Perhaps because he doesn’t have a pin-head… so far from being one, in his own eyes… just a thought.
So… to himself he will always be right, in that regard… so not so much ‘confirmation bias’ as ‘confirming a fact’.
Yeah, maybe that’s it.
Okay, but “here and now” it would seem to be this spiritual core that you fall back on in order to “just know” what you do about particular value judgments. And, of course, to the extent to which that is derived existentially from the life you lived, others, in not having lived that life themselves, can never really grasp what you think and feel about these spiritual assessments. While other Pagans, having lived very different lives might assess particular value judgments in ways very much at odds with your own. And, again, in having lived very different lives, there seems to be no way in which to bridge the communication gaps. Thus, from my frame of mind, the spiritual Maia is “for all practical purposes” the equivalent of dasein for me.
And either I will come to access my own spiritual Self, or you will abandon yours in favor of dasein as the likely explanation for your own value judgments. As I noted in our email exchange in regard to dramatic/traumatic changes in our lives.
But if different Pagans can connect to nature in different ways in different contexts such that they come up with conflicting value judgments regarding right and wrong behaviors, how does being connected to nature really make any difference?
That’s true enough. I suppose it really comes down to whether [Pagan or not] you are yourself in the path of Nature when it is at its most destructive. Like the people in Pakistan right now:
“So far, around 1,500 people have died — nearly half of whom are children — and more than 33 million have been displaced from their homes by the floods, which were caused by heavier-than-usual monsoon rains and glacial melt.” NYT
One way or another, if you are one of them, you have to come up with something to explain it all.
It’s true, such conditions as this are often profoundly problematic. But there are in fact any number of other brain afflictions – webmd.com/brain/brain-disea … n-diseases – that can have a powerful impact on how you come to understand your own identity. So, here, for those who feel connected to the universe spiritually, it comes down to how the spirit [or for some the soul] is itself impacted by them.
Again, though, this will often revolve around how close “here and now” one is to his or her own existential death. It’s one thing to ponder the afterlife in a philosophy forum, another thing altogether when the doctor tells you have months, weeks, days, hours to live.
Many Pagans at least have some spiritual sense of death not being the equivalent of oblivion.
+++Okay, but “here and now” it would seem to be this spiritual core that you fall back on in order to “just know” what you do about particular value judgments. And, of course, to the extent to which that is derived existentially from the life you lived, others, in not having lived that life themselves, can never really grasp what you think and feel about these spiritual assessments. While other Pagans, having lived very different lives might assess particular value judgments in ways very much at odds with your own. And, again, in having lived very different lives, there seems to be no way in which to bridge the communication gaps. Thus, from my frame of mind, the spiritual Maia is “for all practical purposes” the equivalent of dasein for me.
And either I will come to access my own spiritual Self, or you will abandon yours in favor of dasein as the likely explanation for your own value judgments. As I noted in our email exchange in regard to dramatic/traumatic changes in our lives.+++
All true. Except the bit where I “just know” what’s right and wrong, because I don’t, in many cases, and have to think about it.
+++But if different Pagans can connect to nature in different ways in different contexts such that they come up with conflicting value judgments regarding right and wrong behaviors, how does being connected to nature really make any difference?+++
In practice, it does make a difference. I know this from being part of the Pagan community for years.
+++That’s true enough. I suppose it really comes down to whether [Pagan or not] you are yourself in the path of Nature when it is at its most destructive. Like the people in Pakistan right now:
“So far, around 1,500 people have died — nearly half of whom are children — and more than 33 million have been displaced from their homes by the floods, which were caused by heavier-than-usual monsoon rains and glacial melt.” NYT
One way or another, if you are one of them, you have to come up with something to explain it all.+++
Yes, I’m sure you’re right.
+++Again, though, this will often revolve around how close “here and now” one is to his or her own existential death. It’s one thing to ponder the afterlife in a philosophy forum, another thing altogether when the doctor tells you have months, weeks, days, hours to live.
Many Pagans at least have some spiritual sense of death not being the equivalent of oblivion.+++
Yes, that’s right, they do. And so have the vast majority of people throughout human history. Those who are sure there’s nothing are very much in a minority.
lol, so good!
Maybe I’m right.
I met a guy who was far from a pinhead…
He was very tall and handsome…
The end.
What is at stake if you (don’t) choose an (alternative) ending?
Weighing pros & cons is not necessarily about opportunism, but reality tesing.
Reality.
reality
real…
REALITY
As it is, the lover of inquiry must follow his beloved wherever it may lead.
Reality is too scary a destination for some. But you have to go through it to get back to it, donchaknow.
No, seriously.
_
Objection, your honour… projection ^^^
MagsJ, you sound hangry. snickers
_
More projecting, from prior experience no doubt… ^^^
I am uncertain… as to why this person follows me around just to tell me about myself, and calls that inquiry. 
I’m sorry, ma’am. You seem to have me confused with someone else.
Begging your pardon. I have to take this call.
ducks into last remaining phone booth in the city
it’s transparent and dirty
No, seriously.
[size=50][as ILP goes down for the count][/size]
And, indeed, if, as I always say, after thinking about it, something works for you and allows you to sustain some measure of comfort and consolation [all the way to the grave perhaps], all the better. And you and I both agree that what is of particular importance to us in our interactions with others is that, to the best of our ability, we ever and always attempt to minimize any pain and suffering we might cause others given the behaviors that we choose.
Here of course I would need to be inside such a community. I would need to observe it. I would need to note how “for all practical purposes” conflicting value judgments are resolved…or at least handled with the least amount of dysfunction. I’ll try to Google it and see what I can find.
Can you provide us with particular examples from your own interactions? Here I always go back to The Wicker Man. A cinematic Pagan community in which conflict resolution wasn’t really necessary because there never seemed to be any conflicts to resolve. Whether in regard to sexuality or to any other social interactions. You have told me that this film is not a realistic portrayal of Pagan communities that you have known. And, yes, in never having been in one myself, what do I know of it.
Edit:
This link might interest you: the-artifice.com/the-wicker-man … -religion/
Okay, but, unfortunately, for me, I’m never really sure that I am actually right about things like this myself.
No doubt about that. But here I always go back to things we are sure of in our head and things we are sure of because we or others are able to demonstrate that in fact all rational men and women are obligated to believe that they are true.
And I’m always open to folks able to demonstrate that in fact there is something – anything – in the way of life after death.
+++And, indeed, if, as I always say, after thinking about it, something works for you and allows you to sustain some measure of comfort and consolation [all the way to the grave perhaps], all the better. And you and I both agree that what is of particular importance to us in our interactions with others is that, to the best of our ability, we ever and always attempt to minimize any pain and suffering we might cause others given the behaviors that we choose.+++
I’m sure I would do that even if I wasn’t a Pagan.
+++Here of course I would need to be inside such a community. I would need to observe it. I would need to note how “for all practical purposes” conflicting value judgments are resolved…or at least handled with the least amount of dysfunction. I’ll try to Google it and see what I can find.
Can you provide us with particular examples from your own interactions? Here I always go back to The Wicker Man. A cinematic Pagan community in which conflict resolution wasn’t really necessary because there never seemed to be any conflicts to resolve. Whether in regard to sexuality or to any other social interactions. You have told me that this film is not a realistic portrayal of Pagan communities that you have known. And, yes, in never having been in one myself, what do I know of it.
Edit:
This link might interest you: the-artifice.com/the-wicker-man … -religion/+++
Thanks for the link, an interesting article. I’ve heard of the film Midsommar so perhaps I should check it out one day. Midsommar, of course, is a very popular festival in Sweden which takes place at, well, midsummer, though as far as I know, human sacrifice tends to be frowned upon these days.
There are some real Pagan communities about, by which I mean settlements, as opposed to the wider Pagan community, which refers to the totality of all Pagans, whether they live in such a settlement or not, and obviously. most don’t. So let me give you an example of dispute resolution, since you asked for one. Firstly, as I’ve often said, Paganism as a whole has no governing body, but individual groups and organisations within it do. Take a moot for example, a regular meeting, usually at a pub, often with talks and the occasional public ritual. Moots are usually set up by one motivated individual, and that person remains in charge. Some of the longer established moots will have a committee, and a succession of leaders over time (this usually involves a lot of arm twisting by the outgoing leader, as it’s truly a thankless task), but the general principle still holds. I’ve been to lots of moots over the years, and a pretty common practice is to employ a drinking horn. If a formal conversation is required, to settle some disagreement for example, the horn will be passed round and whoever is holding it has the right to speak, without interruption. After this, the usual practice is to achieve consensus, or, in one case I remember, consensus minus one, meaning that if only one person disagrees, a consensus is still regarded as having been achieved. The moot leader acts as referee in this process. I’ve never been at any Pagan event, though, when an actual vote was taken on any issue, and I doubt it’s very common at all.
+++No doubt about that. But here I always go back to things we are sure of in our head and things we are sure of because we or others are able to demonstrate that in fact all rational men and women are obligated to believe that they are true.
And I’m always open to folks able to demonstrate that in fact there is something – anything – in the way of life after death.+++
If it were possible to demonstrate such things, they would no doubt have been demonstrated thousands of years ago. Religion, or spirituality, is the province of emotion, rather than logic.
Logic & emotion are not mutually exclusive.
Religion is worldview — everybody’s got one.
Faith is trust. That’s why mind-change is hard & causes dissonance & even madness, if the shift is too … drastic/strange. The madness in that case is FAR from irrational/illogical… it is an appropriate response to the shift.
p.s. There is plenty of evidence of life after death. If you don’t bother to examine it, how can you call yourself a philosopher or scientist or even a thinker or open minded etc. etc. etc.? And if you have examined it… How do you weigh it against your evidence for there being no life after death? …because clearly you’ve taken a position.
Of course, my point is that it’s not what we choose to do so much as why we choose to do one thing rather than another. I root this existentially in dasein, others root it essentially in one or another objectivist font, you root it in a “spiritual self” derived from nature. So, again, sure, whatever works best to comfort and console any of us in a world that, at times, does its best to make us miserable as hell. And whatever causes the least pain and suffering for others.
Thanks. That’s exactly the sort of description that brings me closer to understanding how “for all practical purposes” such things unfold in moot.
It’s sort of akin to the interactions practiced in those communities that sustain “democracy and the rule of law”. Only in these larger communities “political economy” is also of crucial importance. Those who have the most wealth have the most power. And that basically sustains both economic policy and foreign policy.
So, in a moot, it’s not “might makes might” or “right makes might” that prevails but something more akin to “moderation, negotiation and compromise”.
Though from my frame of mind the opinions of those with the drinking horn are no less the embodiment of dasein.
Can you note specific examples of disagreements that were approached this way? And what the final result [if there is one] was.
Here’s a link that reflects on this: bishopinthegrove.com/how-do- … mmunities/
But it doesn’t really cite particular conflicts. And the conflict in the Episcopal church revolved around a recovering alcoholic clergyman. I’m more interested in “conflicting goods”…in moral conflagrations.
Also, the fact that you are blind…does that ever become a part of your experience with them and their experience with you?
That’s about it, I agree. For now.
+++Thanks. That’s exactly the sort of description that brings me closer to understanding how “for all practical purposes” such things unfold in moot.
It’s sort of akin to the interactions practiced in those communities that sustain “democracy and the rule of law”. Only in these larger communities “political economy” is also of crucial importance. Those who have the most wealth have the most power. And that basically sustains both economic policy and foreign policy.
So, in a moot, it’s not “might makes might” or “right makes might” that prevails but something more akin to “moderation, negotiation and compromise”.
Though from my frame of mind the opinions of those with the drinking horn are no less the embodiment of dasein.
Can you note specific examples of disagreements that were approached this way? And what the final result [if there is one] was.
Here’s a link that reflects on this: bishopinthegrove.com/how-do- … mmunities/
This situation at St. George’s could have just as easily happened within a Pagan organization. I imagine that something like this may have happened in the groves, covens or organized groups to which some of you belong.
When we’re faced with this kind of situation, especially one that has yet to be completely resolved, we have good cause to refrain from snap judgement, and to hold space. “Holding space” may be a useful way for Pagans to practice discernment, for by holding space I mean waiting, listening, keeping in kind thoughts all the parties involved.
Our partisanship does not always contribute to the resolution of political conflicts. It often exacerbates it. The quick creation of an “Us v.s. Them” mentality makes it very difficult to consider all of the information with a clear head and without bias.
But it doesn’t really cite particular conflicts. And the conflict in the Episcopal church revolved around a recovering alcoholic clergyman. I’m more interested in “conflicting goods”…in moral conflagrations.+++
Here’s a good example. Some years ago I was at a large Pagan camp. Really late on the first night, well after midnight, three (I think) girls turned up at the main entrance, aged about 14 or 15, without tickets, having come a couple of hundred miles. They had heard about the camp at the last minute and decided to come. Camps like this always have a strict policy of having no unaccompanied minors, and some even ban children altogether. The organisers therefore had a pretty big dilemma about what to do. Phone the police, for example? Try and contact their parents, or what? So we had a discussion, and the consensus was that we clearly couldn’t turf them out at that time of night, so we allowed them to stay. Someone gave them the use of their tent for the night, and we gave them food. The next day someone phoned their parents, who gave permission for them to stay. But for that first night, at least, the camp organisers were on very shaky legal ground, but the decision was that this was the least bad option, even though some were initially opposed to this.
+++Also, the fact that you are blind…does that ever become a part of your experience with them and their experience with you?+++
It’s difficult to say with any certainty, since I’ve never known what it’s like not to be blind, but it’s nevertheless obvious when I encounter those people who seem reluctant, or embarrassed, to talk to me for some reason, presumably for fear of saying something wrong, or whatever. There are always people like that in any social gathering.
The least bad option. Better that than someone who gets to decide for the whole group. Or an authoritarian “might makes right”/“right makes might” dogmatic approach.
And there was the law to take into consideration. Making it more clear cut in regard to the consequences.
But the sort of situations that most intrigue me are those that revolve around contexts in which there are greater moral and/or practical consequences…like a member choosing an abortion when other members view that as out of sync with nature. Or behaviors that revolve around guns or sexual preferences or the role of government or social justice issues.
I’m still Googling here in order to explore that sort of thing.
Of course, for me as a sighted person, the first thing that pops into my head is that in being blind, I wouldn’t be able to see how people are reacting to me. I’d just always feel that there might be many things that others are doing around me that I am simply not privy to.
On the other hand, what you can’t see, can’t bother you.
Ah, so that’s what you mean by political economy.
Are you implying Maia’s story wasn’t about a moral decision?
Well… not really.