Today's date: frjádagr 30. harpa eða 24. may 2013 CE

Archive for thoughts

Religion

By Sabin Published July 3, 2012

How do you know if you’re part of a cult, part of a religion, or just out on your own seeking some kind of spiritual knowledge? From my perspective, the answer is easy: if you’re part of a religion, you’re in a cult, and you’re not going to be able to find spiritual truth for yourself. Additionally, I will show how adherence to a cult or religion impairs one’s ability to be a free-thinker.

According to the Encarta dictionary, Cult is defined as the following:

  1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
  2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false

Religion from the same source is defined as the following:

  1. beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
  2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
  3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Looking at these definitions, then, a cult is an “informal and transient” religious system “regarded by others as misguided … or false” while a religion is an “institutionalized or personal” system of beliefs. A cult is defined from the vantage point of an established religion. They both involve belief systems, personal opinions and divinity (the cult definition references “religious” which implies divinity). So what’s the actual difference between the two?

Or more specifically, in the realm of the Abrahamic god is Judaism, Christianity, or Islam the cult? Or are they all cults and religions? How about with Hindu and Buddhism: same roots, different systems. Which is the cult? Christianity and Mormonism: is that a religion:sect or religion:cult relationship? Logic would say that we would look at which came first, but that would mean that some of the most popular religions on the planet (Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity) are just cults. And even though I’m personally okay with that, it only works for outside observers: adherents to one will see adherents to the other as cultish and vice-versa.

To solve this subjective dichotomy, I propose two things. The first is that we stop seeing a difference between religions and cults since there really isn’t one (today’s cult is tomorrow’s religion). Secondly (though this may have already been done) I give you an objective test to determine whether a personal belief system is — in reality — a cult- or religion-based belief.

  1. Is there a set of rules designed to unite a group of people into a shared system of ritual, belief, and behavior?
  2. Is there a doctrine or official text?
  3. Is there some kind of structure that maintains control over the interpretation and distribution of the doctrine?
  4. Do adherents worship a god or gods according to the doctrine as delivered by the structure?
  5. Are appropriate thoughts, deeds, and speech of the adherents dictated by the doctrine?
  6. Does making choices outside of the delivered doctrine hold consequences — metaphysical or actual — for the adherent?

The above list is organized in a quasi-consequential sense. That is, they each seem to precede the other. A set of rules leads to doctrine leads to structure on to restriction of choices for adherents. I’m sure there’s more research that has been done or could be done on the course religion takes through history, but my sense is that it goes in that order.

Aside from that, I’m confident that if the above points are answered in the positive, a cult/religion is involved. Conversely, if they’re answered in the negative, there is no cult/religion involved. Using the above test, I’ve put together sample lists of belief systems that are religions, and some examples of those that are not.

Religions:

  • Christianity
  • Scientology
  • Asatru
  • Judaism
  • Mormonism
  • Islam
  • Buddhism
  • Hinduism
  • Wicca

Not Religions:

  • Atheism
  • Nihilism
  • Heathenism
  • any secular philosophical point of view
  • Paganism
  • Deism
  • Witchcraft

The most immediate result of being objective about this is to help us make more plain the division between cult/religion and philosophy. While a cult/religion has structure and a doctrine and a system of punishments, a philosophy does not. The only thing they share is the idea that adherents hold a particular world-view. The adherent to a philosophy, however, is not limited in her freedom to explore other world-views, or to vet her ideas against others with reason and inquiry.

I think there are other results that can be achieved through this objective filter with some more thought. One could construct a rigid argument that the support for religions is restrictive to the development of free-thought. Also, a standardized argument for the removal of religion from state decisions can be made on objective and reasonable grounds.

Whatever happens, it is important to the progression of human thought, metaphysics, and philosophy that we not hamper ourselves with restrictive rules or expectations. If that means establishing all religions as cults or all cults as religions, then so be it. The goal is to free the mind and explore what it means — what it really means — to be human.

Posted in atheism, atheist, heathenism, liberty, philosophy, religion, thoughts Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment

Ek em heiðinn

By Sabin Published June 24, 2012

After a 20-year journey, I declare myself today a Heathen. It’s time. The tide of religious superiority must change, and those beliefs left trampled and broken by the Christian onslaught must rise from the ashes and reclaim what is theirs. I’ve sworn my oath. Stained the runes. This is a short piece about why.

The forced subjugation of the Northern European Heathen societies — and all pagan societies around the world — by the Christian church has done near irreparable harm to the earth and humanity. In Europe alone, centuries of artistic, societal, and cultural discoveries were destroyed along with the people who made them.

Jaweh — proclaimed a god of “love” by his adherents — has inspired more mass destruction, murder, rape, and pillaging than any other god ever worshiped. He is a god of subjugation, torture, and sorrow. Though claimed to be omniscient and omnipotent, he allows murder in his name. He allows corruption at the highest levels of his church. Misogyny, pedophilia, pestilence and disease. Either he’s not there or doesn’t care.

He is a dictator and his rules are anathema to humanity. His adherents must satisfy themselves with the life they’re given — no matter how humiliating — and wait for death to be redeemed. They are promised heaven; to be with everyone they once loved. His real plan as dictated by scripture is for them to eternally labor in the fields in sight of his palace, but never allowed to enter. All of this in the name of “love”.

The Heathen gods in contrast serve as moral and ethical examples of human behavior.  They ask nothing more of their followers than what is common human courtesy: friendship for those who earn it; hospitality for the weary; defense of the helpless; honor, respect, love for the family; to celebrate when appropriate and mourn when necessary. Negotiation or trade before war. They ask us to live well.

They inspire through their own actions, not with threats or promises of an invisible future. Their own quests for wisdom and lore are guidelines for human existence. They show us to look for life in the face of death. To continually seek knowledge and to share what we find. They teach the perseverance of courage in the face of fear. Their occasional punishments are just and fitting for the transgression.

In the end, what the Heathen gods ask of us is nothing more than to be human. To accept what that means and to discover the rest for ourselves.

Posted in heathenism, humanity, philosophy, runes, thoughts Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Viking helmets

By Sabin Published May 28, 2012

This is a Viking helmet from the 10th century. Please notice that there aren’t any horns. As a heathen of some intelligence and education, I’m required to point that out. The Horns-on-the-Viking-Helmet stories are as un-true as the White Christ dying on a cross to save the world from sins. That is to say: they are a myth. I want to write a little about contemporary backlash because of this myth. For the record, I’m okay with modern, fun- and sport-based representations of horned-Viking helmets. I’ll get to the reasons in a bit.

The northern culture was creative, artistic, scientific. They were adventurous, brave. They had solid family units, lawful proceedings based on community ethics, and they didn’t try to destroy other cultures for no reason. The problem is that all of these positive qualities have been almost entirely wiped out by christian propaganda. The image of the horned helmet has become a symbol of that propaganda because it has persisted for so long.

See, christians don’t tend to like non-christians. This hasn’t changed since the first cultists started carrying around crosses. In order to ensure that their cult took over the world, early christian writers would portray other cultures as barbaric and animalistic as possible: wearing naught but firs and horned helmets, for instance. Such is the case with the norsemen. While there’s no denying that these bearded cats from the north could carry on a hell of a battle, and it’s certainly true that they had no love of the southern christians. And as far as we can tell, the feeling was mutual.

Contemporary heathens — like me — work very hard to change the stereotypical image of norsemen. The horned helmet is one of the easiest targets with which to start, and some heathens get really enthusiastic about eradicating the horns. So enthusiastic, in fact, that they spew angry and violent epithets at NFL fans, Disney World Tourists, and opera singers. This is unfortunate for two reasons. The first is that it makes the rest of us heathens look bad. The second is that this anger-based approach ignores a very important quality pre-christian norsemen had: a grand sense of humor.

Jokes and pranks, baudy stories, games of juvenile skill, riddles, verbal tricks, mental and physical contests all make their way into the sagas. If actual Vikings were to attend a Minnesota Vikings game and witness the fine home fans brandishing their horned hats, swilling their ale, and eating sausages on a cold day, it’s almost a certain fact that they would have laughed heartily and enjoyed themselves. Horned helmets or not.

Secondly, the plastic horned helmet is really popular. Heathens should be taking advantage of that. Use the fascination our society has with the Vikings to ensure that historical truths are discovered. Think of the horns as gateway accouterments. Perhaps later will follow the seax, shield, and Danish axe!

Heathens should offer help to these fun-seeking helmet-wearers. They should ensure that historical truth becomes more readily available and accepted while the christian myths get eradicated. But they should do this with our spiritual ancestors’ sense of humor. There’s no point in getting angry at people having a good time. It’s a waste of energy, and frankly disrespects the culture we’re working so hard to share. And remember: if there’s a celebration where ale is involved, people are having fun, and nobody’s angry, it’s the kind of place the norsemen would have enjoyed ending up. Let’s do their memory a solid and not spoil it.

Posted in heathenism, thoughts, vikings Tagged: , | 1 Comment

Grazing in the grass roots

By Sabin Published February 23, 2012

I had an opportunity to participate in a small part of what is becoming a large movement in support of the “Move to Amend” campaign to adopt an amendment to the United States Constitution that declares in no uncertain terms that corporations are not people. The local group here is comprised of a handful of passionate and determined men and women — veterans of progressive campaigns and protests all — who want nothing more than the elimination of corporate control over elected officials. I couldn’t agree more with the aims of this group. There’s obviously a corruption, and it can be readily traced back to lobbying, corporate interests, and campaign donations. All of which needs to stop and control of elected officials needs to be returned to the voters for whom they serve. So while I support the movement and its aims, I feel that there are talking points that are not being addressed in the public discourse that are an essential part of deciding if this movement is worth supporting.

Firstly, there are two versions of the amendment: the version I linked above, and the one penned by Senator Bernie Sanders here [PDF]. They are actually quite different from each other, and address different points of concerns. The MtA version attempts to establish that a) all corporations are not people, that b) money is specifically not speech and b) neither a nor b apply to the press. Bernie’s version states simply that for-profit corporations would no longer be allowed to participate — through financial means — in the electoral process. These are two fundamentally different statements and to put our support behind a “non-corporate-personhood” movement would seem to imply that they are both the same. Which to choose, which to choose. I will address the specific wordings of each in a later post, but suffice it to say that we have to either merge them or pick one to support or all of our efforts are for naught. For the sake of this post, let’s assume that we’ve settled on a compromise version of the two that includes proper wording addressing the MtA points.

The second talking point is the question of what will happen if the amendment succeeds. It seems like a simple question because we tend to see the success and lack thereof as a binary result. On the one hand corporations are removed from matters of free speech, their money is kept out of politics, and people will regain control of their representatives. Without this amendment, we imagine a country where more money means more speech, where politicians make decisions based on who their largest donors are, where the voting public is unwittingly duped into electing a puppet of some foreign power. I submit however that it is not so cut and dried as it would seem.

For instance, in the case of success will the corruption we’re railing against be cured? Will this amendment keep corporations from establishing some kind of legalized slush fund through which individuals can send donations or pay for campaigns on behalf of the corporation? Will this amendment keep corporations from providing ever-increasing funds to lobbyists and directly influence law making after the election process? Will this amendment in fact make elected officials more subservient to their constituents and less so to their donors? It’s reasonable to assume given the specificity of the language and purpose that the answer to all these questions is no. Let’s suppose, though, we live in a country where the press is free, money is not the same as speech (which means it can be regulated far more than just through time, manner, and place), and corporations are not covered under the Bill of Rights.

In this new country, the government is allowed to regulate the flow of money that supports individuals who are trying to speak because money is not speech and — given the precedent of Citizens United — could not legally be used for speech. If an individual is seeking a grant from the government or a government-funded agency, that grant could be denied if the money was going to be used to perform “speech”. Could a corporation rent a hall in town to present a documentary or educational film? What are we limiting by saying money is not protected speech?

Corporations in our new country would also no longer be covered by the Bill of Rights because of our new amendment. The government would be able to freely seize, shut down, censure, or otherwise inhibit the activities of any corporation regardless of due process, etc. This could be Monsanto, or your local church (a not-for-profit corporation). The Bill of Rights is what keeps the government from doing that. If it no longer applies to corporations, they are removed from its protections. Extending this a bit further, would a work-around be that corporate rules are changed so that they can be represented by a person? Can the chairman of the board work on behalf of the corporation, but still be protected by our new amendment and the Bill of Rights? It’s not unreasonable to believe so since this has not come up as a point of discussion.

Hyperbole aside, are these likely events? Given the history of government behavior when given the latitude for that behavior, it is safe to assume that we are not outside the realm of possibility. England, Italy, Japan, China, Germany, Russia, and the United States all have glaring histories that show how their government behaves when given the right mixture of latitude, reason, and will. Could this amendment provide or be a catalyst for that kind of mixture? It’s possible given what laws are passed afterwards and how desperate certain parties are. While the future is never certain nor predictable, we can safely say that there are unforeseen circumstances that are worse than what we face now.

Lastly, we’re presented with a state of affairs where our chosen version of the amendment doesn’t pass. What if what we’re left with is a post-2009 world where corporations spending money on campaigns is a form of speech, where they can create Superpacs and support a candidate? What is our recourse to such a world? In fact, it is the same as it is in our fictional future-world above: people and their level of determination to change government through the electoral process — which is on a basic level inviolate and sacred if handled in the correct way.

No matter how much money is thrown into a campaign, how muddled a message may get, people have the ability to find their way to the truth of things if they are determined enough. the Federal Election Commission publishes all donations a candidate receives. Corporate board members can be looked up. Individual’s associations can be researched. Who paid how much to whom is a question that in the age of Google, govtrack.us, and Wikipedia is not terribly difficult to answer. Public libraries provide Internet access, free magazines and newspapers. In other words, the methodology for dealing with corruption is as powerful as the citizenry’s desire to use it.

* * * *

While I support the idea that corporations are not people, and while I support the idea that money on the scale of the millions and millions of dollars we’re seeing should not be in politics, I support the amendment movement with caution. Whether the amendment succeeds or fails, there are outcomes that are unforeseen. This is because the problem is not a question of corporate personhood, campaign donations, or lobbying. The problem is that the majority of those who are currently in government are not governing well. The only sure way to deal with such a thing is through the willingness of the governed public to take control of their own destinies.

What we’re left with after all the dust clears are some basic tenets that have always been true about our country and are mentioned numerous times in the “Federalist Papers”. The first is that participation in government is a requirement of all voting age citizens. It is not a privilege, nor a right, but a responsibility of each governed citizen who is able to participate. The second is that when the citizenry do not participate, government is pulled from their hands by factions: religious, business, cultish, political. The nature of the faction doesn’t matter, what matters is that a minority (say 33%) becomes a majority as fewer and fewer people participate.

Simplified, I think my argument for supporting the move for a constitutional amendment could be written like this:

  1. Factions are anathema to a government that is meant to represent the entirety of the governed (Federalist Papers)
  2. Corporations are a faction that harms government (Assumption)
  3. The amendment is an attempt at limiting the powers of corporations (ibid.)
  4. Therefore, supporting the amendment helps limit the power of factions (1,3)
  5. Therefore, it is reasonable to support the amendment (4)

Reasonably speaking, then, should we support the amendment movement? Given that in either a passed or failed scenario, we are still relying on the citizenry to vote, participate, and ensure corporations don’t take over elections anymore than they have then yes, but only in understanding that it’s not the solution to all of the problems of government. In other words, support or not, the problems plaguing our government are not going to go away with the success or failure of this amendment. Since there’s no real way to tell if it will do more harm than good, it’s not unreasonable to support it, but it also may not lead the country to the solution that is expected.

Posted in democracy, philosophy, politics, thoughts Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment

On militant veganism and the environment

By Sabin Published January 25, 2012

How does one balance the importance of a strong, personal belief with the overarching needs of an entire society? The answer to this question — if there is an answer — could very well decide whether the human race is able to pull back from the environmental brink we’ve landed ourselves upon. Specifically, I’m talking about the unwillingness I’ve seen in — what I hope is a few — certain sects of veganism. These folks believe that the way to salvation for both human health and the earth’s environment is to completely eliminate any dependent relationship humans have with animals. No dairy. No leather. Certainly no meat. The idea is that by doing so we will reduce the number of greenhouse gases (methane), increase the amount of usable land (less acreage used for corn), and improve human health. I don’t doubt that they’re right, but the cost of their proposed changes is too great.

From the very first fencepost humankind put down, we started ourselves on a path that is impossible to veer from or go back down. We are the only species in the animal kingdom who practices husbandry: the raising and caring for other species as a survival mechanism. To that end, we have altered or created new strains of domesticated animals through selective breeding practices and — less endearingly — kill-offs of entire species (Aurochs among others). While this has been largely successful, there are severe drawbacks that need to be corrected. Industrial farming has impersonalized the husbandry process and turned the slaughter of other species into nothing more than a step on an assembly line. It has produced more methane than we can contain. It has taken up large chunks of land for growing genetically altered corn to feed to these species. It has also placed the control of the world’s food supplies into the hands of the powerful and wealthy. Not to mention the small cages, deplorable living conditions for the animals, etc. So yes, there’s a serious problem here that needs a serious solution. Unfortunately, veganism isn’t it.

For one thing, we’ve got billions of animals to care for. If the vegans had their way we would no longer have a use for them, but then what? Release them into the wild where they endanger or destroy indigenous species or worse? Will the methane production cease because we no longer care for these creatures, or is it more likely to get worse as it will go completely unchecked. I’ve heard it suggested by a self-described vegan that the best solution would be to slaughter all of them. Because after all, killing millions of animals all at once in a bath of blood for no reason other than they’ve outlived their usefulness is far better than sitting by while they’re slaughtered for food. This is a problem that has to be solved.

My greatest concern is on the environmental side. For any environmental solution to be effective, it has to be adopted by a vast majority of humankind. Humans are pretty particular about “adopting” things. We want to be less wasteful, but not at the cost of our families, income, personal property, or freedoms. Militant veganism with its confrontational nature, its “do this or you’re wrong” attitude, and its lack of real solutions is not attractive to vast majority of us and can never succeed on the scale required.

It’s a totalitarian perspective on an issue too complex for black and white reasoning. Totalitarianism just doesn’t work. It’s unethical, inefficient, and it chafes. The same group of people who would tell us to stop listening to the “meat and dairy lobby” will in the same breath tell us to listen to only them. There’s a middle ground; however, and while it doesn’t keep us all from eating dairy and meat, it does seem to have a positive effect on our health, the environment, and the overall well-being of the species we’ve domesticated.

The practices of permaculture and localvore by themselves are effective ways of managing resources and health, respectively. If taken together I believe that the bulk of our environmental and health issues related to animal husbandry can be solved. Firstly, permaculture removes the concept of factory farming from our society. No longer would we see mile-long, stainless steel pens and slaughterhouses funded by the government and managed by the powerful, and centralized out of reach. Each family or community would be in charge of their own food production, no matter their location. It’s pure self-sufficiency. Some would choose a vegetarian lifestyle, others would not. Some might raise timber and barter for food or wool. Either way, we end up with closer communities, cleaner air and water, decentralized food production, and a serious reduction in the number of food-borne illnesses and health issues.

Localvore is the economic model and community promise that provides the motivation for permaculture practices. It is the practice of buying and eating a certain percentage of locally-grown foods. Some communities try to be 100% localvore, others shoot for a smaller percentage with an eye on increasing it over time. Whatever the current level of consumption, by choosing to purchase our food locally we reduce the necessity for government-subsidized farming, gain a vested interest in the husbandry methods our communities use, and support the self-sufficiency or oursleves, our neighbors, and our communities. All of the issues — other than the actual eating of meat and dairy — often raised by militant vegans are solved with these two philosophies practiced in tandem.

The species husbanded in this way have healthier, happier lives and are never killed without need. The humans in these environments feel closer to the natural law and order of things. The food — vegetable or animal — is cleaner and safer. The use of pesticides and genetically modified seeds is eliminated. This is a middle ground that works. There are communities doing this today and more are coming on board every year.

The environment and the caring thereof is one of the greatest weapons vegans have in their arsenal. By showing how industrial farming practices, government subsidies, and wasteful eating are affecting not only human health but the health of the planet, vegans have started a positive dialog. The healthier ones among them have shown how — with enough money in the right location — one can live free of meat and dairy. However, in order for that positive dialog to turn into positive action. In order for the people who can make a difference to stand up and change things, the totalitarian, all-or-none diatribes must stop. The cries of “flesh eater” and “food for pleasure” must stop. The hyperbole needs to be put away. It’s blocking the real issues that have real solutions. The problems of our society and our planet are larger than anyone’s personal belief system.

 

Posted in thoughts | Leave a comment

Autistics in the mist, part one

By Sabin Published November 1, 2011

Today I was awoken from a deep slumber by the older female. She had spent the night working on getting the perfect album ready for a series of photos of her children and husband. She hadn’t slept at all, and as of this writing is still awake. Her work on selecting, cropping, editing, and captioning the 14 photos had taken her most of four hours.

The last photo of a crow purchased from the local pharmacy apparently gave her a hard time, because she wanted me to help her with a caption. After loudly debating the subject for a few minutes, she finally typed in a phrase that she came up with on her own, pressed enter and slumped forward on her desk.

My time with these autistics in the mist may need to be much longer than my university’s initial understanding, but I will not leave while I can still try and understand their ways and my ever-evolving involvement with them. I find myself irrevocably drawn to them, and I fear that my closeness may endanger my ability to remain objective in my studies.

Posted in autistics in the mist, family, thoughts Tagged: , , | Leave a comment

Runic template

By Sabin Published October 29, 2011

In my rune research the other day, I followed a hypothesis that “eight” and “ætt” are cut from the same cloth. That there is more than phonetics connecting the two. It turns out that I wasn’t far off. Átta is the Old Norse word for the cardinal number eight, descended from átt which relates to directions (north, north-west, west, south-west, south, south-east, east, north-east). Also according to Cleasby-Vigfusson, certain writers would write átt and ætt indiscriminately which tells me that at some point they held the same meanings. In other words, during the development of the Old Norse language, the word that references the cardinal directions could have been the same as the word for family (though a comment in CV calls this “fanciful”, it is the only thing that explains the shared usage).For me, this was the trigger for further exploration.

We already know that the heavens are divided into eight segments (cardinal directions, as well as mythologically) for Norse Heathens. Add to that this idea of “family”, and we end up with an interpretation of ætt as a possible social compass (which I’ve seen mentioned in a few different places over the last month or so). A guidance given to us by our connection to our kin. This idea struck me as very powerful, and I started to re-examine the Elder Futhark with it in mind. Three rows of eight (átta). Each row referred to as an ætt.

When I started to replay the meanings of the runes with this idea in mind, I noticed a kind of story arc  from rune to rune. This idea had occurred to me before, too, but I figured I would stick with it this time and see what happend. Especially since it was a story arc that I was also noticing in my readings of Njal’s Saga and Egil’s Saga and that I had seen inklings of in the Havamal. In short, the order of the runes through the Elder Futhark can be seen as a template for living, as a model to follow in order to get the most out of Heathen life.

For example, the meaning of FEHU is clear as being about wealth, but wealth in a more transient mode — ie, pocket money — with a warning that it can spoil relationships (Gunnar returning from his adventures dressed in fine furs, Sigurd and his “river fire”: neither of which led to great happiness). Whereas the meaning of OTHALA is also wealth, but wealth that is able to be bequeathed to next of kin (what Flosi and Kari end up with at the end of Njal’s Saga). Wealth that is in the form of a stable home, family, inheritance. Even just looking at those two runes, we can start to see the beginnings of a story — from pocket money to transferable wealth — but can’t make much more out of it other than the idea that money now can become an inheritance later.

Looking at the Futhark in this light also helps with some of the more confusing interpretations. KENAZ is a great example of this. It’s a real puzzler. Across the three rune poems, it is represented as meaning three different things: a scab from a skinned knee or a battle scar, the weight of misfortune, or the lamp-lit safety of a cozy cottage. Looking at the rune by itself poses a challenge for interpretation — though it is possible, and most runesters ignore the Icelandic and Norwegian poems altogether. However, when looking at it from the point of view of ætt-as-story-arc, we can begin to see that KENAZ is the wound you live from and tell stories about. Especially coupled with RAIDHO to its left and GEBO to the right. H0w many sagas are there, heroic tales are there, that tell of a hero who goes on a journey (RAIDHO) only to return home with scars and stories (KENAZ) and gifts (GEBO) for his friends? And this continues through every row: each rune has a meaning that sets it as a particular place in a person’s life.

FEHU and OTHALA, KENAZ can all be viewed with this overarching idea, and so can the other 23 runes. Using this interpretation, each rune represents a moment or concept within the progression of one’s life. Either it is a moment that must happen in order to move forward, or it’s a moment that — if it does happen — has to be handled in a certain way or with a certain process.

The first row represents the arc of youth: get some money together (FEHU), prove yourself in tests (URUZ) and against strong opponents (THURISAZ). Journey off into the world and return with stories and gifts to the joy of your clan (WUNJO). The second row is the introspective process of middle age. It’s about internal needs (NAUTHIZ) and their relationship with the forces of nature (ISA) and how we control our interactions with them (PERTHRO). The third row is old age, then. Great sacrifice starts it off (TIWAZ) and there are images of rebirth (BERKANO) and renewal (reconciliation? retirement?), connections with other people (MANNAZ) in a more profound way than before, and then the end. OTHALA and our ability to bequeath some legacy to the next generation’s youth. Obviously there are runes I’m not mentioning, but you get the idea.

Once we have a template, we can do all kinds of things with it. We can use it as a guide for our children, we can use it as a foundation on which to build a society. We can even use it as a map to find ourselves if we’re feeling lost or as a guide to what might be coming up next. I’m using it as a way of trying to find more accurate interpretations of each rune’s meaning. It makes sense that a society priding itself on wordplay, wisdom, and storytelling would have developed a system like this. Given that, I feel comfortable continuing in this vein in the hopes of putting more of the pieces together.

I’ve got a lot more work to do with this line of work, but I figured I would share what I’ve got so far in the hopes we can all help add to the collective thought and work towards recreating so much of what has been lost over the years.

Posted in philosophy, runes, thoughts Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment

Perfect day

By Sabin Published September 26, 2011

I don’t normally post during working hours, but since I’m at lunch I figured I would make an exception. As you may have guessed by the title, today is perfect. It’s early autumn here in Vermont, the sun is shining in the glaringly orange/yellow way it does this time of year. The leaves are changing to palettes of red and orange and purple. But it’s not just the weather.

This morning my wife wanted to take a drive to get some breakfasty foods, so we did. All along route 15 and back we chatted while our kids sat in the back. Camellia giggling and counting her toes or shoes or whatever it is toddlers count. Gabe leaning against his window, brooding in that kind of joyful way that only a 12-year old can pull off. Perfect. The mist rose from the Lamoille River valley and we talked about this and that, something and everything.

To be able to start my days this way is joy. My family near me as often as possible is joy. I’m just glad I’m here.

Posted in thoughts, vermont Tagged: , , | Leave a comment

From a comment to a translation of KENAZ

By Sabin Published September 25, 2011

In the process of posting to a blog (http://heksebua.com/linda/2011/09/rok-runes-6-kaun/), I made a breakthrough in my attempt at trying to come to terms with KENAZ.

This has been a tricky one because the Old Norwegian and Old Icelandic poems talk about wounds while the Anglo Saxon talks about safety and light inside a cabin.

For the Old Norwegian poem, I had translated it as this: “Scab is a bending child; misfortune makes pale humans”. Literal, to be sure, but implies bending from pain and does indeed imply that death can come from misfortune.

The puzzle with this one is the similarity between Icelandic and Old Norwegian, but the vast difference in the Anglo-Saxon version. A well-lit cabin is very different than infection and pain caused by a wound.

This is where I start to ask myself contextual questions. Wounds when survived are talking points, triggers for stories around a fire. As with most runes, I think there’s a story — instead of simple meaning — with this one. It’s about adversity.

A child’s scrape from playing is a mark of their passing through life, a battle wound is a mark of passing through adult life, and then you can sit around the fire and tell the stories. KAUN (KENAZ) then is the adversity or pain itself and the surviving of that pain and a reminder that we should remember what we’ve been through to get where we are.

This is also in keeping with the progression of the Elder Futhark from FEHU to OTHALA.

Anyhow, I’m glad there are others out there working these through. It’s going to take all of us to reclaim the information the runes represent. Thanks for allowing the space for commentary.

Posted in philosophy, runes, thoughts Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment

Victor Densmore reads on July 22nd, 2011

By Sabin Published July 14, 2011

Every month, the Jeudevine Memorial Library hosts a reading of local poets at the Memorial building here in Hardwick, VT. My dad, Victor Densmore, is normally the co-host of these events. During the third week of July, however, he will be reading his work as one of the guests of honor.

The reading comes at a good time for both him and fans of his work. His first book, Out of the Hermit’s Meadow and Wood, will be entering a second printing in August and he is hard at work on a second book of 100 or so more poems.

If you’re interested in supporting my dad, or are a fan of good poetry, I encourage you to come out to the reading in Hardwick on July 22nd. It starts at 7 p.m. If you can’t make the reading, then please consider taking a look at his book on lulu.com and helping to support him as a writer. If you’re unable to do that, then feel free to drop a note here or share his book with people you know. He deserves all the readership we can help build for him. I know he’s my dad and some of you will think I’m just saying this, but he really is one of the best poets I’ve ever read.

Within the next couple of weeks, we will be releasing a form for people to pre-order a copy of his second book. All pre-orders will be signed and numbered in the same way he did for his first title. Also, we are looking to broaden the market of his books beyond lulu.com and a handful of local stores. I will be talking about that more in this space soon.

 

Posted in poetry, publishing, thoughts, vermont poet, victor densmore Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark.

%d bloggers like this: