 |
| What do you support: Tradition, Modernity or a Third Way? |
| Tradition |
|
27% |
[ 6 ] |
| Modernity |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
| Third Way |
|
63% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Perceptron
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Location: Switzerland |
|
 Tradition, Modernity or a Third Way? |
 |
Context:
In our current times, there's much concern about the coming back of religion, tradition, also in forms of paganism/heathenism, more or less genuine or reconstructed, supported or not by movements/ideologies such as tradition(al)ism.
There's also, feeding this return of tradition, some big ressentment against modernity, its values, its excesses and its unfulfilled promises. The inheritance of the Age of Enlightment is put into question, or more often: ignored. Rationality, science and technology tend to be rejected, for they've bad consequences, on environment, people, cannot solve existential problems (when they don't provocate 'em) or are simply alienating us.
Many tend to reject ontological materialism/naturalistic worldview together with consumerist materialism, in benefit of some spiritualism, often dictating a social model and political stakes.
This question seems to me as topical as thorny, especially within Heathen Harvest community. Effectively, our community's cement should be the more or less pagan/'heathen' feeling/way of life/ideology/philosophy of people (rather traditional), but some may have noticed the majority of Heathen Harvest members paradoxically consist of atheists (rather modern).
It's clear this question is truly polemical, but topical, and quite simplistic... But, it's rather ment to initiate some debate.
What do you support: a return/reconstruction of tradition, the continuation of modernity or the creation of an hypothetic a "third way"/"way between both"/"happy medium"?
_________________
"Pendant des siècles des esprits se sont battus et ont risqué leur vie pour se libérer de Dieu. Et nous, au milieu du XXe, nous regrettons les chaînes qu'Il représentait et ne savons que faire d'une liberté pour laquelle nous n'avons fait aucun sacrifice, que nous n'avons pas conquise. Nous sommes les héritiers ingrats de l'athéisme héroïque, les épigones de la révolte, une masse de rebelles qui déplorent secrètement la disparition des 'superstitions', des 'préjugés' et des anciennes 'terreurs'."
Emile Michel Cioran (Carnets 1957-1972) |
|
| Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:45 pm |
  |
 |
Kamikaze Time Machine
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 152
Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
| Re: Tradition, Modernity or a Third Way? |
|
Traditionalism is a quintessentially modern perspective. If you could go back in time 500 years ago and ask a peasant working his field what his outlook on life was, he would most certainly not say "I'm a traditionalist". He would maybe say "I'm of such and such religion" or "I'm of such and such ethnicity".
To make a philosophy out of "returning to tradition" denotes, for me, that contact with the actual living and breathing traditions has been lost. That's why I am not a traditionalist, although I do have a great interest in tradition.
 |
|
There's also, feeding this return of tradition, some big ressentment against modernity, its values, its excesses and its unfulfilled promises |
modernity has more to do with an artistic and cultural current for me than with the current state of affairs, which is not the product of some broken promise or other such nonsense, but the product of a long series of political and social events (two world wars, decolonization, etc.). People who blame "modernity" for all the world's evils have no understanding of history.
|
|
Rationality, science and technology tend to be rejected, for they've bad consequences, on environment, people |
Science and technology are not ways of living, they are epistemological tools, in the case of the former, and simply tools, in the case of the latter. How we use them is entirely up to us, and more often than not it is irrationality that misuses them, not rationality.
There was nothing rational about dropping the A-bomb, nothing rational about going to war in Iraq, so how is rationality at fault here?
|
|
Many tend to reject ontological materialism/naturalistic worldview together with consumerist materialism |
They couldn't be further apart. Consumerism is nothing but capitalism eating itself, ontological materialism is nothing but a philosophical position. The Stoics were materialists, but they didn't run around buying useless crap and selling their souls for a profit (quite the contrary).
--I voted "modernity" in the sense that no matter how we attempt to revive or reinterpret the past it must be with the declared purpose of building a better future. This is not however a vote for capitalism, consumerism, "democracy", media spinsters and all that other good stuff we have nowadays--
_________________
Quomodo sedet sola civitas. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. |
|
| Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:51 pm |
|
|
porfirio
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 342
Location: milano, italy |
|
| tradition 100% |
|
i voted tradition cauz i dont see any third way and this modern world sucks
the only elements interestin in nazism or fascism (more nazism then fascism) are the traditional ones...for the rest they suck too cauz they are modern movements (fascism is linked to socialism and nazism to awful social darwinism and other postivist junk...Heidegger saw in it the reign of technocrats and engineers, "engineers of race" and he was right)
maybe the only true traditionalist movement of the past century is Codreanu's Iron Guard...no wonder he was killed by the fascists of King Carol with Hitler's approval...i recommend the Codreanu double cd tribute with Blood Axis Argine Derniere Volonté...inc posters postcards a book...
and today? is very difficult to find a true traditionalist movement...in some catholic circles (not linked with todays Church though) I found interestin things...but is hard very hard to find a true community
maybe we have to build one, of "neofolkies", out of the ruis of 20th century ideologies!
_________________
"Sons of Europe arise!" |
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:44 am |
|
|
Kamikaze Time Machine
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 152
Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
| |
|
|
|
Heidegger saw in it the reign of technocrats and engineers, "engineers of race" |
And yet he was himself an "engineer of race", convinced that he was defending the interest of the Black Forest Volk.
|
|
maybe the only true traditionalist movement of the past century is Codreanu's Iron Guard...no wonder he was killed by the fascists of King Carol with Hitler's approval |
The Iron Guard was a fascist organization; there's no doubt about it.
They were economic corporatists, political authoritarians and everything else that would have earned them membership in Mussolini's gang.
The appeal they had in rural areas was due to mainly two things: 1) the ultra-religious aspect of the Guard. Unlike the occultist Nazis or the futurist Italian Fascists, the Guardists were orthodox Christians through and through. 2) Codreanu was involved in the exact same type of hero-making as Hitler. He would frequently make appearances riding on a white horse and wearing a kitschy folk costume. He would rant against the Liberals and the Jews, who had supposedly "sold" the country to foreign powers. People responded to that because rough times require scapegoats.
But what you must also know is that the vast majority of the Guard's members were students from bourgeois families. Codreanu himself was a medical school drop-out, not a simple farm boy. The philosopher Emil Cioran (who later became famous in France) and the historian of religions (and modernist author) Mircea Eliade were the kind of people that the Guard relied on. These were very much modern people, for their time and place, their interest in the Guard was very much a modern one, just like the Futurists' interest in Fascism.
So despite the impact they managed to have amongst the peasantry (who were the actual traditionalists), the main support of the Guard was in the city, amongst young intellectuals most of all.
It's very easy to paint yourself as an ultra-traditionalist, and very profitable. The masses, who see in that an exaggerated embodiment of their own unimportant (within the vastness of the world) convictions, will most certainly respond to it favourably. You don't need to look at Fascism to understand that, just look at the current "elections" in the U.S.
_________________
Quomodo sedet sola civitas. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. |
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:42 am |
|
|
porfirio
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 342
Location: milano, italy |
|
| well... |
|
|
|
he was himself an "engineer of race", convinced that he was defending the interest of the Black Forest Volk. |
I dont agree kamikaze, Heidegger at first endorsed nazism cauz he saw in Hitler's movement a "new horizon of being", but he soon understood that the Third Reich became exactly what he fought against all his life: the Reich of technique, of engineers, of metaphysics...
|
|
Iron Guard was a fascist organization; there's no doubt about it.
They were economic corporatists, political authoritarians and everything else that would have earned them membership in Mussolini's gang.
The appeal they had in rural areas was due to mainly two things: 1) the ultra-religious aspect of the Guard. Unlike the occultist Nazis or the futurist Italian Fascists, the Guardists were orthodox Christians through and through |
here kamikaze your arguments become interestin and i must say i agree with most of the things you write...but for me the Iron Guard was not so mush a fascist but a mystic organization, the Legion of St.Michael...then under the "orthodox" teaching you can see a lot of pagan elements: you can almost see the cult of Mithra (Roman-Romanians are of Roman-Latin origins) and other pagan cults revival in the Iron Guard...also think of thefact that befone meeting in their Cuibs, the Legionaires sang and danced....the Captain gave great importance to music...i find all of this fascinatin'....i dont know if you agree with me...
Hail to the Lions!
_________________
"Sons of Europe arise!" |
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:36 pm |
|
|
Perceptron
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Location: Switzerland |
|
| |
|
|
|
--I voted "modernity" in the sense that no matter how we attempt to revive or reinterpret the past it must be with the declared purpose of building a better future. |
Should I understand you're a progressist?
|
|
There was nothing rational about dropping the A-bomb, nothing rational about going to war in Iraq, so how is rationality at fault here? |
I understand your point. But, here, I rather used "rationality vs. irrationality" as means to express "reason vs. faith" opposition (linked to "natural vs. supernatural" other oppositon).
Then, it's difficult to say if dropping or not the a-bomb was or not rational before having dropped it. It depends on criterias. Certainly the people (scientists and military people) didn't know the exact consequences, although they may have had some ideas. Anyway. It depends on criterias: on pure political/geostrategic and dissuasive criterias, it's rational. On an ecological criteria, it isn't rational, I guess. On an ethical criteria, it's completely unbearable. Etc.
|
|
modernity has more to do with an artistic and cultural current for me than with the current state of affairs, which is not the product of some broken promise or other such nonsense, but the product of a long series of political and social events (two world wars, decolonization, etc.). |
So, in a way, modernity is not a chosen change of society but a global metamorphosis due to many changes, everything being not controlled?
Can we say this is the same with globalization nowadays?
Of course I tried to be synthetic, so, by "broken promise" I referred to positivism and especially of the positivist mentallity still present in people, seemingly. Effectively, it seems the scientists are no longer positivists: they don't believe anymore science could solve all problems, including the metaphysical, philosophical and existential ones.
In my opinion, this positivist hope has however remained among most people. They tend to have replaced the ancient beliefs in salvation through redemption, religion etc. (rather spiritual) with a salvation through science (material). I've the strong impression people think: "science should be able to solve everything or it is shitty, useless, for us." "If it isn't able to succeed in everything, there's something wrong." "If science isn't a panacea, it's a deception."
Exaggerated!
It seems we tend to condemn, to blame an ideology, a fields, an author in proportion of the hopes it creates or the expectations it creates/covers.
So, I guess science and technology are the good exemples of what we used to believe as a pannacea and we're realizing it's just a tool, not a perfect but a useful one. But, the point is some people tend to throw science and technology fully away: for 'em, it is not perfect at all, but worse: it's dangerous, bad, it caused many problems, it's seemingly only negative for 'em. But, haven't they expected science to be fully "positive", science as a "soteriology" (a way of saving us)?
Yet, science as a way of salvation is a misconception...
|
|
Traditionalism is a quintessentially modern perspective. If you could go back in time 500 years ago and ask a peasant working his field what his outlook on life was, he would most certainly not say "I'm a traditionalist". He would maybe say "I'm of such and such religion" or "I'm of such and such ethnicity".
To make a philosophy out of "returning to tradition" denotes, for me, that contact with the actual living and breathing traditions has been lost. That's why I am not a traditionalist, although I do have a great interest in tradition. |
I agree.
|
|
The philosopher Emil Cioran (who later became famous in France) and the historian of religions (and modernist author) Mircea Eliade were the kind of people that the Guard relied on. These were very much modern people, for their time and place, their interest in the Guard was very much a modern one, just like the Futurists' interest in Fascism. |
Interesting. If you've references, I might be interested.
The quotation I've as a signature is Cioran's one.
I may translate it for those who don't speak French, by the way.
I precise I know just a little bit about him for I've read some of his books.
|
|
"Pendant des siècles des esprits se sont battus et ont risqué leur vie pour se libérer de Dieu. Et nous, au milieu du XXe, nous regrettons les chaînes qu'Il représentait et ne savons que faire d'une liberté pour laquelle nous n'avons fait aucun sacrifice, que nous n'avons pas conquise. Nous sommes les héritiers ingrats de l'athéisme héroïque, les épigones de la révolte, une masse de rebelles qui déplorent secrètement la disparition des 'superstitions', des 'préjugés' et des anciennes 'terreurs'."
Emile Michel Cioran (Carnets 1957-1972) |
"For centuries, minds have been fighting and risking their life to get free from god. And us, in the middle of the XXieth century, we regret the chains He represented et don't know what to do of a freedom for which we didn't sacrifice anything, which we haven't conquered. We are the ungrateful heirs of the heroic atheism, the epigons of rebellion, a mass of rebels who secretely deplore the disappearance of 'superstitions', of 'prekudices0 and ancient 'terrors'."
(Sorry for the bad translation)
|
|
i voted tradition cauz i dont see any third way and this modern world |
I added "Third Way" thinking either to a reform of modernity in form of a favour to tradition (re-integration of traditional elements), or to an adaptation of tradition to some modern values/ideas/way of living. Both ways might be quite similar.
Then, I agree there mightn't be any clear movement similar to this one. But, if you look at traditional medicine development, all around the world, despite biomedical cares, there seem to be some readaptation/reapparition (in Occident) of traditional elements. Rationality of traditional medicine (scientifical proofs of the efficiency of treatments, knowledge about their functionings etc.) is not much put in question by people.
Similarly, look at the mixes between traditional instruments/music and electronic/indus sounds within neo-/darkfolk, for instance.
I just mean: there are mixes between what we call "modernity" and "tradition". So, in a way, there are third ways, synthesises that are created, for the better and the worse.
_________________
"Pendant des siècles des esprits se sont battus et ont risqué leur vie pour se libérer de Dieu. Et nous, au milieu du XXe, nous regrettons les chaînes qu'Il représentait et ne savons que faire d'une liberté pour laquelle nous n'avons fait aucun sacrifice, que nous n'avons pas conquise. Nous sommes les héritiers ingrats de l'athéisme héroïque, les épigones de la révolte, une masse de rebelles qui déplorent secrètement la disparition des 'superstitions', des 'préjugés' et des anciennes 'terreurs'."
Emile Michel Cioran (Carnets 1957-1972) |
|
| Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
|
Kamikaze Time Machine
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 152
Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
--I voted "modernity" in the sense that no matter how we attempt to revive or reinterpret the past it must be with the declared purpose of building a better future. |
Should I understand you're a progressist? |
Not really, not in the sense that I hold "progress" to be the meaning of history or any such nonsense. But I am not one of those "salon pessimists" either. I think it is very much in our power to do better.
|
|
Then, it's difficult to say if dropping or not the a-bomb was or not rational before having dropped it. It depends on criterias. Certainly the people (scientists and military people) didn't know the exact consequences, although they may have had some ideas. |
Yes, but the difference between the rationality involved in the science of building an a-bomb is quite different from the "rationalizing" involved in justifying its use.
|
|
So, in a way, modernity is not a chosen change of society but a global metamorphosis due to many changes, everything being not controlled? |
Well you put it very poetically, but yes, modernity isn't a "choice society made". Rather it is the product of a myriad of choices that society has been making for a long time.
|
|
Can we say this is the same with globalization nowadays? |
Globalization certainly has its causes in the past but I think it's a much more controlled phenonmenon (insofar as you mean economic globalization) than "modernity".
|
|
Of course I tried to be synthetic, so, by "broken promise" I referred to positivism and especially of the positivist mentallity still present in people, seemingly. Effectively, it seems the scientists are no longer positivists: they don't believe anymore science could solve all problems, including the metaphysical, philosophical and existential ones. |
Positivism is part of the problem, yes. I can see what you mean now; in a way I guess there is a sort of nostalgia for the "space age" of the 50s, when it seemed like we would all be moving around in hoover cars by now. But that was just the infantile optimism of the age, not really a "promise".
|
|
In my opinion, this positivist hope has however remained among most people. They tend to have replaced the ancient beliefs in salvation through redemption, religion etc. (rather spiritual) with a salvation through science (material). I've the strong impression people think: "science should be able to solve everything or it is shitty, useless, for us." "If it isn't able to succeed in everything, there's something wrong." "If science isn't a panacea, it's a deception." |
Yes, this is a wrong view that stems from an inability to come to terms with our own mortality; I've just recently seen a documentary on Discovery Channel about a very rich guy who has devoted his life to seeking a scientific method to immortality; very symptomatic of the age we live in.
However, science has been and continues to be useful, in the right hands. I for one am grateful that I can type this message on a computer.
|
|
But, the point is some people tend to throw science and technology fully away: for 'em, it is not perfect at all, but worse: it's dangerous, bad, it caused many problems, it's seemingly only negative for 'em. |
That is simply a misunderstanding of what science is, but such is the way of people who tend to blame everything on someone or something in particular.
|
|
|
|
The philosopher Emil Cioran (who later became famous in France) and the historian of religions (and modernist author) Mircea Eliade were the kind of people that the Guard relied on. These were very much modern people, for their time and place, their interest in the Guard was very much a modern one, just like the Futurists' interest in Fascism. |
Interesting. If you've references, I might be interested. |
Well any biography of Cioran or Eliade will tend to mention their involvement with the Guard in the 30s. Both later became disillusioned with the movement's politics, although I personally think that Cioran was perhaps more honest in his renunciation than Eliade (who some say continued to have secret right-wing sympathies well after the war).
The Guard's philosophical school of thought was called Trairism (which literally means "existentialism" in Romanian, but not of the sort that Sartre later had in mind), whose main author was Nae Ionescu, the official ideologue of the movement. This philosophy emphasized "primary instinct" and violent anti-rationalism (although of a very rational kind, ironically); I think there is more than a casual parallel to be drawn between Trairism and the Futurists' philosophy of action and violence. It also emphasized mystic nationalism, anti-semitism (along with a sum of many other "antis", naturally) and a "return to the pure form of tradition" (i.e. a modern reinterpretation of tradition).
I'm not sure if any books have been published on the subject in English, but about Cioran's "troubled youth" I would recommend Marta Petreu's "An infamous past: E.M. Cioran":
From Publishers Weekly
Romanian poet, philosopher and editor Petreu shows in this dense but fresh work that many Romanian intellectuals were seduced by fascist ideology during the interwar years—and that philosopher Cioran, an "aphorist of humorous despair," was haunted by this legacy for the rest of his life. Petreu details the ultranationalist, pro-Christian ideology of the Legion of the Archangel Michael, a movement of intellectuals that gained prominence in Romania after WWI. As with many ideologies of the era, Petreu writes, anti-Semitism lay at the movement's core. Cioran's own ideology, rooted in the wish to turn Romania's "depressing present into a grandiose future," included a more complex view of Jews, outlined in his 1936 The Transfiguration of Romania. He envied what he saw as Jewish productivity in government, business and the arts. But Petreu shows how his outlook, adapted from Spengler, also necessitated hostility toward Jews and other non-Romanians. Cioran left Romania after WWII and became ashamed of his earlier fascism, but Petreu mines his life for lessons to be learned today about how good intentions can lead to extremism.
(http://www.amazon.com/Infamous-Past-Cioran-Fascism-Romania/dp/1566636078/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217039714&sr=8-1)
|
|
I know just a little bit about him for I've read some of his books. |
Oh, he is definitely worth reading. His pretentious yet lyrical brand of pessimistic fervour has a very distinct charm. I am quite a fan actually.
_________________
Quomodo sedet sola civitas. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. |
|
| Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:48 pm |
|
|
Iron Wood
Founder / Editor In Chief
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 365
Location: Western United States |
|
| |
|
I do not have the academic credentials to jump into the current thread but I would like to publish my own personal thoughts.
HH did begin with a central focus on the "neofolk" music tradition and a strong. romantic, "Heathen" influence. Obviously today we have grown to become inclusive of the wider underground.
As a homosexual tradition and traditionalism has always been a domain of thought that has attracted me and equally repelled me. I find tradition attractive because it offers a reinforcement of individual identity and can help anchor an individual to something greater and more enduring than the individual self. On the other hand tradition can also be a force of oppression for those who think progressively or else find themselves living outside the perimeters of tradition.
When I look into Heathen tradition for example there is very little in the form of "family" or "clan" traditions that supports a "homosexual lifestyle" which is a rather modern concept. Recorded "heathen" mythologies which contain mention of cross gender behavior and other homosexual referenced behaviors were interpreted and recorded by Christian scholars and even today are often miss interoperated by heterosexual scholars who overlook the homosexual relevance and meaning of many myths or else systematically dismiss the relevance.
Being a modern day man who is living a modified version of the modern "homosexual lifestyle" I find very little in terms of 'tradition" to grasp or integrate into my life.
For someone like me tradition can seem inspiring but I also feel like there is not an entry point for someone like me in most living traditions. The only exception I can think of is the Native American traditions which often have a traditional reference and scared cultural station for homosexuals and possibly the Hindu religion which has a priest class comprised entirely of castrated transgendered males.
I belong to a new a new tradition called the "Radical Faeries." We began some 40 years ago when a queer communist in the USA began to study anthropology and search for how queer people were related to before christianity and industrialization. His research led him to the Native American cultures where he learned that tradition celebrated queer folks rather than prosecuting and killing them.
Thats my perspective on tradition. Its attractive but often unwelcoming and impenetrable for someone living an openly "gay" life.
|
|
| Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:28 am |
 |
|
Perceptron
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Location: Switzerland |
|
| |
|
|
|
As a homosexual tradition and traditionalism has always been a domain of thought that has attracted me and equally repelled me. I find tradition attractive because it offers a reinforcement of individual identity and can help anchor an individual to something greater and more enduring than the individual self. On the other hand tradition can also be a force of oppression for those who think progressively or else find themselves living outside the perimeters of tradition. |
I think this paradox really relevant. I guess it does differ from tradition(al)ist ideas.
Then, when you say "as a homosexual" it inspires me several remarks.
I agree that many traditions are especially intolerant about homosexuality, especially monotheisms (for the few I know). So, in a way, I think it's a chance to be gay for it offers an occasion to put into question all these morons who try to control people's life, lifestyles, beliefs and sexual preferences...
Being gay puts one in such a position of "deviant" in Judeo-christian society that it can lead to questioning this society, to criticize it, to view it with an anthropological perspective: taking a critical distance.
I don't know much about gay and lesbian cultures.
|
|
We began some 40 years ago when a queer communist in the USA began to study anthropology and search for how queer people were related to before christianity and industrialization. His research led him to the Native American cultures where he learned that tradition celebrated queer folks rather than prosecuting and killing them. |
I find this idea of research very interesting. If people would understand homosexuality is not a symptom of decandent societies or depraved mores but rather a constant through ages and cultures, they might realize it's just... normal!
Then, while I've respect towards sincere gay and lesbian people, I disregard ostentatious demonstrations. What can be the reaction of people not knowing well lesbian and gay subcultures toward the obscene showing off we can see sometimes? It isn't a good way to assert a subculture...
I think gay and lesbian subcultures have a lot more to offer. Just shocking and scaring even more the politically correct people, the children isn't only useless but also counter-productive. It gives even more arguments to religious conservatives, or any other people whose goal in life is to survey and control other people way of living and punish its non conformity...
If the message of these people is "love us" "accept us", I think it's a bit pointless. I think they just have to live as anyone else: going to movie theater, show 'emselves as they are and it should be ok...
I think too that if homosexuality frightens some people it's because it questions sexual identity and preferences of each of us!
I don't think that people have either homosexual or heterosexual preferences: there might be rather a quantitative difference than a qualitative one. There might be a continuum between both and some changes throughout life... After that, norms and biography allow these preference to express behaviourally or not.
On the contrary, I'd be interested in visiting exhibitions or listening to conferences about homosexuality throughout cultures and history.
I think fear of people towards anything is mainly due to ignorance. Thus, informing people about homosexuality would be a better strategy.
Effectively, it seems to me people fear homosexuality even now. Many right-winged parties are regularly quick to condemn it in order to promote the usual family scheme. For some of 'em, homosexuality would be a threat for society...
I however think that the threat is not leaving people living and loving the way they want.
Furthermore, thinking that homosexuality is a threat for family and society implicitely means that these people think we all are homosexuals if we wouldn't have morals, religion and other wannabe useful social control agents. But, isn't homosexuality a taste? Maybe it's biologically influenced? Some homosexuals think so. Certainly, there's also developmental issues.
Is homosexuality closer to "bad" anmial instincts than heterosexuality? I do not think so.
Just look at animals: some seem to be truly gay...
Moreover: there might be an evolutional function to homosexuality...
So, as far as one assumes tradition (religion, morals, politics etc.) as a human construction inherent in an age and a culture, I think it's far more relative, disputable and less important than the individual freedom of having sexual tastes/preferences, the evolutional constraints (which certainly apply to a certain extent to human beings, although we're cultural animals) and certainly the positive social role for social link (homosexuality isn't about hating people but getting bound to some of 'em: it's healthy for society!).
Sorry for this little opinion about homosexuality. Maybe I'm a little bit off topic. But, some traditions, religions and rightists political opinions really don't fit homosexuality, for they condemn it so strongly and even prone punishments (f.i. monotheisms)... So, the idea that some traditions would be more tolerant towards homosexuality than the ones we know seems to me as strange as interesting. But, in my opinion, nothing is better than the modern value such as individual freedom in order to protect people from authoritarian morons and social control inducers...
I can just make a parallel between homosexuality and atheism. Atheism is to religion what homosexuality is to sexual morals: an adversary.
_________________
"Pendant des siècles des esprits se sont battus et ont risqué leur vie pour se libérer de Dieu. Et nous, au milieu du XXe, nous regrettons les chaînes qu'Il représentait et ne savons que faire d'une liberté pour laquelle nous n'avons fait aucun sacrifice, que nous n'avons pas conquise. Nous sommes les héritiers ingrats de l'athéisme héroïque, les épigones de la révolte, une masse de rebelles qui déplorent secrètement la disparition des 'superstitions', des 'préjugés' et des anciennes 'terreurs'."
Emile Michel Cioran (Carnets 1957-1972) |
|
| Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:27 am |
|
|
Iron Wood
Founder / Editor In Chief
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 365
Location: Western United States |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think gay and lesbian subcultures have a lot more to offer. Just shocking and scaring even more the politically correct people, the children isn't only useless but also counter-productive. It gives even more arguments to religious conservatives, or any other people whose goal in life is to survey and control other people way of living and punish its non conformity... |
Gay and Lesbian people suffer a strange social condition in which we are removed from mainstream culture / life and placed in a neat gay compartment called "gay sub-culture". This is a scary place were adult men wear leather costumes and act like a bunch of high school girls. Somehow "gay culture" translates into reckless abandonment defined by silly costumes, role playing, effeminate behavior, a strong disregard for social norms and excessive drug and alcohol abuse driven by insecurity. This is the "snapshot" of gay culture that both the media AND gay culture promote. Men as boys or children partying like Mom & Dad are on vacation.
This in my eyes is a symptom of being abandoned by religion, family, society, and people in general. There is little if any room for queer people in daily life. So queer people retreat and form small "sub-cultures" shielded from the norms that define everyone else. In these small subcultures we reflect in upon ourselves creating a twisted reality that lacks any sense of responsibility. Often times feeling a sense of personal accomplishment is impossible in such a community as drag queens and effeminate types tend to steal the spotlight.
In short. Gay culture is too insulated. As a masculine man not wanting to adopt effeminate behavior the gay sub-culture offers little to no shelter or representation as well. We have been pushed outside the parameters of the group culture which has resulted in us creating an unhealthy sanctuary that is disconnected from reality.
When primary traditions are closed to a person like family, religion, culture, work etc. it can have a devastating effect.
|
|
But, isn't homosexuality a taste? Maybe it's biologically influenced? Some homosexuals think so. Certainly, there's also developmental issues.
Is homosexuality closer to "bad" anmial instincts than heterosexuality? I do not think so.
Just look at animals: some seem to be truly gay... |
Homosexuality is NOT a taste or preference. No one chooses to be attracted to the same sex or gender. Homosexuality IS a biological identity instilled at birth. All behavior and developmental factors have been investigated and dismissed. Homosexual desire is a biological condition though the choice to act upon ones feelings remains a choice. I never had a choice. My body and mind respond to the male physique and mind. I am not physically or emotionally engaged by feminine men or women. Imagine choosing a life that involved rejection, humiliation, and disapproval from family, friends, peers, schools, churches, jobs, etc. Who would willingly choose such a life? It is a great mistake to burden gay people with the thought of choice.
Our only choice is in whether we act upon our sexual impulses. Here in lies the dilemma. The fork in the road. Do you act on your desires and carry the burden of being marked as a leper or do you live in denial of your true self projecting the facade people expect. To me this is a defining experience. It makes warriors of men. Choosing to live openly with the truth of who you are is immensely challenging in a world that gives permission to violence and discrimination against gays. Once gays make the choice to acknowledge and act on their impulses they then become lepers.
As for the evolutionary factor I think it may not exist. The wide spectrum of human sexual expression seems to be an integral part of humanity itself. Though it can be repressed homosexual desire as well as transgenderism, transvestism and all the other sexual identity oddities are just part of us.
|
|
I think gay and lesbian subcultures have a lot more to offer. |
Indeed. We bring with us a diversity not found in the heterosexual paradigm. We are those who do not fit. It is our duty in some ways to present the "other side" or an element of discord. It is appropriate that we present a challenge to assimilation. It is our nature. Somehow our culture has moved towards strangulating diversity and forcing homogenization. We have much to offer in the form of a different way of perceiving life and culture as we are ultimately outsiders to most of life's most basic institutions.
|
|
So, the idea that some traditions would be more tolerant towards homosexuality than the ones we know seems to me as strange as interesting. But, in my opinion, nothing is better than the modern value such as individual freedom in order to protect people from authoritarian morons and social control inducers... |
Unfortunately in most democracies it is still permissible to discriminate based on sexual identity. I do not say sexual preference as it sounds like you are choosing which food you like to eat or what genre of music you "prefer." Even though sexual identity is a defining aspect of each of us it not included in the civil rights protections we extend to others who are systematically discriminated against.
I do think broad application of civil liberties is the only hope for all of mankind.
|
|
Sorry for this little opinion about homosexuality. Maybe I'm a little bit off topic. But, some traditions, religions and rightists political opinions really don't fit homosexuality, for they condemn it so strongly and even prone punishments (f.i. monotheisms)... So, the idea that some traditions would be more tolerant towards homosexuality than the ones we know seems to me as strange as interesting. |
Thank you for also accommodating my thoughts on tradition. Many people do not think of tradition in terms of those who see tradition as a closed door that refuses to open. Even today if you look at old traditions that are trying to be revived like Asatru you still see discrimination and prejudice against queer folks as the participants bring with them their own modern prejudices even if such prejudices do not exist in the revived tradition. Watching Asatru priests try and re-tell heathen myths in order to downplay such acts as Thor cross dressing or else reduce the significance of Odin learning the female dominant Seidr craft or else the downplaying of the significance of Loki shape shifting into the opposite sex and gender are prime examples of how scholars and modern priests are incapable of translating the significance of these myths thus leaving the mythical / historical references impotent.
Thats my thoughts on the matter and thank you for your support Perceptron.
|
|
| Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:09 am |
|
|
Satanarchist
Administrator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Location: mouth of chaos |
|
| |
|
Voted "third way" considering this a possibility to engage Tradition & modernity into a middle end.
The dystopic world we live into obeys to the apparent manifested impossibility to an agreement in this camp. The perpetual war of past vs future, reality vs ideal...
guess as Borges said, eventually will get a way to make our utopias a reality and our dreams a living thing. till then, theres nothing more than to fight back against everything that exacerbates our now dystopic condition while staying away from nihilism.
|
|
| Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:22 am |
|
|
MorningStar
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 54
Location: Arizona USA |
|
| |
|
Adhering to tradition for it's own sake is as unthinking as dropping old ways to be "modern".
I think we need a world where everyone by virtue of their birth is able to pursue freedom is happiness.
We can take lessons from our ancestors and choose to keep what is good from the old ways alive, but this should never be mandatory. Just because you are born a way does not mean that is the future of your actions.
I hope one day the world will be more or less free from racism, sexism, homophobia and racism.
Certainly these things have no place in a heathen community.
All humans share a divinity. I have confidence we can find ways to live together.
_________________
"We all look up at the same sun. We are all brothers and sisters united not divided by our differences." |
|
| Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:42 am |
|
|
Sage
Administrator
Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 794
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA |
|
| |
|
Voted "Traditionalist" though I feel that there are multiple ways to look at each of the three terms provided...
_________________
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God? |
|
| Wed May 20, 2009 5:44 pm |
     |
|
Kanashibari
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 141
Location: Osaka, Japan |
|
| |
|
I cannot be a traditionalist for many of the reasons illuminated by Kamikaze, although I embrace many values which many typically associate with traditionalism, such as reverence for nature and respect for the potential of all life.
I also fully embrace the ideals found more in the mystic, religious, and occult ways of life, which I believe is also one of the main points of interest for most artists supported in HH.
However, I also reject all forms of racism, bigotry, and gender stereotyping, which often tends to be lumped in with the "liberal modernist" stereotype, however far from the truth that may be.
In all honesty, I prefer the ideal of "spiritualism" over anything else.
I know I can't find happiness in the modern world, nor do I honestly think I could be happy in any other age.
This is why we must strive to help build an "ideal age" in the future, through our life and actions, and by using your own life as an example for others to follow.
_________________
cut yourself with heaven's blade..... |
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:50 am |
|
|
Pesten
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 11
|
|
| |
|
I personally think the present, as well as the future, are beyond our control... which would make a 'third way' a bit utopian and out of reach in my eyes.
If one looks at justly traditions - literacy, hard work, understanding, and primal instincts - those are really the only things which have proven to preserve us as a race. If we are to endure, we must keep these traits alive.
|
|
| Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
