![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On sacrifice
May. 23rd, 2013 11:59 amThe discussion on animal sacrifice in ancient and modern polytheism has got me thinking. Ancient sacrifice expressed the total economic production of those societies; and yet today we only think of foods. This is artificial; if the signification of the sacrificial community is to remain constant, it has to change. Sacrifice was essentially the theological charter for the distribution of the fruits of production to the whole community, because even in cases where the singular item was destroyed, the notion of surplus production being turned to communal ends was affirmed. Production is no longer chiefly subsistence-oriented in modern economies; hence the conception of sacrifice would have to change. To express the distribution of the fruits of total production in a modern society, sacrifice demands socialism, it would seem.
Implicit in my remarks is that I do not believe that the purpose of sacrifice is to feed the Gods in a literal sense. It is easier for me, perhaps, to think outside the box in this respect because Egyptian theology long recognized offerings such as Ma'et, which is literally to offer justice to the Gods. I freely admit that I am not sure how to operationalize these ideas regarding sacrifice, other than the notion of the offering of labor. Many creative people, of course, already practice this, myself included. In any event, the point of my remarks is not to displace the economy of food offerings, in which I participate, though never flesh. (I don't eat flesh, so why would I offer it?) Rather, the purpose of these remarks is to suggest the debate cannot logically be conducted purely as about foods, it seems to me.
(One could probably articulate some of these ideas about sacrifice through a reading of Bataille, but I'm a bit rusty on it.)
One thing seems evident to me: all offerings are ultimately offerings of embodied, mortal time.
@proclusberlin: Some months ago, thinking about Iamblichus' notion of immaterial sacrifice of science and virtues, one idea I had was that this sacrifice consisted in grounding philosophy in the hermeneutic of revelation, thus handing it over to the gods.
Yes, I agree absolutely.
Implicit in my remarks is that I do not believe that the purpose of sacrifice is to feed the Gods in a literal sense. It is easier for me, perhaps, to think outside the box in this respect because Egyptian theology long recognized offerings such as Ma'et, which is literally to offer justice to the Gods. I freely admit that I am not sure how to operationalize these ideas regarding sacrifice, other than the notion of the offering of labor. Many creative people, of course, already practice this, myself included. In any event, the point of my remarks is not to displace the economy of food offerings, in which I participate, though never flesh. (I don't eat flesh, so why would I offer it?) Rather, the purpose of these remarks is to suggest the debate cannot logically be conducted purely as about foods, it seems to me.
(One could probably articulate some of these ideas about sacrifice through a reading of Bataille, but I'm a bit rusty on it.)
One thing seems evident to me: all offerings are ultimately offerings of embodied, mortal time.
@proclusberlin: Some months ago, thinking about Iamblichus' notion of immaterial sacrifice of science and virtues, one idea I had was that this sacrifice consisted in grounding philosophy in the hermeneutic of revelation, thus handing it over to the gods.
Yes, I agree absolutely.
