From oldsma@pobox.com Thu Jan 15 17:38:33 1998 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:38:20 -0500 (EST) From: Manny Olds To: Asatru List Subject: Revelation in Asatru In rereading my recent reply to Rev. Lars, I realized that I might have given the impression that I don't believe or respect information whose source is "UPG" (Unusual Personal Gnosis) or revelation or inspiration. This is not the case at all. And the more I have thought about how to explain how I *do* regard this kind of information, the more complex the whole picture seems. If someone presents some information that "came from within", how do I regard it? How do I evaluate its reliability? What about my own insights--how do I present them to others and how do I expect them to be received? I have a general approach to evaluating inspired, revealed knowledge that I use on my own insights as well as on those of others. First, I ask how it agrees with the lore. If it disagrees, is it in a major area or a relatively minor one? Is the disagreement itself relatively major or minor? How solid is the available lore on the point? And I try to account for Christian filtration, when possible. Examples: Do you differ in the name of a single dwarf? Or have you claimed that Tyr is King of the Gods? Then I ask how the revelation agrees with what we know more scientifically about god-lore, religion, linguistics, anthropology, and whatnot. We know, from long experience and study, generally how people extract information from the vision stream. We have a pretty good idea of how cultural diffusion works. How does the insight fit with that knowledge? Sometimes the revelation represents an alternative story line. The details of our god-lore show considerable influence from the lifestyles of our predecessors--halls, retainers, swords, drinking, and all. I look at whether or not the proposed alternative story line is consistent with the underlying patterns in the traditional lore. Odin on a motorcycle? Well, okay, but what is he doing and why? I also try to figure out how well the particular revelation fits in with what other people are currently picking up from the ether. Do we all agree that Thor likes caffeine? Have many people gotten the impression that Heimdall represents a link between sea-gods and earth-gods? Or are you trying to establish Loki as a god of Love? Sometimes a new revelation is met with what I call the "click". It might be a brand new notion, completely off the wall, and yet immediately everyone who hears it feels, in some intuitive way, that it is completely, unquestionably true. They begin to act as if it is old lore and common knowledge. For example, in a novel Diana Paxson gave the names of Freya's cats as "Bee Gold" and "Tree Gold" (or Honey and Amber). This is completely out of the air, AFAIK, and yet just about everyone who has heard this gets it stuck in his head as an obvious fact. I believe that the translation of Ask=ash and Embla=elm falls into this category also. (And then, of course, there is also the "anti-click".) I also give some regard to the reputation and credentials of the presenter. Does this person usually come up with good stuff? Does he generally have reliable scholarship and exegesis? Does he acknowledge what comes from the lore and what is from his insight? Does he participate in the community and does his insight build on what the community has been developing in common, or does he just use us when he wants to have an audience? Taking all this into account, I give the new revelation a *personal* rating somewhere along a scale like: So wacky I would bet my liver it is false. Uh, what? Interesting, I'll have to think about that. Hmmm, I'll have to give that some *serious* thought. I'll act as if this is true until I have a reason not to. How did I ever miss that? Look at the lore we have. Why do we esteem Snorre's Prose Edda so highly (aside from the fact that he is an excellent writer who had access to sources that are lost to us now)? Because he subjected the material he started with to a sifting process of this sort and came up with a solid, coherent whole that resonates well. And the lore that he did start with had already been subjected to generations of polishing and sifting. The real difficulty with presenting visions and inspirations is that it is very difficult to present in mixed company. What if my vision contradicts the lore? What if it contradicts your vision? What if I think that your idea is one cut above insane? How can we discuss this without getting into an Edda-thumping, "my god can beat up your god!" wrangle? It requires delicacy and tact and exceptionally good manners (not our strong suits, generally). Manny Olds of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA "One of the things that I've never understood is the attitude that we cannot use reason to test leadings of faith. Truth is truth. I see no proper reason why we should not use science to pursue goals set by faith." -- Paul Butzi