|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Ritual 234 messages | Select a forum: |
| > Numinosity is a much mis-used word too. It doesn't actually exist. Does now ;-) Fascinating to learn that it doesn't exist, but I don't think that automatically means it shouldn't be used, language being alive and all that. I don't think language's ever-evolving nature means a free-for-all with neologisms, but neither does it mean we all need to defer to them guys in Oxford when we want permission to express something. Poetry and street slang notwithstanding, do you see the dictionary as the final arbiter of language? If so, you might need to revise your statement that you don't believe anything's beyond criticism ;-) > From the Indo-European via Latin, it actually meant originally "a nod of assent by a god". That seems to be a long way from a "plain old undefinable inner glow". So unless you believe in a god - both sacred and numinous are words that will convey much more than you intend if used. My beliefs about gods are pretty complicated - I guess the simplest thing you could say is I don't believe in one god. There's a certain quality of experience that leaves me with little language other than that which we've inherited from religious traditions to use. Words like "divine" and "numinous" do have specific relationships to deist concepts, but I feel OK using them without having any specific deity in mind. Unless you're actively involved in some religious or occult process with clear guidelines for identifying entities and their qualities, it's usually hard to ascribe an experience to a particular god. The word "spiritual" seems to be one of our best bets to refer to what I'm getting at, having its roots in the word for "breath", something nice and general, familiar, not necessarily tied to any tedious theology. But, like so many words we've got at our disposal here, it's heavily weighed down by recent New Age currents. I've always disliked the word intensely, it seems so rarified and lofty. The more I think about it though, the more it's a case of using the words you dislike least for these realms. Our history's so saturated in neurotic relationships to the Other (for want of a better term at this stage!) that every single term we have staggers under the weight of disagreeable connotations. The options that open-minded people have left to discuss these things is to resign ourselves to the desertified regions of language where these none of these words venture, or to use them with a sense of play, and to be sensitive to context. I think I like a judicious mixture of the two. I find it interesting to see how Crowley coined the term "magick" to distinguish the "real" occult from stage magic, but now many occult types have consciously gone back to "magic". I think Phil Hine just finds the Crowley spelling too arsey, and Grant Morrison has said that he *likes* the connotations of trickery and sleight-of-hand, as for him the "real" occult is as much about this as pompous invocations and the like. I've a lot of time for this "call a spade a spade" approach, and sometimes, despite my appreciation for all the subtleties, just using the most obvious word to hand is appropriate: an appeal to the "look, we all know what we're talking about here, let's drop the sophistry and get on with it" approach. Reply | with quote | Posted by gyrus 13th January 2006ce 21:22 In reply to: Re: Ritual (PeterH) |
Messages in this topic: |
|