Pynchon's RC Sources

[Michel Ryckx]

Terrance wrote:

[snip -- very interesting post]

Mr. (mrs?) Eliade seems to be making a connection between religion and the sacred.  He assumes this
connection to be exclusive, which means: the sacred only within a religion; no religion without the
sacred.  I can agree with the last proposition; not with the first.  Therefore --if I understand it
well-- he is able to qualify what he calls historicists as people rejecting the sacred altogether.
I do not know wether he's right about this: what about the human need for rituals occurring in
secularized societies.  One could easily qualify the Nazi Party meetings in Nuerenberg as having a
religious character; or the massive May 1st in Moscou --and they were intended to be that way.  On
the other hand, even secular people do feel the need to have some rituals in some cases: birth,
becoming adult, marriage maybe and death.  They do not have a religious nature; but they are
considered to be sacred, though that word is not used.  'Important' they may be qualified.

A small example from my small country;
Children (11-12 years) who had no religious education, but were born and bred into the European
humanistic tradition (it would exceed the 10 kb limit to explain this) all get together one day.
The Mayor, if a humanist, otherwise a notorious non religious person in local society gives them a
speech and (in my city) they have a real ball in the afternoon.  That's all.  But the kids know this
is a very special moment in their lives.

But if I did not understand mr. Eliade's ideas, correct me.

Kind regards,

Michel.