Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Well, wikipedia is not very high on my list of credible sources, but ranks
> about number one on my list of convenient sources. <g>
I find Wikipedia both interesting and often quite useful. I never link
to it unless I've already read the entry and at least insofar as I know
anything, agree with it.
I also like that it covers lots of topics that Britannica, et. al.
don't. As a philosophical matter, I think it has some potential
advantages over traditional encyclopedias. In the traditional manner,
experts on the varios fields and subjects go through a lengthy and
presumably rigorous process of presenting the best view of each entry item.
If you are at all familiar with the history of ideas and science in
particular (and I know you are), you know that conventional wisdom very
often turns out to be wrong. A collective and flexible repository of
knowledge provides a more likely early outlet of opposing theories and
ideas.
To use a blatant example, a mid 16th. Century edition of Britannica
would undoubtedly have featured a wonderfully learned, through and well
written treatise on Ptolemy's geocentric model of the heavens. A
Wikipedia would have included Copernicus' and Galileo's observations and
theories, at least as alternatives.
> That said, I still think neo-paganism sounds pretentious. I would never
> identify myself as such. Simple pagan would suffice. Or heathen. I like that
> one even better. Not neo-heathen, mind you . . . <g>
>
I understand that you have a prejudice against the usage. It is
nevertheless accurate and more meaningful than without the "neo". Since
many of these practices are modeled after what are imagined to be the
detailed beliefs and practices of ancient spiritual traditions, to call
them by the name of the originals implies continuity or at least
accuracy in following the old. Prepending "neo" admits the difference.
Many of the old practices they admire and wish to emulate and revitalize
involved secret teachings and practices which were only revealed to
initiates to various levels and never to be revealed to outsiders. Some,
of course, were, but most either were not or have been lost.
I believe that even those which have survived are often misunderstood in
the enormously different contexts in which we now live from those in
which they originated.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|