Pagan morality

[Iwannaplato]

But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

Why are you so fascinated by conflicting goods anyway and why do you want to resolve them?

I believe that's Atla and not me. He won't get a notice you've responded.


From my frame of mind, those like Maia basically embody their very own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism". As I once did myself for many, many years. The main point is not what they believe but that what they believe allows them to sustain one or another comforting and consoling philosophy of life...a rather didactic security banket as it were. And, then, with any luck, they'll take that all the way to the grave.

You seem to think there is some magical change in your behavior because you use phrases like 'from my perspective' before ad homs and insults.

Here we go again, in my view: Stooge Stuff. On the other hand [ever and always it's seemed to me], Stooge Stuff only from my own hopelessly prejudiced moral and political "convictions". In other words, going all the back to when I was an objectivist myself. And, as such, construed to be a Stooge by others.

You could explain why psychoanalyzing Maia isn't Stooge stuff here, but for some reason you opt not to. It has seemed like Stooge stuff, for you, is when people focus on you, rather than the topic. But you focused on pagans in general and Maia in specific, 'explaining' in a condescending way her psychology, as you see it. I don't understand why you think it is alright to set in motion Stooge stuff, but then criticize it as Stooge Stuff when it is aimed at you.

It's just that a few years ago, I basically abandoned [almost altogether] polemics, "huffing and puffing" and provocative exchanges.

Well, it seems to me preemptively psychoanalyzing someone is provocative.

So, given all of these "failures to communicate" among us [and among philosophers down through the ages], what other option is there but to keep trying to narrow the gaps?

I dunno, apologize to Maia AND try to narrow the gaps. Seems within the range of possibility. More importantly refrain from doing what you seem to consider is Stooge Stuff in the future.

Objectivists can't support their claims or haven't so far to his satisfaction, but he seems to consider his assertions in no need of justification at all.

From my own frame of mind, this is nothing short of ludicrous. In fact, it's something I would expect from one of the pinheads here. While still emphasizing, however, that it is no less a hopelessly subjective "personal opinion" as well.

Over and over again, above and elsewhere, I attempt to justify my own understanding of moral nihilism given the "rooted existentially in dasein" arguments I sustain in my signature threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

You have certainly justified many claims. But if someone says, hey that text is not about what you are claiming it was about. You do not justify your interpretation, you simply respond at a meta level about how someone is saying your interpretation is wrong, perhaps adding that this is some kind of domination move. You don't for example, quote a part of what you responded to and say 'Well, here the writer is clearly saying X and that is what.....' or the like.

I did not inten my criticism to mean that you never ever justify. This was in relation to the way you use quotes, and repeatedly. You quote things, from my perspective, from other writers and also posters here, then do not respond to what they wrote. And the responses are generally repetitions of things you have said hundreds of times.


Iambiguous to Maia:

I think: given how intelligent and articulate and astute I think you are, maybe, just maybe -- given my win/win mentality -- you might be the one enabling me to yank myself up out of the ghastly philosophical hole I've slipped down into over the years.

So, in a thread that mocks her beliefs in a general way [see early posts in this thread] and where you psychoanalyze condescendingly her beliefs functioning both as passive aggressive insult and ad hom, we get a 'please rescue me from my suffering' finale. She might be the only one that can help him out of his problems.

I have never mocked Maia. Although, sure, even here "I" can be no less "fractured and fragmented". But if it is crucial for him to construe my exchanges with her as mocking, so be it. Next, however, he'll be accusing me of treating her as just another...Stooge?

Perhaps mocked was too strong, but you were certainly condescending. And I made it clear which portions of your text were condescending. At the very least the irony of aiming ad homs and psychoanalyzing the reasons for her belief in a condescending way came before your request above, which includes compliments, for a rescue from your pain, is something you don't seem to notice. At worst it's an old pattern men use in relation to women to (try to) keep them in their place.

[iambiguous]

Some years ago I recommended The Wicker Man to him, primarily because of the beautiful folk music in it written by Paul Giovanni, and also because of its hilarious parody of Paganism (not to mention Christopher Lee's voice). But since then he seems fixated on using it as an example of what a real Pagan community might be like, even though, on some level, he also seems to know full well that it's fiction. It's difficult to know how to respond to that other than continually trying to explain how real Pagan communities work, and there's only so many times I can do that before losing the will to live.

Another take on it: https://wildhunt.org/2023/10/classics-o ... ilm%20that

And that's all it really can be, from my frame of mind: one particular individual's reaction [rooted existentially in dasein] to one particular film about Pagans. Though I'm sure there are any number of Pagans who will insist this has nothing at all to do with dasein. Their own understanding of it actually does encompass the human condition...objectively? spiritually? naturally?

In other words, just because Maia sees it as a parody of Paganism doesn't make it a parody of Paganism. Though here of course as with iwannaplato the argument seems to be that yet again I am simply unable to interpret someone...correctly?

Then the part where a Pagan community is composed only of people who get together a few times a year but then otherwise go back to lives that might be very different?

What then in terms of behaviors within a community [Pagan or otherwise] that revolve around historucal and cultural prescriptions and proscriptions?

As for who recommended The Wicker Man to whom in our exchanges, what I recall instead is going to the film after Maia had noted that, through the Goddess, she had committed herself to [as I recall] 6 years of sexual abstenance. In The Wicker Man however I would imagine that frame of mind to be almost unimaginable. Sex is clearly natural to them and abstaining from it is anything but.

Though, yeah, I might be remembering it wrong. I have just always associated Pagans with Dionysus rather than Apollo. That scene in The Doors, for example:

Patricia: Have you ever tried drinking blood?
Jim [taken aback]: What?!
It works you know. You drink blood the right time of the moon... they used to dance in the forests naked. I think that's what offended the Puritans and led to the Burnings. They were a sexual threat to their male order like the Bacchae -- five days a year for Dionysus, they used to wander the hills in ancient Greece, the first witches, clans of wild women fucking, looting, eating animals raw, the wine in their blood running hot -- looking for Dionysus... to tear him to pieces -- isn't that wild?

But then...

Jim: Look, Patricia. I got this trial that's hanging on me and I can't afford the responsibility.
Patricia: You're a coward! It's a little boy! The only way you can afford it is emotionally. Those vows are forever in the Goddess' sight. Death does not part, only lack of love.

But then most importantly [to me] the part where Maia seems to argue that each member of a particular community of Pagans can acquire their own particular -- private? -- relationship with Pagan Gods and Goddesses. With Nature. But: these personal relationships will inevitably come into conflict. Then what? If each individual Pagan has his or her own thing in regard to abortion, nihilism and sexuality, how is it decided which "thing" is the most rational or virtuous?

How about this...

https://www.umass.edu/rso/spirals/Site/ ... principles.

...as the "absolute basics" of Paganism?

[Maia]

+++Yes, and over and again I wasn't satisfied with your answers. Anymore, no doubt, then you were satisfied with mine. I speculate however that you are missing my points because you don't want to believe they may be applicable to you. Whereas if you are able to convince me that I too am in possession of an intrinsic/intuitive Self [and it can be any "Ism" at all, not just Paganism] then up out of the hole I may actually be able to clamber+++

I think you may be confusing not agreeing with your points with not understanding them. As for you clambering up out of your hole, you can do that any time that you wish, but no one else can do it for you. That, at least, is what I think, based on my own experience, but I might be wrong, of course.

+++Which, if I understood you correctly, is not at all your own intention here. You seem to have moral convictions that you embody "here and now", but you're not arguing in turn that others should think or feel or behave like you do because how you think, feel and behave really is the only One True Path. I recall how we both seemed to embrace the conviction that doing the least harm to others is of most importance. It's just that I am no less fractured and fragmented here as well.+++

I'm very much of the opinion that everyone has their own path, and this path can take as many twists and turns as it needs.

+++Again, existentially, is this another example of a "failure to communicate" gap between what I had intended to convey to you and how, instead, you interpreted my intentions otherwise?+++

I wasn't being wholly serious.

+++So, I suggested that you go about living your life on your own terms until, perhaps, you do stumble into a set of circumstances that actually does challenge your sense of reality in profound ways. Like, for me, before and after Song Be. Or before and after William Barrett. Or before and after Mary and John. Or before and after Supannika.+++

Who knows what might happen?

+++Another take on it: https://wildhunt.org/2023/10/classics-o ... ilm%20that

And that's all it really can be, from my frame of mind: one particular individual's reaction [rooted existentially in dasein] to one particular film about Pagans. Though I'm sure there are any number of Pagans who will insist this has nothing at all to do with dasein. Their own understanding of it actually does encompass the human condition...objectively? spiritually? naturally?+++

The book mentioned in that article, Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton, is one that I would heartily recommend to anyone who wants to know what the modern Pagan movement is like and how it came about. I met him once, incidentally, at a festival, and had a very brief chat.

+++Then the part where a Pagan community is composed only of people who get together a few times a year but then otherwise go back to lives that might be very different?+++

Some Pagans don't even bother meeting up with other Pagans at all, or very rarely. It's been quite a while since I've been to any events.

+++As for who recommended The Wicker Man to whom in our exchanges, what I recall instead is going to the film after Maia had noted that, through the Goddess, she had committed herself to [as I recall] 6 years of sexual abstenance. In The Wicker Man however I would imagine that frame of mind to be almost unimaginable. Sex is clearly natural to them and abstaining from it is anything but.+++

Indeed, in The Wicker Man that frame of mind would certainly be unimaginable.

You may also recall my reasons for committing myself in that way, namely, having been hurt very badly by someone who I thought loved me. It turned out he just thought I'd be an easy target, being blind and all. After that, I wanted the time and space to concentrate on other things in life. I was also moving into my own flat around the same time, and doing a whole load of other things.

+++But then most importantly [to me] the part where Maia seems to argue that each member of a particular community of Pagans can acquire their own particular -- private? -- relationship with Pagan Gods and Goddesses. With Nature. But: these personal relationships will inevitably come into conflict. Then what? If each individual Pagan has his or her own thing in regard to abortion, nihilism and sexuality, how is it decided which "thing" is the most rational or virtuous?+++

This is what you keep asking about, even though I've answered it many times. I'll try, once again, to do so as clearly and succinctly as possible. Any differences of opinion within a particular Pagan group, such as a coven, or grove (a Druid group), or a moot (a more informal regular meeting), are ultimately, if they can't be resolved by discussion, resolved by the leader of that group making the final decision. The dissenting member will either accept that, or choose to leave and find a more compatible group, or, perhaps, set one up, or just go it alone.

+++How about this...

https://www.umass.edu/rso/spirals/Site/ ... principles.

...as the "absolute basics" of Paganism?+++

Well, as the old joke goes, whenever two or three Pagans are gathered together, there will be at least half a dozen different opinions on what Paganism is all about.

[Atla]

Why are you so fascinated by conflicting goods anyway and why do you want to resolve them?

From my frame of mind [here and now of course], our world is awash in human pain and suffering. Decade after decade, century after century, millennium after millennium. But not so much because people are fascinated by conflicting goods [that's what God and religion are for], as because others are far more fascinated with imposing their own "rules of behavior" on others in order that the community truly does become -- in their heads -- the best of all possible worlds.

I find that throughout history, most leaders cared little about the community and little to nothing about creating the best of all possible worlds. Instead most of them just wanted to acquire power and keep power.

[iambiguous]

You seem to think there is some magical change in your behavior because you use phrases like 'from my perspective' before ad homs and insults.

Here we go again, in my view: Stooge Stuff. On the other hand [ever and always it's seemed to me], Stooge Stuff only from my own hopelessly prejudiced moral and political "convictions". In other words, going all the back to when I was an objectivist myself. And, as such, construed to be a Stooge by others.

You could explain why psychoanalyzing Maia isn't Stooge stuff here, but for some reason you opt not to.

That's because when moral philosophies come into conflict in places like this, who is to say when another becomes a Stooge? On the other hand, I've noted a number of times that my own understanding of it is largely subjective, subjunctive. In other words, as often as not, precariously problematic.

Though, sure, if you have comvinced yourself that this...

It has seemed like Stooge stuff, for you, is when people focus on you, rather than the topic. But you focused on pagans in general and Maia in specific, 'explaining' in a condescending way her psychology, as you see it. I don't understand why you think it is alright to set in motion Stooge stuff, but then criticize it as Stooge Stuff when it is aimed at you.

...is a more reasonable reflection of what I do here, then -- click -- I'm certainly not arguing that it's not. Yeah, okay, it might be.

Then back to where this is explored more substantively given particular contexts.

It's just that a few years ago, I basically abandoned [almost altogether] polemics, "huffing and puffing" and provocative exchanges.

Well, it seems to me preemptively psychoanalyzing someone is provocative.

I have no idea what you are trying to convey here. And I am often confused regarding where human psychology states end and moral philosophy begins. And then that convoluted intertwining of genes and memes ever evolving and changing in what may or may not be a meaningless and purposeless universe.

So, given all of these "failures to communicate" among us [and among philosophers down through the ages], what other option is there but to keep trying to narrow the gaps?

I dunno, apologize to Maia AND try to narrow the gaps. Seems within the range of possibility. More importantly refrain from doing what you seem to consider is Stooge Stuff in the future.

Or, perhaps, I really am closer to encompassing meaning and morality...and in what does turn out to be a No God universe. In the interim, my assessment of Stoogery still makes sense to "me". Of course, what makes sense to me in regard to value judgments [mine or hers] is confronted with just how "fractured and fragmented" my thoughts and feeling are about these things.

Objectivists can't support their claims or haven't so far to his satisfaction, but he seems to consider his assertions in no need of justification at all.

From my own frame of mind, this is nothing short of ludicrous. In fact, it's something I would expect from one of the pinheads here. While still emphasizing, however, that it is no less a hopelessly subjective "personal opinion" as well.

Over and over again, above and elsewhere, I attempt to justify my own understanding of moral nihilism given the "rooted existentially in dasein" arguments I sustain in my signature threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

Then back to this part...

You have certainly justified many claims. But if someone says, hey that text is not about what you are claiming it was about. You do not justify your interpretation, you simply respond at a meta level about how someone is saying your interpretation is wrong, perhaps adding that this is some kind of domination move. You don't for example, quote a part of what you responded to and say 'Well, here the writer is clearly saying X and that is what.....' or the like.

I did not inten my criticism to mean that you never ever justify. This was in relation to the way you use quotes, and repeatedly. You quote things, from my perspective, from other writers and also posters here, then do not respond to what they wrote. And the responses are generally repetitions of things you have said hundreds of times.

I'm sorry, but this is not how I construe myself here. Sure, you may be entirely correct regarding my understanding of this or that article or post, but if there is one thing I have concluded regarding exchanges pertaining to meaning and morality, is that when some insist I fail to understand something, what they really mean is that I don't understand it as they do.

As for the "groots" [as zinnat13 called them over at ILP], I'm likely to keep on posting them. Why? Because they encompass what I construe to be reasonable thinking in regard to conflicting goods. After all, why on earth would I struggle to reword points I believe "here and now" when I'm still convinced I've encompassed them here in what "I" deem to be the least fractured and fragmented assessment.

Besides, there are always new people signing up. And some of them might be less befuddled by my thinking than others are. Also, sometimes you have to hear another's argument over and over again until it begins to sink in. Or sometimes you don't understand what another is attempting to convey, and then you have that Again, however, I suspect that any number of moral objectivists rebuff my truly bleak philosophical assessment of being drawn and quartered...but a part of them knows that the gist of my grim contributions here may well be sinking in.

"Uh oh, what if he actually is being reasonable here regarding identity, morality, conflicting goods and political economy in a No God world? What if my life is essentially meaningless and purposeless? What if my moral conviction are
just a result of being indoctrinated as a child or rooted subjectively in "contingency, chance and change?"

It's just that for some of them the stakes could not possibly be higher. In other words, those objectivists able to convince themselves in turn that if they always Do The Right Thing on this side of the grave, they will be rewarded with immortality and salvation on the other side.

I think: given how intelligent and articulate and astute I think you are, maybe, just maybe -- given my win/win mentality -- you might be the one enabling me to yank myself up out of the ghastly philosophical hole I've slipped down into over the years.

So, in a thread that mocks her beliefs in a general way [see early posts in this thread] and where you psychoanalyze condescendingly her beliefs functioning both as passive aggressive insult and ad hom, we get a 'please rescue me from my suffering' finale. She might be the only one that can help him out of his problems.

I have never mocked Maia. Although, sure, even here "I" can be no less "fractured and fragmented". But if it is crucial for him to construe my exchanges with her as mocking, so be it. Next, however, he'll be accusing me of treating her as just another...Stooge?

Perhaps mocked was too strong, but you were certainly condescending. And I made it clear which portions of your text were condescending.

Well, try once more to make it clear to me. What portions?

[Iwannaplato]

You seem to think there is some magical change in your behavior because you use phrases like 'from my perspective' before ad homs and insults.

Here we go again, in my view: Stooge Stuff. On the other hand [ever and always it's seemed to me], Stooge Stuff only from my own hopelessly prejudiced moral and political "convictions". In other words, going all the back to when I was an objectivist myself. And, as such, construed to be a Stooge by others.

You could explain why psychoanalyzing Maia isn't Stooge stuff here, but for some reason you opt not to.

That's because when moral philosophies come into conflict in places like this, who is to say when another becomes a Stooge?

'That's'? What is the 'that' in 'that's referring to?

Then, On the other hand, I've noted a number of times that my own understanding of it is largely subjective, subjunctive. In other words, as often as not, precariously problematic.

None of which precludes explaining how you justify, in your largely subjective, as you say, understanding of it. You stay up in the clouds.
It's pretty simple: you have said that your Stooge label has to do with people making you the issue.
I point out that you make other people the issue in your thread, and ask why this is ok to you.

Your response is abstract and does not explain.

For example, you could say, no when I speculate about Maia's psychology, the psychology that supports or necessitates her beliefs, it's not Stooge-like because......

You could explain how in your, yes, subjective moral view, it isn't actually Stooge-like behavior.

Instead of doing this, you speak up in the clouds, abstractly about different subjective positions. It's evasive, for no reason.

Though, sure, if you have comvinced yourself that this...

It has seemed like Stooge stuff, for you, is when people focus on you, rather than the topic. But you focused on pagans in general and Maia in specific, 'explaining' in a condescending way her psychology, as you see it. I don't understand why you think it is alright to set in motion Stooge stuff, but then criticize it as Stooge Stuff when it is aimed at you.

...is a more reasonable reflection of what I do here, then -- click -- I'm certainly not arguing that it's not. Yeah, okay, it might be.

Great. Does it matter to you that you are doing something that leads to negatively labeling other people when they do it? Another way to ask this is, if it is important to you to focus on the psychology and behavior of other people including people posting or who might post in your thread, can you not understand why others, who you negatively label Stooges, might also decide this was important to do?

Because even if conflicting good are entirely subjective, that doesn't mean that people can't via discussion, negotiation, analysis, come closer to each other's positions. It's not impossible for a person to say, you know you're right, I'm doing something that I criticise others for doing. That isn't ruled out by conflicting good being objective, nor is that possibility ruled out by those goods being subjective.

In both those ontologies one can notice that someone is pointing out something valid. As a married person, I can tell you how critical this kind of thing is and can happen around utterly subjective positions, not just weekly but a couple of times a day.

So, when the reaction on your part is - well, you have your interpretations, I have mine, moving on, as if they can never be reconciled in any way, it seems to me it is based on a false assumption that nothing can be worked out. There's no need to look at anything. No point in doing that and in some sense it doesn't matter if you are doing something that you dislike when others do it. Dislike enough to label them negatively.

If subjective positions can never improve their relations, well, then objectivism isn't a problem.

Yes, we can look at all this as subjective. My subjective sense of what I like and dislike in interactions here bumping into yours. But here I am pointing out a bridge over the gap. Perhaps our subjective reactions have more in common than at first seems. It does seem to matter to you when others focus on you. Yet, you focus on others and make them the topic, in this case before Maia even joined the thread.

But the issue seems unimportant to you when it deals with your behavior, but important when it deals with other people's psychology or behavior. Well, here you may have a common interest with the 'Stooges', because it will certainly reduce focus on you if you don't include group aimed freshman in college psycho interpretations of them first. That's inviting a return of the favor. And then at the individual level, if you start focusing on other people, it seems you are betraying your own subjective morality, but further on a practical level, I guarantee it will lead to more Stooge behavior.

If we shift to a related topic, if I or someone else points out that according to our, yes, to some degree subjective sense of the people you are quoting - other posters here or from articles - this makes sense. It's not all merely subjective. One can look at a post by an atheist arguing we don't know there is a God and say with some objective support that that person is not arguing there is a God. Of course there are subjective elements. But when someone says 'Hey, you're not responding to the point you quoted' and they then support that claim, your reaction is hey it's all subjective and your trying to dominate with your mere subjective view. And you don't then, explain where your, supposedly completely subjective view, is coming from. What it's based on.

Unless of course you are saying that there is no way to tell what someone means objectively. This is not possible to any degree.

Well, if you are saying that, posting in philosophy forum is pointless. But then you keep saying things like perhaps Maia can convince you, perhaps some theist can convince you. Perhaps someone can get your out of your hole. You have also drawn distinctions between those things that can be objectively worked out and those that, so far, you haven't been convinced can. Well, that means you believe some things are not merely subjective.

I'm sure if someone wrote that you were clearly advocating that Trump be President or that there is NO problem with objectivism, you would find it in yourself to explain that their interpretation of your position is false. Not merely that you have differing completely subjective opinions. One can actually look at words and sentences and draw some objective conclusions about them. To what degree and which sentences, sure, a lot of swing room, gray areas.

But then....
A: There is no God.
B: You are clearly a theist when you say that.
A: Um, no.

Or when, for example, paganism is presented falsely.

Now perhaps this all doesn't seem to matter to you. The above is certainly not solving all conflicting good, though it might solve one particular one between posters here. It could be a step in that direction.

But it seems to me if what you quote actually matters, then whether you are correctly interpreting it matters also. yes, sometimes it might be unresolvable subjective interpretations of a text where it is nearly impossible to nail down anything. But to whatever degree one can make some objective claims about what someone has said, this seems useful, if the endeavor of using their quotes is potentially useful or meaningful.

You can view any focus on what the text you quote (or ours, from articles on line, etc) as ridiculous per se and so anyone bringing this up is just interfering or trying to dominate you.

Or you could view such posts as potentially helpful, given that you had some interest in whatever you were quoting, and with the article specifically chose to use them in posts in a philosophy forum.

Then it seems reasonable to consider that discussing what they meant isn't merely a clash between unreconcilable conflicting utterly subjective opinions but rathers as discussions that might shed light on a topic that clearly matters to you.

[iambiguous]

Yes, and over and again I wasn't satisfied with your answers. Anymore, no doubt, then you were satisfied with mine. I speculate however that you are missing my points because you don't want to believe they may be applicable to you. Whereas if you are able to convince me that I too am in possession of an intrinsic/intuitive Self [and it can be any "Ism" at all, not just Paganism] then up out of the hole I may actually be able to clamber.

I think you may be confusing not agreeing with your points with not understanding them.

I agree. That's always a possibility. And for all of us. In fact, I noted just how convoluted this can all become in places like this. In other words, as others here will note, that's what I often suggest as well. Why? Because show me a moral or political objectivist, and I'll show you someone who almost always divides up the world between the "Übermensch" [the rational and righteous few] and the "sheep" [the hapless and helpless many].

As for you clambering up out of your hole, you can do that any time that you wish, but no one else can do it for you. That, at least, is what I think, based on my own experience, but I might be wrong, of course.

No, I can't just yank myself up anytime I wish. Like it was, what, all just a matter of will-power? In fact, this reminds me of the religious folks I have come upon over the years who would insist that, "if you really wanted to believe in God, you could."

Also, there are any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...who will take you and your own philosophical/moral/spiritual assumptions to task because although, like you, they too believe they are in sync with an intuitive, deep down inside them understanding of "out in the world with others", their own path is the true one...not yours.

Which, if I understood you correctly, is not at all your own intention here. You seem to have moral convictions that you embody "here and now", but you're not arguing in turn that others should think or feel or behave like you do because how you think, feel and behave really is the only One True Path. I recall how we both seemed to embrace the conviction that doing the least harm to others is of most importance. It's just that I am no less fractured and fragmented here as well.

I'm very much of the opinion that everyone has their own path, and this path can take as many twists and turns as it needs.

As it needs to be? How is that the same or different from saying that something is fated or destined to be? Again, from my own existential vantage point, the dots you connect here between needing to believe there is one truer path to discover [the psychology of objectivism] are different from the dots other objectivists make here: that it's my way or the highway.

Which just takes me back to a Pagan community of men and women who seem to justify what they believe -- their moral convictions -- because each of them one by one has discovered their own righteous -- natural? -- path given their own understanding of Paganism, or through their own personal relationship with the Gods and the Goddesses.

Thus, I'm still fuzzy regarding how moral conflicts are resolved in Pagan communities if all of the individual members can fall back on this Intuitive Self?

So, I suggested that you go about living your life on your own terms until, perhaps, you do stumble into a set of circumstances that actually does challenge your sense of reality in profound ways. Like, for me, before and after Song Be. Or before and after William Barrett. Or before and after Mary and John. Or before and after Supannika.

Who knows what might happen?

Which, from my own frame of mind, explains why there are so many moral and political and religious objectivists out there. They fall back on Gods or on ideologies or on categorical imperatives or on self-righteous assessments of biological imperatives [Satyr and his own clique/claque] in order that they do know what will happen if they stray off the one true path.

In some communities, they can be banned or shunned, in other communities excommunicated and in still others..."sacrificed"?

Another take on it: https://wildhunt.org/2023/10/classics-o ... ilm%20that

And that is all it really can be, from my frame of mind: one particular individual's reaction [rooted existentially in dasein] to one particular film about Pagans. Though I'm sure there are any number of Pagans who will insist this has nothing at all to do with dasein. Their own understanding of it actually does encompass the human condition...objectively? spiritually? naturally?

The book mentioned in that article, Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton, is one that I would heartily recommend to anyone who wants to know what the modern Pagan movement is like and how it came about. I met him once, incidentally, at a festival, and had a very brief chat.

Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose he would react to the points I raise regarding conflicting goods among Pagans?

Then the part where a Pagan community is composed only of people who get together a few times a year but then otherwise go back to lives that might be very different?

Some Pagans don't even bother meeting up with other Pagans at all, or very rarely. It's been quite a while since I've been to any events.

Thus, the distinction I make. The difference between living among other Pagans [The Wicker Man/Sommer] in a community 24/7...a community where everyone seems to be on the same page regarding the "rules of behavior"...and, instead, every once in a while being among those who subscribe to the Pagan religion/spiritual path but otherwise may embody lives very very different from you.

As for who recommended The Wicker Man to whom in our exchanges, what I recall instead is going to the film after Maia had noted that, through the Goddess, she had committed herself to [as I recall] 6 years of sexual abstenance. In The Wicker Man however I would imagine that frame of mind to be almost unimaginable. Sex is clearly natural to them and abstaining from it is anything but.

Indeed, in The Wicker Man that frame of mind would certainly be unimaginable.

And in Sommer, the sexual fetishes, incorporated into any number of rituals, become particularly...ghastly? But not to those who participate in these rituals, right? It's all entirely natural to them. In fact, turning sexuality into a ritual is a sure-fire way of sustaining all manner of what, to most of us, would be deemed horrific behavior.

You may also recall my reasons for committing myself in that way, namely, having been hurt very badly by someone who I thought loved me. It turned out he just thought I'd be an easy target, being blind and all. After that, I wanted the time and space to concentrate on other things in life. I was also moving into my own flat around the same time, and doing a whole load of other things.

Okay, that certainly makes sense to me. In other words, your frame of mind is predicated by and large on your own personal experiences with love and romance. I know that mine are. And somehow you are able to intertwine that with your own understanding of Paganism. Whereas, from my own far more splintered frame of mind, there's nothing I can "think up" "here and now" to put it in perspective. In fact, being fractured and fragmented [in regard to value judgments] has become my perspective.

Thus, my being here in part to examine the moral philosophies of others. Can someone persuade me to explore a path that they are on. A path that they are convinced provides one with an objective morality...and even immortality and salvation.

And, if not, might I succeed in convincing them that my own current philosophy is something that they might consider as well?

I "win" either way, but I would much rather celebrate a victory up out of the hole with others rather than with them down in it.
Perhaps, after your commitment is up, you might want to pursue romance with others who are blind as well. I recall you mentioning that you prefer to be around sighted people, and that is always a path you can take. But as much as sighted people might truly love or care about you, there is no way that they can truly grasp what is like to be blind.

But that's just me. I'm a firm believer that more often than not opposites do not attract. I'm always looking for myself in other people and I think that if I were blind, being around other blind people would be really important to me.

But then back to how prejudices like this are largely rooted subjectively in dasein.

But then most importantly [to me] the part where Maia seems to argue that each member of a particular community of Pagans can acquire their own particular -- private? -- relationship with Pagan Gods and Goddesses. With Nature. But: these personal relationships will inevitably come into conflict. Then what? If each individual Pagan has his or her own thing in regard to abortion, nihilism and sexuality, how is it decided which "thing" is the most rational or virtuous?

This is what you keep asking about, even though I've answered it many times. I'll try, once again, to do so as clearly and succinctly as possible. Any differences of opinion within a particular Pagan group, such as a coven, or grove (a Druid group), or a moot (a more informal regular meeting), are ultimately, if they can't be resolved by discussion, resolved by the leader of that group making the final decision. The dissenting member will either accept that, or choose to leave and find a more compatible group, or, perhaps, set one up, or just go it alone.

In other words, if I understand you correctly, as with non-Pagan communities, it all comes down to one or another combination of...

1] might makes right...the leader prevails no matter what because ultimately, he or she has the power to enforce a particular agenda
2] right makes might...the leader prevails because he or she has come to embody what all the members of the community believe reflects the actual teleological purpose of human interactions themselves
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise...the leader prevails only after consulting with all of the other members in order to sustain the most rational and virtuous relationships possible

How about this...

https://www.umass.edu/rso/spirals/Site/ ... principles

...as the "absolute basics" of Paganism?

Well, as the old joke goes, whenever two or three Pagans are gathered together, there will be at least half a dozen different opinions on what Paganism is all about.

I hear that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _movements

And that's just the "modern" movements.

Then, however, as with all such splintered paths embedded in almost all religious and moral and political and philosophical movements, the part where the stakes themselves get higher and higher and higher.

[promethean75]

"Maia had noted that, through the Goddess, she had committed herself to [as I recall] 6 years of sexual abstenance."

Ideally, Maia should be able to engage in acts of super sexy sexual debauchery, but it's not that easy when you're blind, biggs, so give her a break. The unique problem Maia is faced with is not being able to be sure her partner is a hottie and not some ugly wanker trying to put the moves on her. And it's not like she could say to the guy 'hey i need to run my hands all over you so i can see what you look like before we start dating'.

So now the matter gets more complicated. She needs to have her girlfriends tell her which guys are viable and which ones are not. But then you don't carry girlfriends around with you everywhere u go... and you can't just pull some stranger aside and ask them if the guy talking to you is a hottie. Think about how awkward that would be.

Blind girl: excuse me, can you tell me if this guy asking me to dinner is handsome or not?

So you see the difficulties she's faced with regarding romantic relationships, and it's these practical problems that keep her in abstinence more so than the goddess, i think.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, Iambiguous, I think this ↑ might be a time to whip out the Stooge label.

[promethean75]

I prefer to be called what i am, a Quagmire.

Giggity.

[Maia]

+++I agree. That's always a possibility. And for all of us. In fact, I noted just how convoluted this can all become in places like this. In other words, as others here will note, that's what I often suggest as well. Why? Because show me a moral or political objectivist, and I'll show you someone who almost always divides up the world between the "Übermensch" [the rational and righteous few] and the "sheep" [the hapless and helpless many].+++

So basically, what you're saying is that there are two types of people in the world, those who divide the world up into two types of people, and those who don't. I fully agree, and I'm definitely one of the latter.

+++As it needs to be? How is that the same or different from saying that something is fated or destined to be? Again, from my own existential vantage point, the dots you connect here between needing to believe there is one truer path to discover [the psychology of objectivism] are different from the dots other objectivists make here: that it's my way or the highway.+++

Maybe a bad choice of word. Needs to be, just in the sense of it being your own path, and not someone else's. Not only is it undesirable to follow someone else's path, it's also completely impossible, so it's a waste of time trying.

+++Thus, I'm still fuzzy regarding how moral conflicts are resolved in Pagan communities if all of the individual members can fall back on this Intuitive Self?+++

Often, they aren't resolved at all, and fester for years. There is no mechanism for resolving disputes within the wider Pagan community because, thankfully, there is no overall governing body. This has not stopped people attempting to set one up, but trying to organise Pagans is like trying to herd cats. I'm surprised anything gets organised at all, half the time.

+++In some communities, they can be banned or shunned, in other communities excommunicated and in still others..."sacrificed"?+++

Human sacrifice has the potential to raise a number of possible legal issues these days, so is often frowned on among modern Pagans.

+++Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose he would react to the points I raise regarding conflicting goods among Pagans?+++

I imagine he would find it all very amusing. Here's a short clip of him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bPKDZ4tGQ

+++Thus, the distinction I make. The difference between living among other Pagans [The Wicker Man/Sommer] in a community 24/7...a community where everyone seems to be on the same page regarding the "rules of behavior"...and, instead, every once in a while being among those who subscribe to the Pagan religion/spiritual path but otherwise may embody lives very very different from you.+++

That's what makes it interesting. It would be really boring if everybody thought the same thing.

But, on the subject of The Wicker Man, my impression is that such single-minded conformity doesn't even exist in that, either. There's one part where an elderly couple are mentioned who had died, and had names from the Bible. And right at the end, Howie predicts that the following year the islanders would sacrifice Lord Summerisle himself. Whatever they have there is apparently quite fragile.

+++Thus, my being here in part to examine the moral philosophies of others. Can someone persuade me to explore a path that they are on. A path that they are convinced provides one with an objective morality...and even immortality and salvation.+++

Maybe you should try Christian forums or something like that. I'm sure that if you asked them, they would give it their best shot at trying to convert you. It might be quite an amusing experience.

+++Perhaps, after your commitment is up, you might want to pursue romance with others who are blind as well. I recall you mentioning that you prefer to be around sighted people, and that is always a path you can take. But as much as sighted people might truly love or care about you, there is no way that they can truly grasp what is like to be blind.

But that's just me. I'm a firm believer that more often than not opposites do not attract. I'm always looking for myself in other people and I think that if I were blind, being around other blind people would be really important to me.+++

I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful but as riven by gossip, backstabbing and factionalism as the Pagan community is, the blind community is far worse, and I decided a long time ago, when I left school, that I wanted something better. Other than a few close friends, I have very little to do with it, and I think it would be a regressive step to go back on that. It's not so much a case of opposites attracting, though, as I think I have far more in common with other Pagans, for example, and I don't consider being blind as particularly important in that regard. Others, of course, may see this differently.

+++In other words, if I understand you correctly, as with non-Pagan communities, it all comes down to one or another combination of...

1] might makes right...the leader prevails no matter what because ultimately, he or she has the power to enforce a particular agenda
2] right makes might...the leader prevails because he or she has come to embody what all the members of the community believe reflects the actual teleological purpose of human interactions themselves
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise...the leader prevails only after consulting with all of the other members in order to sustain the most rational and virtuous relationships possible+++

Yes, something like that. Pagans are just people, after all.

[Maia]

"Maia had noted that, through the Goddess, she had committed herself to [as I recall] 6 years of sexual abstenance."

Ideally, Maia should be able to engage in acts of super sexy sexual debauchery, but it's not that easy when you're blind, biggs, so give her a break. The unique problem Maia is faced with is not being able to be sure her partner is a hottie and not some ugly wanker trying to put the moves on her. And it's not like she could say to the guy 'hey i need to run my hands all over you so i can see what you look like before we start dating'.

So now the matter gets more complicated. She needs to have her girlfriends tell her which guys are viable and which ones are not. But then you don't carry girlfriends around with you everywhere u go... and you can't just pull some stranger aside and ask them if the guy talking to you is a hottie. Think about how awkward that would be.

Blind girl: excuse me, can you tell me if this guy asking me to dinner is handsome or not?

So you see the difficulties she's faced with regarding romantic relationships, and it's these practical problems that keep her in abstinence more so than the goddess, i think.

Blind dates are a real pain.

[promethean75]

Very funny, Maia. However, i don't imagine the visually impaired (i don't use derogatory terms like 'blind') would very much appreciate your joke.

[Maia]

Very funny, Maia. However, i don't imagine the visually impaired (i don't use derogatory terms like 'blind') would very much appreciate your joke.

Blind is not a derogatory term. And you may well be surprised at blind people's sense of humour.

[attofishpi]

How about this...

https://www.umass.edu/rso/spirals/Site/ ... principles.

...as the "absolute basics" of Paganism?

From the site: "Some different names you might hear us use to describe ourselves: Wiccan, Witch, Heathen, Asatru, Druid, Faerie tradition, Solitary Practitioner, Eclectic, and many others."

..the 'many others' I can assist with: Dunce, Wackjob Wankers, Waffly Spiritualists, Woo Wonderers..from the wandering land of Woo..

It truly is limitless..

They got one thing right: "We feel that every person reveres the divine in their own way and that no one religion is better than another."

By what measure/attributes can one make of any religion to be better than any other...oh hang on! Maybe it's the one where you actually DO get to know the Divine God. ..and I'll bet my bollocks to burn in hell forever that not one of these of Woo has any knowledge of GOD.