PDA

View Full Version : Is Rune-Casting a 'Low Art'?



Utopian
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 10:57 PM
I have certainly been involved with Rune Magic


Rune Casting is a low art that is usually mediumistic, mystical, lunar, demonic-possessive, and counter-initiatory. If you think that the ancient Aryans in the time of the gods practiced rune casting then you are greatly mistaken. There were no low arts in the time of the Golden Age. Now if you (or anyone else for that matter) do not know what a low art is then that is not my problem. This is a forum for opinions not a classroom.

Moody
Wednesday, July 5th, 2006, 06:09 PM
Rune Casting is a low art that is usually mediumistic, mystical, lunar, demonic-possessive, and counter-initiatory. If you think that the ancient Aryans in the time of the gods practiced rune casting then you are greatly mistaken. There were no low arts in the time of the Golden Age. Now if you (or anyone else for that matter) do not know what a low art is then that is not my problem. This is a forum for opinions not a classroom.

I do not take "Rune Magic" as tantamount to being "Rune-Casting", although it is true that casting is certainly a feature of Runology.

However, primarily, I see the Runic Power as being symbolic.

Therefore I think it quite possible that the "ancient Aryans" would have used similar symbols to those that have come down to us in the shape of the rune-staves.

If that is true, then the Runes are a high art, since you suggest that those Aryans existed in the "Golden Age" when "there were no low arts".

So I have never said that the ancient Aryans practised rune-casting, although I wouldn't like to say whether they did or no, as I believe that there is little real evidence as to what the "ancient Aryans" practised in the so-called "Golden Age".

On what authority do you base your certain knowledge of this Golden Age?

As to the other points raised:

"Mediumistic"?
A medium is said to be a person with the power to communicate with the spirits of the dead or with agents of another world or dimension [cf., psychic].

While some mediums may employ the rune-staves to enable this procedure, it is hardly the only use made of the staves.
We know that the ancient Germans used the rune-staves for purposes of divination , which is not quite the same thing.

"[i]Mystical"? [Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or sense].
Again, while some users of the rune-staves may adopt this mystical stance, it is not actually inherent in the runes.

This is because the runes can be taken on many levels. Purely as symbols, as I have said; or purely as writing, or as code. From the most banal exoteric uses right up to the most esoteric.

"Lunar"? [Of, involving, caused by, or affecting the moon].
Presumably your use of this term is due to a Solar/Lunar antithesis that has some meaning to you.
The runes are over-ridingly masculine in flavour, and while there is a rune-stave named after the Sun, there isn't one named after the moon.
So I believe that you need to explain how the runes are "lunar" to you [and the Moon was masculine to the Germanic heathens, of course].

"Demonic-Possessive"?
Again, this cannot be attributed to the divinatory use of the runes [although it is true that the discoverer of the runes, Odin, did use the shamanic Seidh rites].
As with all your attributions, the runes themselves are not these things, but they can be used in such ways, but so can all systems of symbology!

"Counter-Initatory". ['Initiation': a ceremony, ritual, test, or period of instruction with which a new member is admitted to an organisation or office or to knowledge].
While the ancient Germans may have used the runes on an ad hoc basis and eschewed a priestly caste, to say that they are "counter-initiatory" is false.
The runes are certainly used within initiatory systems, a modern example being Thorsson's 'Nine Doors of Midgard'.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=6717

http://www.angelfire.com/az/diSaturni/ninedoors.html


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Utopian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:06 PM
There is no question whether it is a low art or not, it just is.

I will not debate these issues with the ignorant. As I wrote in another thread:

You cannot grasp the basis of these initiations because you are running everything through a filter of the profane "modern dictionary" which gives you a wrong and shallow meaning of every term.

You furthermore do not know what the lower and higher waters of the abyss are and the difference between them, which understanding is crucial to much of these debates.

Unfortunately, many people who dabble in this sort of thing do not know what they're doing and become part of the counter-initiation.

EDIT: Arvo writes on the counter-initiation in Intro to Magic:

"These (new currents, suggestions and ideological systems) are such as to blur the vision of truth, to falsify values, to favor the emergence of inferior influences, namely of every form of materialism, disorder, and subversion in civilizations."

EDIT 2: It is perhaps better to not be initiated at all than to be part of a counter-initiation, the latter which destroys for the most part any chance that the person may have at an authentic initiation, and is in the meanwhile destructive and subvertive to the authentic tradition.

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:20 PM
@Moody, I couldn't find a link, but I saved this from the Utopian Manifesto sometime back:


It is our view that life in the form of the flesh is as a punishment or a prison, and therefore, it is our task to overcome our conditions and to improve upon our existence. In order to do so we must follow a certain code or system of values, so that we may not become degenerate and shirk off our duties. For the human to us is simply not good enough. We must go beyond the human into the realm and physique of the Utopian.



One mustn’t think that by this we mean to give mention to the man of morality. There is a world of difference between morals and virtues. The moral dilemma busies itself on overseeing everything that man can and cannot do. Its focus is on politeness and right or wrong deduced through a means of opinion, especially that of the vox populi, and therefore through personal feelings and weaknesses. Morals are therefore not true.



There is a simple distinction to be made here where morals tend to slavishly treat everyone as equals, but are rather meaningless rituals in themselves. Hence, opening the door for a lady is considered polite, but perhaps the lady doesn’t want the door opened for her and perhaps one doesn’t wish to worry himself on continuous performance of this silly ritual. It is meaningless in the sense that the simple gesture didn’t make either man or lady any better as regards to intelligence, emotional balance, or any solid trait, nor is it an accurate measure of either the man’s conduct or the woman’s status.



A further example of morals would be to abstain from negative thoughts about someone or something; yet another is to abstain from eating meat. In the first case, if one doesn’t pass judgment on another then he risks being taken advantage of and of subjecting oneself to harm. Besides, those who claim to always be polite are the worst hypocrites imaginable or they tend to keep a lot of anger and negative emotions inside of them until it erupts.



In the second case, abstaining from meat so as to not commit violence against animals is ridiculously absurd and ignores the primal law of nature. Moreover, those who do not eat any meat are usually weak and frail, thus requiring supplements, and so this moral leads to the destruction of the human. Worse yet is that those who vow to never commit violence fail to realize that society presents a danger to them.



With that I think we’ve discussed morals enough to distinguish them from what we shall now focus on, being values, which work towards making the human complete, consisting of truth, idea, and the urge towards a higher law.



These are the principal virtues of the Utopian: Veneration of the Sacred, Adherence to Order, Hierarchy, and Empire, and the principle of Duty and of the Eternal, Ideal, and Absolute. Also, Courage and Honor are the chief values of the individual.



Prudence is next, which is synonymous with care and forethought, the exercise of discretion, foresight, and good judgment, and so in direct relation with dignity and respect. It is the first sign of true discipline.



Prudence is strengthened first with Temperance and then with Fortitude and Righteousness.



Temperance is self-control and will power. True power, force, and authority come not from violence and maliciousness, which are the spasms of the rotten and flawed beast, but rather from the resolve and determination of the person. It is the charm and charisma of noble personalities, the sense of responsibility, and the stillness, calmness, and serenity of an ordered mind.



Fortitude is courage, valor, strength, and swiftness, the confidence in everything one does. In this is the loyalty to one’s folk, dedication to one’s goals, the love and devotion for one’s mate, the vigor and stamina of the hero, and the sheer determination and perseverance of any true aspiration.



Righteousness upholds honor, truth, and wisdom, the integrity of one’s being to serve a higher purpose and be free. It is the wisdom of the ages and the completion of the circle.



From these building blocks we form the path of Truth, creativity, and the sacredness of the soul, upon which we may tread unto the royal palace of Utopia.





False Arts & Forbidden Practices

In the Utopian view, it is considered wrong conduct to perform what we may refer to here as a low art, the worst of which includes fortunetelling by: (a) lot casting (b) palmistry (c) tarot reading (d) material signs or omens (e) numerology (f) language codes (g) kabalistic codes (h) other superstitions.



Another form of low art is to perform a divination or magical operation by: (a) blood-letting or cutting (b) poisoning (c) inhalation of toxic substances (d) asphyxiation by strangulation (e) other means of self-torment.



It is of equal wrong to use divination for menial purposes, as for instance, to predict the weather, the outcome of a game, the yield of a crop, or the luck or love-life of a person.



Even more of a mockery to our Gods are the so-called psychics and fortunetellers who are available for hire, and who claim to speak to the spirits of dead relatives in order to console the living. Theirs is a doctrine of falsehood unparalleled to anything the world has known. What is traditionally an imprint in the Astral Light, the channeling of the memory of the past, present, or future, which is done by the Seer, is by these psychics-for-hire turned into a false theology of spirits “crossing over” from the dead to a “heaven” where they will live forever retaining all of their personalities; such is dishonest, ridiculous, and cowardly. Worse yet, it is a betrayal and utter mockery of the true priesthood.



Hence, it is perhaps the lowest of arts to practice a false doctrine of salvation through one of the following: (a) faith (b) devotion to deity (c) morality (d) reading of scripture (e) profane love (f) profane ceremonial ritualism.



In a traditional world, those who practice low arts would be, at the very least, looked down upon and even banished by the honorable judges.





Spell-Casting



Spell-Casting is somewhat of a low art that can be easily abused, especially if overdone, but we do find some benefit in this practice, which can be used in the ceremonial sense, especially to enhance feelings between lovers, or as a means for an inner language, or towards another end where transcendence is the goal.



Where the practitioner has gone wrong, however, is when the ritual becomes involved with superstition and voodoo-like tendencies, or as a means of “bewitchment” of an unsuspecting victim, or to cause upon someone a hex or curse, or to attract love or money. This form of ritualistic behavior is simply immature. When a true mage bewitches or curses someone he or she does not need to act in ceremony but rather upon the actual thing or person by his or her nature alone.





Demonic Possession



Demonic possession occurs when a demon or spirit assumes control over the consciousness of the sorcerer. In all legitimate magical circles this is considered to be of the worst insults and humiliations on a person’s character. For there is little difference between a psychosis and losing control of a spirit.



Thus, it is most important to us that we each take an oath to guard against, under any circumstance, a demon gaining control over our mind or spirit, that is to say, against demonic possession, which is a low practice typical of savages, especially by practitioners of voodoo. In these latter practices we find the odd behavior of speaking in tongues, psychopathic episodes, convulsions, false intelligence, and devotion thereof, as well as all sorts of perversions imaginable. Demonic possession is typical of the doctrines of all monotheistic religions and degenerated shells of more ancient paths, of which we find submission to a god or spiritual force rather than control and dominion of the divine.



In the sense of woman, who finds her center in the masculine lover, we cannot regard this as being the same or even similar to demonic possession, for the woman is joined to the male force which then participates in the divine by the controlling force of the male over the spiritual.



In solitary magick, the women of Utopia, and of all valid traditions, control the spirits through the same force and properties of the magical will. Hence, it is just as possible for women to practice magick as it is men, and vice versa.





Other False Practices



What passes for life and culture today is insulting to our ancestral heritage, and hence, requires a real cleansing and a radical change in present attitudes. Forbidden practices, which are usually done by degenerate and savage populations, have become widespread, signifying a great and dire need for a purge. It is in this vein that upon return to the traditional world all false arts will be banned; among which are: offerings of meal or drink to the “gods,” the blessing of food and drink, human and animal sacrifice, tattooing, body piercing and mutilation, circumcision, monotheistic prayer, voodoo, daily horoscopes, ghost tales derived from superstition, earthen burial rites, reincarnation, and all false theologies of monotheisms, commercial psychics, and the Buddhist reformations (as opposed to the Pāli canon and Zen).



Also on this list are all federal, secular, and monotheistic holidays and days or months of remembrance. The foolish act of turning holidays into debacles and ridiculous activities, such as by portrayals of Santa Claus, tree decorating, Easter egg hunts, “trick-or-treating,” parades, and the entire commercialization and almost mandatory character of gift-giving is utter nonsense and reveals only a soulless culture which worships mammon and profane “activities.”



Similarly, the celebration of birthdays, as if just being born was something of a sacred character, a great achievement, and an out of the ordinary occurrence is ridiculous and self-centered, something that was unheard of in the traditional world.



Finally, other practices include: stage magic or illusionism, the circus and the “clown,” commercial psychics or fortunetellers-for-hire, the usurpation of higher castes, separation of religion and government, music without a spiritual or folkish character, anti-occult propaganda, and the deification of secular science, psychology, humanism, or charity.

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:25 PM
I think Utopian has a good point in that using rune-casting as in fortune-telling for personal salvation is a low art. Of course Tacitus' remarks on the Germans practising divination could be interpreted differently than meek fatalism.

I think Moody has a good point in that based on what/whose authority is Utopian talking of Aryan practises in the Golden Age?

Where do we hear of the higher rune-art of the Golden Age?

Utopian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:25 PM
The concept of "low arts" and what they are have been around for thousands of years. Even Buddha opposed them.

Utopian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:40 PM
@Moody, I couldn't find a link, but I saved this

You shoudn't just assume that I wrote that or that I am actually referring to that particular article. You also shouldn't cut and paste copyrighted material without any reference cited, which isn't even relevant to this debate.

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:41 PM
The concept of "low arts" and what they are have been around for thousands of years.

Can you cite which ones?

I am well aware of Buddha's stand on this, and he speaks of his opposition against the earlier discussed so called pagan rite of merely worshipping the star for the star. And this stand against low art even more accurately precedes the Buddha in a certain Kshatriya text.

But naturally Buddha does not discuss rune-casting anywhere.

I'm interested to hear which texts/beliefs you are referring to?

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:45 PM
You shoudn't just assume that I wrote that or that I am actually referring to that particular article. You also shouldn't cut and paste copyrighted material without any reference cited, which isn't even relevant to this debate.

I never said you wrote that, I said its taken from the Utopian Manifesto.

And about the reference, I already said I tried to find a link but couldn't. I did not claim it to be mine; did mention its from the Utopian Manifesto.

And I thought it relevant to the debate, because it speaks of what is low art and high art.

More honestly, I think the writings from that Manifesto are soulful, brilliant, and most inspiring - it encourages reflection on many profound matters.

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 03:24 PM
Havamal: The words of the high one.


The Havamal is part of the Elder or "Poetic" Edda, which is one of the primary written sources for Norse mythology. This excerpt from the W. H. Auden and P. B. Taylor translation of the Havamŕl contains Odin's telling of how he obtained the runes and runic power.






Wounded I hung on a wind-swept gallows
For nine long nights,
Pierced by a spear, pledged to Odin,
Offered, myself to myself
The wisest know not from whence spring
The roots of that ancient rood. They gave me no bread,
They gave me no mead,
I looked down;
With a loud cry
I took up runes;
From that tree I fell.
Nine lays of power
I learned from the famous Bolthor, Bestla' s father:
He poured me a draught of precious mead,
Mixed with magic Odrerir.
Waxed and throve well;
Word from word gave words to me,
Deed from deed gave deeds to me.
Runes you will find, and readable staves,
Very strong staves,
Very stout staves,
Staves that Bolthor stained,
Made by mighty powers,
Graven by the prophetic God.
For the Gods by Odin, for the Elves by Dain,
By Dvalin, too, for the Dwarves,
By Asvid for the hateful Giants,
And some I carved myself:
Thund, before man was made, scratched them,
Who rose first, fell thereafter.
Know how to cut them,
know how to read them,
Know how to stain them,
know how to prove them,
Know how to evoke them,
know how to score them,
Know how to send them,
know how to send them.
Better not to ask than to over-pledge
As a gift that demands a gift.
Better not to send
Than to slay too many.





Another translation says:
Do you know, how to carve them?
Do you know, how to read them?
Do you know, how to color them?
Do you know, how to understand them?
Do you know, how to pray?
Do you know, how to sacrifice?1
Do you know, how to send?2
Do you know, how to discard?3 Better not to pray at all, than to sacrifice too much.
A gift requires a gift in return.
Better not to send at all, than to counteract too much.
Thus carved Thund before time,4 when he rose, when he returned5

(1 a blot, an offer of something to the Gods, and it becomes blessed
2 rune magic - how to send a runic benediction or curse
3 how to counteract rune magic
4 Thund is a name for Odin, meaning "thin", referring to the long time of austerity, hanging in the tree
5 when he rose after falling down from Yggdrasil, when he returned to the world after his long sacrifice.)

Runic divination, "runecasting", is not "fortune telling". Runecasting works deeply with the subconscious. The rune pouch with its runic symbols represents the entire universe. As one poses a question, one's entire conscious and unconscious mind is focused toward that question, so that the runelots selected are not truly random selections, but rather choices made by the subconscious.

Runecraft operates on an ancient form of psychology. Even back in Viking times, there was a remarkable understanding of the human psyche. They recognized "cause and effect", and the interconnectedness of all things. The word to describe this interconnectedness was "wyrd", which was eventually perverted into the modern meaning of "weird". It did not originally mean something unusual or strange. Rather, it referred to the far-reaching effects of that which one does. The concept of "fate" was also not as we know it now. Instead of a helpless predestination, "fate" meant a destiny created by one's earlier actions. Wyrd was pictured as a web, like that of a spider. The symbology is excellent. When the spider steps onto a thread (a path) the vibrations affect the entire web and that which is contained within the web, just as our actions affect our immediate world and those around us, and the actions of others affect our lives.

When one does a runic reading, one usually addresses a particular issue, and examines the past, the present and the "future", or rather "what will be if one follows the path one appears to be on". The future is always perceived as mutable, changeable. The runic reading is done as an evaluation process, not as fortunetelling. One has an opportunity to look at what has occurred in the past (regarding the issue being questioned), what is occurring right now, and what direction one is headed.

A runecaster does not see the future. He/she examines cause and effect and points out a likely outcome. It's not very mysterious--although the uninitiated considered it a delving into mystery, much like a patient of a psychiatrist might. It's certainly not "magical" or "demonic." Instead it is a methodology for examining the path one is on and what the effects might be, by making use of one's subconscious (i.e. an "intuitive perception"), unfettered by limited conscious belief systems.

Dowsing, or "divination" by bent stick or pendulum is similar. It is not supernatural. It is, again, a manifestation of one's subconscious. All "intuitive perception" is such. Nothing "magical" about it, merely a means of awakening one's right-brain.

From The History and Magic of Rune Stones (http://zurix.apana.org.au/asatru/Webpage2/Ftpstone.htm) by Kveldulfr Gundarsson.
"...Altogether, from first to last, the inscriptions and uses of runestones make it very clear just how closely interwoven the religion, magic, and society of the Norse people were. Not only did these stones bring together the gods, the living, and the dead, each working weal for the others; but they also left us one of our most trustworthy and dearest legacies: the names, deeds, and beliefs of our forebears literally carved in stone, to stand and be read as long as folk know the Northern tongue."

The ancients never conceived of Rune Casting et. AL. as a low art as seen in the myths of the runes; and, more importantly, the runes themselves:

http://www.tarahill.com/runes/aett_1.html

To think as much is a romanticised modern departure.

The Runes (and Rune casting) is a "high" art exactly because each Rune contains within it something deeply rooted and deeply existential: from high to low.

The Runes are deeply Volkish, and show of profound psychical complexity.

Moody
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 04:42 PM
There is no question whether it is a low art or not, it just is.

There is indeed a question; I have posed it, and added many more.
It seems you can give no justification for your claiming Rune-Casting to be a "low art" that was not practised by the "ancient Aryans" in the "Golden Age".

I have given a fair sample of counter-arguments to your assertion, and yet all you can offer is the above.
This worries me, as it seems [and I hope I am wrong] that you don't actually know why you say what what you say.
And please be aware that the Runes have a very high place within the Germanic tradition, so for you to call them a "low art" is to impugn them.


I will not debate these issues with the ignorant. As I wrote in another thread:You cannot grasp the basis of these initiations because you are running everything through a filter of the profane "modern dictionary" which gives you a wrong and shallow meaning of every term.

We are all going through the filter of a metaphorical 'modern dictionary' [whether sacred or profane] as we are all using words and phrases according to modern usage.
That is unavoidable.
It does sound, unfortunately, as if you are pretending to an ancient and arcane knowledge which you don't actually have.
I actually find this interesting, as the Occult side of things often gets charged with charlatanism, and it is easy to see why when its protagonists, such as yourself, take such an obscurantist position.
[Obscurantist: A policy of withholding information/ deliberate vagueness or obliqueness.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obscurantist


You furthermore do not know what the lower and higher waters of the abyss are and the difference between them, which understanding is crucial to much of these debates.

'He that stares into an abyss should beware that the abyss does not stare back out of him'.
Lo, I think that the abyss doth stare out of you.


Unfortunately, many people who dabble in this sort of thing do not know what they're doing and become part of the counter-initiation.

I am not a dabbler, and I make sure that I know what I am talking about when I decide to talk about it. I have only asked you to back up your assertions - and you have refused. Is that the sign of a dabbler?

Moody
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 05:23 PM
@Moody, I couldn't find a link, but I saved this from the Utopian Manifesto sometime back:

Thanks; this certainly gives the background to Utopian's positions and speaks a very similar language/temperament.

My immediate impression is that while very worthy, the outlook here is a bit dour - it is hardly a joyful science.

It is rather nihilistic when it says, with all the charm of sack-cloth and ashes;

"It is our view that life in the form of the flesh is as a punishment or a prison".

When it speaks of what it is for, it speaks in vague abstractions which are certainly good, if a bit dry;

"These are the principal virtues of the Utopian: Veneration of the Sacred, Adherence to Order, Hierarchy, and Empire, and the principle of Duty and of the Eternal, Ideal, and Absolute ... Courage and Honor are the chief values of the individual... Prudence is next, strengthened first with Temperance and then with Fortitude and Righteousness".

This is fine as far as it goes; but when it turns to what it is against, sometimes the results are, in comparison to the grand and Capitalised abstractions above, petty and comic;

"False Arts & Forbidden Practices
In the Utopian view, it is considered wrong conduct to perform what we may refer to here as a low art, the worst of which includes fortunetelling by: (a) lot casting ...".

As I said above, the Runes can be used for these things, as can any other symbolic system!
This doesn't make the Runes per se a 'low art'.
And isn't there something of an over-reaction when it says;

"In a traditional world, those who practice low arts would be, at the very least, looked down upon and even banished by the honorable judges".

After all, most intelligent people realise that fortune-telling is a piece of entertainment.

The Runes, however, are dealing with the deepest symbols, and their casting is part of the web of wyrd, and is not some entertainment; we should be able to see the difference ourselves without being nannied too much.

And it gets worse;

"... upon return to the traditional world all false arts will be banned; among which are: tattooing ..."

Oh come on - tatooing is surely a genuine, traditional, and ancient high-art!

Here it gets very amusing;

" ... the celebration of birthdays, as if just being born was something of a sacred character, a great achievement, and an out of the ordinary occurrence is ridiculous and self-centered, something that was unheard of in the traditional world".

Ban birthdays!

No more celebrating April the 20th then, Utopians!

Maybe I shouldn't have laughed, then;

"Finally, other practices [to be banned] include:.. the circus and the 'clown,' ..."

Let's ban laughter shall we?

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 05:33 PM
There is no question whether it is a low art or not, it just is.



"...I took up runes...Very strong staves,
Very stout staves...Made by mighty powers...And some I carved myself..."

Odin recognised the high-ness of the Runes.

A god.

So much so that he added himself to them.

What say you to the choice made by my Germanic god?

How low is my Germanic god...?

Look into the Lion when you answer.

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 05:37 PM
Thanks; this certainly gives the background to Utopian's positions and speaks a very similar language/temperament.

My immediate impression is that while very worthy, the outlook here is a bit dour - it is hardly a joyful science.

It is rather nihilistic when it says, with all the charm of sack-cloth and ashes;

"It is our view that life in the form of the flesh is as a punishment or a prison".

When it speaks of what it is for, it speaks in vague abstractions which are certainly good, if a bit dry;

"These are the principal virtues of the Utopian: Veneration of the Sacred, Adherence to Order, Hierarchy, and Empire, and the principle of Duty and of the Eternal, Ideal, and Absolute ... Courage and Honor are the chief values of the individual... Prudence is next, strengthened first with Temperance and then with Fortitude and Righteousness".

This is fine as far as it goes; but when it turns to what it is against, sometimes the results are, in comparison to the grand and Capitalised abstractions above, petty and comic;

"False Arts & Forbidden Practices
In the Utopian view, it is considered wrong conduct to perform what we may refer to here as a low art, the worst of which includes fortunetelling by: (a) lot casting ...".

As I said above, the Runes can be used for these things, as can any other symbolic system!
This doesn't make the Runes per se a 'low art'.
And isn't there something of an over-reaction when it says;

"In a traditional world, those who practice low arts would be, at the very least, looked down upon and even banished by the honorable judges".

After all, most intelligent people realise that fortune-telling is a piece of entertainment.

The Runes, however, are dealing with the deepest symbols, and their casting is part of the web of wyrd, and is not some entertainment; we should be able to see the difference ourselves without being nannied too much.

And it gets worse;

"... upon return to the traditional world all false arts will be banned; among which are: tattooing ..."

Oh come on - tatooing is surely a genuine, traditional, and ancient high-art!

Here it gets very amusing;

" ... the celebration of birthdays, as if just being born was something of a sacred character, a great achievement, and an out of the ordinary occurrence is ridiculous and self-centered, something that was unheard of in the traditional world".

Ban birthdays!

No more celebrating April the 20th then, Utopians!

Maybe I shouldn't have laughed, then;

"Finally, other practices [to be banned] include:.. the circus and the 'clown,' ..."

Let's ban laughter shall we?



"...IT IS KNOWN..."(add reverb)

Moody
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 05:48 PM
I think Utopian has a good point in that using rune-casting as in fortune-telling for personal salvation is a low art. Of course Tacitus' remarks on the Germans practising divination could be interpreted differently than meek fatalism.

Of course; the use of any system for fortune-telling can't be taken seriously.
However, using a symbolic system which covers the main aspects of a particular Race-soul, in the way that the Runes do, as a way of engaging with the web of wyrd and of concentrating upon their major possibilities, is nothing to do with popular fortune-telling.


I think Moody has a good point in that based on what/whose authority is Utopian talking of Aryan practises in the Golden Age?
Where do we hear of the higher rune-art of the Golden Age?

2oth Century German Runologists, such as Spieseberger and Marby believed that the Runes were the original script of Atlantis [a version of the Aryan Golden Age].
Of course, they only knew this by intuition as there is scant historical evidence of the Atlanteans as such, as far as I know.
However, the range of meanings in the Runes [and what they leave out] could imply a knowledge of an original Aryan Homeland.

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 06:31 PM
Thanks; this certainly gives the background to Utopian's positions and speaks a very similar language/temperament.

My immediate impression is that while very worthy, the outlook here is a bit dour - it is hardly a joyful science.

It is rather nihilistic when it says, with all the charm of sack-cloth and ashes;

"It is our view that life in the form of the flesh is as a punishment or a prison".


I suppose that is the initiate's 'initiatic' way of saying what Nietzsche calls "fleshy hearts" in Will to Power, 1045.

I thought the piece brilliant because it practises or tries to practice Hierarchy. I agree with the article's recognizing that the purpose of rune-practice has fallen to a show of fortune-telling profiteering, the purely capitalistic mindset to which it has been usurped, but I definitely agree with you that this does not make rune-magic practices itself a low art!

I disagreed with Utopian calling the pagan way an "inferior" way just because some pagans may be practising it 'inferiorly', which does NOT make paganism itself an inferior path. The same with this issue of rune-casting.

And further more, I thought it brilliant, also because this article has by default just helped vindicate that Nietzsche's position is more stronger.

When I read this piece, and that particular quote you have just excerpted,- doesn't it seem like Nietzsche went more than one step ahead in holding the herd's-place sacred? Overcoming that disgust for the 'uninitiated' and the mediocre, he thought was even expected of a good Philosopher. The initiatic view is not concerned with such. And so such a tone in the quote is even expected.

I think a Philosopher like that has a more wholesome perspective and is a more wholesome soul, than any 'Initiated' one.

Because articles like this open my eyes, I find them invaluable for that purpose. I left Utopian a similar message.

Utopian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 06:31 PM
And please be aware that the Runes have a very high place within the Germanic tradition, so for you to call them a "low art" is to impugn them.


This is a clear example of why I won't discuss these matters with the ignorant. You and Suut are masters at twisting your opponents words into something that is totally out of context. This is done deliberately to cause confusion. I did not say the "runes" were low art (actually I said elsewhere that they comprise of a magical alphabet). What I said was rune-casting and most of what people today dabble in by the name of "rune magic" is a low art.

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 06:36 PM
2oth Century German Runologists, such as Spieseberger and Marby believed that the Runes were the original script of Atlantis [a version of the Aryan Golden Age].
Of course, they only knew this by intuition as there is scant historical evidence of the Atlanteans as such, as far as I know.
However, the range of meanings in the Runes [and what they leave out] could imply a knowledge of an original Aryan Homeland.


I am indebted to you for that reference. I was genuinely looking for citations from Utopian which he did not provide.

I was truly interested in tracing back the golden era of the old Aryan way.

Thanks.

Utopian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 06:39 PM
Of course; the use of any system for fortune-telling can't be taken seriously.


Further evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't believe in anything divine and eternal so you instead attempt to transform everything that deals with such into something lesser and "psychological" or "philosophical." Isn't this the root of the problem? You are agnostic.

The ancient Seer could see the future, much like the "remote viewer" of today. It is clear that when I originally answered your first questions in the race-soul thread you ignored them and then proceeded to say that I didn't answer or I "couldn't answer." But you really just didn't take the answer seriously. Nothing I can do about that.

Now, if on the other hand one uses inferior methods that belong to a sentimental, sympathetic, emotional or psychological current to divine with, or worse, a method of chance or material omens, then that is a low art.

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 06:55 PM
I suppose that is the initiate's 'initiatic' way of saying what Nietzsche calls "fleshy hearts" in Will to Power, 1045.

I thought the piece brilliant because it practises or tries to practice Hierarchy.

Sure it does; so it is with all religio-moral constructs. Its the Hierarchy presented that I find utterly alien: it is sterile and is drowning in atrophy.

And further more, I thought it brilliant, also because this article has by default just helped vindicate that Nietzsche's position is more stronger.

Indeed: the Nietzschean position is more holistic. It robs no one of their value.

When I read this piece, and that particular quote you have just excerpted,- doesn't it seem like Nietzsche went more than one step ahead in holding the herd's-place sacred? Overcoming that disgust for the 'uninitiated' and the mediocre, he thought was even expected of a good Philosopher. The initiatic view is not concerned with such. And so such a tone in the quote is even expected.

That is where the Heirarchy becomes anti-naturally ascetic: just as Nietzsche noted that it was the breath-taking invertedness of Christianity that made even the noble Teutons stop dead in their tracks and question themselves; this manifesto invites the same morbis curiosum. It's a dead-fall: It's a trap.

I think a Philosopher like that has a more wholesome perspective and is a more wholesome soul, than any 'Initiated' one.

Agreed.

Because articles like this open my eyes, I find them invaluable for that purpose...

I hope you were angry if not terrified when it became naked to you!--if only for a moment...

let us have a lottery on the matter!

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 07:19 PM
This is a clear example of why I won't discuss these matters with the ignorant. You and Suut are masters at twisting your opponents words into something that is totally out of context. This is done deliberately to cause confusion. I did not say the "runes" were low art (actually I said elsewhere that they comprise of a magical alphabet). What I said was rune-casting and most of what people today dabble in by the name of "rune magic" is a low art.

What you are not understanding is that you are saying "rune casting and...". You are making two different statements here: 1.) all rune-casting is a low art 2.) todays dabblers notion of "rune magic" is a low art.

Further, you are qualifying your statements with the noun "rune".
By association, you lower, and therefore impugn the Rune(s).

This is called clarifying confusion. Not causing it.

Arrian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 08:56 PM
I hope you were angry if not terrified when it became naked to you!--if only for a moment...

let us have a lottery on the matter!

No Suut, neither. A thousand eyes, and most of them were already open.
And sometimes its good to let yourself be deceived and have your eyes opened again!

So we can still have that lottery!

Utopian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 10:32 PM
I would like to put all of these debates to rest once and for all.

After serious consideration, one must come eventually to the conclusion that a lower degree initiate cannot accurately judge the higher degrees of initiation.

Therefore unless one has discovered the philosopher's stone (philosopher = alchemist :P ) then he cannot speak the truth of Odin's sacrifice, which is an alchemical operation :thumbup . We need to be clear that Odin did not "caste runes," nor did he simply perform "black magick," that is, taking visions of spirits or emotional/psychological currents as the supreme object. He entered a state that is totally beyond the lower degrees of "magic," beyond the lower waters, until he "crossed the abyss." What is more, he didn't "hang on a tree," but performed this magick sitting in the god position (after all he was a god!) on his throne.

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 11:14 PM
...And sometimes its good to let yourself be deceived and have your eyes opened again!

So we can still have that lottery! (I think we just did! Rune Masters need not physically casts lots...)

Well Said.

"When virture has slept, it awakens refreshed" (Nietzsche).

SuuT
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 11:49 PM
I would like to put all of these debates to rest once and for all.

Oh my.

After serious consideration, one must come eventually to the conclusion that a lower degree initiate cannot accurately judge the higher degrees of initiation.

Explain, please.

Therefore unless one has discovered the philosopher's stone (philosopher = alchemist :P ) then he cannot speak the truth of Odin's sacrifice, which is an alchemical operation :thumbup .

We need to be clear that Odin did not "caste runes," nor did he simply perform "black magick," that is, taking visions of spirits or emotional/psychological currents as the supreme object.

Ah!--an opportunity for an olive brance: I agree, in part (obviously Odin did not cast runes: he "took them up"); however, what was Odin's "supreme object"?

He entered a state that is totally beyond the lower degrees of "magic," beyond the lower waters, until he "crossed the abyss." What is more, he didn't "hang on a tree," but performed this magick sitting in the god position (after all he was a god!) on his throne.

Are you arguing agaist the translations provided (below), the symbology, or some other x?

Is this innacurate to you? If so, why?:
ansuz (http://www.tarahill.com/runes/ansuz.wav) : Odin

Phonetic equivalent: a (as in 'fall')
DIVINATORY MEANINGS: authority figure, leader, mind & body balance, justice, shaman, clairvoyant MAGICAL USES: for wise decisions, success, leadership; to help in divination and magic ASSOCIATED MYTHS & DEITIES: Odin
ANALYSIS: This rune represents the instinctive, primal energy of uruz tempered with the discipline and experience of ţurisaz. These elements are combined in the personage of Odin, who exhibits the characteristics of both chieftain and shaman - a god of wisdom as well as war. Odin is also a shaman, travelling between the worlds on his eight-legged horse, Sleipnir. Ansuz is a balanced rune. As with fehu, many people choose to remain at this point in their journey. It represents power, both secular and magical, and this power can be quite seductive. Odin has learned the lessons of the first three runes, thus gaining the wisdom to rule wisely, but this is really only another beginning. He has only gained temporal power, and has only a few of the tools he will need to perfect himself spiritually. There is a certain lack of compassion and perspective in this rune. Odin sits high above his world, looking down and making decisions, but he doesn't yet have the capacity to really care about or understand his people or himself. He still needs that emotional connection to become a truly great leader.

Also: what say you to the "Utopian Manifesto"? How does it compare and contrast to your brand of Hermeticism? I see many parallels even though one must read between many lines with you.

Utopian
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 04:18 AM
This looks like it came from a wiccan site or a dungeons and dragons board game.

The problem with reconstructionists is that they rely on a "scripture/bible" which is open to unlimited interpretation and which is extremely EXOTERIC (outer shell meant to HIDE from the profane the true inner meaning). Now I have told everyone here where to look. Now it is up to you to decide if you are worthy enough for this truth.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 06:17 AM
I know very little about the Runes and these matters compared to other people here but it seems to me that there exists more than one path in the study of the Runes.

A friend taught me to 'breath the Runes" as he put it. This meant saying each Rune in order in a long aspirated manner as you exhale. You inhale through the nose without muscular effort. After a few weeks I noticed what I call electrical effects caused by this practice. My friend asked me to notice any other side effects. He mentioned sleep and all of a sudden it hit me. I was having problems sleeping. He said it was time for the second stage, rational dreaming. In this the subject is given a target problem upon which to focuss. Because of 'breathing the Runes' sleep and rational dreaming became possible. Problems of life could be solved while asleep. Dreams could be rational and linear.

This has apparently nothing to do with casting the Runes but I'll bet both are part of a larger whole and must take some prior training just as rational dreaming.

SuuT
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 09:56 AM
This looks like it came from a wiccan site or a dungeons and dragons board game.

The problem with reconstructionists is that they rely on a "scripture/bible" which is open to unlimited interpretation and which is extremely EXOTERIC (outer shell meant to HIDE from the profane the true inner meaning). Now I have told everyone here where to look. Now it is up to you to decide if you are worthy enough for this truth.

...?

Is this in response to post #25?

Utopian
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 02:43 PM
My opinion on the runes can be summed up as follows.

The runes belong to the class of magical alphabets, which are symbolic of the universe. When Odin hung on the World Tree and beheld the runes that is saying that he became enlightened, he learned the spiritual truth of the world. All of the myths become very monotonous because they are all universal insofar as they speak of a divine oirigin and a great magical act. This act is always synonymous with alchemy. And it is said that through the alchemical operation the world was created.

SuuT
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 05:10 PM
After serious consideration, one must come eventually to the conclusion that a lower degree initiate cannot accurately judge the higher degrees of initiation...



I'm curious: which of the three of your fellow (primary) participants in this and related threads have you graduated?--At least one of us is now an initiate, at some level. Assuming, of course, that you write what you mean.

Who knows Utopian: before its all over, perhaps all of the individuals and questions you evade will be adepts/masters.

SuuT
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 05:18 PM
My opinion on the runes can be summed up as follows.

The runes belong to the class of magical alphabets, which are symbolic of the universe. When Odin hung on the World Tree and beheld the runes that is saying that he became enlightened, he learned the spiritual truth of the world. All of the myths become very monotonous because they are all universal insofar as they speak of a divine oirigin and a great magical act. This act is always synonymous with alchemy. And it is said that through the alchemical operation the world was created.

Thanks for the synopsis/interpretation of which I was already aware. Now:

Citat Utopian: "We need to be clear that Odin did not "caste runes," nor did he simply perform "black magick," that is, taking visions of spirits or emotional/psychological currents as the supreme object."

Ah!--an opportunity for an olive brance: I agree, in part (obviously Odin did not cast runes: he "took them up"); however, what was Odin's "supreme object"?

Citat Utopian: "He entered a state that is totally beyond the lower degrees of "magic," beyond the lower waters, until he "crossed the abyss." What is more, he didn't "hang on a tree," but performed this magick sitting in the god position (after all he was a god!) on his throne."


Are you arguing agaist the translations provided (below), the symbology, or some other x?

Is this (below) innacurate to you? If so, why?:
ansuz (http://www.tarahill.com/runes/ansuz.wav) : Odin

Phonetic equivalent: a (as in 'fall')
DIVINATORY MEANINGS: authority figure, leader, mind & body balance, justice, shaman, clairvoyant MAGICAL USES: for wise decisions, success, leadership; to help in divination and magic ASSOCIATED MYTHS & DEITIES: Odin
ANALYSIS: This rune represents the instinctive, primal energy of uruz tempered with the discipline and experience of ţurisaz. These elements are combined in the personage of Odin, who exhibits the characteristics of both chieftain and shaman - a god of wisdom as well as war. Odin is also a shaman, travelling between the worlds on his eight-legged horse, Sleipnir. Ansuz is a balanced rune. As with fehu, many people choose to remain at this point in their journey. It represents power, both secular and magical, and this power can be quite seductive. Odin has learned the lessons of the first three runes, thus gaining the wisdom to rule wisely, but this is really only another beginning. He has only gained temporal power, and has only a few of the tools he will need to perfect himself spiritually. There is a certain lack of compassion and perspective in this rune. Odin sits high above his world, looking down and making decisions, but he doesn't yet have the capacity to really care about or understand his people or himself. He still needs that emotional connection to become a truly great leader.

Also: what say you to the "Utopian Manifesto"? How does it compare and contrast to your brand of Hermeticism? I see many parallels even though one must read between many lines with you.

Moody
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 05:19 PM
I thought the piece brilliant because it practises or tries to practice Hierarchy.

Yes - my criticism of certain parts of the article were no reflection upon yourself.
I deliberately picked out elements of the 'Utopian' stance which fall into a kind of unintentional self-ridicule. I believe this often occurs when an ideology is spun only within the brain.
This is not to say that large parts of the article were good [and to which you referred]; however, I think those good parts are probably derived from elsewhere, and the whole thing has not been throughly digested by those who set it down. In short, one suspects that the ideas have not been lived through in any way.


I agree with the article's recognizing that the purpose of rune-practice has fallen to a show of fortune-telling profiteering, the purely capitalistic mindset to which it has been usurped, but I definitely agree with you that this does not make rune-magic practices itself a low art!

To be perfectly honest with you, of all the systems included in the modern 'occult', I think the Runes are least used in fortune-telling.
I know that Blum's runes are quite popular [and he uses a 'blank rune'], but this is hardly marketed as a serious runological system.
The I Ching and the Tarot are far more popular [and better adapted] for the uses of fortune-telling.

I recall browsing in an Occult book-shop [which carries serious esoterica] and pulling out a book on the Runes [a good one], when the Crowleyite witch who ran the shop sneered at me, "Oh I don't use the runes, you can't get enough from them"! She was blissfully unaware that she had denigrated herself, not the Runes - I allowed her to scurry back to her poster of Crowley upon which she continued to slaver.

So I think that it is completely inappropriate to level an attack on the Runes on the basis of 'fortune-telling', when the Tarot is used for the latter purpose far more. And even then - do you think that that is a reflection on the Tarot itself?
No; it is the symbolism that counts, even if I say this a hundred times.


When I read this piece, and that particular quote you have just excerpted,- doesn't it seem like Nietzsche went more than one step ahead in holding the herd's-place sacred? Overcoming that disgust for the 'uninitiated' and the mediocre, he thought was even expected of a good Philosopher. The initiatic view is not concerned with such. And so such a tone in the quote is even expected.

Yes the Utopian stance is sub-Nietzschean. And as you suggest, Nietzsche realised that the herd is necessary - and that is the sign of a true aristocrat!
The important thing is to increase the distance between castes, race-souls and functions; this can only be done from a high perspective where you can look down on all things below you. From this point one can survey and describe all that falls under one's gaze.


I think a Philosopher like that has a more wholesome perspective and is a more wholesome soul, than any 'Initiated' one.


I agree; the 'initiate' who hides in his little corner and peeks out only with his frog-perspective is no master.
The master is like an ocean and can absorb any sea; the master is able to look at the whole history of the soul, of morality, of good & evil, good & bad - provided he do it from a height.
Therefore I would say that the Utopian manifesto lacks height - it is too short to be truly Aryan [but it may be young and have some growing yet to do].

Of course, the Runes were given from a height; they were handed down.

Moody
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 05:27 PM
This is a clear example of why I won't discuss these matters with the ignorant. You and Suut are masters at twisting your opponents words into something that is totally out of context. This is done deliberately to cause confusion. I did not say the "runes" were low art (actually I said elsewhere that they comprise of a magical alphabet). What I said was rune-casting and most of what people today dabble in by the name of "rune magic" is a low art.

It is you who is twisting.
You asked if I had had any experience with Magic.
I said that I had had some experience with Rune Magic.
I did not say Rune-Casting.
I did not say that I "dabble" either, and it is insulting to suggest that is what I do when it comes to the Runes.

You then replied to my assertion that I had experience with Rune Magic by stating that "Rune-Casting" was a "low art".

Because you made that response to the stated "Rune Magic", I had to challenge it.

However, as the 'Utopian' piece quoted by Arrian shows, it is 'fortune-telling' etc., which is regarded by yourself as a 'low art'. Rune-Casting is hardly 'fortune-telling' as the Wotanish wisdom quoted by Suut has made clear.

So it was ultimately uncalled for for you to refer to the runes in the above context as a 'low art'.

Moody
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 05:47 PM
I am indebted to you for that reference. I was genuinely looking for citations from Utopian which he did not provide.
I was truly interested in tracing back the golden era of the old Aryan way.
Thanks.

No thank you, noble Arrian.

I was trying to find some links to Marby et al yesterday, but couldn't find any good ones.

The following sites carried articles in the past adverting to this view of the runes as the script of Atlantis, although I can't put my finger on anything specific at the moment;

http://armanen.org/

http://www.runegild.org/articles.html

We know that von List regarded the runes as the primal Aryan script too;

http://geocities.com/fnrswulf/index1.htm

A similar notion stretches back to Bureus;

http://www.monas.nl/think/bureus.htm

Unfortunately modern rune research no longer follows this path.

Still, anyone aware even of only the above can see that the Runes are not a 'low art'.

Moody
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 06:00 PM
My opinion on the runes can be summed up as follows.

The runes belong to the class of magical alphabets, which are symbolic of the universe. When Odin hung on the World Tree and beheld the runes that is saying that he became enlightened, he learned the spiritual truth of the world. All of the myths become very monotonous because they are all universal insofar as they speak of a divine oirigin and a great magical act. This act is always synonymous with alchemy. And it is said that through the alchemical operation the world was created.

To call the Runes an "alphabet" is wrong; they are a 'futhark'.
As all should know, the 'alphabet' is named after its first two letters, just as the Runes are named after the first six rune-staves: f-u-th-a-r-k.

The rune-staves themselves are not the 'runes' [which means 'mysteries']; they are the staves which only represent the runes by means of symbolism.
The 'runes' then are the transcendent mysteries of the particular Nordic Race-Soul.

So the rune-staves are definitely not just another "magic alphabet".

And those mysteries are not universal; they are particular to the blood, soil and climate of the Nordic Aryans.

This is why their order [futhark etc.,] is unique, and why they are not an abc alphabet.
This is why they deal with a unique set of symbols which apertain only to the Nordic outlook.

The Runes are, like the Nordic Race-Soul, one of a kind.

And they are, ultimately a mystery.

Utopian
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Therefore I would say that the Utopian manifesto lacks height - it is too short to be truly Aryan [but it may be young and have some growing yet to do].

Of course, the Runes were given from a height; they were handed down.

Talking with you is like speaking to a brick wall but worse, since the wall doesn't irritate as much, nor does it do so intentionally. Here you people keep referring to this article as a "Utopian manifesto" which it is not. You did however reveal that your scholarship is truly not of an "height" since you take faulty second-hand sources of information as fact. Now how can you be trusted as a source of any information when you have been shown to be completely wrong time after time. You don't even take pause to think before you come to a new conclusion. It's just a cheap parlour trick of modern philosphical method which hollows out all meaning of everything it examines. You truly don't take anything seriously, including yourself. We might as well just have apes examine the religions of mankind and adhere to their findings.

SuuT
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 08:07 PM
Runic typology:

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/runic.htm#elder

fms panzerfaust
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 04:47 AM
I would like to put all of these debates to rest once and for all.

After serious consideration, one must come eventually to the conclusion that a lower degree initiate cannot accurately judge the higher degrees of initiation.

Therefore unless one has discovered the philosopher's stone (philosopher = alchemist :P ) then he cannot speak the truth of Odin's sacrifice, which is an alchemical operation :thumbup . We need to be clear that Odin did not "caste runes," nor did he simply perform "black magick," that is, taking visions of spirits or emotional/psychological currents as the supreme object. He entered a state that is totally beyond the lower degrees of "magic," beyond the lower waters, until he "crossed the abyss." What is more, he didn't "hang on a tree," but performed this magick sitting in the god position (after all he was a god!) on his throne.

The man hanged on a tree upside down is an alchemical representation of the Vindex path.

Utopian
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 11:38 AM
The problem with reaction against the supernatural science and the unfair and erroneous claim that it "opposes the body," is that Odin sacrificed himself to himself. If he and his body/mind were already perfect not requiring change then there would be no reason to perform such a sacrifice. Therefore, materialists should also oppose Odin for his magick, his alchemy to achieve Gnosis. But you won't find them doing so ... we must then find that it is a question of interpretation. Misunderstanding that doctrine which is in every single religion (giants, titans, fallen ones) when it has been properly interpreted for the reader by the wise is not the fault of the religion or the interpreter but of the person who chooses to misunderstand the interpretation.

Moody
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Talking with you is like speaking to a brick wall but worse, since the wall doesn't irritate as much, nor does it do so intentionally. Here you people keep referring to this article as a "Utopian manifesto" which it is not. You did however reveal that your scholarship is truly not of an "height" since you take faulty second-hand sources of information as fact. Now how can you be trusted as a source of any information when you have been shown to be completely wrong time after time. You don't even take pause to think before you come to a new conclusion. It's just a cheap parlour trick of modern philosphical method which hollows out all meaning of everything it examines. You truly don't take anything seriously, including yourself. We might as well just have apes examine the religions of mankind and adhere to their findings.

It may have been a coincidence, Utopian, that the Utopian Manifesto contained many of the same phrases as you use yourself.
It may have also been inconvenient for you that the Utopian Manifesto does what you have refused to do in the original Race-Soul thread and its off-shoots such as this one: and that is to explain what you mean by certain vague slogans.

So when you described Rune-Casting as a "low art" not practised by the Golden Age Aryans, you were asked [out of a kinship desire to genuinely learn from your knowledge] what you actually meant by this assertion, and whether or not you could substantiate it for the edification of fellow-Aryans.

You chose to respond by saying 'it just is' etc., etc., and behave as if you were not willing to impart information to gesith on Skadi as if the latter didn't deserve it, some how.
Even above you use the term usually only heard amongst multiculturalists: "you people".
You even make a comparison of such 'people' with "apes".
I must say, I find your attitude to be unfathomable, and not a good advert for Utopianism .


Due to the stubborness on your part [although you do continue to run with the debate, I'll give you that], the noble Arrian felt moved to give the Utopian Manifesto to us all here.

You strongly objected to that - but how could you?

It was only due to your insistent refusal to dilate upon such themes as 'low art' etc., that we had to look to your namesake's Manifesto where such things [b]are elucidated.

Of course, this made it easier for us to engage the assertions you had made in argument and to challenge, nay, to refute them.

Now, if it is just a coincidence, Utopian, and your 'own' Utopianism has nothing to do with the Utopian Manifesto's Utopianism, then please clear the air by telling your fellows here what you mean when you impugn the Runes by calling them a "low art"!

Moody
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 01:46 PM
The man hanged on a tree upside down is an alchemical representation of the Vindex path.

Interesting - does your use of the word "Vindex" relate to Myatt's use of the same in any way?

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=6441


The problem with reaction against the supernatural science and the unfair and erroneous claim that it "opposes the body," is that Odin sacrificed himself to himself.

There is, at least on my part, no "reaction against the supernatural", as such - although there is no blind acceptance of charlantanism; a good antidote here is Revilo Oliver's short classic Is There Intelligent Life On Earth.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/

Nor is there a "claim" by myself that the supernatural "'opposes the body'" - on the contrary.

There is rather a Nietzschean position expressed that there is no actual separation between the soul and the body - especially not to the detriment of the latter.
Likewise, there is no separation between the "supernatural" and the "natural" - especially not to the detriment of the latter.

That is the opposite of saying that the one "opposes" the latter; indeed, the Nietzschean position - which says that 'the soul is just another word for the body' - thereby rejects any opposition as well as any separation between them!

And by extension, it particularly rejects the notion that the body is a 'prison', 'sinful', 'dirty' etc., etc.,

Compare Odin's self-sacrifice in the Edda to a snatch from Nietzsche's Dionysos Dithramb and note the similarity;

Now-
Alone with yourself,
Paired in your own knowledge,
Amid a hundred dubious
Memories,
Weary from every hurt,
Chilled by every frost,
Strangled by your own rope,
Self-knower!
Self-hangman!



If he and his body/mind were already perfect not requiring change then there would be no reason to perform such a sacrifice.

The sacrifice symbolises not the quest for perfection, but rather the quest for knowledge; in this case the discovery of the Runes.


Therefore, materialists should also oppose Odin for his magick, his alchemy to achieve Gnosis.

I can't speak for materialists; Odin's self-sacrifice has more in common with shamanism, where a specially gifted being, through a derangement of the senses and a NDE, is able to acquire special insight, such as the Runes in this case - and is able to pass this on to his kin!


Misunderstanding that doctrine which is in every single religion (giants, titans, fallen ones) when it has been properly interpreted for the reader by the wise is not the fault of the religion or the interpreter but of the person who chooses to misunderstand the interpretation.

The wise then are only "interpreting"?
And is there then an interpretation of an interpretation?
What is text and what is interpretation?
By that I mean is the Poetic Edda text or is it interpretation?
Or is there only degrees of interpretation?

Where are the original texts upon which interpretations are based?

Are the various stories of "giants" etc., the result of a lost 'text' event]?
Just as the story of The Flood could be derived from an actual cataclysmic flood which affected differing peoples over a wide area, and the only reason they have the story in common is because their own forefathers experienced that original event and wove their own interpretations upon it?

What is the "proper interpretation"?
How is it decided that one interpretation is proper and another is improper?
Is freethinking possible?

SuuT
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 05:15 PM
Since Utopian refuses to anwer any questions, because to do so would be to make profane the true inner meaning of alchemic operations and such, I have decided to provide some answers for him. I provide the best link I know of to the eldest texts and excerpts on Alchemy et. Al.

What I find odd is the enormous secretiveness Utopian seems to find in his Hermeticism/Alchemy/Magic(k): as if he is gaurding some unknown or unavailable treasure trove...But, here I must stop myself. Utopian has openly stated contradictory things on this matter. The first, that one must be able to understand these tremendous things. The second, that one must be willing to "do their own work"...the problem becomes: "well, if one is unable, why the secrecy?--After all, one is unable...The problem deepens: "well, if one is unwilling to 'do their own work', why the secrecy?--After all, the unwilling do not have the will to know...

I can only conclude that Utopian suffers from a malaise that I was the first to truly identify some 12 years ago. Every new semester, I deal with multiple students who suffer the malaise; every graduation, I see the malaise strengthened in some--eliminated in others. For some, it never rears itself until after formal Phillosophical training! So, you see, the ubiquity of causes makes treatment relative to the point that the conclusion is, for the most: only the symptoms of the pathology are treatable. Especially for those who show of the lowest immunity to the pathology.

I have dubbed this terror the "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo syndrome". Now, the malaise shows of different types, but this is another matter. Related to the primary point (Nanny-nanny-boo-boo syndrome), are the symptoms of the pathology. The primary symptom is the "I'm rubber; you're glue" neurosis; typically showing itself in social interations in which the person with the syndrome is not recognized as special, ipso facto. You see, the Nanny-nanny-boo-booer knows certain things about themself. These things are quite obvious to the victim of the malaise, and yet not so obvious to another interacting with the victim. Any attempt at debate with a sufferer of the virus ultimately ends in the primary symptom; and, circularly, back to the namesake of the malaise. Informally, the pathology can be put in the following form:

1.) I am special (here is where there are deviations, ergo deviant forms: i.e. sometimes there are reasons; sometimes there aren't. For purposes of keeping this succinct, we shall stick to the form that we have encountered. It is as follows:

2.) I am special because of x.
3.) x is obvious
4.) even if x were not obvious, I am special.
5.) y does not find how special I am obvious.
6.) y is either unwilling to acknowledge how special I am; or, and worse, is unable to do so.
7.) surley their is something wrong with y, because I am special, as x is obvious; and were it not so--I would still be special because I know it.
8.) due to the obviousness of x, it is a fact.
9.) x is therefore true prima facie
10.) no one need explain a prima facie truth,
11.) especially when that truth is x.

http://www.alchemywebsite.com/texts.html

Moody
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Since Utopian refuses to anwer any questions, because to do so would be to make profane the true inner meaning of alchemic operations

This in itself is a misunderstanding on Utopian's part.

The occult arts operate on many levels, some exoteric and some esoteric as has already been pointed out here by others.

Therefore it should be possible for someone who is guarding the inner secrets of an art [be it Alchemy or Runology] to at least express the outer meanings with full confidence and thereby engage in philosophical discussions.

Just as with the Runes; the exoteric aspects are well-known to the 'market-place of ideas' and can be openly discussed on the level of symbolism and mythology.

And yet Utopian is not able to even discuss the outer or exoteric aspects of his Hermeticism.

I think it possible that he believes that the exoteric aspects are the esoteric aspects, and this is why he calls the Runes a 'low art' [admittedly this is a confusion too far].

Arrian
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 07:03 PM
I recall browsing in an Occult book-shop [which carries serious esoterica] and pulling out a book on the Runes [a good one], when the Crowleyite witch who ran the shop sneered at me, "Oh I don't use the runes, you can't get enough from them"! She was blissfully unaware that she had denigrated herself, not the Runes - I allowed her to scurry back to her poster of Crowley upon which she continued to slaver.

That was a telling anecdote. I just raised this in the NS politics section here:
http://ensiokataja.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-nazism.html

"The heathen and even völkisch groups were brought under iron heel in the Third Reich. The Armanen runemaster Siegfried Adolf Kummer and others like him were openly attacked by the National Socialists. Friedrich Bernhard Marby, founder of the Bund der Runenforscher (League of Runic Researchers) and others like him were sentenced to concentration camps."

Comments like that from well-informed heathens and rune-guild members sends an unhealthy message that the Reich did not entertain such "dabblers"; in other words, that there was a period not so long ago within our own kin circle, when runes were looked down upon as some superstitious magic or whatever was the reason Kummer, et.al. were not encouraged. If there's veracity in those comments, I do not know why rune-practice was treated so. And then again, I think, that was perhaps still a judgement on the practise itself and not on the runes. Willigut, for instance, was looked at suspiciously for attempting to smuggle in a "Christ-consciousness" (Aryan Christ maybe but still) and so, in any case, I think the runes (or casting them) themselves ought not to be called a low-art magic as Utopian just did.


So I think that it is completely inappropriate to level an attack on the Runes on the basis of 'fortune-telling', when the Tarot is used for the latter purpose far more. And even then - do you think that that is a reflection on the Tarot itself?
No; it is the symbolism that counts, even if I say this a hundred times.


I agree. Its the nature of fire to burn, and if someone is harmed by touching it, and call the fire evil or 'low', that says nothing.


The master is like an ocean and can absorb any sea; the master is able to look at the whole history of the soul, of morality, of good & evil, good & bad - provided he do it from a height.
the Runes were given from a height; they were handed down.

Well said.

Arrian
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Here you people keep referring to this article as a "Utopian manifesto" which it is not. you take faulty second-hand sources of information as fact.

How is it that that particular link on the 'Black Work of Death' from the same Manifesto which I posted only some four or five days back, and was functional, has suddenly gone dead? Its from that same source, this writing on low-art was taken. I do not accept your calling it a faulty source, just because, that link suddenly and mysteriously seems to have disappeared! Anyway, I have no interest in why it has gone blank and all that, just setting straight the source.

Utopian
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Alright, you win. Traditionalists don't know anything about tradition or even if there is a tradition, which to think so would be un-traditional. And yes, we are all suffering from what Suut rightly diagnosed as "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" disease. And yes, I was the one not you ML who sent this thread off topic. And yes, you are right to call us wrong. Mercury and Sulfur and Salt are all the same thing, no separation. And yes, we Celts are inferior as is shown in our inferior alphabets. And yes, everything else you said was spot on like it always is.

SuuT
Sunday, July 9th, 2006, 05:59 AM
This in itself is a misunderstanding on Utopian's part.

The occult arts operate on many levels, some exoteric and some esoteric as has already been pointed out here by others.

Therefore it should be possible for someone who is guarding the inner secrets of an art [be it Alchemy or Runology] to at least express the outer meanings with full confidence and thereby engage in philosophical discussions.

Just as with the Runes; the exoteric aspects are well-known to the 'market-place of ideas' and can be openly discussed on the level of symbolism and mythology.

And yet Utopian is not able to even discuss the outer or exoteric aspects of his Hermeticism.

I think it possible that he believes that the exoteric aspects are the esoteric aspects, and this is why he calls the Runes a 'low art' [admittedly this is a confusion too far].

You are more temperate than I Moody!--I value that. I, indeed, agree; and attempted to say as much way back here:

To Utopian: "You are being asked to provide an exoteric metaphysic for your esoteric assertions; when doing Metaphysics (proper), as with all Philosophy, the onus lay in the lap of he who affirms. Esoterics are not Metaphysics; but Exoterics can be a descriptive vehicle for Esoterics...you are not being asked to subtract anything from your spirit! Quite the contrary..." (Myself: post #5: Mage v. Philosopher ((split)) thread).

I, to be frank, am done with what would only be placating and denigrating to everyone involved herein by attempting to continue a dialogue with Utopian.

All possible attempts have been made.

It is now time for resentment to do its 'Magick'.

fms panzerfaust
Monday, July 10th, 2006, 02:02 AM
Interesting - does your use of the word "Vindex" relate to Myatt's use of the same in any way?

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=6441

Yes. I was refering to the Vindex of the septenary.

The related tarot card shows a hanged man - he is hanged by one foot, and drops five red balls to the ground. One of his eyes is hurt and bleeding three drops of blood. There is a serpent in the ground, and an eagle in the sky. The serpent and the eagle, for those who dont known, when united turns into a strong alchemical symbol, the caduceus.

The caduceus shows one eagle (the monad) and two serpents (the indefinite dyad). Dont ask to me where I get this.

Alchemy is about transformation of one's soul (or spirit). To achieve this, it uses assimilations, various references. For example, this same card (number 12) is related to the mercury element in the sun sphere, the mercury element is related to the ego element in modern psychanalysis. Salt is related to the subconscious and sulphur to the super-conscious or supernatural.

Modern psychanalysis by itself is an adaptation of alchemical knowledge to the needs of modern science. It dont concerns itself with the spirit, but with the mind only. So to study modern psychanalysis is not enough, you'll need to go deeper.

As Nietzsches says the soul is not separated from the body. In "Thus Speak Zarathustra", Zarathustra says to the man that is dying: "you soul will die first than your body". He uses this argument to show that the soul is not immortal.

Something that I need to understand now is the separation between soul and spirit. I'm not a specialist in Evola, but I known that he speaks about various souls in one body.

If the soul is a substance, I guess that we can use an analogy with the body to understand it's structure. The body being made of material substance, and the soul-body being made of spectral substance. The soul degenerates at the same speed as the body. I'm not speaking of the living body, but of a dead body. I guess that one of the reasons why the ancients cremated dead bodies was to avoid pain for the soul of the dead person. I guess that, if a physical dead body is reduced to ashes, the soul-body of the dead person will be reduced to ashes too.

Pythia
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 07:22 PM
A low art? No, I don't think so, at all.

The runes are, per the mythos, a gift directly from a God who sacrificed to take them up.

However, if you do not accept the premise of divine origin, there are other issues:

1) The Elder Futhark (which is the only system that I have studied), is perfect in it's architecture. The ENTIRE system can be enclosed in and expressed by nine straight lines. The design is perfect for carving into the wood that was plentiful in the northern forests. (no curved lines, most lines go with the wood grain). If no tool is available, one can write an entire message with a handful of twigs

2) Each rune represents a sound, making it a complete system of communication.

3) The name of each rune expresses a specific concept (like, "cattle" for any form of movable wealth= prosperity). Good for communicating mundane whole concepts.

4) The name is also a mantra, and invokes a specific archetypal energy. (fehu, for example expresses what may be simplistically called "prosperity energies.") The runes thus express concepts that are higher, subtler, more abstract, and of a broader range than words can express.

5) The runes as a divinatory system may help one "read" the energies around a circumstance. As a magickal system, one can learn to influence and USE the archetypal energies.

6) Each rune may be seen as an initiation into a SPECIFIC archetypal energy, leading to an overall initiation into a complete cosmic view.

7) Learning and using the runes makes demands on both the logical and intuitive sides of the brain. I'm no neurologist, but could this practice improve the neural "bridges" between the right and left brain hemispheres, over time?

8) Each of the three aetts can be seen to depict a phase of soul evolution.

So, as can be seen, the runes offer an extremely simple, compact, perfectly-engineered, tool, replete with both mundane and initiatory uses. They can be experienced as a simple communication tool or explored in ways that we likely have not even conceived, yet.

What's "low art" about that? :)

Psychonaut
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Interesting question. Perhaps it's because I have a background in Ceremonial Magic, I've always seen the Runes as being somewhat analogous to the squares provided in the third (or fourth depending on your translation) of The Book of Abramelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Sacred_Magic_of_Abrameli n_the_Mage). In both cases, we have system of glyph bases magic that was allegedly obtained at the peak of an initiatory experience. In both cases the glyphs themselves are depicted in historical sources as being used for rather mundane magical operations. In the case of the Runes (as per the Hávamál (http://vta.gamall-steinn.org/havamal.htm) verses 146-164) they are apparently to be used to "blunt the edges of enemy swords," "cause the corpse to speak," etc. The Abramelin squares are designed for similarly mundane works like being able "to walk under water for as long as you want." Now, this is not to say that the Runes cannot be used for 'high magic,' (as is currently done by the Runegild and the group I belong to, the Wolfbund) rather in their mythology they appear as the result of high magic, not as high magic in and of themselves.

Pythia
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 11:58 PM
Interesting question. Perhaps it's because I have a background in Ceremonial Magic, I've always seen the Runes as being somewhat analogous to the squares provided in the third (or fourth depending on your translation) of The Book of Abramelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Sacred_Magic_of_Abrameli n_the_Mage). In both cases, we have system of glyph bases magic that was allegedly obtained at the peak of an initiatory experience. In both cases the glyphs themselves are depicted in historical sources as being used for rather mundane magical operations. In the case of the Runes (as per the Hávamál (http://vta.gamall-steinn.org/havamal.htm) verses 146-164) they are apparently to be used to "blunt the edges of enemy swords," "cause the corpse to speak," etc. The Abramelin squares are designed for similarly mundane works like being able "to walk under water for as long as you want." Now, this is not to say that the Runes cannot be used for 'high magic,' (as is currently done by the Runegild and the group I belong to, the Wolfbund) rather in their mythology they appear as the result of high magic, not as high magic in and of themselves.

Not both, like the ouroboros? The expanded state of consciousness produced by the hanging meditation creating the runes, creating the expanded state?:-)

Psychonaut
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Not both, like the ouroboros? The altered state of consciousness produced by the hanging meditation creating the runes, creating the altered state?

That seems to be a much more modern conception. However, we don't really know much at all about Germanic initiation rites. This does seem to be the approach used by most of the contemporary Runic schools, using the Runes to assist in emulating the peak experience described in the Hávamál.

exit
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 02:23 PM
What evidence is there that runes were used for lot casting and divination?

The runes as referred to in ancient texts are symbolic as a whole to spiritual realization which leads to metaphysical knowledge not magic and divination and other phenomena which exist in the subtle realm (formal manifestation). Metaphysics belongs to the universal order (as I explained in another thread: What is Metaphysics?) in which there are no forms and therefore no visions or divinations.

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 02:49 PM
What evidence is there that runes were used for lot casting and divination?
The runes as referred to in ancient texts are symbolic as a whole to spiritual realization which leads to metaphysical knowledge not magic and divination and other phenomena which exist in the subtle realm (formal manifestation). Metaphysics belongs to the universal order (as I explained in another thread: What is Metaphysics?) in which there are no forms and therefore no visions or divinations.

Tacitus said of the Heathen Germans of the first century Common Era that they were "addicted beyond all other nations to the use of lots and augeries".

The philosophy of Wyrd and the Norns would make this recourse to divination explicable.

Indeed, the use of divination would have overshadowed any 'metaphysics', in my view.

Tacitus, Germania 10.

"To the use of lots and auguries, they are addicted beyond all other nations. Their method of divining by lots is exceedingly simple. From a tree which bears fruit they cut a twig, and divide it into two small pieces. These they distinguish by so many several marks, and throw them at random and without order upon a white garment. Then the Priest of the community, if for the public the lots are consulted, or the father of a family about a private concern, after he has solemnly invoked the Gods, with eyes lifted up to heaven, takes up every piece thrice, and having done thus forms a judgment according to the marks before made. If the chances have proved forbidding, they are no more consulted upon the same affair during the same day: even when they are inviting, yet, for confirmation, the faith of auguries too is tried. Yea, here also is the known practice of divining events from the voices and flight of birds. But to this nation it is peculiar, to learn presages and admonitions divine from horses also. These are nourished by the State in the same sacred woods and groves, all milk-white and employed in no earthly labour. These yoked in the holy chariot, are accompanied by the Priest and the King, or the Chief of the Community, who both carefully observed his actions and neighing. Nor in any sort of augury is more faith and assurance reposed, not by the populace only, but even by the nobles, even by the Priests. These account themselves the ministers of the Gods, and the horses privy to his will. They have likewise another method of divination, whence to learn the issue of great and mighty wars. From the nation with whom they are at war they contrive, it avails not how, to gain a captive: him they engage in combat with one selected from amongst themselves, each armed after the manner of his country, and according as the victory falls to this or to the other, gather a presage of the whole."
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/tacitus/index.php

Alternate translation:

"Auguries and Method of Divination. Augury and divination by lot no people practise more diligently. The use of the lots is simple. A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment. In public questions the priest of the particular state, in private the father of the family, invokes the gods, and, with his eyes toward heaven, takes up each piece three times, and finds in them a meaning according to the mark previously impressed on them. If they prove unfavourable, there is no further consultation that day about the matter; if they sanction it, the confirmation of augury is still required. For they are also familiar with the practice of consulting the notes and flight of birds. It is peculiar to this people to seek omens and monitions from horses. Kept at the public expense, in these same woods and groves, are white horses, pure from the taint of earthly labour; these are yoked to a sacred car, and accompanied by the priest and the king, or chief of the tribe, who note their neighings and snortings. No species of augury is more trusted, not only by the people and by the nobility, but also by the priests, who regard themselves as the ministers of the gods, and the horses as acquainted with their will. They have also another method of observing auspices, by which they seek to learn the result of an important war. Having taken, by whatever means, a prisoner from the tribe with whom they are at war, they pit him against a picked man of their own tribe, each combatant using the weapons of their country. The victory of the one or the other is accepted as an indication of the issue."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html


Tacitus' Latin original:
X. Auspicia sortesque, ut qui maxime, observant. Sortium consuetudo
simplex: virgam, frugiferae arbori decisam, in surculos amputant, eosque,
notis quibusdam discretos, super candidam vestem temere ac fortuito
spargunt: mox, si publice consuletur, sacerdos civitatis, sin privatim,
ipse paterfamiliae, precatus deos coelumque suspiciens, ter singulos
tollit, sublatos secundum impressam ante notam interpretatur. Si
prohibuerunt, nulla de eadem re in eundem diem consultatio; sin
permissum, auspiciorum adhuc fides exigitur. Et illud quidem etiam hic
notum, avium voces volatusque interrogare: proprium gentis, equorum
quoque praesagia ac monitus experiri; publice aluntur iisdem nemoribus ac
lucis candidi et nullo mortali opere contacti: quos pressos sacro curru
sacerdos ac rex vel princeps civitatis comitantur, hinnitusque ac
fremitus observant. Nec ulli auspicio major fides non solum apud plebem,
sed apud proceres, apud sacerdotes; se enim ministros deorum, illos
conscios putant. Est et alia observatio auspiciorum, qua gravium bellorum
eventus explorant; ejus gentis, cum qua bellum est, captivum, quoquo modo
interceptum, cum electo popularium suorum, patriis quemque armis,
committunt: victoria hujus vel illius pro praejudicio accipitur.

exit
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 03:55 PM
Exactly, there's nothing in there about runes. How you can get the term rune out of twig that is marked is beyond me. Similarly, it says about the runes "know how to read them" by which I take as "know their meaning" (for they are symbols). Nowhere did it say "know how to divine with them!" Besides, it says elsewhere, "never trust a witch" (this isn't just a Christian insertion). Finally, "know how to send them" should not be interpreted as "curse" but as "to transmit tradition." Heathens are relying too much on Tacitus and occultist charlatans.

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Exactly, there's nothing in there about runes. How you can get the term rune out of twig that is marked is beyond me. Similarly, it says about the runes "know how to read them" by which I take as "know their meaning" (for they are symbols). Nowhere did it say "know how to divine with them!" Besides, it says elsewhere, never trust a witch. Finally, "know how to send them" should not be translated as "curse" but as "to transmit tradition." Heathens are relying too much on Tacitus and occultist charlatans.

Whether or not you think that Tacitus is referring to the runes [and most authorities believe that he is], you cannot deny that he is talking about the use of divination [which you denied] rather than the "metaphysics" that you asserted.
So let's say then - for argument's sake - that Tacitus is not talking about the runes but about other marks:

"From a tree which bears fruit they cut a twig, and divide it into two small pieces. These they distinguish by so many several marks, and throw them at random and without order upon a white garment."

Marks upon which the priest "forms a judgment according to the marks before made" - what else is this but divination?

Now let me ask you - what is the evidence for Germanic Heathen metaphysics?

exit
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:48 PM
The fact that he speaks of divination I do not dispute, but to get rune out of marked twig is a complete distortion and no intellectual authority would say otherwise (unless of course he was pseudo-intellectual). Metaphysics is found in all traditions, in Plato's intelligible world, for instance, and preserved by Christianity in the angelic realm. Metaphysics is universal beyond all forms and is the very basis of the secondary forms as expressed through myth, gods, and the world tree. There is no racial metaphysics as I've said, since it is universal and applies only to the universal order.

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:52 PM
The fact that he speaks of divination I do not dispute, but to get rune out of marked twig is a complete distortion and no intellectual authority would say otherwise. Metaphysics is found in all traditions, in Plato's intelligible world, for instance, and preserved by Christianity in the angelic realm. Metaphysics is universal beyond all forms and the very basis of the secondary forms as expressed through myth and gods.

I think that "a marked twig" would be an obvious way that a foreigner would refer to rune casting if he was merely observing it without knowing the Germanic languages [we can agree to disagree here if you wish].

You are right that Metaphysics is found in Plato, and Platonism [such as Plotinus] influenced the Christian theologians. However, I asked for the evidence of a comparable Germanic Heathen metaphysics.
I have shown that the Germanic Heathens used divination - where is the Germanic Heathen version of a Plato or a Plotinus?

exit
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:57 PM
Metaphysicians prefer anonymity (hence oral tradition) because metaphysics is not individual philosophy; even Plato's work was not his, only his wild imagination in which he cased his words could be considered individual. The Germanic metaphysics is evident in the ancient scriptures themselves. A symbol must in fact refer to something that exists in the higher formless realm, otherwise it is not a symbol at all.

Regarding ancient historians, one doesn't know the circumstances in which they were speaking, nor even if what they wrote was meant in the purely literal sense. One clue here is from "a tree which bears fruit" a branch is cut; this could be more symbolic (though somewhat of an abuse of symbolism) for the fruit or shell rather than the kernel is that which was "forbidden" hence phenomenal, and the branch is toward the periphery away from the center. In fact, augury was always performed by lower (or I should say lowest order of) priests or magicians and not the regular and chief priests or kings for this very reason; it is psychic rather than spiritual. And if runes were ever used for some divinatory purpose which if they were it would most likely be outside of the norm then this still would not signify their primary purpose. It only proves a degeneration, of which history is replete with examples where when much of the upper castes practiced divination the civilization already degenerated and shortly disappeared. Egypt is a good example of this, and so is European heathenism.

Athalwulf
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 08:58 PM
I use the runes as symbols of magical power, but I don't misuse them. I made my own set of runes from a tree that I cut down in my back yard in order to ascend closer to the gods, not to use them as a witchcraft tool.