"I disagree with updates" - Epistemology in Zevism, About Clergy

[Khem Nefermed]

The new updates on Yehubor, and the reaction to them, have had me thinking deeply enough to decide to write this, and point something out for all Zevists to understand about how we see truth, and how we know what we know. I am sure some already do.
I have already gone over the fact that the update is not really a change, and that it makes sense, and that all the complaints about it are failures to understand or emotional reactions. You can read about it in my post.

What I choose to go into now, is the very issue that leads to these kinds of disagreements in the first place. Not only the psychological reasons that would draw one to disagree with a notion, those are triggers, not fundamental reasons, and this is mistrust of Clergy, and a misunderstanding of what Clergy is meant to be for the Temple and for our understanding.

This will be a discussion on the Zevist epistemology, so I think we should familiarize ourselves with this concept.

Epistemology is the study of "how we know what we know". This comes from the Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), which means knowledge, and λόγος (logos), or reason.

Epi-steme means "to stand on". Plato places a clear difference between δόξα (Doxa) and Episteme. Doxa is the lower echelon of knowledge, which can be translated to opinion.
This is not opinion in the derogatory and dismissive sense, Doxa is the valid motion of drawing conclusions using our rational faculties.
Episteme, parallel to this, are the very things we need in order to reason in the first place. Above mere conclusions or "knowledge" in the simple sense, Episteme are the presuppositions our knowledge stands upon.

It is through solid Episteme and through honing of our reason to reach Doxas that we have Sophia, or wisdom.

Epistemology is the school of philosophy that analyzes how exactly we come to our Episteme.

The problem many Zevists have, is that their episteme is purely individualistic. Clergy has spoken against the many perils of extreme individualism, and yet there are still overly individualistic manifestations within our thinking.

What is Zevism? Is it an individual relationship one has with the Gods?
Many would say so. Many would say that it is all about your personal interaction with the Gods and their knowledge. Many would summon the quote of Lady HPS Maxine about there being "no mediators in Zevism", wholly misunderstanding it.

If it truly was individualistic, and if there truly were no mediators in the absolute sense, why do we have a Temple? Why do we have a Clergy? Why do we have sites and sermons with information that clarifies our practice? All you'd need to know is the Divine is out there, and connect to it. We can all conclude naturally that a Divinity of some sort exists, so again, why is this whole Temple thing here?

If the issue is solely that one can't communicate with the Gods as a beginner, then this is a very flawed system the Gods have created, with a very arbitrary barrier of advancement that one has to trial and error their way into surpassing.

Except, wait, the Gods haven't created such a system. The Gods have created a system where there is a Temple to meet and engage with for those fated to meet and engage with it.

There is a need for a PHYSICAL institution that, I am sorry to be direct here, MEDIATES one's understanding of the Gods, even if one can "communicate" just fine, and "Satan teaches them directly", as I have heard before. The words of our Priest Alexandros Iowno make this very clear in this sermon.
The idea of "no mediators" by HPS Maxine is ironically made clearer in the new Liturgical terms. There are "no mediators" in the sense that the relationship between the Gods and humans is not one of Eilotil, and the birthright of the Gods we all have is clear, as opposed to the lie of Kagoim.

Alright, this is clarified. What does this state about our Epistemology?

It states that the foundation upon which our reason and knowledge rests on is the Clergy, appointed by the guidance and decree of the Gods.

How could one possibly dedicate oneself to Zevism and the Original Gods, according to the understanding of Temple of Zeus, and not trust the Clergy's decision making and decrees as the root concepts that further reason can stem from? If that is not the case, if this trust does not exist, what sets the Zevist apart from mere "Pagans", whose belief is nothing but a set of ideas?

By joining the Temple, one is part of an organism, and part of a system of INITIATION. Why are you part of a system of initiation if you can simply initiate yourself?

Trust in the Clergy is a core Episteme of the Zevist. The Zevist has found Zevism and used his faculties of reason to make a decision. The decision being made here is that one trusts that his reason has brought him here, and that there is something greater than one's own reason here.

I trust that the interpretation I've had of the Gods and their message which has led me here and validated Zevism as a path, has also validated the Clergy as figures that can speak with real authority on matters that pertain to the Gods, their teachings and decrees.

Otherwise, let me be crass and ask what the hell are we even doing here?
If we do not trust in a real authority and Divine ordinance of the Clergy, then the logical conclusion is that we are all people with opinions, and nothing more. Lady High Priestess Maxine was just a person with opinions, and you just happened to agree with them. High Priest, whom Lady Maxine has appointed, is just a person with opinions and you happen to disagree.

Sorry to say, this is not "participation in a Temple", this is not being part of a religion.
This is being part of a vague group that vaguely follows similar-ish beliefs. This is "me and my Bible" level Protestant rhetoric.

Antiquity is clear in that a priesthood exists, it is divinely appointed and authoritative.

The Gods are clear in that there has never been a realized master of the Mysteries which, outside of any context of initiation and respect of a higher authority, has achieved the Magnum Opus via a 1 on 1 relationship with Father Zeus in his basement.
Pythagoras was a God incarnate, far above the first step of the Magnum Opus when he came out of the womb, and yet scoured the world to become initiated in the highest mysteries, and RESPECTED THE AUTHORITY of people that may have even been less spiritually evolved than him, because that is what a human aligned with the Ethics of the Gods does.

Does this then mean we can't question Clergy? Yes and no.

We can have rational doubts about decisions made by Clergy, and strive to resolve those doubts through reason, patience and spiritual understanding.
However, what we can't do (you can do anything) and still call ourselves Zevists, is place under scrutiny the idea that Clergy speaks with authority in the first place.

If one believes High Priest is appointed by the Gods to be here as an a authority figure, or at least appointed by HPS Maxine who was appointed by Father Zeus for the task of Temple creation, one can't simply make a blanket statement that HP is wrong.

My epistemology is as thus:
Father Zeus and the Gods are Supreme, and fountains of reason. Any logic within existence derives from them, and any reason I have or practice, derives from their nature and their influence of existence.
Temple of Zeus is the restored seat of the Gods on Earth, the only institution in this deep Kali Yuga that has the direct indwelling of the Gods and the complete path of initiation. Reason and practice has brought me to conclude ToZ is right, and thus to question Zevism is to question the Gods, which questions reason itself and leaves thinking a worthless act.
The Clergy of ToZ is divinely ordained by the Gods, and is made up of those most fit to lead the Assembly of the Gods on Earth. To question the Clergy is to question Zevism, ergo, to question the Gods, and question reason, throwing reason out the window.

I can then reason, and I still reason. I still use my mental faculties to make critical conclusions and to deepen my understanding of matters. But this stands within a worldview and a paradigm. We all have paradigms by which we reason. To question the above epistemology is to question the foundations that allow me to reason in the first place, which would render the reasoning a pointless errand.

So, to conclude, I will ask some questions. Not as accusations, but as things to ponder.

1. The Gods are the source of all reason and logic. If one questions the Gods while believing in Them, one throws away the very idea that life is founded upon reason. If you still trust your reason, but do not trust the Gods, you are an atheist, so why are you here?
2. If ToZ is the restoration of understanding and connection to the Gods, then it is overseen by the Gods and guided by them, with the impossibility of failure, including the Clergy. If you mistrust the Clergy, and you do not believe ToZ is in any way a special institution or religion, why are you here?

 

[AletheiaArete]

Excellently said Khem, thank you for this.
These updates have, apart from the brilliant new terms and information, felt like a test in the virtue of Justice for Zevists. Many of us have varying degrees of Temperance, but for some their desire for individualism still holds greater importance to them than the uplifting and preservation of the Temple; Thus losing sight of Justice in the name of sticking to “what they think is right” first just to ignore what the Gods and Clergy have reasonably put forth.
We must uplift one another within the community through reason, constructive dialogue and trust in the Temple’s hierarchy.