Occasionally I have heard Fediversians talk about reviving #webRings. Web rings had some serious problems. No protocol for inclusion, no sense of how big they are, no anchor text (just click "next" and see what you get)…
What about a #RingWeb? The Ring Web is a web of web rings!
A #WebRing should be a thing. To make the ring a thing, a collection of people (or #Fedi instances) could run some one-liner that does a worse-is-better style synchronization with regard to what defines the ring. That way you know what thing the ring is.
These ring things should be at-a-glance simple, delete themselves on abuse, and super easily reinstantiate with most of the same members.
I think this could be the beginning of a truly #polycentric architecture.
The terms "hard" and "soft" polytheism are relatively new in paganism. Scholars of ancient polytheism started using the terms in the early 2000s to differentiate these large disparities in ancient belief systems that before were lumped together. Naturally, pagans follow academics, and I believe it was Greer from ADF that first popularized the terms in modern paganism.
These words were meant to be a quick summation of how you see the gods, just a general idea. Instead of having to write out a whole essay on how you specifically think of the gods as beings, you could just slap this handy label on it.
They are not meant to be diametrically opposed, and therefore constantly debated.
They are not meant to be an entire identity.
You are not meant to choose either/or, it is a spectrum, and you might only lean one way.
Our labels are just simple, quick ways to connect with others. Because modern polytheists are so widely diverse, we have these little phrases we use to more easily talk to each other, no more than that.
@Cat_LeFey This is why I like the #Polycentric#Polytheism model of Butler, it transcends the soft and hard versions of polytheism and transcends them, to my mind at least.