Ritual

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.

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Ritual

Post by CarmelaBear »

Dictionary Definition:
rit·u·al

NOUN:

The prescribed order of a religious ceremony.

The body of ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship.

The prescribed form of conducting a formal secular ceremony: the ritual of an inauguration.

The body of ceremonies used by a fraternal organization.

A book of rites or ceremonial forms.

rituals

A ceremonial act or a series of such acts.

The performance of such acts.

A detailed method of procedure faithfully or regularly followed: "My household chores have become a morning ritual."

A state or condition characterized by the presence of established procedure or routine: "Prison was a ritualreenacted daily, year in, year out. Prisoners came and went; generations came and went; and yet the ritual endured" (William H. Hallahan).

ADJECTIVE:

Associated with or performed according to a rite or ritual: a priest's ritual garments; a ritual sacrifice.

Being part of an established routine: a ritual glass of milk before bed.
Questions: From burial sites that indicate a prescribed and reverential set of rites performed at the time of internment of a corpse to the overflight of jet aircraft in perfect formation to celebrate American Independence Day, how does a myth turn into a prescribed ritual? What's the process? Are there usually certain classes of people who translate a story or a set of beliefs into a rite (shamans, witches, priests, mothers, government officials, script writers, etc.)?

~

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

My interpretation is that rituals are a form of symbolism that is supposed to represent the images and meaning within the myth itself. Unfortunately, what appears to happen is that over time the ritual itself becomes the only focus and takes on a life of its own. Thus the meaning of the ritual becomes lost or ambiguous.

I have never considered the idea of how these rituals are formed. Could it be a form of instruction derived by the "wise"? Maybe like an enlightment "guide for dummies"? Or is it a process to ensure conformity within a culture? Or both?

Hopefully someone can provide some insight.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Neoplato wrote:My interpretation is that rituals are a form of symbolism that is supposed to represent the images and meaning within the myth itself. Unfortunately, what appears to happen is that over time the ritual itself becomes the only focus and takes on a life of its own. Thus the meaning of the ritual becomes lost or ambiguous.

I have never considered the idea of how these rituals are formed. Could it be a form of instruction derived by the "wise"? Maybe like an enlightment "guide for dummies"? Or is it a process to ensure conformity within a culture? Or both?

Hopefully someone can provide some insight.
Not sure if it is at all possible to express what the term ritual means.

Growing up as a Roman Catholic between age six to twelve I thought the word ritual meant good magic. Fail proof magic. Something for the benefit of everybody. Rituals of religious observance, household chores, study, personal hygiene etc. all made sense in being viewed as some sort of good magic to work with what we have with an eye on what needs to be done about what we have.

Then, around age twelve it occurred to me that ritual is more like Law than magic. Ritual is Law in the sense that wilfully neglecting to observe ritual properly often causes harm, whereas neglecting to perform magic does not cause harm.

By age twenty-four a new concept occurred to me regarding the meaning of the word. Ritual gained the meaning of a measuring device to measure the self and the current context against. Say, if in a particular year I find it very difficult to follow my own rituals to prepare for Christmas, this occurrence reveals some interesting things about my attitude, my circumstances etc. In other words, performing ritual reveals more complex meaning about the NOW.

Now, at age forty-six I am unable to express with words what the term Ritual covers. The idea of Ritual is far too complex for my limited vocabulary to relate but unquestionably the idea still has distinctiveness about it. Any thoughts? :?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Neoplato wrote:My interpretation is that rituals are a form of symbolism that is supposed to represent the images and meaning within the myth itself. Unfortunately, what appears to happen is that over time the ritual itself becomes the only focus and takes on a life of its own. Thus the meaning of the ritual becomes lost or ambiguous.

I have never considered the idea of how these rituals are formed. Could it be a form of instruction derived by the "wise"? Maybe like an enlightment "guide for dummies"? Or is it a process to ensure conformity within a culture? Or both?

Hopefully someone can provide some insight.
Hi Neoplato. I agree about the meaning being lost over time. What I find most intriguing about ritual is the seriousness and gravity with which it is conducted, especially when related to the experience of death and the many situations and conditions that involve endings and profound transformations.

The artistry can be impressive, and great resources reflect the focus and energy generated by the ideas behind the ritual.

The functions of ritual are many, and aren't always intended to be lofty or idealistic. Sometimes ritual is turns into a direct approach to controlling peop

What I know for sure is that this subject can be complex. Hard to wrap one's head around it.

~

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Evinnra wrote:
...I am unable to express with words what the term Ritual covers. The idea of Ritual is far too complex for my limited vocabulary to relate but unquestionably the idea still has distinctiveness about it. Any thoughts? :?
Some rituals remind me of scientific experiments that have been tested again and again. The results are predictable, but so necessary and/or impressive that they have to be replicated as often as possible just to demonstrate some awe-inspiring principle.

Since the real world of a human being involves more than simply survival and adaptation, ritual can carry some pretty heavy weights. It links or involves our material or physical selves with our quantum spirituality and our core sense of what is most important and beyond what we usually think of as "possible".

~

macoco
Associate
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 4:03 am

Post by macoco »

Aren't scientific experiments a sort of ritual of knwledge in our culture? I thnk rituals are everywhere and in their shapes there are codes of our fears, limitations and possibilities.
M.
quote="CarmelaBear"]
Evinnra wrote:
...I am unable to express with words what the term Ritual covers. The idea of Ritual is far too complex for my limited vocabulary to relate but unquestionably the idea still has distinctiveness about it. Any thoughts? :?
Some rituals remind me of scientific experiments that have been tested again and again. The results are predictable, but so necessary and/or impressive that they have to be replicated as often as possible just to demonstrate some awe-inspiring principle.

Since the real world of a human being involves more than simply survival and adaptation, ritual can carry some pretty heavy weights. It links or involves our material or physical selves with our quantum spirituality and our core sense of what is most important and beyond what we usually think of as "possible".

~[/quote]

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Aren't scientific experiments a sort of ritual of knwledge in our culture? I thnk rituals are everywhere and in their shapes there are codes of our fears, limitations and possibilities.
M.
Welcome to the forum!! :)

Yes, experiments are a kind of ritual, and one of the biggest fears addressed by science and math is the fear that our minds will create imaginary problems we really don't need to address with resources we really don't need to use or destroy in the process.

The method used by science is the key to its credibility and vitality and creativity, but it is limited and as we learned with atomic physics and genetic engineering, it can be terribly dangerous. Art, the humanities, social factors, among other things, lend balance.

We, who regard ourselves as "modern", are horrified at the idea of a religion that calls for ritual human sacrifice, but a vast majority of people have given that ritual function to courts of law without blinking an eye. In the courtroom can be found the robed "Mayan" priests and their minions, elevating the sacrificial victim to the status of a media celebrity, with all the glory that entails. There is no army big and strong enough to stop the process. The ritual continues as in days of yore.

~

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

macoco wrote:Aren't scientific experiments a sort of ritual of knowledge in our culture? I think rituals are everywhere and in their shapes there are codes of our fears, limitations and possibilities.
M.

This is … fascinating! Nice to meet you, Macoco!

Yes, rituals are everywhere and they are manifest codes of habituated limitations. But HOW do we limit our selves? By power of what is manifest or by power of what is still within? My vote would go for: what is manifest.

Carmela, did you really mean what you wrote? Interesting observation, but one could accuse you of holding the Law it self in contempt. No? What do you think?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

I used to think that the law was orderly and good. It appears to be the opposite of chaotic violence and retribution and wild westiousness. Compared to no law at all, it is certainly better than no law, just because nature doesn't do a good job of policing human behavior or teaching youngin's goodlier manners.

However.....and this is a BIG however......we now have the benefit of science and medicine applied to the study and gentle, positive, humane influence of human behavior and the development of the capacity for joy and fulfillment in human experience. There is every reason to believe that it is absolutely counterproductive to resort to the reactive, negative, and sometimes destructive and heavy-handed, manipulative approach represented by the Rule of Law.

In Anglo American law, there is civil law, which uses what is boldly called "redistributive justice" to rob from Peter to reimburse Paul with ungodly amounts of money and property, entirely out of proportion to anything but passionate overreaction and vengeance. The other kind of law is criminal, where truth is actively suppressed through such absurdities as the "right to remain silent, and everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" and ideas of due process that overlook real problems that need to be solved. Further, criminal law makes no rational attempt to separate the person who acts from the action. We say the person is guilty, instead of noting that all of us are essentially innocent and worthy, and our conduct reflects our time and place and circumstances when it is less than perfect.

There is a difference between balance, on the one hand, and retribution and vengeance and hurting and killing people out of rage and pain on the other hand.

Here's an example. Say that someone is attracted to an illicit drug that makes a person feel good. Life can be an awful experience, and an easy high is more than tempting.

Caught by authorities, in the act of self-abuse, the reaction of the law is as follows:

Privacy is viiolated. A search is conducted that makes no allowance for one's medical needs or personal integrity or the needs of those who are dependent on the person who is discovered to be using an illegal substance.

An arrest is an assault and battery and a kidnapping, sometimes conducted in a violent and extremely painful and traumatic manner.

Taking someone into custody is a form of holding someone hostage. Bail is a form of ransom. The tortures and risk of death while awaiting trial are very real, either at the hands of officials or at the hands of fellow inmates in correctional facilities.

Little or no attempt is made to ascertain the medical or other physical and emotional needs of the person who is incarcerated. If you need to take pills to keep from having a heart attack, you may be out of luck. The number of ways you can be placed in danger of losing life and limb and more money than your whole family can afford is unbelievable.

Remember, all of this is about saving you from yourself, and keeping you from ingesting something that may or may not be dangerous!

If you were to add up the penalties for all the crimes committed against the defendant, the "law" would be in prison for several lifetimes, and all this violence and injustice is meted out in response to a drug use violation.

Okay, you say, what about people who commit murder? Good question. My answer is simple. There is absolutely no difference between one human being killing another and another killing one. If it's murder to kill your wife, it's murder for the rest of us to kill you. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. If it's neutral, then it's neutral. If one is right, they're both right. The notion that our reasons are better than someone else's reasons is based on the idea that we are different and better than the person who kills. I don't buy that at all.

All law is en-forced. That means it is forced upon people. That means that every penalty or liability or consequence is artificially conceived and handed out through the use of threats of coercion and violence. Law is not the opposite of disorder. Law is simply a nice, lovely, cutesy, whitewashed way of politely and firmly turning human beings into helpless victims, broken and sometimes killed, with absolutely no sense of the harm done to the innocent people who suffer unnecessary losses just to make ignorant, vengeful masses feel good about themselves.

Law is not smart about human behavior, about the value of the human person, about the value of true equality, about the fact that there are better ways to handle difficulties and problems than by demonizing human beings and hurting them and killing them.

People are people. They are good.....all of them. Behavior can pose problems. People are not their behavior, and people are not problems.

If I sound a bit dogmatic, I'm sorry, but I know an assault and battery and a kidnapping and a hostage-taking and a ransom extorting when I see them. When this is done to the innocent for many years, it's a travesty, but when it is done to those whose lives were ruined by society long before they took up guns and decided to steal funds or whatever they've done to upset us, we have to acknowledge our role in their predicament.

Healthy, happy people don't need laws. They have self-respect and they respect others. There is a rational and humane response to any human error, no matter how terrible it is.

The law sucks, and lawyers and judges know this. Law-makers know this. They love assaulting and battering. They get their rocks off from stealing mothers and fathers from innocent children. They have created one of the world's largest institutions of slavery ever known to man.

Human beings are good.

Problems can be solved or survived with dignity and grace.

Human beings are not problems.

The law means well. The law is like the parent who kills his son for stealing. He means to save society from his own evil.

Law based on anything but love is hopelessly ineffective and misguided.

~
Last edited by CarmelaBear on Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

That is one of the best descriptions of our "justice" system I have ever read. You'd be damned by many as a bleeding heart, liberal demon spawn Carmela, but that's an angle that should find its way into the general dialogue.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Thank you, Clemsy.

Since my best work seems to come in little spurts like that, I'm going to try to collect my little splashy insights into something somewhat booklike. I'll call it, "CarmelaBear Speaks".

I have to download and edit my best JCF posts.

It will take a lot of discipline and time. Baby steps. One day, then another.

Why is this so difficult? Could it be that I have an aversion to facing the natural consequences of having the courage of my convictions? Could it be that I've been there before and I watched my immediate family break under the pressure and stress of my modest public life? Could it be that my friends will discover a new kind of hell just for being associated with me? Am I placing all of you in the line of fire?

Ah, man.....I love to work hard. I love to do good. It's not that simple any more.

Love is a hard road, but it's a worthy source of strength.

~

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hey, don't worry about us! I mean, if they haven't tracked down Clemsy and sent his sorry liberal butt to Gitmo yet, then I think we're safe with you rippling the pond with some progressive ideas about justice.

We're ripe for strong, progressive voices. Our turn, you might say.

Go for it.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Okay, chief.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Carmela, perhaps the only way to do justice to your post is by responding to each of your paragraphs.
CarmelaBear wrote:I used to think that the law was orderly and good. It appears to be the opposite of chaotic violence and retribution and wild westiousness. Compared to no law at all, it is certainly better than no law, just because nature doesn't do a good job of policing human behavior or teaching youngin's goodlier manners.


Indeed, if one must choose between lawlessness and order, order would be the more natural human choice for conducting the self. But would it not be a more natural choice of conduct for any living entity that is endowed by something resembling reason?
However.....and this is a BIG however......we now have the benefit of science and medicine applied to the study and gentle, positive, humane influence of human behavior and the development of the capacity for joy and fulfillment in human experience. There is every reason to believe that it is absolutely counterproductive to resort to the reactive, negative, and sometimes destructive and heavy-handed, manipulative approach represented by the Rule of Law.


Are you claiming that the scientific discoveries of our current times are capable of replacing the Law? Some ‘gentle, positive humane influence of behaviour’ can also be described as propaganda (on the large scale) and brainwashing (on the smaller scale). Where will you draw the lines between brainwashing and gentle, positive influencing of the individual? There are ways of persuasion that completely disregards the individual’s own preferences and just as harmful to the victim as physical rape of his/her body would be. Isn’t it more humane to have well defined laws and enforce these laws consistently?
In Anglo American law, there is civil law, which uses what is boldly called "redistributive justice" to rob from Peter to reimburse Paul with ungodly amounts of money and property, entirely out of proportion to anything but passionate overreaction and vengeance. The other kind of law is criminal, where truth is actively suppressed through such absurdities as the "right to remain silent, and everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" and ideas of due process that overlook real problems that need to be solved. Further, criminal law makes no rational attempt to separate the person who acts from the action. We say the person is guilty, instead of noting that all of us are essentially innocent and worthy, and our conduct reflects our time and place and circumstances when it is less than perfect.
OK, I get it. There are problems with the system, but then again, can you design a system that will work without ANY fault? Shouldn’t we repair the system before we throw it away in exchange for something we haven’t even tried yet? Generally speaking, it is very risky business to try something new when there are ways to mend the old – me think. Look at the number of marriage breakdowns in our times for instance! How many marriages could be saved if people took the Law seriously?

I for one will never fathom why so many people make up their own marriage vows today. In the traditional Christian ceremony the words express exactly what a marriage supposed to deliver: ‘ … to forsake all others … for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live.’ That’s all. Two people due to their own volition enter into an agreement that is valid for the rest of their natural life. I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the claim that a marriage can break down because either party was not persuasive enough to keep the other ‘honest’. Where is a person’s real worth if not in the reliability of his/her word or conduct?

There is a difference between balance, on the one hand, and retribution and vengeance and hurting and killing people out of rage and pain on the other hand.

Here's an example. Say that someone is attracted to an illicit drug that makes a person feel good. Life can be an awful experience, and an easy high is more than tempting.

Caught by authorities, in the act of self-abuse, the reaction of the law is as follows:

Privacy is viiolated. A search is conducted that makes no allowance for one's medical needs or personal integrity or the needs of those who are dependent on the person who is discovered to be using an illegal substance.

An arrest is an assault and battery and a kidnapping, sometimes conducted in a violent and extremely painful and traumatic manner.

Taking someone into custody is a form of holding someone hostage. Bail is a form of ransom. The tortures and risk of death while awaiting trial are very real, either at the hands of officials or at the hands of fellow inmates in correctional facilities.

Little or no attempt is made to ascertain the medical or other physical and emotional needs of the person who is incarcerated. If you need to take pills to keep from having a heart attack, you may be out of luck. The number of ways you can be placed in danger of losing life and limb and more money than your whole family can afford is unbelievable.

Remember, all of this is about saving you from yourself, and keeping you from ingesting something that may or may not be dangerous!

If you were to add up the penalties for all the crimes committed against the defendant, the "law" would be in prison for several lifetimes, and all this violence and injustice is meted out in response to a drug use violation.
The way I gather it, your main claim is that the playing field is not even; some people are more disadvantaged than others to function as law-obeying citizens. So … what’s new? Has the playing field ever been even? Can it ever be even? Yet, it was the Law that kept human civilizations going, not lawlessness.

Okay, you say, what about people who commit murder? Good question. My answer is simple. There is absolutely no difference between one human being killing another and another killing one. If it's murder to kill your wife, it's murder for the rest of us to kill you. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. If it's neutral, then it's neutral. If one is right, they're both right. The notion that our reasons are better than someone else's reasons is based on the idea that we are different and better than the person who kills. I don't buy that at all.
OK. Now you’ve lost me! It seems common sense truth to me that a person who plays the game by the rules is a BETTER person than the one who does not play the game by the rules.

For example, if I sat down to play cards with you and I cheated you, you’d be quite rightly angry. No? You might not even play with me again since I not only destroyed your fun but also destroyed your trust in me being a good person. That trust would need to be rebuilt before you’d play with me again, I think. Does this seem too harsh? Emotions aside, rational beings evaluate their own conduct and the conduct of those they must interact with. The consequence of this evaluation is that some people turn out to be better than others.
All law is en-forced. That means it is forced upon people. That means that every penalty or liability or consequence is artificially conceived and handed out through the use of threats of coercion and violence. Law is not the opposite of disorder. Law is simply a nice, lovely, cutesy, whitewashed way of politely and firmly turning human beings into helpless victims, broken and sometimes killed, with absolutely no sense of the harm done to the innocent people who suffer unnecessary losses just to make ignorant, vengeful masses feel good about themselves.

Law is not smart about human behavior, about the value of the human person, about the value of true equality, about the fact that there are better ways to handle difficulties and problems than by demonizing human beings and hurting them and killing them.

People are people. They are good.....all of them. Behavior can pose problems. People are not their behavior, and people are not problems.
I don’t know in what part of the Universe can you find all people EQUALLY good. Not even sure if I’d like to live in a place where there is absolute sameness of living entities who are practically indistinguishable from one another by their conduct. Since such place does not exist – not even hypothetically - it seems the best we can do with what we have is to enforce the Law.
If I sound a bit dogmatic, I'm sorry, but I know an assault and battery and a kidnapping and a hostage-taking and a ransom extorting when I see them. When this is done to the innocent for many years, it's a travesty, but when it is done to those whose lives were ruined by society long before they took up guns and decided to steal funds or whatever they've done to upset us, we have to acknowledge our role in their predicament.

Healthy, happy people don't need laws. They have self-respect and they respect others. There is a rational and humane response to any human error, no matter how terrible it is.

The law sucks, and lawyers and judges know this. Law-makers know this. They love assaulting and battering. They get their rocks off from stealing mothers and fathers from innocent children. They have created one of the world's largest institutions of slavery ever known to man.

Human beings are good.

Problems can be solved or survived with dignity and grace.

Human beings are not problems.

The law means well. The law is like the parent who kills his son for stealing. He means to save society from his own evil.

Law based on anything but love is hopelessly ineffective and misguided.

~
It is manifestly not the case that all human beings are naturally good and capable of making equally good moral judgements in order to govern their own conduct. If anything is hopelessly ineffective and misguided it is the attempt to overlook unappealing aspects of individuals by the help of one’s unconditional love for all. Carmela, I ‘m afraid you are contradicting your own self when you claim that there is no need for Law and law enforcement. You can’t claim that all people are naturally good and claim that people can govern their own conduct. What need is there to govern one’s own conduct if we are all equally good?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

CarmelaBear wrote:
Healthy, happy people don't need laws. They have self-respect and they respect others. There is a rational and humane response to any human error, no matter how terrible it is.
I think the same can be said for rituals. Once you have come to understand the meanings embedded in the myths, why do we need rituals? Laws are used to deal with non-conformists and so are rituals. Physical Imprisonment vice eternal damnation and excummunication.

Of course this doesn't address the orginal reason for the development of rituals. I'm thinking that at first, similiar to laws, they were developed for the good of society. So maybe we're talking about when does "good of the society" turn into "control of the society"? And when does the idea of "good of the society" lose its meaning?

Locked