Myths Matter

I’m not going to get all Joseph Campbell with it, but myths matter. The stories people tell, tell so much about the culture who tells them.  Myths can tell people about the human condition, and say a lot about life.  Myths aren’t about “universal truths” or even reality – but they are so very much about us. Some of my favorite myths:

Folklore and Mythology Electronic Texts

American Gods by Neil Gaiman

Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley

Brisingamen by Diana L. Paxson

I wanted to write more, but this week I’m feeling so uninspired (and I still have a Midsummer ritual to write).  

Life with Laughter

I realized recently that it has been a long time since I laughed. Not like haha that's funny laughter, but deeper

Eastwick (2009 tv show)

laughter, a laughter that comes from a place of joy.  In ritual, my witchy-partner and I, are sometimes solemn, sometimes sad, sometimes stressed, or angry... sometimes we laugh.

Let me digress for a moment, I've recently returned to a former love. I love going dancing. In the carefree days of my youth, I was at a club 4 or 5 nights a week.  Eventually, life, work, responsibilities got in the way.  And I foolishly bought into the idea that I was too old for dance clubs (and specifically goth clubs). At some point, I began to believe it was time to leave behind the heavy eye makeup and fishnets).  And in my day-to-day life, I can't imagine

getting gothed-up everyday.  But once a week or so, getting dressed up and going and dancing for hours is something I can do.

What I found was that going, being with some girlfriends in too much makeup and short skirts dancing like mad-foolish and sighing and squealing over our favorite songs made me laugh.  Really, deeply, from my soul and from sheer joy laugh. And you know what, it felt really good.  I felt free, I felt alive, I felt better than I had in a long time.
I've found that since that night, laughing is easier. It comes more naturally to me. I know tried a ritual that required laughter once.  It felt weird and forced and awkward. So for my

summer solstice ritual, I'm going to include laughter. Perhaps not in the ritual, but I'll be celebrating with mirth and joy...and yes laughter.

Loki: Mischief, Mayhem, and Misunderstanding

Arthur Rackham (1910)

L is for Loki.  Why Loki, the reasons are almost as complex as he is.  Reason One: Loki is about the fluidity of sex and gender.  He gives birth to Odin’s horse, Sleipnir.  Loki cons the unnamed builder into building Valhalla – It’s a little more complicated, but essentially, the builder is going to finish the project on time (because of his magical stallion, Svaðilfari.  Loki transforms himself into a female horse, to lure Svaðilfari away from his job.  The time they spend together results in Loki becoming pregnant.  So literally he becomes a woman – not just cross-dressing (as was common in Norse Myth).  What is so amazing about this, at least in my contemporary paradigm, is all of this fluid gender seems to be a non-issue in the myths.  No one ever calls him out for not being “manly” enough – which given the contemporary presentation of the culture that created him, I find especially important.  Many people develop some very rigid ideas about gender/sex (even when they do not realize it). **Side note, this is one of reasons that I left Wicca.  The entire mythic cycle is built on essentialist, heteronormative values. But staying on topic**  Loki is a very real reminder that gender is a social construct.  And even more than gender, sex itself may not be as hard and fast as people want it to be (as in not binary male/female).  Loki encompasses all of the fluidity, all of the mutability, all of the possibility of sex and gender.  What’s more, is Loki reminds people to celebrate that potential.  People are not static in their sex – nor must they be slaves to a socially constructed gender. 

Marvel Comics Loki

Reason Two:  Tricksters.  Like the lessons Loki imparts about gender and sex, Loki’s also a trickster.  Trickster is often used synonymously with fool, and while they are related, they are not clear synonyms.  Tricksters are at their core rule-breakers.  They are willful, wanton transgressors of society’s norms.  Loki, like other tricksters (Coyote, Prometheus, Anansi), breaks rules.  However, in true trickster form, these transgressions often end in positive results – at least for those around the trickster.  The trickster may suffer some consequence for his actions.  Loki excels at guile.  Neil Gaimen in American Gods is dead on by portraying Loki as a grifter.  Of course as a grifter, Loki uses words to his advantage.  So much so, that in one story after tricking the dwarves, they sew his mouth shut to prevent him from using words against another.  Words matter.  I believed I digressed a bit into this idea in my post about the Kindly Ones.  The words people use space reality.  Words contain value judgments, create paradigms, and literally give meaning to the world around people.  Thus, Loki is a reminder of the sheer power of words.  Further, he is often portrayed as being a jerk – but in many cases, he is being honest, perhaps not in the most politic of ways, but honest, nevertheless.  He also suffers the consequences for being so blunt in his presentation.  So being a follower of Loki is not license to be an asshole.   

Reason Three: Getting away from Christianity.  In the NeoPagan world, I often see Loki presented as harmless mischief maker – I’d never think of a trickster as “harmless,” but whatever-  Or, I see him presented as some sort of Devil analog, as if an evil entity is needed.  Some of this comes from his role in Ragnarok.  Norse myth isn’t my area of expertise – I focused on different eras of literature – but, I am aware of how religious myths function, how translations function, and how who wrote the story down makes a huge difference.  One, there is a question about the veracity of the various Eddas.  They were written down well after after the Norse world converted to Christianity (also they were written down by Christians – which may lead to fundamental misunderstanding of the texts).  So how were the eddas altered to suit a Christian paradigm *this is more blatant in the Old English works like Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight – the Christianity stuff is weirdly tacked on.*  So, the eddas are a potentially unreliable source (as is any ancient religious text). 

Two, Ragnarok itself.  Was it created to mimic Christianity? As the written sources are limited, it is possible Ragnarok was added to the myths to compete with Christianity *see we’ve got an apocalypse too* or as part of the conversion process *your stories as similar to ours – you have a god who hung from a tree, we have a guy who hung from a cross.* I rarely go in for the “original” matters, but in this case, it may.  If Loki is forced into the Ragnarok story, due to a Christian paradigm, than to view Loki as “evil” requires a person to view it from a Christian paradigm.  Also, why is the end of the world a “bad” thing? I realize that no one wants to die, but seriously, as Pagans shouldn’t we accept that death is part of life with a little less discomfort? 

Urnes Stone Image

Let me state unequivocally, I do not believe in any evil entity.  Devils in all their forms are social constructs to excuse bad behavior.  People may commit terrible acts, heinous acts, horrific acts – but I seldom use evil.  It is a loaded word, one that dehumanizes and removes responsibility and culpability. If the murderer is “evil” well then as a society, we can lock evil-guy up and never have to look at society’s role in his creation – we never have to examine ourselves either.  So essentially, I find belief in and blame of evil to be a cope out (and in the US at least, Christian driven). “The devil made me do it” is a stupid claim.       

Looking at Loki as a player in Ragnarok is accepting this “evil” mindset.  I do not intend to sound like a moral relativist, as I am not.  However, the persistent idea that there is a “good” and “evil” force in the universe strikes me as ludicrous.  Nature is neither good nor evil.  Humans, with free-will and reasoning skills and all, may make choice that conform to societal norms or not.  Humans may choose to accept the prevailing moral values of their respective societies – but this does not coincide with evil.  However, there are specific human rights that the world (ok, largely industrialized nations) have adopted as kind of world-wide morals.  But these are still concepts that people decided on and are not inherent.  Thus, there is not “good” and no “evil” per say – there are agreed upon rules.    

When NeoPagans in particular point to Loki as this devil analog, I wonder why they left Christianity in the first place.  Also pointing to the eddas as inviolate sacred texts is the same as claiming “the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, etc. told me so” – which to me is an excuse for lazy thinking.

So Loki challenges the very ingrained Christian thinking that NeoPagans in the US may be struggling with (even if they don’t realize it).  He certainly keeps me thinking about how my world view may or may not reflect a Christian paradigm.

Kirkby Stephen Stone

In the end: Loki is complicated.  He challenges so many concepts that people find to be inviolate.  He is not evil, he is not the comic relief, he is not male or female.  Loki reminds me on a daily basis to challenge my thinking.  He reminds me that nothing is static.  He reminds me that nothing is a binary.

He also reminds me to have fun.

Addendum **There is a line of inquiry in research that also posits Ragnarok has already occurred in the eddas, but that’s a post for another day**

Response to Between the Earth and Stars podcast "I and Thou" episode 50

From Between the Earth and Stars podcast

Oriara Helene asked at the end of episode 50 ("I and Thou") a question that intrigued me.  She asked, "Who would you be if you didn't think something was wrong with you"

I realize that isn’t specifically witchy, but following a path that is often focused on the self and self-empowerment, I wanted to explore the idea.  I could easily rattle off a list of the things that I think are “wrong” with me, but I don’t think that’s the point.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t things about myself I want to change.  I do want to change things, but these aren’t the things that are “wrong with me” – I hear the phrase, and I automatically think of the things that I cannot change.  Like I could be taller – but I cannot change that.  But what can I change and are these things “wrong” are simply traits I do not want?

That is the heart of the issue for me – reminding myself that nothing is “wrong” with me.  I can change things about myself, traits, behaviors, attitudes – but I do not want to think of these things as innately wrong with me.

It occurs to me that the real question is “who would I be”? Would I be more successful? I don’t think so.  I have the career that I worked for and wanted (and still want).  Yes, there are things I would like to have in my career, mostly a full-time position – but would a different me really have a better chance?  I have no issue with changing my philosophies about my job, learning and adopting new techniques, and striving to be better at what I do. So in work, I don’t think there is anything “wrong” with me.

Ultimately, it becomes a balancing act.  To be open to improvement, to be open to change, but also to remember that somethings about myself are not “wrong” or “broken.”  They may be traits that I (or society) views as negative or less than valuable.  In some cases, they may be traits worth leaving behind – but in other cases, perhaps these “wrong” traits are not the problem.

Oriara seemed to be asking the question in regard to her own exploration of being an introvert.  Generally, the qualities of the introvert are not perceived as beneficial.  It surprises people to learn that I am an introvert.  I’m actually very shy.  I know I can stand in front of a room full of students with no problem, but it’s still true.  Like any introvert, I am also sensitive – some might say too sensitive.  I feel things very keenly.  While this can make intrapersonal conflicts difficult, I think it is a trait that serves me very well in my work.  It also can work to my benefit in my relationships.  It means I care, it means I have empathy, and it means that I strive to not hurt others.

Ultimately, even if I had a magic wand (which I actually do), and could change everything about myself – it wouldn’t matter.  I need to remember to look at the traits I think are “wrong with me” and consider what they actually help make me.  If in the end, the traits are actually a problem, I can work towards change.  But I can also recognize what these traits bring me and how they help make me who I am – in a positive way.