In the apparent world (the limited fraction of it known by humans at any rate) I can't say I've encountered such a creature. In the otherworlds, I can't say I've encountered such a creature either. Then again, I also haven't exactly gone out of my way to make that happen.
That said, I'm not well-studied in fae lore. I know enough about it to know that it is a great deal more complicated than the literalistic "tiny creature with wings" angle you probably ask about. It's something I really should try to dive into someday, but there are so many bad resources on the topic it would be difficult to determine where to start. A professional folklorist would do a far better job than I could.
I can see you're having a bit of difficulty.
With what you know of fairies, especially the
Tooth Fairy, which is what we're talking about, do you think this creature exists? What I mean by exist, is that it's an actual entity that goes out and collects children's teeth, then exchanges them for money.
If you want to use a different version of the
Tooth Fairly, you may.
As a suggestion, you can take a couple of approaches here. You could say,
I don't believe they exist.
I'm unsure if they exist, but it's possible
They do exist!
If you want to say they come from otherworlds(whatever that means), would you mind explaining what this otherword is you're talking about and how do you know about it?
It is? I'm not sure how that works. The moment we acknowledge something is real, that opens up opportunities for study while denying something is real does precisely the opposite. That which is "not real" cannot be experienced, studied, or known in any way as I see it. It is unworthy of any time or investment, much less a considered examination of relationships. That which is real to us is worthy of learning about and examining. We get to explore what we can know about it and how we relate to it, as well as how it relates to other things. "Not real" precludes all of that. People ignore and dismiss the importance of what they call "not real." Worse, they might mock it as a waste of time or something to get rid of (which is ironic considering they claim it isn't real).
This is what I'm trying to get at. For instance, Game of Throne's characters exist in books, in minds, even in the cool series and other entertainment venues. You can even go meet the actors and touch the props! Yay!
However, as far as I'm aware, you can't actually visit Westeros the same way you can visit China, lol , as much as I'd like to
So, tell me, how can we study your deities outside of literature or perhaps you think we can study Westeros since it's real? What I'm trying to say is that you can study phenomena regards if you think it's real or not because it's directly in your face.
If you want to study botany, you can examine plants regardless how real they feel. If you want to study geography, oh look at this nice rock!
I'm only trying to figure out how you use logical inference.
don't draw a line when I do not have a "not real" category. As mentioned, I ask in what way something is real. How is this thing experienced and known? Is it an idea? Is it a story? Is it a physical thing or object? Is it an emotion? Is it something someone believes? How does it impact other aspects of reality? How does it relate to other things?
Perhaps we can use the word exist instead, but I feel like we'll run into the same dilemma.
I aim to listen to other people's experiences. I am not interested in "the truth" or what is "really real" or some such nonsense
It seems like hypocrisy here, What if their experience delves into real and not real, exist and not exist. Are you then listening to these people?
We're humans. I hardly believe we can know such things anyway. I'd rather explore the stories people tell themselves about the world and how that impacts their view of it. Whether or not I agree that such tales "really happened" is irrelevant to me.
I'm sorry, but I'm starting to notice either confusion or intellectual dishonesty. What if some stranger told you that unless you gave them EVERYTHING you had, you'd lose your soul and you had to do it anyway because he sees the future. Would you do what he asked? I'm pretty sure this is relevant to you, but it seems like you want to stay neutral at all costs even at the cost of intellectual honesty. However, I have a feeling you do differentiate, because you're lucid, well thought out and objective. It's people who have psychosis that cannot tell what's going on in their mind and around them. They have difficult discerning reality from fantasy and subsequently it makes them vulnerable.
My gods are just the various aspects of reality. When I've made comments about worshiping the ground you walk on, I'm actually not being flippant about that (okay, maybe a little bit flippant). I literally worship the ground - the earth - along with the sea, the sky, and all the organisms on this planet. It also includes intangible things, like learning or creativity. I get to know the gods largely through direct experience, but I draw heavily on the sciences because they're kind of my thing. If you want to learn about Storm, for example, study meteorology.
I get you want to give thanks or worship grass, sure. What I don't get is why you call it god. Why not just say you worship the sea?
I do this in part out of need. What sucks about being Pagan in a classical monotheist (or atheist) morass is you are unrooted. I have no native Pagan culture I can draw from to learn the collected lore of the gods of generations upon generations. It is probably why most Pagans in this country operate from European pantheons. There is something to work with there, even if it has been corrupted or is limited. I have to keep my sources of inspiration open, as I have no native culture to teach me.
Which is really, really depressing every time I think deeply about it.
I'm sorry to hear that
