[PBP2013] Jazz

“Let’s call it spirit, because to me, there is spirit in a reed. It’s a living thing, a reed, really, and it does contain spirit of a sort. And they say these areas make sound when the wind comes. It’s really an ancient vibration.” – Steve Lacy, Dixieland saxophonist

“The spirit of jazz is the spirit of openness.” – Herbie Hancock, pianist, composer, synthesiser pioneer

“The more enthusiastic his audience is, why, the more spirit the working man’s got to play.” – Johnny St. Cyr, New Orleans banjoist and guitarist

“The music is not part of this planet in a sense that the spirit of it is about happiness. Most musicians play earth things about what they know, but I found out that they are mostly unhappy and frustrated, and that creeps over into their music.” – Sun Ra, composer, pianist, synthesiser pioneer

“It’s not exclusive, but inclusive, which is the whole spirit of jazz.” – Herbie Hancock

“It’s more about conception and touch and spirit and soul than whether my hardware was in place.” – Pat Metheny, composer, guitarist

[PBP2013] Jarman, Derek

I’ve written before about a film of his; Sebastiane. Despite the fact that Jarman himself identified as Christian, that’s not his only film that has a clear sort of “pagan sensibility” about it, and 1990′s The Garden, a pretty transparent Bible allegory (right up there with the too-often-forgotten movie musical The Apple) featuring a gay couple as the stand-in Christ figure, is probably #2 on any list of Jarman’s films by spirituality —and I only place it at #2 cos the story of The Garden follows a pre-set storyline, and pretty firmly sticks to it, whereas Sebastiane deviates wildly from the standard legend of the Saint it’s named for, and gives something altogether more about the symbolism than the story. Plus, the entire dialogue of Sebastiane was in reconstructed Vulgar Latin, which should give it high marks to anybody reading this. Jarman is also noteworthy for his several volumes of of diaries published (all of which I own in hardback), the garden of his Dungeness cottage he designed, GBLT activism, paintings, and also for directing several music videos and credits in art direction on Ken Russell films.

So, for the uninitiated, here’s a quick run-down of his other films:

Jubilee (1978) — With the assistance of John Dee (Richard O’Brian, writer of Rocky Horror, and Riff Raff in the original London West End cast and the film adaptation), Elizabeth I (Jenny Runacre) journeys to the late 20th Century, where Buckingham Palace has been converted to a recording studio, and London is overrun by punks, led by anarchist schoolteacher Amyl Nitrate, and a new self-appointed Queen, living in a squat, who has named herself Boudica, or “Bod”, for short (also portrayed by Runacre). Filmed in 1977, features many faces from London’s punk scene and London’s theatre scene, including Jack “The Incredible Orlando” Birkett, blind dancer and mime.

The Tempest (1981) — Considered by some to be the best film adaptation of Shakespeare’s play of the same name, it’s tweaked for maximum queer sensibilities. Also features Birkett.

The Angelic Conversation (1985) — homoerotic film clips (stylistically reminiscent of James Bidgood’s Pink Narcissus), with voice-over of select Shakespeare’s Sonnets read by Judy Dench.

Caravaggio (1986) — Postmodern biopic of 16th Century painter, Michelangelo Caravaggio. Caravaggio’s style was controversial at the time, as he painted historic figures, and figures from Christian and Greco-Roman mythology in modern clothes and with modern props. Jarman’s film, stylistically pays homage to this.

The Last of England (1987) — I still have no idea how to describe this. Featuring Tilda Swinton (previously in Caravaggio), it’s composed of Jarman’s prose, bits of poetry, and disjoined vignettes about queer and British identity –which kind of sums up Jarman’s catalogue.

Edward II (1990) — Stylistically minimalist, and slightly fictionalised biopic of King Edward II.

Wittgenstein (1992) — Even more minimalistic biopic of the British philosopher. Filmed using all-black sets and costumes that stood in striking contrast. Like most of Jarman’s films, there are autobiographical elements.

War Requiem (1990) — Lawrence Olivier’s last film. A film adaptation of Bitten’s piece with poetry by Wilfred Owen.

Blue (1992) — Jarman’s prose and poetry, musical soundscapes by Brian Eno, Coil, even Genesis P-Orridge, and absolutely no visuals except for a constant blue screen. Possibly Jarman’s most autobiographical film.

[PBP2013] Iris


Rainbow Ringlets by *wisely-chosen on deviantART

Iris: Why would I choose a mere male god or daimone as my lover?
Hermes: I suppose more the question is, why not? There are enough goddesses going parthenos, as it is!
Iris: You misunderstand that word. I exist in-between, as do you –with my mother in the clouds, and my father in the sea. Think of all the other goddesses parthenos who came before I: Hestia, quite sweet and matronly. Artemis, quite feral. Mortals fancy Athene as little more than a man with breasts. Even Hera adopts that title, when it suits her, and mortals can hardly begin to understand why.
Hermes: So then what am i missing, colleague?
Iris: The title has little to do with lacking sexual gnosis, and only relates to “virginity” inasmuch as one defines the, shall we say “wedding feast”. To be parthenos is to not be owned. And anyway, women are far more to my preferences.

My Heroes

So, taking a nod from Sannion’s blog, cos I can, and for an allegedly massively charismatic cult leader dispensing Purplesaurus Rex like nobody’s business, it’s been a while since the Adoration poetry reached its memetic apex and let’s be frank: That was over a year ago, and that means the boy’s slackin’.

Orion
Narkissos
Amphiaraos
Herakles
Iolaos
Trophonios
Asklepios
Aristippus the Elder
Diogenes of Sinope
Praxiteles
Boudica
Julius Caesar
Ovid
William Shakespeare
Michelangelo Caravaggio
Marc Bolan
Soren Kirkegaard
Karl Marx
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Oscar Wilde
Robert Ross
Arthur Rimbaud
Erté
Piet Mondrian
Frank Lloyd Wright
Ludwig Wittgenstein
William Haines
Martha Graham
Ramón Novarro
Isadora Duncan
Rudulph Valentino
Leon Trotsky
Lili Elbe
Gerda Wegener
Jean-Paul Sartre
Albert Camus
Josephine Baker
Nino Ferrer
Mae West
Colin MacInnes
Quentin Crisp
James Dean
Carl Sagan
Rudolf Nureyev
Klaus Nomi
James Bidgood
Nina Simone
Andy Warhol
Derek Jarman
Leigh Bowery
Jayne County
Prince
Freddie Mercury
April Ashley
Alejandro Jodorosky
Glenn “Divine” Milstead
David Bowie
Pete Townshend
Marc Bolan
Lydia Lunch
Richard O’Brian
Mick Karn
Kevin Rowland
Amy Winehouse

[PBP2013] Identity

In order….

British
Hellenist
Mod
Eros beloved
Cyrenaic
Empedoclean
Pluralist
Dandy
Weird
…goes over people’s heads
…a bit like an aeroplane
…you think I’m an aeroplane, don’t you Mike?
…well, I’m not!
Singer
Dancer with Apollon
Socialist
Existentialist
Cat-owned
Effeminate
Beloved of Nyx
Familiar with Eris
Curiously intelligent
Working class
Man
Queer
Intellectual
Painter
Writer
Short
Cute
Tattooed
Pierced
Fanatic (Dexys Midnight Runners, Japan [the band], Marc Bolan, Derek Jarman, Andy Warhol, James Bidgood, Quentin Crisp, Rick & Ade, Noel Fielding, David Bowie, Pete Townshend, Compact Organisation label, The Monochrome Set, Danielle Dax, The Fall, Morrissey, Siouxsie, Roxy Music, silent films)
Ex-Goth
Modernist, where it matters
Old-fashioned, where it matters
Aspiring drag queen
Polytheist
Pagan
Midwest-reared
Transgender / Transsexual / FTM


I started out making a list of these, figuring I’d take three or four I “felt” were most important, or rather, what I felt either “should be” most important to me or what seemed most-relevant to the pagan community who’d follow the link from the PBP13 blog. I then realised that I was listing these, almost in order of importance —I’ve only rearranged a few, and the Top Four are all so close as to be practically tied.

[PBP2013] Hedonism

The Lion of Cyrene in Libya

The Lion of Cyrene in Libya

The Hedonist loves fine things, from food to clothes, to entertainment to perfumes. Because of one’s love for these things, one has little regard for cost, in either direction. The lover of money, rather than pleasures, will brag of how much or how little something cost them, boasting either their assumed wealth or assumed savvy. Fine food and entertainment speaks for itself.

Hedonism is clearly at odds with Capitalism. Capitalism is an institutionalised love of money, placing a person’s inherent value by how much money one has. The Hedonist, educated in life’s pleasures, measures one’s worth by one’s diversity of pleasures.

The Hedonist is able to find pleasure in a diversity of surroundings, from the grandest of palaces to the lowliest of hovels. An appreciation of fine things within one’s means includes any means by which one is living, which is always subject to change. Always.

Hedonist reality is subject to knowledge. Knowledge is limited to personal experience. Personal experience is never wrong, but what we know of the external influences on those experiences can be. Experiences are also practically impossible to fully share with others (at last with current technology) because one is limited in one’s ability to share it with language —and even that which appears “white” to oneself may appear “cream” or “platinum” to one’s neighbour. Even an experience shared by two people is not going to be completely the same; not even two women scissoring are going to have the same orgasm, even if they each experience their orgasms together.

In spite of this empiricism and scepticism, Hedonists are not atheist, unless they’re Theodorans, and even that was debated amongst the ancients outside that sect of the Cyrenaic school. If one experiences the theoi, then one does –true, one cannot be certain of what brought that experience (after all, medical and psychological studies, at best, can only really show so much, and even then, they only really can explain what happens to the body when these experiences happen, not necessarily what makes these experiences happen, or why they happen), but it is what it is, and one should take pleasures in celebrating that experience. If one has not experienced the gods, then one has not; but if pleasures are to be derived from worship of Them, regardless of experiences, then indulge, for pleasure is its own justification. Indeed, the argument that present pleasure can be derived from Their worship, even for one who has yet to experience Them, can be a great one.

Cyrenaic Hedomism recognises Pleasure (the Hedones) as the ultimate good, and Pain (the Aglae) as the ultimate evil; pain is not the denial of pleasure, denial is merely an inert state. Aristippus likened pains to a violent storm over the sea, and pleasures to a gentle breeze, whereas lacking both, there is a calm. There is no “black-grey-white”, there are pleasing actions, painful actions, and absence. If pain were one colour on the wheel, and pleasure the colour opposite that, absence of either would be absence of any colour. All pleasures are equal, all pain is equal; your classical morality is “endorsed” by the Cyrenaic only as far as its ability to endorse pleasure and discourage pain, if it endorses more denial than pleasure, it is of no use.

While bodily pleasures are certainly equal to mental and spiritual pleasures in Cyrenaic thought, in spite of the insistent that Cyrenaics value bodily pleasures more highly, there is not a shred of evidence in the collective of surviving Cyrenaic teachings; indeed, the elder Aristippus himself seems to have sought mental delights just as easily, if not more-so, and it’s fair to conclude that “bodily pleasures” only have value from the mental pleasures that they can give. Without the ability to take in delights as a thinking person, the odours of fine perfumes, the feel of velvets and satins, the sound of a Brian Eno suite, the appearance of a stunning Erté litho, and the tastes of fine chocolates are rendered inert.

Denial is Epicuran delight. Despite this, some ancient believed that Epicusus practically plagiarised portions of Theodoros, student of the younger Aristippus, son of Arete, daughter of Aristippus of Cyrene. Through this allegation, there is a link between Marxism and Cyrenaic Hedonism (Karl Marx being influenced directly by Epicurus) and between Existentialism and Hedonism (Jean-Paul Sartre and Somine de Beauvoir being directly influenced by Marxist philosophy).

The dichotomy of Pleasure and Pain in Hedonism, mythologically, strike a similar chord with Empedoclean pluralism. To Empedocles, the universe was driven by the forces of Love (phila) and Strife (neikos), or rather, attraction and repulsion —respectively domains of Eros and Eris, and as per Apeulius, the former being the father of the Hedones, Pleasures, and the latter per Hesiod as the mother of Algea, the Pains.

[PBP2013] Hellenismos, what does it mean?

You know, in spite of how much people in the HR community love to cite Emperor Julian as the earliest source for the word “Hellenismos”, I’ve never once seen anyone cite where in Julian’s surviving writings this word comes from.

That’s right: Eight years in and active in the Hellenic Polytheism community, I have never once seen anyone definitively or even vaguely describe where Julian first used and / or defined “Hellenismos” —which seems pretty damned odd for a bunch of people who claim to love going back to the actual ancient source material. Could I go to Julian myself? Yeah, maybe, but I’m having enough of a time reconstructing pre-Epicuran Hedonism and Empedoclean Pluralism, and frankly, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other reason besides possibly sourcing the word “Hellenismos” that I might have to read Julian for the first time since high school. Now maybe if I had a source on this from someone, I’d feel up to fact-checking, but here’s the thing: Nobody does.

It’s quite possible that I just missed it, or wasn’t paying attention that day, but I still find it pretty remarkable that, pushing into a decade in the community, I’ve never once seen anyone state anything more about the etymology of “Hellenismos” than a simple “the word is credited to Emperor Julian” or similar. That’s very strange, and it’s something that actually occurred to me maybe a year ago.

Something else that recently occurred to me is that I guess at some point, people decided that my kind of recon was now going to be called “revivalists”? Thanks for telling the nutters that they win! He said, voice dripping in sarcasm. You know, thanks for that. You want to let the reenactors have “Hellenic polytheism”, too? Nearly six years and change since Tim “Annoying Dipshit” Alexander and his cadre of mini-dipshits, and NOTHING HAS CHANGED. I’ve been a recon since long before he showed up and, practically overnight, published his first two books, and then spent nearly two years working to undo the way people had been talking about themselves and the community since 1997 — do the maths, that means “reconstructionist religion” had been broadly defined for about TEN YEARS, then *one* sanctimonious horsefuck shows up, and a few months later, I was already finding myself in conversations with people who’d been in the community about as long as me (so about two years, at that point), and were suddenly saying things like “I’m not going to call myself a recon, anymore. Tim Alexander and his ilk have ruined the word.”

While I’m all for words meaning things, broad definitions are completely valid, too. Reconstruction, definition 4, “something re-created: something that has been re-created from the evidence available” — the implication is that parts are going to be missing, or never known. And since this is a religion, practiced lovingly by devotees and and those who just faithfully believe that the Theoi are there, this reconstruction is more Renn Faire than SCA — or rather, think of it as reconstructing a n older house after a fire (an analogy that has seriously been used by the community for decades now): You may have to use a different kind of wood, you can’t do the wiring just like it was when it was originally built (especially if the house pre-dates 1990), cos the electrical code had been updated, and the plumbing may need to be updated, too. If the house predates 1980, you won’t be able to find lead-based paint or asbestos, anymore, and chances are good that you’ll agree that’s a good thing. Likewise, you don’t cook over a fireplace, and even the most “hardline recons” are going to agree that adaptations have to be made to practice Hellenismos in this day and age, and if they don’t, they’re either delusional or liars. Since practices have to be adapted to modern life for basics like fires and animal sacrifices, and I doubt even *most* “hardline recons” are offering retsina rather than marvodafni, the only argument I can think of for saying reconstructionists can’t support same-sex marriage within Hellenismos, for example, or Hellenic folk magic (or reconstructed Hellenic witchcraft –yes, I’m even familiar with a Greek-language Yahoo group for those reconstructing ancient Hellenic witchcraft) are people who simply haven’t read enough.

Additionally, the notion that only certain kinds of recons get to call themselves recons, in practice, tends to imply that only a certain brand of Neoplatonist following the Attic festival calendar is a recon, and frankly, that’s such a huge load that I can’t imagine even where to begin to dissect it.

Which brings me to the notion of how “Hellenismos” is supposed to be defined. The definition often attributed to Julian is “the Hellenic way”, and that’s certainly a fair definition, as the “-ismos” suffix is typically translated as an Hellenic equivalent of “-ism” (makes sense), meaning “system or practice”. That said, in the modern Hellenic language, the word “Hellenismos” is so broadly applied as to include the Orthodox church. Obviously this is something that the crazy people aiming to very narrowly define both Hellenismos and Hellenic reconstruction tend to ignore — curiously, while often simultaneously including an almost fetishistic misrepresentation of YSEE (YSEE are not a reconstruction group, representatives of YSEE in the Hellenic_Recons Yahoo group describe their practise as, “NOT A RECONSTRUCTION, BUT AS IT CAME TO US FROM THE 15th TO THE 20th CENTURY, THROUGH THE “STRATIOTI” TRADITION” — yes, in Caps Lock) and / or a borderline Atheistic revamping of the religion passed down from the same school of Western Classical Studies as Edith Hamilton, and not to mention a complete chauvinism of Platonism and Attic practise.

So what does it mean to practise “the Hellenic way”? Well, look to the reconstructed ritual script, look to the culture, and look to Hellenic philosophers. Adapt where needed. I can guarantee you, there are people in the Orthodox church who support same sex marriage rights, or support a woman’s right to abortion — you can be a progressive and practise Hellenic RECONSTRUCTION (if you call yourself a “revivalist” cos you’re progressive, be my guest, but I was calling myself a recon long before you were even in this religion, and I will *not* let the idiots rape my religious identity). Pick a region of ancient Hellas, or practise Panhellenism. I’m not going to lie, syncretism is probably always going to be a touchy subject for a lot of people, as is dual trad, but the common Hellenic syncretic practises are historically justified. No, you don’t have to be a Platonist. No, you don’t have to put a stick up your arse.

…and that’s what Hellenismos means to me. I hope I get an A+. :-)