[UA] [UA]Goddess dicotomy

[Epoch]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Kali Magdalene wrote:

> mrteapot wrote:
> > 
> > UA also violates numerous other rpg cliches as outlined,
> > which is part of why I like it, and I'll keep it that way
> > (IMUAC, at least).
> 
> Well, the reason I said that the modern pagans are tapping the vein more
> directly than any ancient goddess cult has nothing to do with the
> "Crystal Power Law." Look at the styles of magic in UA and tell me that
> Wicca wouldn't fit in with dipsomancers and Pornomancy.

Well, Deirdre is /obviously/ right that, in canonical UA, "old
style" celtic pagans (there aren't any, are there?  I mean, I thought that
we don't even know much about their religion) would be powerless or
near-powerless.  That's kinda the point.  All of those old-style mystical
traditions lost a lot of power in the Industrial Revolution, still more in
the turn from modernism to post-modernism, and were dealt their final blow
with the Ascension of the Naked Goddess.

Whether new-style Wiccans would have any more power than old-style ones is
a more thorny question.  I'm not sure that new-style Wiccanism /does/ fit
in with dipsomancy and pornomancy.  I mean, granted that it's new, which
gives it some help in the UA cosmology.  But it also seems, at least to
this not-very-conservant observer, to be trying to mimic a notion of
what's old.  I'm not sure that that gets us anywhere.

Fundamentally, when people used to propose new kinds of schools of magic
twice a week to this list, one seminal question was, "What's the
Paradox?"  So, what's the paradox of new-style Wiccanism?

Mike

--
"I know it kind of compromises my moral principles, but the thing is, 
 they make my butt look cute!"  -- Mariya Hodge 


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua