Samhain, gods, and chaos. And Hellspark.
Oct. 25th, 2005 04:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kellan_the_tabbySo I was reading through a Samhain ritual - a powerful one, too, and very much _not_ the usual - and I had a thought. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fosveny and I have, for years and years, named all of our computers after trickster deities and gods and goddesses of chaos. They come from a wide variety of sources: Indo-European, American, Oriental, and -- quite a few of them under this category -- fictional. Partly this is on the theory that we'll never run out of good names to use, and partly it's because we sort of figure that, if we name the computers after them right off, maybe they'll be a little more kindly inclined towards them. Mostly, it's seemed to work.
One line in the ritual goes 'Each participant calls on a deity of transformation.' I thought, okay, who would I call on? And the answer was St. Veschke, who is entirely fictional but definitely an agent of transformation. And chaos. And lies and trade, among other things. She's from a book called Hellspark, one of my favorites, and (among many other things) rather a manifesto of trickster philosophy.
In any case, Hellspark aside, it got me thinking about the proprieties of calling on a deity or other being who doesn't actually exist. Granted, that's a question in any case -- what proof or evidence have I that Loki or Eris is any more 'real' than Veschke or Verra or Ifni? The point, however, remains. There's a presumption there, perhaps a dangerous one, if one indeed believes in gods and goddesses and demons and divine beings and saints and totems and spirits and such. Especially jealous ones.
I think, in this case, the difference is they're tricksters. The more serious gods on the whole seem to have jealousy issues but I don't think I've ever seen a trickster god doing the ME ME IT'S ALL ABOUT ME thing (witness someone else's take on the whole trickster thing). In fact, worshipping a made-up trickster god seems to be the sort of thing the average 'real' trickster god would appreciate the hell out of.
Hellspark gives a bit more insight. Or, at least, something else that a trickster would appreciate.... Maggy (an interpretive computer, but that's irrelevant to the point) is presented with a situation where swift-Kalat has to talk to layli-layli calulan, pretty much right away. Problem is, swift-Kalat's male, and layli-layli calulan is in deep mourning, when her culture restricts her to contact only with those of sufficiently high rank -- women.
In desperation, Maggy invents the 'Hellspark Ritual of Change', and declares swift-Kalat her sister. This is enough for layli-layli calulan, and the conversation happens.
Later the two find out about Maggy's invention. They're upset; she's lied to them, hasn't she? She hasn't lied, it's pointed out; she _invented_ the ritual to serve the purpose at hand. In fact, several other Hellsparks plan to keep using the thing. It's a real ritual, now. They believed it in, and it worked.
It's exactly what a trickster would do, in those circumstances. Tell the truth with a lie, make something real -- and good -- happen out of something that's not real.
If someone's 'invented' a god, and someone else believes it's a real thing, is that then any less 'real' than the ritual I've described above? If it works, I say, use it. If it works, there's something 'real' there. More serious gods might object to the concept; but a trickster? That's right up his alley.
fosveny and I have, for years and years, named all of our computers after trickster deities and gods and goddesses of chaos. They come from a wide variety of sources: Indo-European, American, Oriental, and -- quite a few of them under this category -- fictional. Partly this is on the theory that we'll never run out of good names to use, and partly it's because we sort of figure that, if we name the computers after them right off, maybe they'll be a little more kindly inclined towards them. Mostly, it's seemed to work.One line in the ritual goes 'Each participant calls on a deity of transformation.' I thought, okay, who would I call on? And the answer was St. Veschke, who is entirely fictional but definitely an agent of transformation. And chaos. And lies and trade, among other things. She's from a book called Hellspark, one of my favorites, and (among many other things) rather a manifesto of trickster philosophy.
In any case, Hellspark aside, it got me thinking about the proprieties of calling on a deity or other being who doesn't actually exist. Granted, that's a question in any case -- what proof or evidence have I that Loki or Eris is any more 'real' than Veschke or Verra or Ifni? The point, however, remains. There's a presumption there, perhaps a dangerous one, if one indeed believes in gods and goddesses and demons and divine beings and saints and totems and spirits and such. Especially jealous ones.
I think, in this case, the difference is they're tricksters. The more serious gods on the whole seem to have jealousy issues but I don't think I've ever seen a trickster god doing the ME ME IT'S ALL ABOUT ME thing (witness someone else's take on the whole trickster thing). In fact, worshipping a made-up trickster god seems to be the sort of thing the average 'real' trickster god would appreciate the hell out of.
Hellspark gives a bit more insight. Or, at least, something else that a trickster would appreciate.... Maggy (an interpretive computer, but that's irrelevant to the point) is presented with a situation where swift-Kalat has to talk to layli-layli calulan, pretty much right away. Problem is, swift-Kalat's male, and layli-layli calulan is in deep mourning, when her culture restricts her to contact only with those of sufficiently high rank -- women.
In desperation, Maggy invents the 'Hellspark Ritual of Change', and declares swift-Kalat her sister. This is enough for layli-layli calulan, and the conversation happens.
Later the two find out about Maggy's invention. They're upset; she's lied to them, hasn't she? She hasn't lied, it's pointed out; she _invented_ the ritual to serve the purpose at hand. In fact, several other Hellsparks plan to keep using the thing. It's a real ritual, now. They believed it in, and it worked.
It's exactly what a trickster would do, in those circumstances. Tell the truth with a lie, make something real -- and good -- happen out of something that's not real.
If someone's 'invented' a god, and someone else believes it's a real thing, is that then any less 'real' than the ritual I've described above? If it works, I say, use it. If it works, there's something 'real' there. More serious gods might object to the concept; but a trickster? That's right up his alley.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-25 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-25 08:26 pm (UTC)You got it babe! This is exactly what we were talking about this afternoon. Do what works for you, believe it works, and it will.
And I agree that there is no problem with "made-up" gods--even the "serious" ones. But then, in my belief system (once again, creating what works for you) ALL gods are what we believe them to be--The divine is a many faceted diamond--we look at the face we need to see at that time, and call it by the name that is comfortable to us, that represents the aspects that we need to interact with--but it all is the same thing :)
Ralph Waldo Emerson summed up my philosophy of life and living better than anyone else "I become a transparent eyeball-I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me-I am part or particle of God."
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 05:55 am (UTC)