Post by Dystopia on Jun 21, 2007 13:09:40 GMT -5
[/quote][/quote]
Really?...Oh. So..can I used it too, or you have all your rights reserved?
And, about the Reconstructionist vs. Eclectic approach. Like I said, I wasn`t really aware of my shifting from Eclecticism to Reconstructionism. It just kind of happened, though I`m glad it did. And I`m not glad because I consider it to be the natural progression, as you say, but because it suited the state of my mind. That`s the main reason. And that`s one of the major characteristics (apart from some basic concepts and common beliefs) of this faith - it`s individual.
I agree, the Eclectic approach does sound a bit superficial, if you stick with it the whole time or if you take it as a dogma, but the Recon. approach has its flaws as well. See, I really do believe that it`s easy to miss the forest for the trees, if you immerse yourself in details too much, just as I believe that one can easily miss the beauty of a single tree, if one is looking on a picture only as a whole. I suppose that`s the main difficulty - to understand the essence of all things, but not to let ourselves get lost in them. On the second thought, this difficulty is not due to the flaws of the approach itself (to make a correction of what I have said above), but because our flaws, because we`re imperfect. You`re not the only one who`s biased Finn, I`m biased, we`re all biased, and that`s perhaps what`s preventing us to understand the faith in its full complexity and in all its aspects.
Both approaches seem to be limiting one`s aspirations for knowledge and the strict rules seem to be narrowing rather than broadening one`s mind. But, regardless of this, I don`t think that the so called Wholecloth approach is a good idea either. I`m not so fond of those instant magick approaches, like a Yoga-in-three-steps from glam-magazines. It suggests effortless practicing of magick/faith without any experience needed.
Perhaps, in the end, the key is in the balance, for which the quest is the most hardest. But then again, if it wasn`t so hard it wouldn`t be a quest at all. And it wouldn`t be a challenge.I guess.
I might have lost myself somewhere in between, but I hope you understand my point.
Quote: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.
Heh. That isn't surprising. "Wholecloth" is a term I apply to that approach, having found it to be the best word thus far.
Really?...Oh. So..can I used it too, or you have all your rights reserved?
And, about the Reconstructionist vs. Eclectic approach. Like I said, I wasn`t really aware of my shifting from Eclecticism to Reconstructionism. It just kind of happened, though I`m glad it did. And I`m not glad because I consider it to be the natural progression, as you say, but because it suited the state of my mind. That`s the main reason. And that`s one of the major characteristics (apart from some basic concepts and common beliefs) of this faith - it`s individual.
I agree, the Eclectic approach does sound a bit superficial, if you stick with it the whole time or if you take it as a dogma, but the Recon. approach has its flaws as well. See, I really do believe that it`s easy to miss the forest for the trees, if you immerse yourself in details too much, just as I believe that one can easily miss the beauty of a single tree, if one is looking on a picture only as a whole. I suppose that`s the main difficulty - to understand the essence of all things, but not to let ourselves get lost in them. On the second thought, this difficulty is not due to the flaws of the approach itself (to make a correction of what I have said above), but because our flaws, because we`re imperfect. You`re not the only one who`s biased Finn, I`m biased, we`re all biased, and that`s perhaps what`s preventing us to understand the faith in its full complexity and in all its aspects.
Both approaches seem to be limiting one`s aspirations for knowledge and the strict rules seem to be narrowing rather than broadening one`s mind. But, regardless of this, I don`t think that the so called Wholecloth approach is a good idea either. I`m not so fond of those instant magick approaches, like a Yoga-in-three-steps from glam-magazines. It suggests effortless practicing of magick/faith without any experience needed.
Perhaps, in the end, the key is in the balance, for which the quest is the most hardest. But then again, if it wasn`t so hard it wouldn`t be a quest at all. And it wouldn`t be a challenge.I guess.
I might have lost myself somewhere in between, but I hope you understand my point.