How do you view "aspects"?

[Juni]

This might be getting a little off topic, but the phrases "soft polytheism" and "hard polytheism" amuse me. What people have taken to describing as "soft polytheism" falls under the definition of monism. What people have taken to describing as "hard polytheism" falls under the definition of polytheism. So really, there are no "soft polytheists" and "hard polytheists." There are monists and polytheists.

 
Uh, no.

Religious monism covers beliefs such as pantheism and panentheism; soft polytheism is the idea that the lines between deities are fairly fluid. Soft polytheists may ascribe to ideas like "all gods are one god, all goddesses are one goddess" or "all sun gods are one" or the like. I suspect pantheism and/or panentheism are fairly common amongst soft polytheists, but hard polytheists are not precluded from such belief.

[Jack]

So really, there are no "soft polytheists" and "hard polytheists." There are monists and polytheists.

 
Also, there aren't really any bisexuals!

[stephyjh]

Also, there aren't really any bisexuals!

WHY DIDN'T Y'ALL TELL ME I'M IMAGINARY?! *disappears in a puff of logic*

[veggiewolf]

why didn't y'all tell me i'm imaginary?! *disappears in a puff of logic*

*poof*

[MadZealot]

I believe there's more to the "soft" and "hard" categories than what you're describing...

Indeed.  There are over-medium and over-easy.  

:whis:

[Materialist]

Religious monism covers beliefs such as pantheism and panentheism; soft polytheism is the idea that the lines between deities are fairly fluid. Soft polytheists may ascribe to ideas like "all gods are one god, all goddesses are one goddess" or "all sun gods are one" or the like.

Still sounds like a murky, subjective categorization thing to me. Still, I think I understand you, and also Ma'atemhat's position. Saying "all deities are the same deity," and "all gods come from the same source" could be construed as hair-splitting to some, however.

[Jenett]

Still sounds like a murky, subjective categorization thing to me. Still, I think I understand you, and also Ma'atemhat's position. Saying "all deities are the same deity," and "all gods come from the same source" could be construed as hair-splitting to some, however.

 
Saying that that's splitting hairs is like saying "You are your sister" and "You and your sister have the same parents" is splitting hairs. There is a functional difference. (I mean, my sister - and my brother and I - do have a bunch of things in common. But we are decidedly not the same people.)

[Ma'atemhat]

it's important to let people define themselves and define their own beliefs and not define it for them.

I understand this. However, if someone tells me that they believe that all gods are facets of a whole, or something along those lines, I will call them a monist. It's not because I'm being a mean or unreasonable person who is trying to force someone to accept an approved identity. It simply means that I bother to apply words wherever, whenever, and to whomever they apply, and it is 100% appropriate to do so. That person can call themselves a balrog for all I care, but I still know that they are a monist.
 

Religious monism covers beliefs such as pantheism and panentheism; soft polytheism is the idea that the lines between deities are fairly fluid. Soft polytheists may ascribe to ideas like "all gods are one god, all goddesses are one goddess" or "all sun gods are one" or the like. I suspect pantheism and/or panentheism are fairly common amongst soft polytheists, but hard polytheists are not precluded from such belief.

Saying that all gods are one god is not "fairly fluid". And either way, it's a monist idea. My point still applies.
 

Also, there aren't really any bisexuals!

Yes there are. Though I don't know why you're bringing that up here; this is not a discussion about sexual orientation.

[Ma'atemhat]

Still sounds like a murky, subjective categorization thing to me.

Yeah. It is.  >_<

[Jack]

Yes there are. Though I don't know why you're bringing that up here; this is not a discussion about sexual orientation.

 
Did you by any chance hear a whooshing sound over your head?

[Ma'atemhat]

Did you by any chance hear a whooshing sound over your head?

Dude, I was being facetious. Talk about over your head....

[Jack]

Dude, I was being facetious. Talk about over your head....

I am terribly sorry that I didn't pick up on whatever sarcasm markers you used. I rarely come across "I don't understand why you're bringing that up" used in a facetious manner in response to an obviously facetious comment, and so completely missed your apparent intentions.

[Thebes]

This is not so much a specific question I have, more a discussion topic.

So, the concept of gods having different "aspects" seems to be taken for granted in paganism/polytheism. It's a seriously complex topic, both historically and in personal understanding.

Most of my personal practice falls under the concepts of "ancestor veneration" and "animism", working with local land spirits or household deities and such. I don't call attention from the "big" gods very much, partly because they blow my mind. My brain really wants to put things into tidy categories, so I struggle with how some people's interpretation of "aspects" conflicts with very hard polytheism.

A historical example: as time progressed Roman philosophy eschewed individualism in deities, and "absorbed" smaller local deities into larger universal ones, especially as the empire expanded.

One aspect concept: many gods change their "appearance" to reflect different parts of their personality or goals. A number of gods can appear young or old, for example, or Hekate's triplicity. Some folks call this an "aspect".

But, then sometimes Hekate is viewed as an "aspect" of Diana. Using the above description, this would mean that Hekate and all her functions are a face of Diana, rather than an individual.

And then - what of similar gods from other cultures? Where do you "split" their identities? It seems obvious that Thor and Zeus are different people. But what of Thor and Perkunas? Like the Roman's concept, are they simply locational translations of larger gods? Or are they individuals who cover similar duties for a different group of people?

I'm under the impression that Kemetics (for example) have no problem with gods being both individual and plural and mixes of each other; I believe the quote is "the gods are individual except when they're not". But I am asking more about cross-cultural PIE gods, and how they fit into this concept.

Basically, my problem is not whether the gods are or are not individuals: my problem is with the definition of the word "aspect", and how it gets thrown around a lot.

(Also, I didn't really explain my position, because I wanted to just post the question.)

 

I'm not sure I view aspects in the same way that you do. I view any deity as being an aspect of a complete and immanent divine. Some of these aspects are subdivisions within human culture and lore even of other Gods or Goddesses, some are created on the fly, some are completely reappropriated outside of historical context, but all are tools for relating to a greater sacred divine which encompasses everything.

I think of all of these aspects like facets a crystal. You have this tool, say a quartz spire, you turn it in your hand a certain way, and reality looks a certain way through it. That is only a very small slice of reality, but it is easier to related to- that little image through the crystal, than all of the environment around you. That reality- what you see, is absolutely true, though it is only one of many possible true things you might see, depending upon how you hold the crystal. I see any aspect of deity as being truly personal as well, it matters not just the crystal one holds but also how one holds it and where. With a crystal you hold in in relation to your eye and the light and the objects around you. With an aspect of deity you hold it in your mind or within a physical representation with symbols, how you see this imminent divine depends upon your holding of the symbol set, and you use this as a tool to relate to the world around you in small pieces that you can manipulate and understand. How it appears is always changing. A moon goddess in maiden aspect is like looking through one facet of the crystal and seeing one way in which Goddess is, what you are relating to with that aspect is true even if it is only one of an infinite number of possibly truths.

Others with whom you worship might care about how you use a mythos to fit the group's joint ritual, but no external divinity judges you for how you see the Universe around you.

Its all alive. Use the tool which works for you in the here and now.

[Salem]

Yeah. It is.  >_<

 
Ditto that. .   I trend more toward animism and I don't think there is a wrong way to work "aspects" out in your head.

I think the key is to get comfortable with working with the specific energies you encounter regularly.  If you choose to name them and they accept and answer to that name OR choose to reveal a name it's all good.

I realize this doesn't work for true polytheists so I'm no real help there.  One thing that I have not seen clarified is the action of worship verses reverence.  And worship may be a bad choice of words but its all that will come to mind at the moment.

I myself revere the sprits and energies that work with me and appreciate them greatly but I do not "worship" at an alter nor do I believe the outcome of a spell, prayer etc is solely up to the will of a deity.  I bring that up because I think the act of worship and the belief that outcomes are decreed by a god or one of many gods is what separates the types of monotheism AND is a defining factor in polytheism vs monotheism with "aspects".

Hope that doesn't sound too generalized.  

[Lydia]

How do you view "aspects"?

 
I was given a vision about this matter...
In this vision I was told and shown that two fundamental deities, the cosmic spirit of right and the cosmic spirit of wrong, each have a masculine aspect and a feminine aspect, but are gender-neutral on the whole.