Two excellent videos you should see

I saw these a few weeks ago, but I forgot to share them. They are about 30 minutes total in length, but are very worthwhile. The author has not published parts 3 and 4 yet, but these two are probably the most important to consider in the case of polytheism. Although the videos were produced by a rational humanist following a philosophical group called “Hyperianism”, there is plenty of useful information, accurate explanations, and deep ideas that polytheists can and should reflect upon, in regards to the theory and practice of their traditions. In this site, I think the theories and conceptual framework has been more or less between Participation Mystique and the Axial Age, which happens also to be the position of the Homeric tradition I seek to follow. A question to think about: is your polytheistic theory & tradition more to the side of Participation Mystique or the Axial Age or even beyond in the Modern Age, and why?

4 thoughts on “Two excellent videos you should see

  1. SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

    Dear Melas,

    Thank you for sharing the videos.

    In “Hyperianism”, SoundEagle shall assume the identity of HyperEagle!

    I would like to briefly add that the issues of disenchantment and re-enchantment as well as mysticism and exoticism are quite central to our deep ennui and psychic trauma, in light of the failings of the Enlightenment project.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Melas the Hellene Post author

      You’re welcome. You are indeed right and Carl Jung expresses it best in the excellent book on the subject entitled “Modern Man in Search of a Soul”. It’s unfortunate that people like Steven Pinker make judgments from absolute numbers, and don’t do as comprehensively and congruently as is needed. He will say that “less people have been dying from violent wars than ever per capita” but without emphasizing that the World Wars had a severely destructive effect beyond bodies per capita. I don’t remember him in his lectures speaking much (if anything) about psychological problems, which (since they are increasing rapidly) is a serious oversight that can’t be outweighed by even a dozen other instances of “progress”. The truth is, sometimes I think modern progress, when unmasked and reduced to its basic structure, becomes quite synonymous with the term “growth”. People are choosing to believe that “more is better” in the sense of materialism, while dismissing the importance of restraints and stability, qualities that old systems and philosophies contained and promoted. One day resources will be depleted, that is to say, the fat candle of the “enlightenment” will burn away its luxurious wax, and what then? Nobody is prepared and everyone still wants more of everything! The threatening effects of climate change are enough to keep one awake overnight.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

        Dear Melas the Hellene,

        Hello to you and happy December as the festive season is upon us!

        I have mentioned to others in the not too distant past that as much as I have admired and respected Pinker and his considerable contributions, I am afraid that many, if not all, of his oversights and biases are indefensible, and worse still, can be misleading and/or untenable. Pinker could have written in a far more balanced approach, stating both the pros and cons, or do an in-depth SWOT analysis. Instead, he sanguinely defends the Enlightenment project to the detriment of being adequately impartial, unbiased, longitudinal, consilient and multidisciplinary. Compared to his earlier books, the recent ones, including Enlightenment Now, have fallen (far) short, especially to experts and readers who are more punctilious, holistic, multidisciplinary and consilient than he has ever been.

        Though very well-written, Steven Pinker’s books are not without some serious problems, for he has cherry-picked a lot of data, and also left out and overlooked relevant information as well as counterarguments and contrary data. Many analyses and projections showing that all is not (nearly or remotely) as well as Pinker claims, plus a plethora of information, statistics and analyses that are absent from his books. His data are also quite Eurocentric, and data from other continents are scant or lacking by comparison.

        Another writer with similar and numerous problems in his findings, formulations, discussions and conclusions is Jordan Peterson.

        Given that you have read and kindly commented on my post “The Quotation Fallacy”, please be informed that I have recently improved the existing paragraphs of the concluding section called “Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries”, located at

        Apart from the improvements on existing paragraphs, the section has also been expanded with four brand new paragraphs. If you don’t mind, I would appreciate your giving me some feedback and additional insights based on your reading of this newly improved and expanded concluding section.

        I have also left a comment for you at the end of the post, dated 3 December 2018 at 5:08 PM.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Melas the Hellene Post author

        Greetings to you and I wish you a happy Winter Solstice to come, which I suppose you celebrate also in your native tradition!

        I can readily agree with your thoughts about Pinker. He, like others who follow the path of the “Enlightenment”, have two sides: one of useful learning that can be beneficial and another of partial opinion that is passed as the former. Pinker seems to be a defender of an old order that is decaying and so, in fearing the consequences, he pontificates against his critics and dismisses their points, because he is of the priesthood of the scientific positivists. The battle will only continue and grow, but to what end, I don’t know. In my traditionally polytheistic mind, true science is only that which brings to light the lost heritage and secrets of our ancient ancestors. Culture ought to reign once again the affairs of distinct peoples, and no more must science and its disguised priesthood pretend to decree and speak for all “humanity”.

        Peterson is a more interesting character in my view than Pinker, because he mixes the old order of intellect & ideas with the new, although the older is more prevalent. That Peterson engages with both past and current topics goes to his credit, however one may think of his views. Oftentimes I find him to be conflicted in his positions, and this is a sign of his honesty and attempt to reconcile both sides. I find myself doing the same. On the other hand, it vexes me a little that Pinker puts on a confident smirk when he speaks about the fate of the world and goes about it as smoothly as if it we were still in the 18th century. But whether with Pinker or Peterson or any other over-reaching (pun intended) modern/Western scholar, it is becoming more and more difficult, if not impossible, to answer questions satisfactorily for all. That is why cultures and tribes, as in ancient times, are inevitable.

        You can be sure of my attention to your changes to your distinguished article. I do hope you can present your readers with dishes that are equally dainty, but perhaps not so luxurious and large in their proportions!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s