Magical Approaches

[Finn]

I think this is the most appropriate area to discuss the three approaches to magic (and/or faith). It is my assertion there are only three that interact and bleed into each other. I call the three (for lack of better names yet):

1. Eclectic
2. Reconstruction
3. Wholecloth

I am going to attempt to define the three from a neutral standpoint, covering the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Obviously, I am biased but that doesn't prevent me from being able to intellectually analyze them. To be fair I'm going to assume the best about each approach, i.e. writing about them from the standpoint of the true practitioner who is actually seeking truth on its own merits. At the end of each definition I will list what I see as the dangers and failings of said approaches.

1. The Eclectic:
The eclectic approach believes that truth and knowledge can be found anywhere and everywhere. Experience teaches us things and thus the more experience (and more varied) the more we learn. It is important to study everything, throwing oneself into new endeavors within context and learning all said system, practices, or beliefs can teach you, and then move on. The true Eclectic understands they must learn a path entirely in relationship to itself, before parts can be cannabalized and fitted to other things. In short, one must know the rules before one can break the rules. It should be noted that the true Eclectic doesn't choose things based on the fun factor, pleasure, or convenience. They dive into life deeply to learn and then construct a meaningful paradigm from the truth of those experiences. This includes hard truths as well as joy. It isn't about external validation, acceptance, or even the personal return. It is about truly walking the walk and finding within all of creation those universal truths which most people miss when they are too close to a subject. The Eclectic believes most people miss the forest for the trees.

Eclectic Dangers/Weaknesses:
The greatest danger of the eclectic approach is that it is easy to lose sight of why someone started walking the path to start with. One can easily be swept up in the joys of moving on to new things and thus cast context and truth aside. The attention span can start to wane, like someone flipping channels because they have 300+ with their cable service. Moreover, it is dangerous because some people start on the path specifically because it seems like it reduces religion, magic, and spirituality to a fast food buffet. It lends itself to writing truth rather than seeking it. Moreover, the very approach itself can mislead because instead of looking for context and particularity, the walkers of this path are always looking for a big picture answer. Subtle truths and the value of concrete notions or rules are lost on them. The very worst of the worst are vapid, self-involved me-monkies who see spirituality as their personal candy store.

*I will continue with Reconstruction in another post. There is no reason to spam all of them in one.

[Finn]

2. The Reconstructionist
The "Recon" is the exact opposite of the Eclectic. It isn't that the Recon doesn't believe that truth can be found anywhere and everywhere. Most of them do believe that, however, they also feel that the endless variety becomes a distraction, like white noise. Truth, whatever its nature, can be found in each grain of sand, so trying to count every grain on a beach is somewhat unproductive. The Recon believes that by filtering out the white noise, one can truly immerse in a system and understand it, and through it, the universe. Moreover, the Recon tends feel that subtle detail, rules, and unique practices are of value. In general, the Recon doesn't shy away from rules or authority. The word "no" or the statement "you can't/or shouldn't do that," doesn't fill them with dread. There are often good reasons for rules, commonsense if not evolutionary. Moreover, different cultures and societies have different rules which make them distinct, special, and why we are fascinated with them in the first place. The world would be a dull place indeed if we were all the same and all our beliefs were boiled down into generalized ideas. A Recon feels it is our differences which make all the difference in the world. Attempting to boil everything down into "universal" truth loses something in the equation. They feel that people often miss the beauty of an individual tree, lose all the clarity and life when they focus only on the treeline and see only the forest.

Reconstruction Dangers/Weaknesses:
The greatest danger of the Reconstruction Approach is that practitioners can become enamoured by the trappings rather than than the path itself. Why one seeks to live a certain way can be lost in the rigid dogma of how one seeks to live. Moreover, human nature lends itself to a certain degree of selfishness. All seek to bend rules to their own favor, and thus power can quickly bend something to serving individuals rather than truth. What is worse, the Recon can start to view it necessary to denegrate other paths as a means to reassure oneself of his/her own truth. This isn't unlike when young children find someone else to pick on. Tearing someone else down is often the easiest way to build oneself up.

*I will continue with Wholecloth in another post.

[KittyLane]

Thank you very much for the added information!


paganmystics.proboards101.com/index.cgi?board=thebasics&action=display&thread=1179719874&page=1

Link to previous discussion.

[Finn]

3. Wholecloth:
If the Eclectic is at one extreme and the Recon at the other, the Wholecloth Practitioner (or creator) is the fulcrum who stands in the middle. A Wholecloth path or faith is something someone just made up. Sometimes they are entirely new with bizarre new words, totally new ideas and terms. Usually, however, they are the end result of an Eclectic approach. Someone has gathered together an entirely self contained system, cobbled together from beliefs, practices, rituals and so on from lots of other sources. The new Wholecloth faith seeks to replace the others before it, subsuming them. Wicca as envisioned by Gardner, Scientology, and so on are good examples. A Wholecloth faith has advantages of both spetrums. It is a complete rather than nebulous ideology, allowing for rules. Just the same, as it is new, it tends to be more adaptable to the current population of people, and more convenient to modern lifestyles. The Wholecloth faith often claims to be the "REAL THING" with an ancient pedigree but that is beside the point. Being new, makes it no less valid. The Wholecloth practioner, in effect, gets the best of both worlds. Of course, it goes without saying he/she also gets the worst.

Wholecloth Dangers/Weaknesses:
The Wholecloth path has just been manufactured, like a Boy Band. That means it has this cool new sound and is very kitch. It also means there is often little substance to it. The Wholecloth faith is also born to the bias of those who create it. Ulterior motives and perceptions define it. No matter how progressive a Wholecloth approach may seem, it is no less dogmatic and oppressive than the faiths that have come before it. It merely SEEMS free and liberal to the people practicing it because it happens to agree with their viewpoints. Wiccans are a good case and point. They are without a doubt the most tolerant caring people you will ever meet. Just don't disagree with them. Once they identify you as an agent of "intolerance" they can put a Fundamentalist Christian to shame with the ferocity of their venom. Wholecloth faiths are closed systems and thus can become as dogmatic as any Reconstruction faith (worse in fact since they do not have the history to have learned from mistakes), and as self-involved and self-serving as any eclectic path.

[KittyLane]

very interesting... thank you for the explanations.

[chiawana]

Dude, those are pretty good! I guess I'm sort of a mix of eclectic and wholecloth. I have some pretty radical ideas that I'm sure are in the minority among pagans but I believe in them heart and soul. That's why I've been unwilling to subscribe to any title for myself.

[Finn]

chiawana said:

Dude, those are pretty good! I guess I'm sort of a mix of eclectic and wholecloth. I have some pretty radical ideas that I'm sure are in the minority among pagans but I believe in them heart and soul. That's why I've been unwilling to subscribe to any title for myself.

I'm glad you found them helpful. To me, these "approaches" are merely a laying out of the boundaries (permable though they may be) of the existing Pagan styles of faith (and/or magic). In general, I think a person will have much greater success (and effect) with their practices if they understand where they are coming from and where they are going. Many Pagans never get an ounce of thought to the context in which they seek. That is like trying to navigate the ocean without a compass and only a limited understanding of the night sky.

I am most certainly a Reconstructionist, but I do understand the other two approaches.

[Senbecc]

Well met once again Finn. I'm glad you decided to make this a thread in and of it's self. Seems important to do so. I think many of my personal philosophy might be seen as what you have described as "Wholecloth" while my seeking of Druidry and the path of my ancestors would be strictly reconstructionist. Where would you say the Traditionalist fits in?

[Finn]

admin said:

Well met once again Finn. I'm glad you decided to make this a thread in and of it's self. Seems important to do so. I think many of my personal philosophy might be seen as what you have described as "Wholecloth" while my seeking of Druidry and the path of my ancestors would be strictly reconstructionist. Where would you say the Traditionalist fits in?

You have pretty much nailed it on the head yourself. Although, I'd place you more in the camp of the Reconstructionists because you still seek for more accuracy, truth, and adjust your practices as you learn more. Wholecloth practitioners aren't really interested in constantly adjusting their paradigm as more research comes out, particularly if said information undermines previous sacred foundations.

[Senbecc]

finn said:

admin said:

Well met once again Finn. I'm glad you decided to make this a thread in and of it's self. Seems important to do so. I think many of my personal philosophy might be seen as what you have described as "Wholecloth" while my seeking of Druidry and the path of my ancestors would be strictly reconstructionist. Where would you say the Traditionalist fits in?

You have pretty much nailed it on the head yourself. Although, I'd place you more in the camp of the Reconstructionists because you still seek for more accuracy, truth, and adjust your practices as you learn more. Wholecloth practitioners aren't really interested in constantly adjusting their paradigm as more research comes out, particularly if said information undermines previous sacred foundations.

Well I appreciate that Finn, I do try to keep it close to the ancestors as much as I can given what is known knowledge. I think that in many ways Traditionalism flows into Reconstructionism, learning how the traditions originated, and where they are rooted often become needed in the reconstruction of Celtic ways, as long as one is always open to new information.

[Ban leus]

I very much like the way you've mapped out the way that each and every person, in some way shape or form, follows there path.

It'll be very helpful to the all those not sure of how to follow there own path. I know that when i started i didn't have much direction and ended up ecclectic and than losing myself completely not knowing where to go with it. Glad to see that everyone here is so helpful ^^

[Finn]

nadurra said:

I very much like the way you've mapped out the way that each and every person, in some way shape or form, follows there path.

It'll be very helpful to the all those not sure of how to follow there own path. I know that when i started i didn't have much direction and ended up ecclectic and than losing myself completely not knowing where to go with it. Glad to see that everyone here is so helpful ^^

Heh. I presume you are being sarcastic. I'm an Anthropologist with a specialization in comparative religion and mythology. It is my habit to group people in broad categories. If you feel you somehow do not fit into one of these three groupings, I am always on the watch for more. Accuracy is the best policy. Can you describe your approach and explain why it doesn't fall into any of these?

[Senbecc]

nadurra said:

I very much like the way you've mapped out the way that each and every person, in some way shape or form, follows there path.

It'll be very helpful to the all those not sure of how to follow there own path. I know that when i started i didn't have much direction and ended up ecclectic and than losing myself completely not knowing where to go with it. Glad to see that everyone here is so helpful ^^

I don't think he has claimed to know how each and every person practices so much as catagorized types of practice. I liked it.

[Dystopia]

I had started with the Eclectic approach and stack with it for some years, but now, after I have gained some experience, I`ve found myself behaving and acting more like a Reconstructionist. But when you think about it, it seems kind of logic, at least it does to me. I mean, it makes sense- looking at the broader picture, and learning and studying a bit of everything at the beginning, and then starting to familiarize yourself with the details and the essence of faith and all its laws. I dunno, that`s how I see it.

And while I`ve most certainly heard for these two approaches, I have never heard for the "Wholecloth" approach. I didn`t even know such word exists! How interesting. And how informative!

[Finn]

dystopia said:

I had started with the Eclectic approach and stack with it for some years, but now, after I have gained some experience, I`ve found myself behaving and acting more like a Reconstructionist. But when you think about it, it seems kind of logic, at least it does to me. I mean, it makes sense- looking at the broader picture, and learning and studying a bit of everything at the beginning, and then starting to familiarize yourself with the details and the essence of faith and all its laws. I dunno, that`s how I see it.

That does make perfect, logical sense. I wish it happened more often. Clearly I am biased, but I do think the natural progression is to move away from eclectic and form (as you learn more) an into a more consolidated, connected path. I suppose it really depends on why/how a person approaches magic and spirituality. If spirituality is merely there for convenience and entertainment value, it will remain eclectic, measured for enjoyment, not truth and/or efficacy.

And while I`ve most certainly heard for these two approaches, I have never heard for the "Wholecloth" approach. I didn`t even know such word exists! How interesting. And how informative!

Heh. That isn't surprising. "Wholecloth" is a term I apply to that approach, having found it to be the best word thus far.