©2022 Michael Raven
I recall now why I was hesitant to dig into the ogham any deeper. Although the system has strengths relative to runes, it has far less documentation with fewer scholarly sources of information.
In effect, I need to basically start from scratch and yet be mindful that my approach would be more even personal interpretation than the runes, rather than based on cited interpretation of folks much smarter than me. Disclaimers will be essential if I delve into ogham because, while I always endeavor to base my observations on previously established consensus, there just don’t seem to be all that reliable of a consensus. Too much is agreement with Robert Graves, who didn’t have any scholarship invested in the matter, or based on others, who may have some scholarship invested, but appear to make claims about the interpretations without any supporting basis (at least documented in their books). While I am quite alright with unverified personal gnosis (UPG) as a basis for understanding, failing to acknowledge that your interpretation is based on personal or unverified understanding is troublesome in my opinion, especially when you portray the understanding as something supported by more than UPG — which is why I make an effort to put disclaimers on my personal studies posted here to that effect.
But, as I am rearranging the parlor inside my head for these kinds of things, I am wanting to include ogham as part of that, as they seem to be a potential key to deeper understandings. So, I would expect that you’ll see me returning to that area of study soon, albeit at a much slower pace than I approached runes, as I try to get to the source understanding for each character, rather than relying on larger scholastic sources (which I have found to be, as I do with much of the material out there about old ways, lacking).
sceadugenga 