Talk:Runic magic

message: The statement that modern use of Runes for divination started with Blum's book in 1982 is patently false. There are plenty of cultural references to the fact that they could be so used well before 1982. It may not be scholarly but there is even a reference in a 1971 episode of Doctor Who! (The Dæmons).
--Justificatus (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Usage 

message: I'm for it. 惑乱 分からん 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note that this page looks far better than it did before with this merge. :bloodofox: 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Runecasting]]

message: User Dab removed three categories from this page:
*Category:Divination
*Category:Esotericism
*Category:Germanic mysticism 
I'm going to re-add "Divination" because this unquestionably falls under that category, and invite discussion on the subject of the other two.
Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not dispute that the categories apply, to the contrary: I've made them super-cats of :Category:Runes in Germanic mysticism, and as they are now super-cats, they do not need be repeated. But it may make sense to keep the "Divination" one, that's not a problem. dab (𒁳) 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Both systems are modern fabrications. So Flowers has a PhD in Germanic philology. That doesn't stop him from publishing batshit Magickal fantasy cruft. Blum's may be pulled out of thin air even more, but this article should just treat the two for what they are and not attempt to tout the one as "superior" (in whatever respect) to the other. From my point of view, both are idle nonsense, of course, and to be able to compare their value, you'd need to agree that they have any value at all in the first place.
dab (𒁳) 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the difference again comes down to whether "experts", no matter how editors or admins feel about their positions, should have more weight attributed to their works than any warm body who can get published. Having read the material in question, both authors are published primarily by new-age print-houses who cater to the lowest common denominator. I'd have to state that Flowers seriously thinks that he is reconstructing an "ancient runic system" and (effectively) defended his doctoral thesis partially on this presumption while Blum doesn't have any education to speak of in any of the myriad subjects he writes about. I am no esotericist or occultist - I'll freely admit that. I am interested in the development of new religions. However I've tried to be impartial to the material in question and at least given Flowers, et al, the benefit of the doubt that this, at least in theory, is something that *he* believes was a historical practice based on empirical evidence. I personally do not think it was a historical practice, however unless someone cites serious detractors of his theory in academia, it is original research. (I'm sure such critics probably exist.) WeniWidiWiki 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I may have been underestimating Flowers' stuff. His thesis we will be forced to treat as an academic publication I suppose. Which is his thesis? The 1987 "Runes and Magic"? We can then treat that book as an academic proposal fr a reconstruction of Runic magic. But certainly not the dozen or so later treatises. Amazon reader comments say this book is the "foundation" for his later work, but we may also assume that it represents his last grasp on reality before he completely lost it. As such, I'd be prepared to allow "Runes and Magic" into the "reconstruction" section, but the opus of Stephen Flowers as a whole clearly stands in the occultist corner. dab (𒁳) 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll retract the "completely lost it": he seems to be well able to keep academia and esotericism apart. It appears that, as a rule, "Edred Thorsson" writes far out occultist pamphlets, while "Stephen Flowers" publishes reasonably academic material, partly on Germanic mysticists. A little bit schizophrenic if you ask me, but for our purposes, if it is peer reviewed it is fair game, so that at least the 1987 thesis qualifies as "RS". dab (𒁳) 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: we could create Runic BS to include "runic massage" and what not :) but your proposal makes sense, stash the Armanen nonsense into the Armanen article unless divination is involved. I'm not sure what "runic astrology" is even supposed to be, but since "astrology" typically amounts to divination, it may well be treated here under a separate subheading. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm entering in here a little later than everyone else here, but I'd say we could redirect Runic BS to this very same article.  Runic divination is pure BS as far as this Asatru man is concerned.  There have been far too many voices trying to homogenize pre-Christian Germanic traditions with all the New Age garbage out there.  I say these traditions, what we know of them, can stand fine on their own.AsatruThorsman (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flowers vs. Blum

message: I agree about a merger with Runic divination, although I'm willing to discuss it. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the merged article be called? Valtyr (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I think divination in itself is a rather inexact term. Also, the article Runic magic is very vague about how and where "Runic magic" is actually performed, and what would be its potential advantages, but it appears to be some sort of shamanism. I'm awaiting further discussion on the merge and notability of "Runic magic". 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH!  When will people stop saying that runes are meant to be used for divination?!?  There's NO - I repeat - NO evidence that they were ever used that way.  The only possible "evidence" of it is a vague passage from Tacitus about symbols being carved into wooden strips cut from a nut-bearing tree.  This is far more likely to be lot-casting, since at the time of Tacitus the runes were still being privately used by the Heruli, a mobile band of Germanic warriors who were bound to Odin by cult.  Stop with the fantasy-land rubbish.AsatruThorsman (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be mentioned in the lead, or at least it could be if it's sourced. I think there's some writing of Odin in connection with magic runes in one of the Eddas, though, although that might be of a later date. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I guess I was thinking about Rúnatal, although that seems to tell runes might have magical properties in connection with singing. Sigrdrífumál, which dab mentions below also seems to be a good source. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: it uses rune magic --76.185.151.205 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  runescape?  

message: In explanation of this edit: The historical section establishes beyond any doubt that there were pre-Christian Germanic  practices of:
#divination by casting lots
#spells or charms by means of runes
What we fail to establish is that the two things have anything to do with one another. 
Each instance where runes are mentioned explicitly are unrelated to divination, but instead used for apotropaic magic, or for good luck or success.
It appears that the function of the runes inherited in its entirety by the Icelandic magical staves, which are used for all these things, but not for divination. 
I am not making any positive claim here, such as "runes were not used for divination". 
I just want to propose some caution in this area. We know there was divination, and we know there was runic magic, but so far we have not excluded the possibility that these were two entirely distinct practices. --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Charms vs. divination

message: Let's be serious, they're all Odin's runes, because it was He who hung on the Tree and retrieved them for us.
That aside, I added the "Citation needed" to the assertion that Blum called his "blank rune" "Odin's rune" deliberately.  I heard that the manufacturer said it was easier to make the ceramic rectangles in a 5X5 layout than otherwise, so he retconned a "blank rune" as something intentional and nifty, rather than just cheaper (would have had more integrity and utility, and less controversy, if he'd just said "and here's a spare in case you lose one").  Can anyone document either way?  I've found this, but that doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blum and the Blank "Odin's Rune" 

message: Currently, footnote 16 contains the remark   That may well all be true (see above topic #Flowers vs. Blum), but is it supported by WP:RS as opposed to WP:BECAUSEISAYSO?
Also, full disclosure: *I* have "ties to" the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Humanist Association; does that impact *my* credibility? If not, why not? And then why would the religion of anyone else impact *their* credibility? Do we screen out Catholic (or Protestant), Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Wiccan sources? What exactly is on the proscribed list of religions? Please advise. – .Raven  .talk 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Un)supportable criticism?