The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

If one respects and reveres Odin, then it should follow that his advice and guidance is something you would choose to follow. Why would you revere a god whose advice you did not value?

In the Havamal we have Odin’s advice.

We know from the lore that, eventually, Loki was a “foeman” of the gods. How could you be friends with a person who has orchestrated the death of your son?

The gods restrained and tortured Loki as a result (not something you do to a friend).

It should therefore be clear that by the end of the mythic cycle Odin and Loki were foes i.e. Loki ensures the death of Balder etc / Odin restrains and tortures Loki.

Odin would not look kindly on you choosing to be friends with Loki (or any of his associates) because he is Odin’s “foeman” because he himself states, “But never a man shall friendship make with one of his foeman's friends”.

So I get how one could logical chose to side with Loki and reject the Aesir/ Vanir, but I don’t see how one could logically square the circle of stating they align themselves with both Loki and the Aesir/ Vanir? To do so it would seem you are ignoring the advice of the deity you say you honour.

In human terms, would you choose to have a relationship with someone who honoured your child’s killer? Assuming you would not, why would Odin be different? And why would he want you to ignore his own advice?

“Loki / Odin said it was OK for me” arguments therefore don’t hold any water for me personally. To me the gods are characters my cutural ansestors used to address the above issues.

What I’m asking for is information on how it is logically possible to honour what would seem to be two mutually exclusive divinities: Loki / The Aesir.

I’m OK with people ignoring the logic because “they just do” and I’m not trying to say others are “wrong”. I just want to pose the question of how that logical contradiction can be addressed by those who see Loki as honoured part of the pantheon?

Would you tell Loki to go away and risk him getting really mad at you?

Yes, consenting to an interaction because you are afraid of the consequences otherwise is not consent and is a boundary erosion. I wont work with gods who don't respect my boundaries. Which is not to say I would never work with Loki, (although its highly unlikely for other reasons,) I just wouldn't work with Loki  or any god if they presented it as "work with me or there will be nasty consequences"

What I’m asking for is information on how it is logically possible to honour what would seem to be two mutually exclusive divinities: Loki / The Aesir.

Odin would not look kindly on you choosing to be friends with Loki (or any of his associates) because he is Odin’s “foeman” because he himself states, “But never a man shall friendship make with one of his foeman's friends”.

I see the greater mythology as a valuable tapestry, which is worth far more that any individual thread. The tapestry is based on how the threads connect with one another and is more then the sum of its parts. I want the tapestry, not the unravelled individual threads.

I like that thinking generally! Interesting! However, is there anything that suggests the goal of Heathenry was the encouragement of balance between opposing entities?

There is nothing, that I am aware of, that suggests that what was really desired was balance between Thor and Jotuns, for example.

It was not a balance between Odin and Loki that was desired. When Loki was acting in accordance with the desires of Odin (or Thor), then it is not “balance” but what Odin desired. When Loki acts outside the desires of Odin, he is threatened until he complies (self-interest again), and eventually he is punished.

Loki is like the fire in the hearth. A potentially dangerous thing controlled for the greater good. When he is freed from the constraints of the hearth, the house burns and others suffer. We don’t want a balance where the house is only burnt a little bit. We want the fire kept in its place. It seems to me Loki is likewise most “useful” when kept in his place. Again, this is not balance, but Odin calling the shots.

To date, all those who have answered don’t seem to have any problem with the seeming contradiction because they look at Loki independently from the mythology of which he is part (i.e. “the mythology can’t be relied upon” or “I ignore that bit”) or Loki is honoured independently  (i.e. “I’m with Loki and I don’t concern myself with the wider pantheon”).

Because the Havamal is part of the mythical totality which defines the “metaphor” of Odin. The Havalmal is not the literal words of a god: They are the mythic words of a god. The greater metaphor unravels if it is inconsistent with itself. Odin is Odin. If Odin becomes something else through my ignoring certain parts of him (as defined by the wider mythology; including the words attributed to him in the Havalmal), then “Odin” is not Odin and the wider mythos falls apart. It unravels, for me, if I choose to reinvent it by accepting some bits and ignoring others. I see the greater mythology as a valuable tapestry, which is worth far more that any individual thread. The tapestry is based on how the threads connect with one another and is more then the sum of its parts. I want the tapestry, not the unravelled individual threads.

Well no, because I don’t believe that Loki exists as an individual entity. I would, however, seek to avoid the precautionary tale that I feel he represents. He consistently reacts in the moment and is fuelled only by self-interest (whether the eventual action results in good or harm; the motivation is always self-interest). He’s not a character I would seek to emulate, because actions have consequences and, as the tale of Loki makes clear, the momentum of your actions will result in your fate. I’d rather have a character like Loki mad at me than pleased with me.

I think that’s a bit of a leap. The poem states that Loki and Odin agreed to drink together or not at all. It says nothing about the nature of Blots in times past (which, as the name suggests, were done with blood as opposed to mead / ale anyway). I get what you are saying, but I don’t think we can draw any firm conclusions from that single line. Especially when there is zero in the way of evidence that suggest the two were sacrificed to as a pair at any time; but there is plenty that tells us Odin was sacrificed to individually. And there is zero that says Loki was ever sacrificed to.

However, is there anything that suggests the goal of Heathenry was the encouragement of balance between opposing entities?

The Aesir / Vanir would seem to be very much the ones the people of the past aligned themselves with. There is nothing, that I am aware of, that suggests that what was really desired was balance between Thor and Jotuns, for example. You called on Thor to keep the nasty things that would kill you away from you and yours. You didn’t want to be equidistant from them both.

It was not a balance between Odin and Loki that was desired. When Loki was acting in accordance with the desires of Odin (or Thor), then it is not “balance” but what Odin desired. When Loki acts outside the desires of Odin, he is threatened until he complies (self-interest again), and eventually he is punished.

Loki is like the fire in the hearth. A potentially dangerous thing controlled for the greater good. When he is freed from the constraints of the hearth, the house burns and others suffer. We don’t want a balance where the house is only burnt a little bit. We want the fire kept in its place. It seems to me Loki is likewise most “useful” when kept in his place. Again, this is not balance, but Odin calling the shots.

To date, all those who have answered don’t seem to have any problem with the seeming contradiction because they look at Loki independently from the mythology of which he is part (i.e. “the mythology can’t be relied upon” or “I ignore that bit”) or Loki is honoured independently  (i.e. “I’m with Loki and I don’t concern myself with the wider pantheon”).

To return to what I originally asked, is there anyone who looks toward a mythological consistent Odin and Loki, and who accepts the wider mythos as a whole, and yet who still finds themselves able to honour both Loki and Odin?

It occurs that this may be why recons dislike Loki so much? And why those who place greater emphasis on “personal interaction” (#) with Loki don’t dislike him?

The Loki of the recons in part of a wider whole. He is defined by that whole and hence honouring him and the Aesir / Vanir is logical inconsistent.

The Loki of UPG is not defined by that wider whole, but by personal experience, and therefore it is possible for that Loki to be logically consistent with honouring Odin too.

(#) – Speech marks are to clarify my position of the gods as metaphor, and are not intended to cause offence to those who take that interaction as being genuine.