This is impiety? Did I insult the immortal gods, and will they sentence me to wander the seven seas, as did Ulysses, until I die? I think not—indeed, I think this is how you speak to the gods. I just made direct contact, though it’s not what you think.
To take the latter case first, vulgar English slang holds that “to frig” refers to female masturbation—she “frigged herself”. Wikipedia tells me that Frigg was Odin’s wife—in a whorish way—and is goddess of prophecy and marriage. She is found “in the wetlands”—exactly where a woman’s fingers go when she stimulates herself, “frigs herself”. These are the connections you need to draw—divine madness. Pedants and scholars will object that these two words have different etymologies, but that is not the point (though it can be)—it’s that precisely such unexpected wordplay, Luciferian wordplay, grants access to the gods.
It’s why Aleister Crowley always carried an etymological dictionary with him (just to exploit the possibilities, to break down and reformulate words; grammar, grimoire)—and why he went on about “dis-ease” (to be diseased is to “not be at ease”, i.e. “dis-eased”; and perhaps we could relate that to the god “Dis” too—it’s about your fate). You can always tell when someone has been influenced by Crowley because they’ll talk about “dis-ease”—usually they’re rather smug about it.
So to talk about Frigg in this way is precisely in line with “divine contact” (“That’s what he calls it when she touches herself”). The strict etymology is not always relevant; it’s about unexpected wordplay. The same goes for Tyr’s rune—there it is right before you, a rune; and the roadside rune also helps your tyr(es)—you need Tyr to make your car tyres work and show you where to go. In the same way, Frigg isn’t “Frig(id)” like some dormant wife from the 1950s; she’s warm, by the witchy fire, as you can see from the below illustration in which she “jumps the broomstick” (an alternative to frigging yourself)—it is no impiety, she is a sexy goddess. She can jump my broomstick anytime.
Does this thought process make no sense? Is it irrational and illogical? Is it Baudelaire’s “derangement of the senses”? Not quite—it has a logic; and its logic is that found in Charles Sanders Pierce, American philosopher—it’s abductive logic, not induction or deduction but abduction (to steal you away). Hence, for example, “I heard scratching sounds coming from the ceiling and noticed there were droppings on the floor. I’m pretty sure we have a mice infestation at our house.” Abductive logic relies on inferences from incomplete information based on observations—it’s the logic of intuition, and it’s also how Hitler thought (notorious artistic-intuitive type).
These observations just apply abductive logic in a very broad way, with the unstated assumption being that reality is a series of signs that interrelate to each other and that “everything is connected” (the magical unus mundus)—with that assumption in place, you can contact the gods (and they can contact you) through visual puns and wordplay.
This is why it is often said the Sufis are not what you expect them to be: you might expect a priest of Frigg to be some neo-Druid in a robe and with a long beard and lots of “respectful” and portentous statements about the goddess—but the real priest, the person really in contact with the gods, looks quite other than you would expect; and that works for many religions.
There used to be this English game show called Catchphrase; it worked by visual puns, and the very enthusiastic host used to encourage the contestants with the phrase, “Just say what you see.” This is pretty much how these esoteric ideas and contact with the gods work—say what you see, it’s almost retarded; it’s a road sign that looks like the rune for Tyr—it is just that. Say what you see, it’s that simple.