Thanks for the response! Over the last year, I’ve pondered the question of technology as representing a fundamental change, and I think that the response I originally wrote still represents my thinking on the subject. You wrote:

“[T]o not acknowledge the changes that technology has provided does your argument a disservice.”

I don’t see how it would. The sorts of changes you’re talking about, health and life expectancy, are at most changes in human experience or human perception, very different sorts of things from the “underlying and eternal things about reality” that I’m discussing. When I talk about these “underlying and eternal things,” I mean something much closer to the Vedic concept of ‘rta’ (which, as it seems to be not just an Indic – but an Indo-European – concept, has a place in a discussion of Germanic religion, I think).

In a roundabout way, though, you make my point for me that technology provides distraction from this kind of underlying reality when you write:

“I don’t know of anyone who is in danger of starvation nor exposure.”

Regardless, there are peole who are in danger of death from starvation, exposure, or both. I daresay that death by starvation, at least, probably happens rather close to where you live, whether or not you are aware of it. I know that where I live, death by exposure is a serious danger in the winter, and that some people do die of exposure every year; and the same can be said of death by starvation. Even if you state that such kinds of death, or death by preventable or curable diseases, etc. are much less common now than formerly, that still only holds true for the small percentage of the world’s population to which you and I belong, the so-called “First World” countries, and it does not hold true for the entire populations of those countries.

Overall, the edifice of “First World” technological culture gives me the impression of instability, of fragility; it could all come crashing down, given the right set of circumstances, and it requires legions of IT specialists working around the clock, around the world, to keep it running. In light of this, I don’t share your feeling that technology can change the underlying nature of reality. In fact, I see modern technological culture as an extended “bubble” that will someday burst.

Quality of life and life expectancy are not mere appearances. I don’t know of anyone who is in danger of starvation nor exposure. (For better or worse.) These are significant changes to our view and existence.

I acknowledge that the “human condition” has not changed, that our million year monkey brains are still designed for the forest and savannas. But to not acknowledge the changes that technology has provided does your argument a disservice.

Honor is not the opinion people have of particular qualities which a man may happen to possess exclusively: it is rather the opinion they have of qualities which a man may be expected to exhibit, and to which he should not prove false. Honor, therefore, means that a man is not exceptional; fame, that he is. Fame is something which must be won; honor, only something that must not be lost. The absence of fame is obscurity…but the loss of honor is shame.” (Welsh, What is Honor?, p. 2)

That is an interesting statement that is literal in the context of Germanic society. Every man in heathen society had a value placed on him, even thralls had a value to be paid to their owner, and each man had obligations and duties legally prescribed to him. This was a man’s honor, his value and worth. On the other hand, fame is the judgment of the people that an individual is better than others of his status and role. Beowulf was a man of honor, but so was Unferth. The only reason we know of Unferth is because of the role he played, when Beowulf was establishing his fame. Honor is your place among the people; fame is what sets you apart from the rest. Hávamál incites us to be exceptional amongst men, not to just be honored. Renown and fame, reputation, the good judgment of our folk; these are the things that give us immortality. No man is so wretched that he is without joy, but fame will never die. Sanctions are just attempts to control behavior, they change with roles, status, groups, cultures, and time periods. Focusing on the which sanctions are more prevalent tends to ignore the truly important things, what is actually expected of a person in a particular position.

…the conesquences of failure, bad behavior, and the like (loss of prestige/status, shunning, banishment, outlawry, death, and so on), it’s slowly becoming my opinion that ‘shame/guilt’ are only part of a wider body of actions, based on a different theme altogether.

I’m rambling; I’ll stop. But I’m curious to know your thoughts on the matter.

Next…

Frankly, I think that one of the problems of humans and human groups generally is the tendency to label as a means of distinction. “Shame-based society” is about as descriptive of a heathen community as, say, “we are our deeds.” Both have become buzz-phrases lately, which irks me in that neither are wholly right, nor should be wholly applied, to “all of” modern heathenry.

Your essay resonates with me in that it captures preciely my skepticism not only of the buzz-phrase (“Heathens are a shame-based community”) itself but of its relevance in general. Travis touches on this, too, in his reply. I’m still working through my own research and thoughts on the matter, but I tend to see us as more focused on “reputation” than “shame/guilt.” The knowledge that it is very easy to lose status and prestige drives us to make reparations, because in that way we maintain our reputations. We work, and act, as we do because we value our reputation, and weigh it against/in favor of the community at large. It’s a subtle distinction to make, but given that the so-called “warrior cultures” in general focus on the struggle to achieve, achievement, and the conse