From: thud@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Ted Thibodeau Jr)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Moderation (was pentagrams)
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:59:06 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


Milords and ladies, pray grant me your attention for a moment or three...

I have read the continuing debate on the pentangle/pentacle, fylfot,
cross, celtic cross, etc., and must speak once again.

These symbols, simple geometries all, have no single source or attribution.

Recent writings with the same header have said things akin to "while
we know symbol x *really* belongs to group y, how are we to impart this
knowledge to the folks in group z who were oppressed and/or otherwise
mistreated (including attempted genocide, etc.) by group q?"

Why try to say that any symbol is the sole property of any group? Perhaps
you could try simply demonstrating the progression of designs, starting
with one line, on to two, proceeding to three, then four, and so forth.
To be even more obvious, start with the number of points in a figure --
2 first, (now connect them in every way possible), then three (here
we have a triangle), 4 (now we have a square, with two bisecting lines
forming 4 triangles within), 5 (here is a pentagon, with an enclosed
pentagon, ten triangles, and a pentangle), 6 (why look, a hexagon, star
of david / hexangle, enclosed hexagon, many triangles, etc), etc., etc.

Now, I will grant that many John Q Public-types will not follow the
progression, whether because they cannot let go of their prejudices or
an inability to follow the logic, but I have faith that the gentles
reading this can comprehend what I am saying, and can at least let the
debate of which groups owns what symbol cease, even if we continue to
argue the relative merits of forbidding some symbols in heraldry while
allowing others.

A footnote, brought on by an emailed response to my previous re-post.
My correspondent argued that as someone had tried to register a heraldic
blazon which corresponded to the Nazi party's banner, the fylfot should
be forbidden. My response was that the blazon, as my correspondent noted,
was disallowed by reason of mundane conflict of arms, and therefore
required no further regulations in itself.

The comparison of the pentangle to the fylfot, even in my own missives
disturbs me more, however, for there is a certain entity to which one
may point as having used the fylfot as a symbol of itself, while
committing atrocities to unknown numbers of beings, though the pentangle
has no such connection. There was no organized criminal (by any definition
) organization which used the pentangle as their symbol; merely the
adoption of the *inverted* symbol (not a 36-degree-rotation) by the
"satanic church", a very recent organization, and one with few if any
evidenciarily proven activities, none of which have been criminal.

If I may offer a humble suggestion to those persons of pentangular
mentality -- adopt a new symbol, preach its adop[tion to all you
encounter wearing the pentangle, and explain the reasoning. Perhaps
so simple a conversion as the pentagon (not so sturdy a figure, but
still enclosing what we know to be there), or the addition of 2 angles
(though a few covens use this as their own internal mark...) to a
septangle would confuse the issue enough to defuse it.

My own personal preference is for the triskadecangle, but this is
inordinately complex in construction, requiring decimal measures of
the angles involved. (Yes, that is the thirteen pointed star.)

In frustration, I remove myself from this discussion for the nonce.
Perhaps I shall return, but I think I shall not read the followups
for some time. Responses may be sent directly, as always.

Thud

-- 
   Ted Thibodeau, Jr    a/k/a    Thud, Fyodor Ilyich Lobachevsky, Zamel
       61 Marion Street       Medford, MA  02155        617-395-9915
** Crash & Burn for Democracy! ** A Pan of Fudge in Every Fridge, and a **
*** Yerazunis for President! **** Net Connection in Every Living Room!! **