Do we need rites?

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

FourSwords
Associate
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:37 am

Post by FourSwords »

On 2007-01-07 22:23, macsam wrote:

Unfortunately rites and ritual have another name... INDOCTRINATION...

Uh, ok, but Sir, are you aware that Campbell wrote an entire book chapter titled, "The Importance of Rites", in which he argued basically that human life cannot exist without rites of some kind?

I mean, yes this is an open forum and with pretty liberal rules, but I just wonder why you don't start your own "Anti-Campbell Forum" if you disagree so fundementally with the heart of what Campbell studied and taught.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: FourSwords on 2007-01-11 15:35 ]</font>

Martin_Weyers
Working Associate
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Odenwald
Contact:

Post by Martin_Weyers »

I have to intervene at this point: This is indeed a liberal forum, and while we don't accept intimidating and bullying, we do believe that this forum lives from different opinions. You don't have to be a Campbellian to become an associate!

*

Rituals can be used for indoctrination ... like books, art, sports and motorcycles. On the other hand, performing a ritual perfectly gives you freedom - quite the contrary of indoctrination!
Works of art are indeed always products of having been in danger, of having gone to the very end in an experience, to where man can go no further. -- Rainer Maria Rilke

FourSwords
Associate
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:37 am

Post by FourSwords »

On 2007-01-11 16:01, Martin_Weyers wrote:

I have to intervene at this point: This is indeed a liberal forum, and while we don't accept intimidating and bullying, we do believe that this forum lives from different opinions. You don't have to be a Campbellian to become an associate!


Martin, my friend, that is exactly what I expressed in my above post. No need for any intervention.

Actually I look forward to more contributions from our new Australian associate, Mac. (Sir, may we call you "Mac" for short?) I disagree with most of what Mac says, and I wish he would work harder on his grammar, but
I think our forum (which is Mac's forum too) would be a poorer place without some voices who are not categorical "Campbellians."

On the OTHER hand, Martin, there's no need to intervene when I suggest that one of our associates disagrees with most of what Campbell believed in. Our new friend/associate Mac seems - seems to me - to disagree with Campbell in most ways. When I challenge him on that, it's not any kind of rejection of him. It's just keeping the conversation going - no intervention needed.

Cool? Get it? Got it? Good. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">



Martin_Weyers
Working Associate
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Odenwald
Contact:

Post by Martin_Weyers »

Obviously a misunderstanding, FS! You were wondering
[...] why you don't start your own "Anti-Campbell Forum" if you disagree so fundementally with the heart of what Campbell studied and taught.
That's why I wanted to make clear, that Mac and his viewpoints are most welcomed here.

FourSwords
Associate
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:37 am

Post by FourSwords »

Martin,

Very cool, we agree.

My idea (my suggestion) was/is that our new friend Mac can hang out here AND oppose the ideas of Campbell.

And I think, JC would approve of the idea of Mac (or anyone) starting an "anti-Campbell forum." HA! Joe always enjoyed a challenge! <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">

TKRIDGE
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:39 pm

Post by TKRIDGE »

As a Freemason, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Mason that thinks ritual is not important or boring. It is not only important for us to be initiated, but also to initiate others and to witness the initiations of others.

hmorton
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:00 am

Post by hmorton »

I was just thinking how rituals are not just performed in groups, but also independently. I think we, as humans, are drawn toward ritualistic behavior... from little superstitious things like crossing ones fingers, to organized religious ceremonies. Rituals seem to acknowlege whatever invisible power is at work in our lives. Ritual is deeply connected to our sense of spirituality and belief in something larger than ourselves. Asking whether, or not, it is necessary in our lives is as complex as asking the same of a belief in a higher power.

kbaettig
Associate
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:04 pm
Contact:

Post by kbaettig »

Nandu wrote:
'So...how do we synchronise these opposites? Rites which repeated meaninglessly turns you from spirituality, and rites which brings you into harmony with the universe.'

They do not synchronise because they are not opposites... A parrot can say the word 'god' all day, all year, it's whole life... Meaningless to the parrot? Not if it gets a peanut...

Rite is a word describing a repeated action? You find a rite that brings you into 'harmony with the universe' - you won't need to say 'god' to get the peanut...




Locked