Pagan morality

[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?

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

"That" revolves around the "rooted existentially in dasein" assumptions each of us makes regarding things like conflicting goods.

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.

Uh-oh. Looks like we've got another 'he's right from his side, I'm right from mine' situation: "up in the clouds".

There's how you understand it and there's how I understand it. But for you to suggest that my posts regarding Paganism or Pagan morality are all up in the clouds?! I can only suspect that, perhaps, it's a..."condition".

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.

He wondered: why are so many here intent on accusing him of what they insist he is accusing them of?

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....

Of course: huh?

Over and again I note that, given the very, very, very different lives that we have lived, what are the odds that I would understand abortion, nihilism or human sexuality as she does? Let alone grasping the world around us emotionally and psychologically as she does?

Instead, over and again [with Maia and others], I focus not on what value judgments individuals come to embody -- what they say they "believe" -- but on how, given their own unique collection of personal experiences, they have come existentially to acquire these conflicting assessments in the first place. And then the part where attempts are made to connect the dots between what they believe and what they are able to demonstrate to others as that which, if they wish to be thought of as rational human beings, they are obligated to believe as well.

...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.

Come on, as though coming closer to my own frame of mind as a moral nihilist is the same as coming closer to the frame of mind of someone who shares you're conviction that there is an objective morality, but insist it's theirs's not yours. You do grasp that distinction, don't you?

In fact, with you, my main interest still revolves around discovering how your own frame mind is not in turn fractured and fragmented given what I believe is your own No God frame of mind. Do you believe morality is objective? Do you believe there is an external font mere mortals can fall back on in differentiating good from evil?Do you believe that philosophers are at least capable of coming in the vicinity of a deontological assessment of conflicting goods?

In other words, in regard to morality, how is your own moral philosophy either in sync with or opposed to what I attempt to encompass here in regard to abortion: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

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.

When have I ever argued that conflicting goods can't be reconciled? Or even resolved for that matter. Instead, the distinction I make here is between those who embrace "might makes right" [the sociopaths, the narcissists], "right makes might" [the moral objectivists left or right, God or No God] and those who embrace "moderation, negotiation and compromise" [because they construe their own moral philosophy as objective but are willing to pit it against others in free and fair elections.]

Though, by all means, if some here are convinced their own moral philosophy is in fact the one and the only One True Path to Enlightenment let them defend it given a context of their own choosing.

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.

A bridge? Note one then. What bridge are the objectivists here on in regard to abortion or human sexuality other than their own set of assumptions about the human condition? And how do those like Maia not fall back on a Goddess as the bridge able to reveal to them their own Intrinsic Self?

Really, what could possibly be a better moral philosophy than one you insist is derived from a Self that absolutely no one else is in possession of? You "just know" intuitively or spiritually deep inside you that some things are naturally Good and other things are naturally Evil. And, since others are not you, they may well possess a different assessment of these conflicts. In fact, given just how different our individual lives can be, it's almost likely that they will.

As for this part...

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.

...twist it into your own even more insightful assessment of me.

Well, if you are saying that, posting in philosophy forum is pointless.

Okay, a "condition" it is then.

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.

Well, given that "here and now" I do not clearly advocate that Trump be president, they would certainly be objectively wrong to say that I am. Instead, my point revolves far, far more around the assumption that there does not appear to be an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that enables us to pin down whether believing this is closer to being either an inherently rational or an inherently irrational assessment of his presidency.

Or they could note their own assessment of moral philosophy [re abortion or nihilism or human sexuality] and argue that "in fact, it is an objective account." But, right now, in my view, they would be wrong to say that I believe that morality is objective. That's false.

Well, in a "click" world, anyway. But they would also be wrong if they argued that I argue that objective morality does not exist.

[Iwannaplato]

None of which precludes explaining how you justify, in your largely subjective, as you say, understanding of it. You stay up in the clouds.

Uh-oh. Looks like we've got another 'he's right from his side, I'm right from mine' situation: "up in the clouds".

What I meant was, in general in philosophical discussions, if you interpret something one way and someone comes along and says, that interpretation is incorrect, and gives reasons why, the first person can then justify their position. I note a tendency on your part to refer to the situation in an abstract way, rather than, say, justifying why you see what you quoted as meaning X (your interpretation).

That's the up in the clouds part. It happened in the thread I responded to about sans vs. avec God. I explained why I thought Jon Sochaux did not mean how you interpreted him.

You don't respond by saying something along the lines of 'Here he says X, which fits my interpretation and not yours'. You start to talk about the situation in the abstract. Here we have two different interpretations.

In situations where I have continued to argue, generally quoting from you and quoting from the source we differ on, I have been told I was trying to dominate you that my interpretation must be correct, again without you trying to show in any way that your interpretation fits what you quoted.

That's the up in the clouds. It is as if all interpretations are the same and there is no way to ever reconcile them and any attempt to do this is a kind of moral objectivism. A my way or the highway move on my or some other person's part.

However there are degrees here and many things can be looked at rationally and you do this yourself. I am sure if I had started this respone to you with 'Here you are clearly homophobic' you would have felt like you could demonstrate that this most likely was not true. And you would certainly expect me to back up the interpretation.

Yes, there are situations where there is no rational way to resolve conflicting interpretations. Then there are others where one can present rational and strong arguments for one side and not the other.

If it's all just a crapshoot, then, really there's no good reason to present someone else's views and quote them. You might as well just state your position.

If you treat a non-deontological set of pagan virtue ethics as deontological, I think this can be demonstrated to be incorrect. I think that discussion has value. If it doesn't matter, if one can not present strong evidence, well, why bother quoting anyone?

[Maia]

That's what Christianity has become for many. It's been a lot of things. I can even defend it depending on how it's attacked or presumed to be. Everything gets coopted, misused, corrupted, etc. though I have some problems with Chritianity in most of its interpretations, at least in part.
For most Christians, a Christian pantheist would be an oxymoron. Not saying it is, just what it would be for most. They tend to be big on dividing reality up into it's non-divine and divine parts.

Yes, I remember a priest in the confession box attempting to straighten my analysis, knowledge of this entity to align with the Christian BELIEF.

So do Pagans believe in pantheism?

Yes, I would describe myself as a pantheist.

[attofishpi]

That's what Christianity has become for many. It's been a lot of things. I can even defend it depending on how it's attacked or presumed to be. Everything gets coopted, misused, corrupted, etc. though I have some problems with Chritianity in most of its interpretations, at least in part.
For most Christians, a Christian pantheist would be an oxymoron. Not saying it is, just what it would be for most. They tend to be big on dividing reality up into it's non-divine and divine parts.

Yes, I remember a priest in the confession box attempting to straighten my analysis, knowledge of this entity to align with the Christian BELIEF.

So do Pagans believe in pantheism?

Some do.

Do you?

[attofishpi]

That's what Christianity has become for many. It's been a lot of things. I can even defend it depending on how it's attacked or presumed to be. Everything gets coopted, misused, corrupted, etc. though I have some problems with Chritianity in most of its interpretations, at least in part.
For most Christians, a Christian pantheist would be an oxymoron. Not saying it is, just what it would be for most. They tend to be big on dividing reality up into it's non-divine and divine parts.

Yes, I remember a priest in the confession box attempting to straighten my analysis, knowledge of this entity to align with the Christian BELIEF.

So do Pagans believe in pantheism?

Yes, I would describe myself as a pantheist.

..makes sense!

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, I remember a priest in the confession box attempting to straighten my analysis, knowledge of this entity to align with the Christian BELIEF.

So do Pagans believe in pantheism?

Some do.

Do you?

Yes. Though, I will say that calling myself a pagan is sort of the best shorthand descriptionI can give others. Pagan was the name given to people by people who were not pagans, and it covers beliefs not Abrahamic (and probably not Hindu/Buddhistic, but would likely cover indigenous shamanistic).

[Maia]

Some do.

Do you?

Yes. Though, I will say that calling myself a pagan is sort of the best shorthand descriptionI can give others. Pagan was the name given to people by people who were not pagans, and it covers beliefs not Abrahamic (and probably not Hindu/Buddhistic, but would likely cover indigenous shamanistic).

It's very easy to get bogged down in terminology, and I've done it myself, many times. I knew I was a Pagan long before I knew it had a name, and I think, at it's heart, it's something that exists at an emotional level. As with dreams, any attempt to put those feelings into words sells them short.

[Iwannaplato]

It's very easy to get bogged down in terminology, and I've done it myself, many times. I knew I was a Pagan long before I knew it had a name, and I think, at it's heart, it's something that exists at an emotional level. As with dreams, any attempt to put those feelings into words sells them short.

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

[Maia]

It's very easy to get bogged down in terminology, and I've done it myself, many times. I knew I was a Pagan long before I knew it had a name, and I think, at it's heart, it's something that exists at an emotional level. As with dreams, any attempt to put those feelings into words sells them short.

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

Yes, animism is a good term. Everything is alive and connected, and we are not separate from nature, but part of it.

[attofishpi]

It's very easy to get bogged down in terminology, and I've done it myself, many times. I knew I was a Pagan long before I knew it had a name, and I think, at it's heart, it's something that exists at an emotional level. As with dreams, any attempt to put those feelings into words sells them short.

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

Yes, animism is a good term. Everything is alive and connected, and we are not separate from nature, but part of it.

Absolutely. I am a Christian pantheist, do you or Iwannaplato see any contradiction in that?

[Maia]

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

Yes, animism is a good term. Everything is alive and connected, and we are not separate from nature, but part of it.

Absolutely. I am a Christian pantheist, do you or Iwannaplato see any contradiction in that?

Not really. I think pretty much anything is possible, when it comes to one's own personal beliefs.

[attofishpi]

Yes, animism is a good term. Everything is alive and connected, and we are not separate from nature, but part of it.

Absolutely. I am a Christian pantheist, do you or Iwannaplato see any contradiction in that?

Not really. I think pretty much anything is possible, when it comes to one's own personal beliefs.

..sure, and it's impossible for anyone's beliefs to align perfectly with anyone else's especially when one considers the amount of synaptic gateway configurations possible within the brain.

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely. I am a Christian pantheist, do you or Iwannaplato see any contradiction in that?
Eastern Orthodoxy

Gregory of Palamas, a key figure in Eastern Orthodox theology, writes:
"God is everywhere, and there is no place in the universe where God is not."
(Triads, 1.3.23)

St. Maximus the Confessor reflects on the presence of God in creation:
"The whole world is a burning bush of the energies of God."
(Ambigua 10)

A Franciscan

St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan theologian, wrote:

"Christ is one in all things, but especially in the human person made to the image of God."
(The Journey of the Mind to God)

[Maia]

Perhaps a good way of exploring Pagan morality is through Pagan songs. Here's one that some people will probably recognise.

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

The symbolism in the song is thoroughly Pagan, and more specifically, Wiccan, with its references to the Maid, Mother and Crone, the three aspects of the Goddess in Wiccan mythology, which has been very influential on the Pagan movement as a whole. While not a Wiccan myself, or at least, not any more, I can still fully appreciate its sentiments.

Pagans like to express things like this in symbolic or artistic form, since they're often impossible to put into straightforward words. Songs have the power to reach people on an emotional level.

[iambiguous]

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.

Yes, that is often what the moral objectivists among us will do. Still, with you, what I grapple to understand here is your own moral philosophy. It doesn't prompt you to divide up the world perhaps but it seems to suggests that within a Pagan community each individual acquires his or her own Instrinsic Self through his or her own uniquely forged relationship with Nature.

Then what? Yes, the community might reflect The Wiker Man mentality where all of the community is on the same page because all of the community falls back on what The Leader says. He comes to embody "Right Makes Might".

So, in a Pagan community more in sync with how you construe it, if Jane's relationship with Nature prompts her to conclude that abortion is unnatural, while Jean's relationship with Nature prompts her to conclude that it is natural...?

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.

So, again, if in regard to moral or immoral behavior, each Pagan in a community follows only his or her own spiritual path -- through the Gods and the Goddesses? -- it seems impossible [to me] to reconcile all of the conflicting goods unless The Leader is there acting as either a demigod, or as a Philosopher King, or as the one who orchestrates the Pagan equivalent of Judgement Day?

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.

Especially if you only interact with other Pagans from time to time. That way not nearly as much needs to be resolved. Why? Because "for all practical purposes" the conflicts end when you leave the Order or the Coven or the Moot and go home.

Thus, from my own frame of mind, there is a world of difference between Pagans interacting in a community of Pagans 365/24/7 and Pagans who interact...at a much greater distance?

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.

Is that the Pagan equivalent of render unto Caesar?

Then, again, my own wobbly distinction:

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.

That's certainly true. But in a world full of conflicting goods -- moral conflagrations -- unfurling down through the ages, there were any number of instances whereby you believed what you did mainly because you were indoctrinated or were taught or were obligated to believe it.

Or else.

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.

Fragile, maybe. But not fractured and fragmented, I suspect. And look how fragile Sargeant Howie's own devout Christianity can be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations

Hundreds of interpretations regarding what the Bible is telling us. And that's before we get to the Jews and the Moslems...who just happen to worship and adore [and fear] the very same God!

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.

On the other hand, why would that not [perhaps] be true for you as well? Or you could visit all the Pagan groups in England -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_pa ... ed_Kingdom -- one by one in order to be sure those that you interact with now reflect "the best of all possible Pagan worlds"?

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.

Of course, in any number of communities, the discussions readily shift from "zero distortion" in the either/or world to [among other things] "you're going to Hell!" in the is/ought world. But more power to you if you truly do believe the path you're on now is [so far] the best one.

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.

As ususal, I can only understand this up to a point. Beyond that is just my own rooted existentially in dasein understanding of love and romance. Also, in being born blind you are are dealing with the only world you have never known.

It's just that, for me, here and now, sight is such a crucial component of how I understand the world, that, were I to lose it, my first priority would be find those I could share this with.

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.

Or, as another once suggested, "human, all too human".