+++Well, if you think that I think that coming into this particular philosophy venue means it’s someone’s job to persuade me to think a certain way about things like ghosts, you really do not understand my point at all. Instead, my point is that in regard to human ghosts, you have your experiences and others have theirs. And only by coming together and sharing what experiences we do have is it likely that our understanding of their existence [or lack thereof] will be enhanced.
And that this is of particular importance to me because “here and now” I believe that death = oblivion. So, to the extent that others can demonstrate to the world that human ghosts do in fact exist, they’ve got my rapt attention.+++
I’m inclined to think that ghosts are unlikely to be the spirits of humans who have passed on, though I suppose some might be. For a start off, I’ve heard stories of ghosts of people who are still alive. This seems a lot more like astral projection. But most ghosts, I would say, are more likely to be something akin to nature spirits, or spirits of place. This would tie into folklore about other non-corporeal or magical creatures.
+++Whether it is a profound insight or not, how can it not trouble someone convinced that they are a Pagan only because they just happened existentially not to have not become one and that, since there is no way for them to demonstrate that Paganism is the most reasonable frame of mind for becoming a “moral person”, any new experience, relationship or access to information and knowledge could knock them right off this particular path altogether. And, instead, they find themselves on one of the zillions of other paths there are to choose from when taking on the task of being a “moral person”.+++
I don’t believe that Paganism is the most reasonable frame of mind for becoming a moral person. It all depends on the individual, and indeed, it also depends on where that individual happens to be on their path. One can be moral without being a Pagan, and vice versa. This doesn’t trouble me in the slightest, because it just seems perfectly natural.
+++Again, to speak of moral perfection at all suggests the gap between us here. You are who you are basically because the life that you lived could not have resulted in you being other than you are. Though you agree that had any number of variables in your past been different you might be here arguing as I do and not as a Pagan.
For me it’s the manner in which, from my frame of mind, you fail to grasp just how precarious and problematic “I” is in the is/ought world that reflects the greatest challenge for me. Is it possible that I might succeed in making you understand it? Or, instead, will you succeed in making me understand that, in regard to moral and spiritual value judgments, I am the one unable to “see the light”. If not yours than another’s.+++
It’s no more precarious and problematic than anything else in the world. I fully understand what you’re saying, I just happen to disagree.
+++So, that’s your answer and you’re sticking to it?
Seriously, though, while I suspect I am unlikely to change your mind, I’m not altogether convinced of it. And, ironically enough [again, from my own subjective perspective], it is because I do have such respect for your intelligence. And ultimately your curiosity about these things. It’s just a matter of convincing you that Paganism is but one of hundreds and hundreds of moral and spiritual fonts “out there”, all convinced that on their path one truly can become a “moral person”.
Also, a miracle might happen and we actually do end up becoming “virtual friends”.+++
You don’t need to convince me that Paganism is only one of countless moral and spiritual systems out there because I already know it. And indeed, have said it often enough, namely, that everyone has their own path.
+++No, for me, the most sensible option of all is that, in regard to nature and nurture, as with in regard to Paganism and moral nihilism, we accept the staggering gap between what we think we believe about them and all that must be known about them in order to know for sure what to believe about them. Rummy’s Rule in other words. In the interim, all we have is our more or less educated wild ass guesses.
I know, I know: Let’s not go there.+++
Indeed.
+++You agree, but our understanding of the “for all practical purposes” implications of that in regard to becoming a “moral person” are very different. Paganism has come to “seem right” to you but from my frame of mind only because you didn’t live the sort of life whereby it would not “seem right” to you at all. You might have lived a life that predisposed you to think it is ridiculous.
But [it seems to me] you’re okay with that.+++
Yes, I’m very much ok with that.
+++Yes, I understand this distinction and it is a very important one. And I am truly happy that you do live a happy life. And that comes through loud and clear here in many of your posts. You are comfortable in your own skin as few of us are.
But I am curious about one thing.
In your exchanges over at Know Thyself, I recall a discussion that revolved around your interactions with others who have “disabilities”. How, for example, if I am remembering this correctly, you would prefer a romantic relationship what someone who was not “disabled”. And in our own exchanges, I sensed that you were more comfortable interacting with others who were not blind. And that in fact most of your relationships are with sighted people.
Is that something you would feel comfortable discussing? Or am I completely wrong in my understanding of this?+++
Yes, that’s right, I would not consider dating anyone who’s blind, or who had some other disability. And yes, it’s also true that all my close friendships are with sighted people too. With only a small number of exceptions, I’ve had little personal interaction with the blind community since leaving school. I find its insularity and petty political bickering completely stultifying.
+++To be perfectly honest, I have actually come to take advantage of it all.
In other words, all my life I have surrounded by people: a large extended family, gang members, friends I met working in the shipyards and steel mills, friends from the church, army buddies, a zillion relationships in college, getting married, interacting with my daughter and all her friends, countless interactions with men and women as a political activists. But now in my imploded interactions with almost no one, it has given me the sort of time I need to dive deep down into philosophy and music and films and books. I live alone and while it can be painful not having others around to share my life with, I am now in a situation where I only choose to do what I and I alone want to do. And it’s a trade off that I have come not only to accept but to relish.+++
As long as you’re happy, or find it fulfilling, then that’s fine. I live alone too, but that’s where the similarity ends, since, as you know, I’m a pretty active sort of person, both at work and in my social life.
+++Well, all I can really go by is the reactions that others have to me here. My own interpretation of them. That’s honestly and introspectively the way it seems to me.
Only if you were down in a similar hole yourself, might you be less inclined to think like that. Your own hole might not be the same as mine, but when you’re in a philosophical hole like mine, it can be particular unnerving. Also, given my win/win scenario, there’s the other side of the coin: that someone might actually succeed in helping me to extricate myself from it.+++
I would always try to drag myself out of any such hole, without hoping that someone else might do it for me.
+++Okay, but I suspect there are few who root it in philosophy itself. For many it revolves more around circumstances. Their own life is in the toilet and they see no other option but to flush. It’s the combination of being “fractured and fragmented” on this side of the grave and being eyeball to eyeball with oblivion re the other side that I see separating me from others.
But “here and now” nihilism brings me not despair but options. Options that those who anchor their Self to one or another font often don’t have.+++
Can you give me an example of any such options?
+++Fear of punishment and anticipation of rewards.
Let’s face it, millions and millions and millions around the globe do link their fate on the other side to their behaviors on this side. After all, for all practical purposes, what else is there?+++
What else is there in what context?
+++Am I demanding that they do? Yeah, it might be construed by some this way. But mostly what I’m after are those who recognize that just believing in the afterlife is no where near the same as demonstrating that it does in fact exist. And that, in a philosophy forum, providing evidence for something that you do believe is far more important than a discussion about among family and friends at the dinner table or around the campfire or at the local bar/pub.+++
While I accept your point that we’re on a philosophy forum and not down the pub, I’m far more interested in the sort of philosophy that deals with how we percieve the world around us and interact with it.
+++I’m talking about a community of Pagans. Any community in whatever demographic configuration it might take. How can each member be on their own path, come to their own moral convictions, have those convictions clash and still create the least dysfunctional community. If the person who runs it decides what the codes of morality are then his or her path would ever and always take priority. And how is that different from might makes right?+++
I can’t think of an instance where a small group of Pagans would regularly hang around together over an extended period if they were not members of some sort of organised group. I suppose they could be regulars at a moot, but even in that case, the moot will have a leader. Within groups, it is indeed very much the leader who decides on the codes of conduct. I know of examples where some groups have attempted a more democratic type of structure, but these almost always fail, because no one takes responsibility.
+++Let me add this…
The thing I least understand about Paganism and morality is how Pagans connect the dots between their experiences “out in nature, with nature, through nature” and moral convictions themselves.
How in particular does nature through the Goddess convey this to you?+++
The simple answer to this is that it doesn’t. Morality is a personal thing, and nature does not directly influence it.
+++Most Pagans can see nature. You cannot. But in in other respects your other senses might be enhanced. So you hear nature, smell, nature, touch nature…feel nature’s “energy” rise up and become a part of you.
But how does this then configure into to your thinking about the moral issues that impale the human species?+++
It doesn’t, at least not directly. Through experiencing nature, I know that all life is connected, which is probably as close as it comes to influencing my thoughts on matters of morality. Nothing specific, in other words.
You’re right to say, of course, that being blind has caused me to experience nature, as indeed everything, in different ways to most people. Which is one of the many reasons, incidentally, why I wouldn’t change it.
+++When I went out into nature a few months ago and tried to experience it more deeply that’s what kept coming back to me. I’m sitting there focusing my senses on the woods around me and I kept wondering how this can possibly impact on my moral narrative. Especially given my own conclusion that nature itself seems utterly amoral in regard to us.
True, my own attempt here was shallow. I barely gave it a chance. But how do your own exercises and rituals out in nature translate into a moral experience?+++
My exercises and rituals are not moral experiences. Their purpose is primarily about communing with nature, and they have no direct bearing on my moral stances on any issue, or my morality in general. I do not become a more moral person by doing these rituals.
I must point out though that I’m only talking about my own experiences here. Other Pagans will have different opinions on the matter. And while Paganism as a whole has no moral stance on anything, certain traditions within it do. Wicca, for example, has something called the three fold law, which states that whatever you do, good or bad, will come back to you with three times the force. You’ll find this written about a lot online, ad nauseam in fact, but as a former member of a Wiccan group I can tell you that in practice, they often ignore it. They have another one too, a sort of mantra, which goes, an it harm none do what ye will. Again, in practice, this is often ignored too. But even if it were properly adhered to, it seems pretty selfish and self-indulgent to me. But then, I’m no longer a Wiccan, anyway.