The problem here is that history centered, linear Catholic minds … will have a difficult time grasping Paganism or much of the New Age movement.
I agree with this almost entirely, but my agreement fails me when the general principle you have stated takes the form of a criticism.
The principle I agree with, is that an absolutist perception of that which is real, will necessarily find contradiction in a perspective of reality which is relativist.
On the other hand, to say that a mind which has accepted Catholicism is unprepared to truly understand the basic assumptions of paganism, is to degrade the Catholic mind. How so? Why, you are proposing that paganism is by nature of a far greater depth than Catholicism is.
Simple meaning, or shallowness, versus multiple meaning, and thus depth, is a valid conflict in ideas. But let not depth and incoherency be confused!
I view the following as being incoherent:
Yes, Paganism will undoutably have some links and similarities to the Paganism of the past. And Yes, much of it will be new ideas or a synthesis of other traditions compiled to make a new system of belief or practice.
What is the criterion by which an individual pagan should decide which “new idea” he should “synthesise” with “other traditions,” thus making “a new system of belief or practice?”
I postulate that there is no such criterion which cannot be named merely by the name of emotionalism. To make such a word as emotionalism “holy” by giving it that ancient word “gnosis” is simply to make ultimate truth a symbol for self-actualisation; and the “religion” by which such a thing should be achieved, an abstract and watery psychotherapy.
What the linear, historic religious mind fails to grasp is that Paganism is NOT A HISTORY CENTERED FAITH."
You speak of the negation of history as if it were something to be idealised. Why?
And thus, the majority of its practicioners could care less what of their faith is new and what of it is old. They know some elements stem back thousands of years and they know that many do not. But ultimately the faith has nothing do with their ancestors, with history or the significance of things in the past.
Hm… this is shocking, quite frankly.
Paganism is a religion of primordial truth…that is, it exists OUTSIDE of history.
Excuse me, but what does “OUTSIDE” of history mean? If paganism’s truth is “primordial,” and if its effects thus cannot be perceived by the eye of history, then what are you referring to? and how did you come to be able to be aware of it, thus referring to it in the first place?
This is why mythology is important, it espouses pre-historic truths, no one is asking if it literally happened or not, that part is irrelevant.
You speak of mythology as if it were sacred art. However, to say that an artist has arrived at the truth of reality via the medium of his art is only one possiblity. The other possiblity is that the art itself is a product of the artists perception of truth. You seem to adhere to the second possibility, whilst ignoring the methodology by which the artist has come to perceive his truth in the first place. If you say that there is nothing which the artist can perceive as truth, then you are claiming a third possibility: that art exists solely within its own context. But if this is so, then how does “mythology…espouse…truth…?”
Essentially, Paganism is an internal faith, it plays out within. This is why the religious experience is so subjective…giving the appearance that truth is, when in fact, she is constantly manifesting herself in different forms.
Either truth is truth, and exists as truth regardless of whether or not we can perceive it; or else there is no such thing as truth, but emotionalism, on the one hand, and statistics on the other. Catholics tend to speak in terms of truth, whilst pagans tend to speak in terms of emotionalism and intuition.
But yet, there is a third option, and it is called deception. I use that word here to describe the state of a man who refers to his emotionalism as truth. Paganism seems to believe in an ultimate truth, but yet seems to believe that such a truth is beyond man, or is unknowable; on the other hand, paganism holds that man can grasp a small portion of the truth, as defined by man’s emotionalism.
It reminds me of the Rig Veda, “Truth is one, but men call her by many names”
I agree with that statement entirely. But you seem to want to use it as if it said “Truth is one, but reveals itself to men using many different masks.” Pagans believe my own wording of your statement, whilst no one with even a shred of common sense would deny yours.
