[Main Blog Post] [Book] Thoughts on The Idea of the Holy

[jprussell]

I just wrapped up Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy and decided to organize my thinking a bit with a post. As always, I'd love to hear what you think.

Comments

[k_a_nitz]

Those comments on the void seemed to make something click - now thinking about it as that feeling just before starting something new and unfamiliar and out of ones comfort zone seems to relate better.

A note on supernatural - in German it is übernatural, literally above or over the natural, and I have found that the 'standard' English translation of supernatural often doesn't get across the right nuances, probably because of the connotations that it has picked up through the materialism that runs through modern culture. There are times when I think hypernatural would be better in some contexts.

Regarding divination, Gregory Shaw's books on Iamblichus suggest that Iamblichus had a similar idea of divination, ie that it is a communion with the ineffable by which we are able to see through the eyes of the divine.

The different silences are interesting. What I am noticing is that the 'practice' of mysticism is itself a form of tacit knowledge. It has been described to me somewhere recently that it is like learning to dance by just making the movements and practising them until at some point it stops becoming mechanical and just flows. I am a field hockey player and learning the game is similar, looking back it is hard to believe how 'unnatural' the movements and technique were when I was just starting out, yet now in games I sometimes surprise myself with 'instinctive' responses to situations. (I have actually thought of writing about the mysticism of high level sport - in many ways it has a lot in common with mystical practice, including the use of visualisation and ritual.)

For me the value of books like these is that they reinforce the fact that you cannot apply Taylorism to mystical experience.

[jprussell]

Thanks for your comment!

1) That's a nice further way to think about void that jives with what the teachings I study say about "the void," or "Annwn" in the Dolmen Arch course - it is pure potentiality.

2) On the translation, ah, that's interesting. Neither Otto nor Harvey directly address that, that I remember, but it would make sense if übernatural has very different connotations than English "supernatural," which nevertheless is the most straightforward translation. Of course, also, this is my Druid training coming out, as I get grumbly about what is and isn't "nature."

3) Ah, that's interesting about Iamblichus, but perhaps shouldn't surprise me. Of course, I was a little flippant in the post, but notionally, the cards, lots, and so forth are meant as tools for fostering this very attention to the movement of divine and other-than-human forces.

4) On sports, absolutely. Despite not being the most athletic fellow, I rely on a lot of sports metaphors for conveying what learning how to do public speaking is like (I teach a Business Communications class, so public speaking is one of the main focuses). If you'd like a discussion of the spiritual, or at least quasi-spiritual, aspects of high level sport, Josh Waitzkin is fantastic. His book The Art of Learning focuses on learning the kind of skills governed by tacit knowledge very deeply, and how to integrate tacit and declarative knowledge in their pursuit. He's working on a new book, but has been for a few years, so not sure when it will come out, but some of his interviews with Tim Ferriss give a good flavor of what he's about.

5) Lastly, well-said. I suppose I should no longer be surprised by how poorly objective, managerial techniques of understanding and improving apply to some new field I hadn't before considered, since it's become quite a pattern as I look more deeply into lots of things. I think Taylorism is a dandy, if far narrower than originally hoped, tool, but the last century and some change have seen us way over-apply it.

Cheers,
Jeff

miasma

[(Anonymous)]

I'm having problems following the threads on this, so I'll just plop this information in. Still dopey from knee surgery.
Galina Krasskova is a polytheistic reconstructionist with some interesting points of view. She has written quite a bit about miasma in ancient religion -- and is rather scornful the modern neopagan tendency to see everything as rainbows and unicorn. So you might like to check her blog both for her thoughts and for sources. She is also an artist who creates lovely prayer cards for various deities.

Rita

Re: miasma

[jprussell]

Hi Rita,

Thanks for your comment, and I hope the dopiness passes quickly! Anaesthetics are no joke.

Thank you also for the recommendation. In a bit of what seems like it must be synchronicity, Krasskova's With Clean Minds and Clean Hands, her book on miasma that I've been eyeballing for a while, arrived just yesterday (along with her Honoring the Ancestors)! I'm actually a semi-regular commenter on her blog and have several of her prayer cards.

All of which is to say, that's a very astute recommendation for something I might find helpful and interesting, so thanks again!

Jeff

[thinking_turtle]

Thanks for your blog! The quotes look interesting, I've added the "The Idea of The Holy" to my reading list.

Such immensity inspires awe, but it is also dangerous, which we usually see as a bad thing.

Awe inspiring sure, but dangerous? What is an example of a danger are you thinking of?

For the faculty of noticing and experiencing the numinous, Otto uses the term "divination" (which, as student of occult practice, is somewhat confusing to me - where are the cards or lots or flights of birds?)

That's curious, it seems that Otto defines divination differently from the generally accepted "predicting the future using omens or the supernatural". Certainly you can worship without trying to predict the future.

[jprussell]

Thank you for the kind words, and you're most welcome!

1) Well, with that quote, I wasn't saying that the numinous is necessarily dangerous, but that the feeling is similar to things where part of the awe/thrill/respect felt is for a recognition of danger. I think the linking idea is the experience of something immense and/or powerful, and the recognition that it is enough that it could be dangerous. Sometimes this might be wrapped up in values. For example, if you are materially very comfortable, you have high social status, and your life is predictable in all the ways you want it to be, the call to religious practice, or the invitation to re-evaluate how much you should care about wealth, status, and predictability might feel dangerous. In my own experience, I've never felt like the Gods are going to literally hurt me, but I have been challenged to give up things that I have found comfortable, and the thought of openly (in person, anyway, I'm pretty open in weird corners of the internet like around here) admitting that I think the Gods are real and worship of Them is a better use of my time than watching the latest Marvel movie or climbing a workplace hierarchy can be pretty scary.

Does that help clarify?

2) Well, for one, as I mentioned to k_a_nitz above, I was being a touch flippant with that line, but there is a point of connection between the two. Otto's use of the term for "coming to sense the numinous and better understand it" is basically what divinatory tools like Tarot Cards or Runestaves are for. From a few comments in the book, he seems to see such tools as primitive and possibly crass, but the way I see it when I cast the Runes is that I'm trying to find another avenue to understanding how Wyrd (roughly, "fate") may be shaping the world and events around me, and to gain more insight than more mundane tools might give me.

But yes, basically, he's using the term in a different sense than the generally accepted meaning, one that downplays the "predicting the future" aspect and instead emphasizes the "coming to know the will of (the) God(s)."

Cheers,
Jeff

[sdi]

If I may jump in (on [1]), you're describing something I keep beating my head against in Greek—the adjective δεινός, which means "awful" in the same sort of archaic sense you mention in the blog post: anything that inspires awe, whether it be adoration, wonderment, or abject terror. (Aphrodite's beauty may be "awful" in the first sense, or seeing the ocean for the first time may be "awful" in the second sense, or Hades' three-headed fire-breathing monster-dog may be "awful" in the third sense. None of these are "awful" in the modern sense of how the lazy kid did on his math test.) There doesn't seem to be any good fit for δεινός in English, any more, and literal Greek translations tend to be a little tortured because of it (and words like it).

English is a very versatile language, but the more I look into other languages, the more its failings become apparent to me, and it's frustrating. I long for the day where I can finally speak without words...

[jprussell]

Greek is pesky that way (my usual go-to for this is ἀρετή (areté). You can always take the approach of long ages of classicists - just borrow the word, maybe lightly Anglicized. That has it's own issues, of course, but it does sometimes feel like the best option (I mean, heck, the main idea in the book reviewed here is expressed with a direct borrowing from Latin: the numinous).

As for failings of English, agreed, but it strikes me that every language handles some things better than others. In this case, the single Greek word δεινός (deinós) stresses the similarity of the examples you gave, where English arguably emphasizes their differences better. Flip it around, and Greek's various words for different kinds of love (ἀγάπη (agápē), φιλαδελφία (philadelphía), ἔρως (érōs), and so forth) better highlight that these experiences are different, whereas English "love" better emphasizes what they have in common. There's likely something interesting to be worked out by looking at which concepts a language distinguishes versus smashing together, like the semi-mythical Inuit words for snow or Arabic words for sand.

As you say, moving beyond the need for arbitrary verbal/visual markers for concepts would be awfully convienient (there's that word!).

Cheers,
Jeff

[sdi]

Absolutely, I agree in all respects. (Though, I fear I already have a hard time being understood in English, so if I started mixing Greek into my prose, it'd be hopeless...)

One quick note for future reference is that the second kind of love is φιλία ("friendship") rather than φιλαδελφία (φιλία-ἀδελφός "the love of brothers"). It is common to address someone as "ὦ φίλαι," "my friend" or "my dear."

[jprussell]

Ah, thanks, I thought that "brotherly love" got its own term, rather than just personal and city names, but I appreciate the correction.

[sdi]

Oh man, Greek loves compound words, so it's pretty common to see roots squished together and it's hard to tell what constitutes a "word." (Looking something up in the dictionary is something of an art form and I'm no good at it yet.) My dictionary, at least, has these roots:

φιλία [philia] "friendship"
ἔρως [eros] "sexual desire"
ἀγάπη [agape] "(non-sexual) love"
στοργή [storge] "affection" (esp. parents for childen, etc.)

And then it's common to combine words to get more specific:

φιλ-αδελφία [philadelphia] "love for a brother"
φιλ-ανδρία [philandria] "love for a husband"
etc.

[thinking_turtle]

Thanks, yes, that clarifies it! So you mean "danger" in the sense that the next card from the Tarot deck may be the Ten of Swords. That feels dangerous to me as well.

SDI's remark about Aphrodite's beauty is on point, that certainly is dangerous. Aha.

So far I do not see the Tarot as religious. The Tarot is a tool to make my mind work better. It does so by connecting my current worries to random elements. The Tarot advances my understanding of religion like it does for any other subject. You could use the Tarot for nefarious purposes where the numinous would not cooperate.

[jprussell]

1) Being pretty ignorant of the Tarot, I'll have to take your word for it!

2) Indeed!

3) Fair enough, but that depends a bit on what you believe is going on with divination (meaning roughly "fortune telling") metaphysically: is it only a tool for spurring subconscious insights, a method for revealing the obscure will of the Gods, a window into the non-personalized forces of fate, or some combination? With the links he made with Cabala, Levi clearly intended it as a vehicle of religious symbolism and meaning, but lots of modern practitioners see it very differently.

Cheers,
Jeff

[thinking_turtle]

Thanks for your reply. The Tarot improves understanding regardless of subject. When using pompous language, you could say it "reveals the obscure will of the Gods". I do not think of that as religious in and of itself. An atheist can use the Tarot to analyse a motorcycle problem.

The Cabala and Levi are unknown areas to me, so I'll have to take your word for that! Looking forward to next week's post.

[jprussell]

Sorry, reviewing the thread, I realized I wasn't as careful in my statements as I ought to have been. In my first reply to you, I said "Otto's use of the term for "coming to sense the numinous and better understand it" is basically what divinatory tools like Tarot Cards or Runestaves are for." and later, in response to you saying that for you, the Tarot is not religious, I said "Fair enough, but that depends a bit on what you believe is going on with divination (meaning roughly "fortune telling") metaphysically," the former of which slightly assumes a conclusion from the second, as well as taking a historical development for granted, so let me try to re-state more clearly.

When methods of what are commonly called "divination" (i.e. "fortune telling" or helping with questions where the answer is not obvious) were developed, the dominant understanding of what was happening was that the tool was a way to get more information from the Gods, hence the name, which contains "divin(e)." As such, I wasn't trying to be pompous when I said "revealing the obscure will of the Gods" - I meant that some people (especially historically) literally believe that is what is happening when you do divination - when you pull a Tarot spread and lay it out, or throw the Runestaves, or draw up a horomancy chart, or whatever, what is actually happening, according to these folks, is that the Gods are communicating with you through this medium.

Now, these days, there are more theories as to what makes divination work: the subconscious reacting to random, symbolically-rich images or concepts, impersonal forces like Fate or Wyrd being seen more clearly by focusing on those things they most directly control ("random" events), some form of communication from the Gods, or whatever else. An atheist who finds Tarot useful would likely believe the first is what's happening, whereas a theist might believe one of the others, or some combination (I tend towards "some combination" as the most likely explanation, but for purposes of this discussion, I'm not trying to convince you, just putting my cards on the table (heh)).

All of which means that, to the degree "divination" (with cards, lots, or whatever) is seen as "communication from the Gods," the semantic link between Otto's use of the word and the common use of it is more clear and direct. If, on the other hand, non-divine factors entirely explain what's going on with "fortune telling," the common use of the word "divination" is only linked with Otto's use of the word through a historical mistake (e.g. ancient people believing that which random symbols you got were influenced by the Gods, who are trying to talk to you, and hence naming that practice with a word to means "communicating with the divine"). The common factor is that the word has been applied to different behaviors thought by those using the word to mean "better understanding the Gods," and that's how we ended up with the same word for such outwardly disparate behaviors.

Hopefully that makes what I was trying to get at a bit more clear.

[thinking_turtle]

Thanks for putting your cards on the table! I assumed "revealing the obscure will of the Gods" was a quote from Levi, the French writer known for his pompous language. So apologies for appearing to call your writing pompous.

[jprussell]

No worries! It is certainly a phrase that would be at least a bit bombastic, and quite possibly pompous, if being used for something like "what's going to happen" (and might still be).

[(Anonymous)]

Good review. I've been a fan of Otto for several years. Thanks for mentioning the three kinds of silence. Lately, the idea that the numinous is beyond words (and even beyond "logic," from the Greek word for "word") has appealed to me. There are definitely opportunities for creative use of silence in religious rite.

[jprussell]

Thanks for the kind words, glad you enjoyed it! And yeah, as much good as may have come from the West's long experiment with logically grounding religious belief, the more I develop my own practice, the more I think the nihilism and other ills we see today are deeply linked with that assumption, so maybe it's helpful to revisit the wordless and non-logical sides of religion.

Paths through the web

[moser99]

Hi,

I first came across your writing via Ecosophia, then John Carter on Substack mentions you and I end up here through that route. I think this might be this "analytics", or something, although I don't have numbers for you. Nobody calls it the World Wide Web anymore, it's just Internet. Huh. Thanks for your writing.

Moserait

Re: Paths through the web

[jprussell]

Thank you for the comment and the kind words! And yeah, I miss the old metaphor of the "web," especially since that's a good, old, Anglo-Saxon word, and I have a fondness for those. I was pleasantly surprised by John Carter's shout-out, and I was wondering how many folks would follow it, but as you say, I'm not set up for fancy analytics or anything, purposefully taking an old-school approach better suited to the WWW than today's internet.

I hope you'll continue to find my writing helpful and/or interesting!
Jeff