|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Ritual 234 messages | Select a forum: |
| Paulus asked me to chip in on this. I avoid online forums usually (found plenty of reasons here to carry on like this! ;-). But for a friend... Knowing Paulus, I'd guess by "sacred" he was describing a sense of numinosity - mixed with some elements of respect, contact, cherishability and plain old undefinable inner glow. In some sense, the idea that everything is sacred is nonsense, as strictly speaking it's part of the sacred/profane binary opposition, and "profane" is from pro-fanum, "before the temple". Orginally it was a psychospatial opposition, referring to inside and outside "sacred spaces", temples. "Sacred" itself originally means to consecrate, and "to render inviolable, establish, confirm". (Damn that £80 was well spent on Skeat's etymological dictionary!) But, language lives, and "sacred" is often used in the sense that Paulus is using it, which is more like seeing the potential for sacredness in everything. If we're going to (conceptually at least) break those temple walls down, I'd personally rather extend the feeling of wonder on the inside outwards than get rid of it and tar everything with that dismissive sense of worthlessness we have in "profane". Peter saying "The word has no meaning to me - none at all" seems like obvious flimsy online forum rhetoric. At the very least, check the dictionary. Better, check an etymological dictionary and do a bit of meditation (specifically on the word and its associations). Words are alive, and deserve to be interacted with more than used coldly or dismissed casually. Reply | with quote | Posted by gyrus 12th January 2006ce 14:54 In reply to: Re: Ritual (PeterH)5 replies: Re: Ritual (PeterH) Re: Ritual (PeterH) Gyrus? (morfe) The Patriarch-pupil (Littlestone) Re: Ritual (Rune) |
Messages in this topic: |
|