But until I learn more out of respect for the subject
> I won't bother to cross post quite yet.
>
> Peace be with you all..
>
> They call me Bruce
Well, here's your chance to learn a bit more.
Frey and Freya, (translated, Lord and Lady) are brother and sister.
They are of the Vanir - basically fertility and Earth Gods, although
Frey more than Freya. Freya is the equal (or superior) of Odin (Lord of
the Wild Hunt) when it comes to magick, since she allegedly taught him.
Frey rules Alfheim, the home of the elves.
And speaking of Wicca, I wonder which language that word came from? :-)
FFF
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Bruce
wrote:
Hehh, saw that you cross posted to the appropriate groups
so that I don't have to!
I've studied Saxon Wicca, which is why I'm
not surprised by yer post.
Of course I'll continue to read along..
Bruce
Bruce
>
> > Hmm, Freyja? Norse and Saxon myth. I'd like to read more
> > on this concept. I'm sure alt.religion.wicca would as well.
> > But until I learn more out of respect for the subject
> > I won't bother to cross post quite yet.
>
> > Peace be with you all..
>
> > They call me Bruce
>
> Well, here's your chance to learn a bit more.
>
> Frey and Freya, (translated, Lord and Lady) are brother and sister.
> They are of the Vanir - basically fertility and Earth Gods, although
> Frey more than Freya. Freya is the equal (or superior) of Odin (Lord of
> the Wild Hunt) when it comes to magick,
Maybe so much reason for the "Goddess" religions.
:-)
Jest thinking out loud.
Bruce
> since she allegedly taught him.
> Frey rules Alfheim, the home of the elves.
>
> And speaking of Wicca, I wonder which language that word came from? :-)
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
Néo
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So I have doubt that Hnoss and Gersimi are spirits or
>> people or whatever whose personalities remind people
>> of treasure and gems. Whether that really makes them
>> the children of Odr and Freya I can't say.
>
> The typo in my response above - I skipped the word no.
> "So I have no doubt ..." changes the meaning significantly.
Certainly... that said, as I was busy explaining how I
tried to be careful with words and to avoid projecting
concepts concerning our plane of reality into other
planes, as well as hastily generalizing my experiences,
it did not make me bring a strongly different feed-back
than what I would have done.
> Thinking over the difference remains on topic for ARA but
> likely not for ARS - How many deities are there, how many
> names are purely symbolic, how many names end up
> pointing to the same spirit, and most importantly of all
> how does this jive with the idea that the fewer UPGs a
> heathen has and the longer lasting they are the more
> meaningfully others treat them while the more UPGs a
> heahten reports the more they end up getting viewed as
> fluff?
Well, to begin with, over a few years, it seemed to me
that more posts on ARS dealt with the World Below than
the World Above. Add the small number of ARS posters and
the way they are scattered all over the planet, and it
will be easier to understand why I'm indeed presently
interested in discussing a few things about Deities (at
least some related to IE mythologies in my understanding)
on ARA... So some topics might be easier to deal with on
ARS than ARA for some aspects of them, the reverse being
true for other aspects of the same topics...
To give you an example, I remember when I once tried to
get onto the topic of spiritual spouses, and after all,
children born in the World Above would be the very next
(logical) step to it... I was getting mixed answers from
some people, to be polite, when an occasional poster
could not help shaking up some critics with a strong "How
do you dare speaking about being shamans [a very commonly
thorny issue on ARS] if you people personally don't know
a damn thing about spiritual spouses?" This did silence
a few "rednecks" on ARS who had never got beyond talking
with the spirits of a few flowers, birds and pebbles...
I also gradually understood that many people on ARS were
not exactly eager to share much of their stuff. And some
apparently quite interesting persons refrained from
posting more because of basic trust issues on Usenet...
Coming back to your words...
On top of that, your primary way of seeing things (this
is by no means judgemental in any way, just an attempt to
put it down in words) seems to be by starting from a given
tradition (here, Asatru), then assessing the overall
importance of UPGs in a given individual's path, trying to
assess whether these UPGs don't become predominant, whereas
(as a neo-shaman) my path started from sratch, then UPGs of
various shades and colors, and I'm gradually getting more
and more interested in IE traditions... trying to see to
which extent some bridges may have sense to myself, maybe
for others too, who knows...
So the rule of thumb criterion for seriousness inside a
tradition would be a low level of UPGs (which has some
logics)... Within a shamanic mindset, it would be more
complicated. I think I should let shamans belonging to
a tradition speak for themselves and only try to express
things seen from a neo-shamanic approach. The seriousness
criterion would be based on personal integrity, mastery
of skills that are universal (psychopump work, abilities
to communicate with the World Above and the World Below,
true dedication to a community, etc.)
In the worst case, this kind of discussion will at least
enable each other to better grasp the way the other one
figures out things on his side, and it would be something
already as far as I'm concerned.
> On the one hand I view polytheism as the Occam's
> Razor answer to religion - The simpler answer tends to
> be the right one and across the millenia some mystics
> report many deities, some report one, and the ones that
> report one often disagree on its personality. The simplist
> explanation for this observed data is deity is many
> (with a competing atheist explanation that they are all
> wrong that I won't address). It's far more complicated
> to observe all mystics across the millenia and pick a few
> to be right and the rest to be wrong. (Also not getting
> into the issues of what are spirits, what are deities, who
> are mystics which is core material for ARS that does not
> much apply on ARA).
Agreed. If going to the extreme, some people could in fact
remain happy by endless nitpicking on this topic. I soon
sensed this could become thorny, and eventually decided
that the right answers to those questions, and many other
ones, had to come from the World Above...
About who is who in terms of spirits and deities, well, I
keep thinking that I adequately expressed my (very personal)
views on Aesirs and Vanirs some time ago on ARA and ARS, and
I don't feel the need to add anything on this for now.
> On the other hand simpler is better also applies to how
> many mystical experiences get reported by a person.
> Some mailing lists use the terms "concrete head" and
> "sieve head" for the extremes of someone who never
> experiences more than a vague presence and feeling of
> acceptance at a Blot and of someone who chats with
> deities weekly or daily. The idea is that a small number
> of experiences that only apply to one person and that
> make long lasting changes in his life are easier to accept
> than lots of statements that apply to many.
Well, maybe the issue (the negative connotations of this
"sieve head" expression) could in fact refer more to the
ability to digest stuff received in spirit than its
frequency. I went through quite a few things that really
were difficult to accept (on a personal level) at first.
It did not mean they were fake - or to be dismissed.
Maybe my rule of thumb criterion would be to dismiss the
chatter and to keep the dense words. Well, in fact, the
chattering can be nice - once work is done.
I have been a "concrete head" during quite some years.
A very small number of experiences... then the pace
became faster, going through several slow-downs, then
starting again... I'd tend to trust my guides in terms
of what I can assimilate at a given time, without any
worry about "is the quantity right?" all the time.
> Consider my "concrete head" experiences: I've had two
> major ones. One that I share about when I was told to
> follow 20 years that ever since I've been Asatru, the other
> that I chose to keep private that has had a similar scale
> of change in my life. Consider my "sieve head" experience:
> On several occasions I've mentioned that I've asked Thor
> or whoever about some subject and just some answer. In
> the case of Eir the answer I got was to stop bothering her,
> so some of those answers get easy to believe. The rest
> aren't experiences I expect folks to take seriously.
Which does not mean that they aren't damn serious. :-)
> The gripping hand is where these two principles meet -
> Many deities with the fewer the reports from them the better.
> It makes discussion about a handful of well know deities
> sensable but the more deities discussed the more iffy it
> gets (and here I deliberately decline to discuss any mapping
> among pantheons that is Neo's point of interest in this
> discussion).
Only one of my points of interest. :-)
> The Asatru compromise is that there is a
> heirarchy of sizes for spirits ranging from Ettins like Odin
> or Surt who seem to be able to appear anywhere through
> national patrons like Nehellenia through family patronesses
> or Disir through the land wight living in that big rock in the
> back yard. A message I get from the land wight living in
> that big rock in the back yard isn't going to be important
> to the growth of the lore generation to generation.
I'm not sure to which extent it could help here, sorry if
I stated it already... at some stage, I began to make a
difference between a given spirit (as an individuality) and
the work he/she was in charge of. On quite a few things, I
can appear as quite naive, in the sense of not anticipating
among my words, what may seem easy to accept and what may
seem much more hairy... assuming some of my words do seem
hairy, I'd say I feel it's maybe only because the adequate
perspective has not been found, for there still must be a
(logical) reason somewhere.
A long and winding road ?
--
Néo
Day Brown
> And speaking of Wicca, I wonder which language that word came from? :-)
or PIE. related to wicker and wick. Both of which mean to bend and weave
according to the will or design. And of course 'wicked'.
While ordinarily, soaking something in oil softened it, in pagan times,
a philanderer was said to be "dipping his wick in a lotta lamps". Which
made it oily, but also hard and erect.
In Tocharian, "wiccassi" means 'magic skill'. the "-si" being a female
suffix. Some one familiar with the Vedas.
sarchasm
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote:
>
>> And speaking of Wicca, I wonder which language that word came from? :-)
>
> suffix. Some one familiar with the Vedas.
>
That's a supposition based upon dubious guesses, not accurate translation
... "pärvat, pärwes.s.e - the oldest, a wizard (see parwe)
parwe - at first (IE *pro-wo- - forward, first)". There were and continue
to be, males with "magical skill" of that time period and place,
invalidating an exclusionary female interpretation. There were both sexes
involved, just as both are in unrelated 'wiccan' variations today.
Bruce
> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>
> > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> So I have doubt that Hnoss and Gersimi are spirits or
> >> people or whatever whose personalities remind people
> >> of treasure and gems. Whether that really makes them
> >> the children of Odr and Freya I can't say.
>
> > The typo in my response above - I skipped the word no.
> > "So I have no doubt ..." changes the meaning significantly.
>
> Certainly... that said, as I was busy explaining how I
> tried to be careful with words and to avoid projecting
> concepts concerning our plane of reality into other
> planes, as well as hastily generalizing my experiences,
> it did not make me bring a strongly different feed-back
> than what I would have done.
Which is precisely why I avoided cross posting to ARW
to begin with. Jest because Wicca and Saxon mythology
have some things similar, doesn't mean they are
congruent.
UPG's, what's that?
>
> So the rule of thumb criterion for seriousness inside a
> tradition would be a low level of UPGs (which has some
> logics)... Within a shamanic mindset, it would be more
> complicated. I think I should let shamans belonging to
> a tradition speak for themselves and only try to express
> things seen from a neo-shamanic approach. The seriousness
> criterion would be based on personal integrity, mastery
> of skills that are universal (psychopump work, abilities
> to communicate with the World Above and the World Below,
> true dedication to a community, etc.)
Shamanism is based upon the middle realm of shadows.
IE.. ..Illusion. The realm between the light and darkness.
>
> In the worst case, this kind of discussion will at least
> enable each other to better grasp the way the other one
> figures out things on his side, and it would be something
> already as far as I'm concerned.
I certainly hope so, and look forward to it.
>
> > On the one hand I view polytheism as the Occam's
> > Razor answer to religion - The simpler answer tends to
> > be the right one and across the millenia some mystics
> > report many deities, some report one, and the ones that
> > report one often disagree on its personality. The simplist
> > explanation for this observed data is deity is many
> > (with a competing atheist explanation that they are all
> > wrong that I won't address). It's far more complicated
> > to observe all mystics across the millenia and pick a few
> > to be right and the rest to be wrong. (Also not getting
> > into the issues of what are spirits, what are deities, who
> > are mystics which is core material for ARS that does not
> > much apply on ARA).
>
> Agreed. If going to the extreme, some people could in fact
> remain happy by endless nitpicking on this topic. I soon
> sensed this could become thorny, and eventually decided
> that the right answers to those questions, and many other
> ones, had to come from the World Above...
>
> About who is who in terms of spirits and deities, well, I
> keep thinking that I adequately expressed my (very personal)
> views on Aesirs and Vanirs some time ago on ARA and ARS, and
> I don't feel the need to add anything on this for now.
It's kind of funny in a way. The Jews believe in many Gods
yet one above all others. Of course the *Christains* believe
in one god also, they jest don't know who it is. Some
think it's Jesus.
>
> > On the other hand simpler is better also applies to how
> > many mystical experiences get reported by a person.
> > Some mailing lists use the terms "concrete head" and
> > "sieve head" for the extremes of someone who never
> > experiences more than a vague presence and feeling of
> > acceptance at a Blot and of someone who chats with
> > deities weekly or daily. The idea is that a small number
> > of experiences that only apply to one person and that
> > make long lasting changes in his life are easier to accept
> > than lots of statements that apply to many.
>
> Well, maybe the issue (the negative connotations of this
> "sieve head" expression) could in fact refer more to the
> ability to digest stuff received in spirit than its
> frequency. I went through quite a few things that really
> were difficult to accept (on a personal level) at first.
> It did not mean they were fake - or to be dismissed.
Swedenborg in his last few notes suggested that
"all spirits lie".
While John of revelations suggested to "try" (test)
all spirits to see if they were of God.
> ...
>
> read more »
A lot more stuff, but I'll leave it at that.
P.S. best open discussion I have seen in a long
time. Grats.
Doug Freyburger
It's an Asatru acronym for Unconfirmed/Unusual Personal
Gnosis. React to UPG is a bit of a fluffiness meter.
Different faiths should have different reactions to UPGs
so I'll give some brief Asatru views about them.
On the fluffiest end of the scale is stuff that outright
disagrees with established lore - Freya being in
charge of chastity.
On the hardest end of the scale is a detail not
mentioned in the lore that is consistant with the lore -
My own example involves the high seat during Yule.
Ullr has already served temporary duty on it per a
story in Saxo so I think he also serves reserve duty
on it during Yule when Odin is out on the Wild Hunt.
On the fluffiest end of the scale is stuff that almost
everyone disagrees with - Freya loves Mountain Dew.
On the hardest end of the scale is stuff that almost
everyone agrees with or most say "now why didn't
I think of that" - Thor loves coffee and finds coffee
offerings acceptable.
On the fluffiest end of the scale is stuff that expects
everyone to follow it - Gna insists on purple tennies
for Blot to her.
On the hardest end of the scale is stuff that applies to
one person and has no mapping at all to anyone else -
Doug should follow.
Useful for lore oriented reconstructionists who stress
autheniticity. Entertaining for folks whose tradition
stresses direct contact over all.
Allan
"Bruce" <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2bfd09af-be95-439e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 5:20 pm, Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>
> > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Shamanism is based upon the middle realm of shadows.
IE.. ..Illusion. The realm between the light and darkness.
Spoken like a total cretin
<snip>
Peace be with you all..
Not while you draw breath pal
They call me Bruce
They were joking
Néo
>
> "Bruce" <cisc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2bfd09af-be95-439e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 5:20 pm, Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>>
>> > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> Shamanism is based upon the middle realm of shadows.
> IE.. ..Illusion. The realm between the light and darkness.
>
> Spoken like a total cretin
One does not have to put it that way... but...
This definition is totally non-sensical, for sure.
Bruce, if ever you are truly interested in shamanism,
reading alt.religion.shamanism's FAQ could be a start.
> <snip>
>
> Peace be with you all..
And to you as well.
> Not while you draw breath pal
Oops?
> (...)
--
Néo
Néo
Both truly interesting and quite funny to read, thanks !
--
Néo
Randgrithr
> Both truly interesting and quite funny to read, thanks !
Yes, and I hope you gave it all the credence it deserves, since when
Freyburger says "almost everyone thinks" he is talking only about the
people who agree with him, who are not as many in number nor truly
representative of the Asatru faith as he would like you to believe.
UPG actually stands for unverified personal gnosis, and most of his
posts are exactly that for all that they are presented as facts.
Something to keep in mind.
Randgríðr
Allan
Koff ummmmmmm errrrrrr ummmm. This idiot was the reason I had me sword drawn
ready. It's back in the sheath now.
Bruce
> Allan a écrit :
>
>
>
> > "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2bfd09af-be95-439e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 11, 5:20 pm, Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
> >> Doug Freyburger a écrit :
>
> >> > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > Shamanism is based upon the middle realm of shadows.
> > IE.. ..Illusion. The realm between the light and darkness.
>
> > Spoken like a total cretin
>
> One does not have to put it that way... but...
>
> This definition is totally non-sensical, for sure.
>
> Bruce, if ever you are truly interested in shamanism,
> reading alt.religion.shamanism's FAQ could be a start.
Well, actually I am not all that interested in Shamanism
for that very reason. Nobody seems to be straight on
what it is. I mean EVERYone I have ever met claiming
to be a Shaman uses illusion and presence as the key
ingredients for their spells. Now "illusion" is from
the realm of shadows, that much I DO know.
It's also why it is said Satan can appear as an "Angel
of Light" Cause the Shadow Realms is at the top of
his realms, and it's an "illusion" he uses, and many
others as well.
Some people get lost in the Shadow Realms and
NEVER find their way out of them. I don't blame them
much, some light of truth is better than NONE!
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Peace be with you all..
>
> And to you as well.
>
> > Not while you draw breath pal
>
> Oops?
>
> > (...)
>
> --
> Néo
Hehh, I wasn't expecting Allan to follow me here
and try to ruin this newsgroup like "THEY" have over
in alt.religion.angels.
I forgot that he visits ARS as well..
Peace be with you all..
They call me Bruce
Néo
> On Sep 12, 4:14 pm, Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>
>> Both truly interesting and quite funny to read, thanks !
>
> Yes, and I hope you gave it all the credence it deserves, since when
> Freyburger says "almost everyone thinks" he is talking only about the
> people who agree with him, who are not as many in number nor truly
> representative of the Asatru faith as he would like you to believe.
I have considered his posts in this thread as expressing
his views on those topics, nothing more, nothing less.
Even if others don't express their views here, it does
not imply that their views are identical, or different...
One way or another, I'll end up learning something, or so
I feel at least.
> UPG actually stands for unverified personal gnosis, and most of his
> posts are exactly that for all that they are presented as facts.
>
> Something to keep in mind.
>
> Randgríðr
Point noted. I myself presented a number of UPGs and I
don't expect them to be considered as anything else for
now, taking into acount the present state of things in
the Middle World.
--
Néo
Bruce
It's the old sugar pill trick, basically. It's NOT what it is
it is what you BELIEVE it is. I cite Carlos Castenada
-The teachings of Don Juan as a perfect example, I
have other names to cite as an example too if you
don't like that one!
The Christian Church, is a full of examples, depending
upon which sect of them, you are referring to, and in
what manner you are speaking of them.
Who-ever coined the word "flock", and "FATHER",
new exactly what they were doing when they did it.
It's ALL jest an "illusion" to begin with. It's what
people "believe" that matters in such a case, and
not what the truth is.
I like discussion of the OLD religions and their
practices, they make more sense than some of
the NEW ones.
Why is it Christians say there is ONLY
ONE GOD? Even the Jews are not THAT
ignorant of the Truth. It MUST be an illusion
they are under, that makes them "follow"
and believe like they do! So who told it
to them? The High Priests (shaman) of early
Rome, that's who! It's such a powerful illusion
it has survived for 2000 years..
..did somebody jest whisper "illuminati"
to me?!?
Hehh..
It's all open to debate, after all we are talking
about "illusions"!
;-)
Bruce
Bruce
So where on yer UPG meter would this subject be?
Hard or Fluffy?!? Maybe a little of both?
Cheers to all..
;-)
Bruce
Randgrithr
Fluffy coming from the originator of that meme is a putdown, which
puts the spin on it that it's not substantive or that the majority
present don't believe in it. Now, this newsgroup (a.r.s.) is read by
many but only actually commented on by a few. One of the reasons the
group has been accused of being "dead" is because most present are
lurkers. Participation has dropped because it comes with risk. The
poster from a.r.a. is a known racist and has his own agenda which has
little to do with service to the shamanic practitioner community at
large. Not all Asatruar are racists but this one is known to be for
all that he denies it. I frankly consider anything he says to be
fluffy and I don't respect his judgement on anything. Even a broken
clock is right twice a day but I'd rather refer to one that works all
the time.
Those who know are aware that war rages both here and in the
Otherworld, and not everyone lurking here has the best interests of
the posters in mind. This is why I myself have lowered what
information I share here, because there are some here who would abuse
it, twist it toward their own selfish purposes and who frankly do not
deserve to know it.
All shamanic knowledge and ability is earned, sometimes at a fearsome
price paid in this or the otherworld. Ironically the good spirits are
the ones who take the most exacting toll because they will reject
people who are insincere or lacking in ethics.
This is one of the reasons a classic shamanic calling includes an
experience of death and/or dismemberment, often accompanied by a near-
death experience in this world.
When the worlds are more at peace there will be more participation
here. I won't post information right here and right now where it can
be misused by the cruel and selfish wastrels who are attempting to
subvert the system of governance of the worlds on every level,
including spiritually.
Randgríðr
Bruce
See what I mean. I can't get a straight answer about Shamanism
even in alt.religion.shamanism so what am I supposed to believe
except what I see. Shamans from every example I have seen
is a very tight group, in that they appear to be afraid of anybody
else outside their group knowing their secrets.
Also the next time you wanna point fingers, do ya think you
could name names or jest don't bother to point fingers.
Cause I don't even know who yer referring to in the above text.
You jest got finished casting suspicion on everyone in this
thread except yerself by pointing fingers like ya did. Maybe
you meant it that way, I dunno.
I could say more, but I will just let it rest. At least for the
moment.
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Randgrithr
> See what I mean. I can't get a straight answer about Shamanism
> even in alt.religion.shamanism so what am I supposed to believe
> except what I see.
By all means, go out and discover the answers for yourself.
You sound like someone who is too lazy to do the work - ANY work,
including figuring out who I'm talking about, which is easy enough to
do if you simply do the reading.
And that is 100% your problem.
If you want someone to spoon feed you answers - especially only the
answers you want to hear - I guarantee the answers you get will be
everything you deserve: pablum, at best.
Real shamanism is for spiritual adults.
Randgríðr
Bruce
> On Sep 13, 1:40 pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > See what I mean. I can't get a straight answer about Shamanism
> > even in alt.religion.shamanism so what am I supposed to believe
> > except what I see.
>
> By all means, go out and discover the answers for yourself.
I already have my ASSumptions, what I don't have is living
testimony of the fact. IOW the testimony of Shamans like
yerself to defend yer acts. I'm sure you have some, you
simply won't share it with others.
>
> You sound like someone who is too lazy to do the work - ANY work,
> including figuring out who I'm talking about, which is easy enough to
> do if you simply do the reading.
It is upon the writer to be understood, not upon the reader to
understand.
>
> And that is 100% your problem.
Not my problem, YER problem in yer ability to
share yer ideas with others, instead of hide it.
>
> If you want someone to spoon feed you answers - especially only the
> answers you want to hear - I guarantee the answers you get will be
> everything you deserve: pablum, at best.
I have not asked you for anything except to name names
instead of "casting" fear, suspicion, and doubt on everyone else.
Then you wanna say NOTHING when charged with "casting"
illusions on everybody else. Hehh, go figure..
>
> Real shamanism is for spiritual adults.
Real "Shamanism" is childs play, make believe
and for sheeple. Jest ask a sheep..
Baaaaaahh..
>
> Randgríðr
Bruce
Without me, you wouldn't be posting stars at all, whomever you be!
Come on now be fair, or don't bother to use the "stars upon thars"
at all! Remember Dr Suess, man now there's somebody who knew
something about the trappings among men!
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Randgrithr
> It is upon the writer to be understood, not upon the reader to
> understand.
Go explain this to the people who write the PSATs, the IOWA tests, and
pretty much every other reading comprehension test known to man.
Oh and good luck with that.
I guarantee you it will be a far more productive use of your time
because you will get nothing from me. I don't like your attitude and I
owe you nothing.
Randgríðr
Bruce
> On Sep 13, 5:55 pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is upon the writer to be understood, not upon the reader to
> > understand.
>
> Go explain this to the people who write the PSATs, the IOWA tests, and
> pretty much every other reading comprehension test known to man.
Actually they make every effort possible to be understood, but
apparently
you feel you don't have to! Yer jest proving what I said, that
shamanism
is all based upon illusions. Like the illusion of you trying to pass
the buck
and blame the PSAT's on it.
>
> Oh and good luck with that.
>
> I guarantee you it will be a far more productive use of your time
> because you will get nothing from me. I don't like your attitude and I
> owe you nothing.
>
> Randgríðr
You are in alt.religion.shamanism, and won't discuss the subject.
So what good are ya except as a distraction, a decoy, and an
agent of disinformation.
Then ya may wonder why I am not interested in Shamanism?!?
Hehh, go figure..
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
bosco
It must be the full moon?
Maybe this is more in line of what you are looking for?
<http://www.venganza.org/>
Shamanism is what it is. Any discussion to classify Shamanism standing
on the outside is arguing with the wind.
With that being said, if you are ever grabbed by the a$$ and given a
quick introduction to your new life, you best take heed, for you have
arrived at the beginnings of an understanding of Shamanism. As this has
not happened to you, it is of course difficult for you to quantify what
it really is you wish to discuss. For your welfare, and your state of
mind I hope it never happens to you. If it does, you have my sympathy.
If the above does happen, any learning you acquire from that moment on
is icing on the cake. You won't be making assumptions about what
Shamanism is or is not. Your individualized aspect of Shamanism, and
your unique role in Shamanism will become perfectly clear to you.
You will also be able to ascertain truth when you read it, and have no
need to quibble over a basic truth. Even with your consent to start
your 'new' life, your life as you know it may become be a living hell
as Randgrithr was kind enough to point out to you. Until that time,
again, you won't understand what you wish to discuss.
I am reminded that I have other areas to attend to. Perhaps a more
remote group is better suited to practice what you have refer to as
your 'debating skills'?
Allan
On Sep 13, 9:41 pm, Randgrithr <randgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 5:55 pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is upon the writer to be understood, not upon the reader to
> > understand.
>
> Go explain this to the people who write the PSATs, the IOWA tests, and
> pretty much every other reading comprehension test known to man.
Actually they make every effort possible to be understood, but
apparently
you feel you don't have to! Yer jest proving what I said, that
shamanism
is all based upon illusions. Like the illusion of you trying to pass
the buck
and blame the PSAT's on it.
>
> Oh and good luck with that.
>
> I guarantee you it will be a far more productive use of your time
> because you will get nothing from me. I don't like your attitude and I
> owe you nothing.
>
> Randgríðr
>You are in alt.religion.shamanism, and won't discuss the subject.
Get it into your thick skull some people actually do, while you only aspire
to. As long as you hold on to that book you're stuck.
>So what good are ya except as a distraction, a decoy, and an
>agent of disinformation.
>Then ya may wonder why I am not interested in Shamanism?!?
Then why are you here, and why are you doing your usual trick of
crossposting?
> Hehh, go figure..
I figured you out a long time ago pal. Now you go and figure this one out. I
asked for your ass on a silver platter. That is one thing shamanism is
about. And here you are. Here there's no group of 'sycophants,' you can
accuse, and no-one will be chirping into this thread, well it's less a
thread, more of a battleground now. It's you and me, until you run away
again. Just like before.
> Cheers..
Shamanism is also about spiritual honesty, with oneself and others. False
goodwill is as evil, and negative, as it is possible to unleash. So, you're
immediately shooting yourself in the foot. That's another thing shamanism is
about, education. Except you haven't even reached schooling age to
understand that learning is a continuous process.
Bwooth
Randgrithr
> "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Actually they make every effort possible to be understood, but
> apparently
> you feel you don't have to!
Not to you, no. I don't feel like doing all the work. Others are quite
capable of understanding me. The problem is you, and I perceive
that yours is the sort of willful stupidity frequently exhibited by
the
mentally ill people known as trolls.
> > Randgríðr
> >You are in alt.religion.shamanism, and won't discuss the subject.
No, I won't discuss the subject WITH YOU.
> Shamanism is also about spiritual honesty, with oneself and others.
And I am being quite honest when I say that you are a troll.
Goodbye, troll. I have no more time for this garbage.
Randgríðr
Bruce
All I see is fluff, ya'll Shamans ain't said squat to help anybody
understand
what shamanism is, or isn't. I cite a few examples and ya'll run for
the hills.
Well keep on running and don't come back unless yer willing to answer
some questions.
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Allan
On Sep 14, 1:11 am, bosco <boscopel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-13 16:59:56 -0600, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> said:
<snip> and correct group applied
> All I see is fluff, ya'll Shamans ain't said squat to help anybody
> understand
There's a lot can be done with pork, roast it, fry it, sausages, ham, etc.
The only thing that can't be done with pork, is to educate it. The fact is,
Bruce, you're pork.
> what shamanism is, or isn't. I cite a few examples and ya'll run for
> the hills.
It's a way of life, simple as that, ya wake up in the morning and there it
is. This explains why it's beyond you, you don't have a life.
> Well keep on running and don't come back unless yer willing to answer
> some questions.
If that was your prediction then it's just another thing you got wrong.
Now you may leave.
Neolithic
wrote:
>On Sep 5, 4:04 pm, Néo <n...@adresski.ru> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following a few already discussed questions
>> related to Norse lore, including possible
>> children from Freyja, I recently bumped into
>> a few interesting pages in Wikipedia, like:
>>
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersimi
>> (Sorry, in French - either a glitch in cross
>> references, or no equivalent page in English
>> for now.)
>>
>> It gives some information about Hnoss and
>> Gersimi, said to be two daugthers of Freyja
>> and Ód (the latter being most probably Odin,
>> as already discussed and kindly confirmed to
>> me).
>>
>> The sources mentioned in this page are Snorri
>> Sturluson (Ynglinga saga, Gylfaginning) as
>> well as some Thulurs from the Middle Ages.
>>
>> The page mentioned above contains other links,
>> which point towards other pages in French that
>> do not possess proper English equivalents yet.
>> If one considers the very smaller number of
>> French speaking people versed in Norse lore,
>> as compared to English speaking people, it was
>> a bit of a surprise to see that there was more
>> information in French than in English about
>> those bits of Norse lore... anyway.
>>
>> So my questions to Astru people woud be, more
>> specifically:
>>
>> - To which extent such rather ancient works
>> from Snorri Sturluson, as well as Thulurs, are
>> considered as reliable sources of mythological
>> lore, as seen from an Asatru perspective.
>>
>> - Would there be any clue/detail whatsoever
>> somewhere, enabling one to actually know how
>> to make a difference between those two sisters.
>> (Any precisions given by the etymology of the
>> names Hnoss and Gersimi highly appreciated.)
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any answer.
>>
>> --
>> Néo
>
>Hmm, Freyja? Norse and Saxon myth. I'd like to read more
>on this concept. I'm sure alt.religion.wicca
Asatru and Wicca do not mix.
> would as well.
>But until I learn more out of respect for the subject
Out of respect for the subject do not confuse Asatru with Wicca.
>I won't bother to cross post quite yet.
>
>Peace be with you all..
And what if we worship a God of War?
>They call me Bruce
That sounds pompous.
Nik
Doug Freyburger
Nik,
Go on google groups and check out his profile there.
You're arguing with someone who quotes lines from
the Christian New Testament as his profile. That
explains what his purpose is on ARA/ARS.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No doubt he'll change his name and try again.
I do so love it when Xians betray Jesus.
FFF
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Bruce
John the Revelator was not a Christian, he was a Jew. Damn
yer ignorance. Ya'll are proving exactly what it says too!
TRY ALL SPIRITS!!! You jest convicted yerself, fool
yer buddy with his head in the sand too!
Peace be with you all..
They call me Bruce
Bruce
wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Neolithic <neolithicnos...@email.com> wrote:
> >>> They call me Bruce
> >> That sounds pompous.
>
> > Nik,
>
> > Go on google groups and check out his profile there.
> > You're arguing with someone who quotes lines from
> > the Christian New Testament as his profile. That
> > explains what his purpose is on ARA/ARS.
>
> No doubt he'll change his name and try again.
> I do so love it when Xians betray Jesus.
Swedenborg said almost the same exact thing, in one
of his books, when he said "spirits do lie", but how many
people know who Swedenborg is or where to find his words.
I was afraid some idiot would try to make something out
of it that wasn't true. Looks like I was right too!
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
Bruce
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:47:29 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com>
I am a card carrying member of http://www.universalministries.com/
You can worship money for all I care, dude. Yer God does not dictate
how smart, or stupid you may be. That is up to you!
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Bruce
> "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yer jest a chickenshit asswipe of David Albans. Here you are hiding
in alt.religion.shamanism as evidence and proof. How do you expect me
to reply if you don't crosspost to the NG I am in? You don't. you
expect
to hide like the chicken shit asswipe that you are, in alt.religion
shamanism far from view, Sneakin around behind peoples backs
spreading lies and distortions of the truth.
Anybody who believes this idiot, Allan. Is an idiot too!
David St. Albans
> Yer jest a chickenshit asswipe of David Albans.
Wow, this little creep really has a mouth on him! And he
hypocritically lambastes others for being crude or using bad
language???
As I have said before, often it is difficult if not impossible to get
through to little chickenshit asswipes like Bruice unless you use
their own gutteral linguistics.
I really think the tiny brained numbnuts has lowered his haughty
standards now...He is one of my sycophants.
Saint
Bruce
wrote:
Yeah, so you and yer little sycophants went and tattletaled to
Google in order to shut me up. What a weasle you nitwits are.
Calling you an Idiot and anybody who believes you is to good
for you, or for them either. You can call people "tiny brained
numbnuts", but when somebody calls you an asswipe, you start
balling like a baby.
What a cretin you are..
Bruce
This is what they call a circle jerk. Allan jerks for Albans, and
then Allan jerks Alban off too!
Calling them both idiots is the least I can do!
Allan
On Sep 14, 10:54 am, "Allan" <cornflakes...@breakfast.com> wrote:
> "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dcd2b0c3-655f-4672...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 1:11 am, bosco <boscopel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-09-13 16:59:56 -0600, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> said:
>
Made ya look!
Bruce
> "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Sep 14, 10:54 am, "Allan" <cornflakes...@breakfast.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:dcd2b0c3-655f-4672...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 14, 1:11 am, bosco <boscopel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-09-13 16:59:56 -0600, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
> Hey fuck face, you started moaning about netiquette within your first 5
> minutes of posting. One day you might learn a bit more, including
> cross-posting to non-related groups is a no-no. You will notice I've snipped
> the other replies to save your embarassment on the ass kicking you got from
> the asatru. So say thank you... On your way out.
Thanks for admitting that yer a chickenshit asswipe of Albans, and
giving evidence of yer deeds too! I can't help it if yer embarrassed
by yer own actions, if you don't like them, don't do them! It's
that simple, dude.
Peace be with you..
They call me Bruce
Bruce
> "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Sep 14, 10:54 am, "Allan" <cornflakes...@breakfast.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:dcd2b0c3-655f-4672...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 14, 1:11 am, bosco <boscopel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-09-13 16:59:56 -0600, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
> Hey fuck face, you started moaning about netiquette within your first 5
> minutes of posting. One day you might learn a bit more, including
> cross-posting to non-related groups is a no-no. You will notice I've snipped
> the other replies to save your embarassment on the ass kicking you got from
> the asatru. So say thank you... On your way out.
BTW: Just to set the record straight, you replied to me in asatru
first, and
was even reprimanded for doing it too! Then ya went around badmouthing
me behind my back in shamanism too. As if that wasn't enough you came
over to angels and gloated about it too! Yer nothing but a spineless
cur,
dude.
Bruce
> "Bruce" <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> happened to you, and ya well know it. So shut the fuck up, before the
> evidence gets posted, including the four whiny emails ya sent asking me to
> stop critiquing (my word, yours was slandering) your posts.
>
> Your call pal.
>
Hehehehh, don't make me laugh at you too, fool.
You change the header, and then go and hide behind
Albans skirt in alt.religion.angels too!
HAHAHAHA, HOHOHOHO, HEHEHEHE..
OH, and learn to quote, will you?!? Nobody is
fooled except YOU!
Bruce
OHHH? So now yer forging Emails too?!?
See what I mean, Chiron? These sycophants of Albans will do ANYTHING
they think they can get away with. Even threaten people with slander
too!
David St. Albans
> On Sep 18, 12:56 am, "David St. Albans" <whisperind...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 2:21 pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yer jest a chickenshit asswipe of David Albans.
>
> > Wow, this little creep really has a mouth on him! And he
> > hypocritically lambastes others for being crude or using bad
> > language???
>
> > As I have said before, often it is difficult if not impossible to get
> > through to little chickenshit asswipes like Bruice unless you use
> > their own gutteral linguistics.
> > I really think the tiny brained numbnuts has lowered his haughty
> > standards now...He is one of my sycophants.
>
> > Saint
>
> Yeah, so you and yer little sycophants
YOU ARE MY SYCOPHANT! YOU ARE MY SOCK-PUPPET! I ORDER YOU TO SHUT YOUR
TRAP!
No one here went to Google about you. You are a worthless pissant.
Don't make so much of a big deal out of yourself and your idiotic
commentary.
Saint
David St. Albans
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wait a second. I thought Chiron was ME??? What's going on here? First
he's a sock-puppet, then he's a sycophant and now he's Bruice's
friends??? What the hey na?
Saint
Bruce
Jest more lies and distractions. Yer sycophant Allan
already admitted to it. You can deny it all you want,
but the only person to believe yer lies is YOU!
May you one day find peace, dude.
Bruce
Bruce
wrote:
More attempts by you to spread hate and resentment. You just
never stop do you?
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Bruce
HEY, I feel privileged. I got more ONE Stars than anybody else got!
What a bunch of chickenshits hiding behind Google Stars. Not enough
guts to come out from behind the stars and voice yer REAL opinions.
What the hell is this, Battle of the Stars? At least there you know
who the judges are. They don't hide behind STARS!
What the hell is this world coming to, when you can't defend yerself
AGAINST yer accusers. I can just imagine what would happen if
the civil courts acted as irresponsible.
CHAOS, MAYHEM, TYRANNY, and justice for NONE!
Bruce
Hehh, some people jest don't know how to accept
criticism, nor do they know how to voice their own
opinions without hiding behind Google Stars.
I don't know who put the "Stars upon Thars", but
they are ALL cowards.
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Decoder2
I rated you and gave you one star. Trolls are only worth one star
Bruce
Hehh, go figure. I knew somebdy was doing the work of the devil.
Nice of you to admit it..
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Decoder2
I didn't admit to anything evil, but evil must be on your mind...
Bruce
Did I say the Devil was "evil"? Maybe "evil" is on YOUR mind!
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Decoder2
Ok, one day you say you are a Christian, so what are you now? Just a
troll.
Decoder2
what group are you playing up too today? It was the gay group the
other day cause you wanted to cause problems with the gay people and
today it looks like you wanna fuck with other groups. You are a troll
Mark Earnest
"Decoder2" <deco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:24b34caf-6914-4ff8...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Art: A Christian is not a Christian, unless he's a Christian.
Did you understand what I just said?
Of course you didn't, because you did not discern that I meant something
different, every time I used the word, "Christian."
To me, and probably to Bruce as well, a Christian is one whom follows the
religion, Christianity.
To the rest of us, we follow the Light, which is what Jesus is.
Did you understand, Art?
Are you smart enough?
Chiron613
> Wait a second. I thought Chiron was ME??? What's going on here? First
> he's a sock-puppet, then he's a sycophant and now he's Bruice's
> friends??? What the hey na?
>
> Saint
Saint, don't you understand? You're me; or I'm you, one of those two
things. I get all mixed up trying to follow Bruce's logic - well,
whatever that stuff is that Bruce uses to figure out about all the sock
puppets and sycophants.
--
Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God.
-- Mark Twain
Azure
>
> On Sep 17, 2:21 pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yer jest a chickenshit asswipe of David Albans.
>
> Wow, this little creep really has a mouth on him! And he
> hypocritically lambastes others for being crude or using bad
> language???
>
Typical Troll Stunt!
Friegha is not yours, it is Gaelic far before it was passed onto the
Vikings!
Azure
Right the Bible calls Satan Gods Chosen, The People who Locked God in a
Mountain say Satan is Evil.
David St. Albans
KNIGHT HERE. And my blade is very well honed. And you and your kind
are what I fight TO THE DEATH. Lying, fascistic morons with no sense
of propriety, no social skills, no background in real life, no
education, no accomplishments in life, no direction, no hope, just
irrational religious psychotic losers who leech onto this NG and try
to suck the life and joy out of everyone with your paranoid delusions.
You are pesky little serpents. And I slay you for fun. Please cross-
post this message so others can hear me tell you what a poor, pathetic
and hopelessly lost loser you are. Thanks,
Cheers!
You are going to die, worm.
Saint
David St. Albans
Dear Stupid,
You are the accuser. Others here are defending themselves against you.
You are the liar andyou are the pervert and the paranoid schizophrenic
and whatever else you've called everyone else here. You have no
friends here, Moonie. You poor brainwashed freak. Your a lost Moonie.
A brainwashed kid with nowhere left to go. best go back to the Rev.
Moon. He's the type that people like you worship and fall on their
knees to. You are a lying hypocrite with a mouth full of Bible
Scriptures mixed with vitriol and venom!
Please feel free to go fuck yourself at any time, miserable cur.
Cheers!
Saint
David St. Albans
The stars mean: "No one thinks much of this post." And no one does.
Because your posting sucks. You brain dead freak.
Saint
David St. Albans
I am afraid that Bruice may actually now be in charge of the U.S.
Government and the Economy. It follows the same loopy "logic" that
Bruicey does.
Woe unto us all...
Saint
David St. Albans
> "David St. Albans" wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 2:21 pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yer jest a chickenshit asswipe of David Albans.
>
> > Wow, this little creep really has a mouth on him! And he
> > hypocritically lambastes others for being crude or using bad
> > language???
>
> Typical Troll Stunt!
I agree, what Bruice does, and what you do is typical troll stunt
work.
Saint
P.s. Once again you seem to not understand that the Gaels, Saxons,
Norsemen, Celts and others were at one time ALL ONE PEOPLE. So of
course Freya was shared with them all. Under different names. And what
does Freya have to do with us now? well we've got Freya's Day (Friday)
and that's about it. Who cares?
David St. Albans
Please show us the passage where God says Satan is "God's Chosen." I
think you are mixed up...again.
Saint
Chiron
Hey, Freya's day is the most important day of the week, unless maybe
the day of Saturn is even better.
--
Too much is just enough.
-- Mark Twain, on whiskey
Chiron
"David St. Albans" <whispe...@gmail.com> wrote:
He should run for office...
"He knows nothing and thinks he knows everything. That points to a
career in politics." (George Bernard Shaw)
--
Q: Why is Christmas just like a day at the office?
A: You do all of the work and the fat guy in the suit
gets all the credit.
Chiron
> The stars mean: "No one thinks much of this post." And no one does.
> Because your posting sucks. You brain dead freak.
>
>
> Saint
I can't believe he's complaining that someone only gave him one star.
And accusing people of "hiding" behind the star system, as though
anyone using Google couldn't give him a star. Geez...
--
Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks.
Bruce
What I can't believe is that I have been ignoring this thread which is
crossposted
to other groups, and David along with his sycophants are trying to
beat a dead
horse.
OH well, maybe one day ya'll will learn to STFU!
Cheers..
;-)
Bruce
Bruce
P.S. The ONLY reason I crossposted to
alt.religion.angels to begin with is to expose
Allan who was badmouthing me for his
Master David Albans, over in
alt.religion.shamanism while I was in
alt.religion.asatru. Turns out Art followed me
to alt.religion.spiritualism trying to stir up
trouble there too, jest like Allan did in
alt.religion.asatru., Art quickly got put
down for his cowardly actions, and beat feet
back to Albans as usual.
OH well, some people jest never learn..
Like when to hold their tongue, and when not
too!
I posted this PS, cause I knew if I didn't
Albans and company would try to ACCUSE
ME of starting it, when really I'm just defending
myself to begin with, against the sneaky
underhanded deeds of David Albans and
company.
My apologies to the other two newsgroups
for David Albans and his sycophants.
I never meant for them to spread their
vitriol to other newsgroups. But I DO
have the right to defend myself.
Randgrithr
Somehow I can't believe it either. :D
"The jokes just write themselves sometimes, folks..."
Randgríðr
Bruce
You wrote the joke fella, and lied about it too! You didn't even
finish my sentence, yer jest a stooge.
cia
Azure
>
> Cheers! You got one thing wrong in your brain, loser. I AM THE WHITE
> KNIGHT HERE.
Wrong the Black Knight is hardly a Looser dweeb!
The Three Lions are better than your Myth Lies!
And my blade is very well honed.
Mine is Fabled yours is but simple Myth!
And you and your kind
> are what I fight TO THE DEATH.
Yet you understand the Warriors Creed Not.
You spit Christian Brainwashing Dogma ad infinitum yet you are hardly
Christian.
You hate the Covenant of Abraham, the Cave of Hel is something you can
not tolerate in your WHITE BOY life!
You and your friends are the ones "In Front of the Great Sword".
I don't need to Hone it, it is dipped in the Venom of the Ancients, one
scratch against the skin the opponent dies!
Lying, fascistic morons with no sense
> of propriety, no social skills, no background in real life, no
> education, no accomplishments in life, no direction, no hope,
Great self description there Albie, you should stop talking to your self
in the mirror so often!
just
> irrational religious psychotic losers who leech onto this NG and try
> to suck the life and joy out of everyone with your paranoid delusions.
Yep you sure do!
Even got a Book for Sale to prove it don't you?
Cretan Liar!
> Cheers!
>
> You are going to die, worm.
You attacked my Network at least 10 times today and still can't
understand "I DON'T HAVE A NETWORK"!
YOU might, I don't!
>
3 G's
Azure
NO!
YOU ARE, you lying Bigot!
Nothing but!
Not a message to share, no words of enlightenment, just Hateful Bigotry!
All you ever speak!
Azure
>
> On Sep 19, 10:45�pm, Azure <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote:
> > "David St. Albans" wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 17, 2:21�pm, Bruce <cisco1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Yer jest a chickenshit asswipe of David Albans.
> >
> > > Wow, this little creep really has a mouth on him! And he
> > > hypocritically lambastes others for being crude or using bad
> > > language???
> >
> > Typical Troll Stunt!
>
> work.
>
> Saint
Ain't dat da truth!
Azure
Rev 11:3, Rev 22:
I think you follow Mid-Evil Witch Hunting Bigotry!
Danties Inferno, type Lies!
Azure
Its a Direct White Boy Attack on me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lict Alfar vs Doc Alfar thing.
Except Lict Alfar tell of a Woman and the tale is far newer than the Doc
Alfars Tale of the Sword of Mars!
Azure
They are on those Groups doing the same as here.
I have seen them use Asatru to post Code Games.
When I found there were trying to send Live Code!
Sig File!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cisc...@gmail.com
They musta followed Neo, there to begin with
jest like he said! I have respect for Neo, I jest
wish he would learn to stand up for what he
believes in!
It's no small wonder they claim Wicca was not
compatible to Asatru, cause Wicca would kick
anybody's ass out that was trying to spread
disinformation. Same with alt.atheism.
An yet Freyja is definitely Wiccan.
No doubt about it!
David St. Albans
You are a babbling idiot. And only such an idiot could construe black
as good and white as evil Which is why you will never see that YOU are
the evil one here, the usurper and the outcast. And none of your
harmful ideas or insane premises are anywhere near true, nor will they
ever come true. You are neither fabled nor mythical. You're retarded
and crazy and an evil person trying to tell people how all the freaks,
lead by you are going to become God's chosen. Well too bad, there IS
NO GOD. Not the one you describe anyway. That's all in your head.
Which you can now go soak.
Saint
Azure
>
> On Sep 23, 7:59 pm, Azure <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote:
>
> You are a babbling idiot. And only such an idiot could construe black
> as good and white as evil
Then Krishna was an Idiot and you are Einstein!