Pagan morality

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

When did I ever argue that being provocative precludes being a Stooge? As though I've got "Stoogery" down to, what, the philosophical equivalent of...mathematics? Prom75 may have a variable or two that would make him a Stooge but ontologically we need at a minimum 5 variables.

It's true, you didn't say that. But here was the context. I pointed to his behavior where he is psychoanalyzing another poster. You start off saying that first of all he might have been tongue and cheek (yes) or he was just being his usual provocative self. I think most readers would take that to mean, given you do not decide he was being a Stooge, an alternative possibility. He might have been being provocative, not being a Stooge. Otherwise I'm not quite sure how that was a response to what I wrote.

I'm now prepared to leave it up to others here to decide for themselves which of us comes closest to what they themselves would be least inclined to disagree with.

I just wondered if you would suggest that prometheus should be embarrassed. And yes, I was being tongue in cheek, but, yes also wondering if prometheus met the Stooge criteria.

Again, this is largely subjective [and thus hopelessly problematic] but, sure, it's always possible that someday he will be deemed a Stooge by me. In fact, a part of me welcomes this. Why? Because he is by far the wittiest, cleverest poster among us. It would truly be a challenge to go up against him in the repartee department. And if nothing else it would take me back to those exhanges I once had with Phoneutria over at ILP.

Bottom line: When it comes to repartee, no one does rope-a-dope better than she does. Only I'm no dope so, as often as not, it was too close to call.

And, in part, that is because in the sighted world [for some], "looks" might actually become the...the deciding factor? And, come on, in our world today, it would be foolish to suggest that beautiful women and handsome men don't have advantages in the dating game.

Yes, I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested otherwise. In fact, I don't even know what I was writing, then.

From my frame of mind, this is what he construes as being clever.

I think one difference between us is when I quote things and write directly after the quotes, what I write there is a response to what I just quoted. Since you quoted me and then said 'come on,....it would be foolish to think X', right after quoting me, the come on (which generally indicates the person is asserting something silly and obviously off). See, I think what you write after quotes apply to what you quoted. So, yes, I was likely failing to cleverly point out that I never said anything about attractive people not having advantages. So, your reaction seemed odd to me.

Again, I don't recognize my own motivations and intentions here as you do, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility that your own observations may well actually be more reasonable.

All I can do is to suggest [over and again] that we bring our own respective moral philosophies "down to Earth" given different contexts. Maybe there will be a "breakthrough" in regard to our "failures to communicate" or maybe not. On the other hand, as a moral nihilist, I'm still convinced that "failures to communicate" are an inherent component of human interactions in a No God world.

But how would this be conveyed to Maia...someone who has been blind since birth.

Yes, she couldn't possbily have caught on to this via, well, all the media. I know, I know, you meant the actual visual experience. It was good of prometheus to help her see this more clearly.

Right. Human romantic relationships in the media -- social media? -- are practically interchangeable with our own personal relationships.

Again, I never said that. In fact I offered two interpretation of what you wrote. How do we convey to Maia that visual attractivenss is a big thing? Well, she would know that through all the media - films, videos, sure social media - she is hearing about the importance of attractiveness all the time as are we all. Then I moved on to what is more likely what you meant: that she, being blind, can't experience visual attractiveness like we do. I think she is aware of that also and further prometheus's post didn't take any steps to clear all that up.

Of course, in my view, the bottom line here always revolves around where each of us draws the line between the things that we believe given the historical and cultural parameters of the life we lived and the things that we come up with "on our own" given our own uniquely personal experiences. Thus in the is/ought world, I expect failures to communicate.

And this revolves around my assessment of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

It would be interesting if Maia were to explore that with us given her own personal experiences. Did "looks" ever come up in her relationships with sighted men? How would such a conversation unfold for those who are not blind?

I can see where this connects with pagan morality.

Actually, I don't see how anyone could not make that connection. Both Pagans and non-Pagans pursue sexual relationships. And, as all of us sighted folks know too well, looks is often a very, very, very important factor here.

OK, prometues's speculations about another poster's sex life did help us understand Pagan Morality, but then why haven't you brought in more about your non-pagan sexual experiences, since mulling over Maia's experiences as a blind pagan could be compared and contrasted with those.

Again, the thrust of my own set of assumptions here is such that I am less interested in what people believe about sexuality, or what they choose to do sexually or how they react to what others choose to do...and more interested in the extent to which they argue that their own sexual behavior reflects either "the best of all possible worlds" or literally the one and the only objective truth regarding sex.

And I missed this focus on your sexuality and other nihilists' sexual experiences there in the Nihilism threads.

Nihilism and sex? How about this: anything goes in a No God world. Why? Because any and all sexual behaviors are simply rationalized given one or another set of hopelessly conflicting "personal opinions".

Given there's no way to discuss Pagan Morality without mulling over Maia's personal sexual relationships.

Actually, Maia left me with the impression that she is not really comfortable discussing these things. Maybe she's more comfortable now, but whenever sex comes up in forums like this there are always conflicting reactions. Some are just queasy and uncomfortable going there while others simply assume that the only thing men here are really interested in is the part about the sex itself.

[Iwannaplato]

Again, this is largely subjective [and thus hopelessly problematic] but, sure, it's always possible that someday he will be deemed a Stooge by me.

But clearly not in that post.

And, in part, that is because in the sighted world [for some], "looks" might actually become the...the deciding factor? And, come on, in our world today, it would be foolish to suggest that beautiful women and handsome men don't have advantages in the dating game.

Yes, I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested otherwise. In fact, I don't even know what I was writing, then.

From my frame of mind, this is what he construes as being clever.

Again, I don't recognize my own motivations and intentions here as you do, but I certainly don't rule out the possibility that your own observations may well actually be more reasonable.

OK, so, not explanation of what your intentions were with that language. So, we'll never know.

All I can do is to suggest [over and again] that we bring our own respective moral philosophies "down to Earth" given different contexts. Maybe there will be a "breakthrough" in regard to our "failures to communicate" or maybe not

Well, a suggestion:
If you are writing about a post here and quoting from it OR you are quoting from an article and someone says, hey, I don't think you are interpreting that correctly and then they present/justify their interpretation, you could point out what part of that you quoted fits your interpretation. Or you could point out what part of their jusification doesn't make sense of fit the quote.

That way we get a sense of how you drew your conclusion. The other person might then understand how you arrived at your position, at least, possibly be convinced, possible present objections, possibly ask for clarification. You could also ask for clarification from the other person - for example, why did the use of the word X make you think that? OR 'But if he is saying X, this must entail what I said and here's why?

If the goal is to actually come closer to understanding the original quotes and also to understand how two persectives arose, and then to possibly come to agreement, this seems like a reasonable path.

Saying that we have two perspectives and not doing any of this....I can't see how this could possibly lead to a breakthrough in our failures to communicate or agree.

The down to earth part has to do with the quotes. They are highly specific chunks of communication, and they are there for both parties to see.

On the other hand, as a moral nihilist, I'm still convinced that "failures to communicate" are an inherent component of human interactions in a No God world.

Sure, though sometimes, improvements can be made, however humble they may turn out to be.

OK, prometues's speculations about another poster's sex life did help us understand Pagan Morality, but then why haven't you brought in more about your non-pagan sexual experiences, since mulling over Maia's experiences as a blind pagan could be compared and contrasted with those.

Again, the thrust of my own set of assumptions here is such that I am less interested in what people believe about sexuality, or what they choose to do sexually or how they react to what others choose to do...and more interested in the extent to which they argue that their own sexual behavior reflects either "the best of all possible worlds" or literally the one and the only objective truth regarding sex.

And I missed this focus on your sexuality and other nihilists' sexual experiences there in the Nihilism threads.

Nihilism and sex? How about this: anything goes in a No God world. Why? Because any and all sexual behaviors are simply rationalized given one or another set of hopelessly conflicting "personal opinions".

I really do get the impression you read what you quote - from people's posts here, from articles - extremely quicky and with little care. I said, your sexuality.

Given there's no way to discuss Pagan Morality without mulling over Maia's personal sexual relationships.

Actually, Maia left me with the impression that she is not really comfortable discussing these things

So, then it could be, possibly Stooge behavior to focus on it. Now she found it amusing when he brought it up. This issue isn't her. The issue was for me that in defense of focusing on her, you said it fit the topic of Pagan Morality - I don't really see Promethian's post as making any real connections to that, even though obviously sex and sexuality relate to the issue. And I notice that if this is a good thing, finding out about particular individuals sex and sexual mores, it's odd that it has come up from regarding anyone else. Certain personal attitudes about sex relate to conflicting goods and nihilist for example, but I can't remember reading about where you and promethian (pardon my repeat misspellings of his name) have talking about your sexual attitudes in relation to these or other topics, or asked other people about them.

So, given that Stooge behavior has been defined by you as a focus on you rather than the topic, I thought perhaps his focusing on her sexaul experiences might be Stoogy. I now see that the potentiall connection that someone might make sometime about sexual experiences and paganism, magically made it not Stoogey.

And now I know that Phonetria was a really interesting poster. I certainly join in any longing for her return.

Maybe she's more comfortable now, but whenever sex comes up in forums like this there are always conflicting reactions. Some are just queasy and uncomfortable going there while others simply assume that the only thing men here are really interested in is the part about the sex itself.

Oh, hey. You said promethen was the wittiest here now and you'd enjoy calling him a Stooge because of the ensuing exchange. Can't that witty exchange, happen on topic? I mean, it can happen that the only way people can have a discussion is when they're at odd, a bit like make-up sex, I suppose.

[Maia]

I Maia - I've read somewhere earlier that you are blind or have a level-degree of blindness. I'm currently working on redeveloping my website and would like to improve it for blind people, just wondering if you have some inside info before I do research the web.

Is there any particular software that you prefer to use for this forum for example, do you change the software depending on the type of website, finding that some app is more suited to particular sites? ..or do these sites need to have adjustments embedded that you know of to improve the functionality of the app \ software that you are using?

Perhaps you are using default Microsoft or Apple assistance functionality.

Any help would be appreciated - but if you don't feel bothered to discuss, then totally ignore ol' atto!!

Hi, very happy to help. Some general guidelines would be to keep your page layouts clear and straightforward, with numbered section headings. If you have any images, include a description, and the same goes for links. Have a clear menu at the top of the page, with a link at the end of each each section to return to the menu.

I use the same software, JAWS, for everything, but there are lots of different screenreaders available these days, and they vary greatly in what they can do. The guidelines above are just suggestions, though, and you'll presumably want to balance these with making a website that's appealing to everybody. Screenreaders can handle most websites, since that's what they're designed for.

Thanks Maia ..I'll have a look at how the likes of JAWS and other apps get their info especially pertaining to images.

To add to what I said last night, if you want to maximise the accessibility of your website to people who have some usable vision, as distinct from those, such as myself, who are completely blind, then, in addition to my earlier suggestions, you should only use clear, standard fonts, preferably of a larger size than normal, set against a highly contrasting and plain background.

But, as I said, these considerations may well conflict with a wish to have an aesthetically pleasing website, but I just thought I'd mention them, anyway.

For an example of a website that's designed for both completely blind and partially sighted people, have a look at the RNIB site.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/

[attofishpi]

Hi, very happy to help. Some general guidelines would be to keep your page layouts clear and straightforward, with numbered section headings. If you have any images, include a description, and the same goes for links. Have a clear menu at the top of the page, with a link at the end of each each section to return to the menu.

I use the same software, JAWS, for everything, but there are lots of different screenreaders available these days, and they vary greatly in what they can do. The guidelines above are just suggestions, though, and you'll presumably want to balance these with making a website that's appealing to everybody. Screenreaders can handle most websites, since that's what they're designed for.

Thanks Maia ..I'll have a look at how the likes of JAWS and other apps get their info especially pertaining to images.

To add to what I said last night, if you want to maximise the accessibility of your website to people who have some usable vision, as distinct from those, such as myself, who are completely blind, then, in addition to my earlier suggestions, you should only use clear, standard fonts, preferably of a larger size than normal, set against a highly contrasting and plain background.

But, as I said, these considerations may well conflict with a wish to have an aesthetically pleasing website, but I just thought I'd mention them, anyway.

For an example of a website that's designed for both completely blind and partially sighted people, have a look at the RNIB site.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/

Yes, certainly I can't compromise on the aesthetics although if I expected a particularly larger number of people with slight impairment I suppose I would give a clickable option to view it with those standard fonts on plain background...I certainly notice what you mean when I viewed: https://www.rnib.org.uk/

I've got some docs now on ARIA (for others: Augmented Reality In Audio) from JAWS website and will implement required elements into the site to assist.

Hopefully when I pull my finger out and finish the site I may get a tick of approval from you and certainly would like any feedback for improvements.

Thanks again Maia.

[Maia]

Thanks Maia ..I'll have a look at how the likes of JAWS and other apps get their info especially pertaining to images.

To add to what I said last night, if you want to maximise the accessibility of your website to people who have some usable vision, as distinct from those, such as myself, who are completely blind, then, in addition to my earlier suggestions, you should only use clear, standard fonts, preferably of a larger size than normal, set against a highly contrasting and plain background.

But, as I said, these considerations may well conflict with a wish to have an aesthetically pleasing website, but I just thought I'd mention them, anyway.

For an example of a website that's designed for both completely blind and partially sighted people, have a look at the RNIB site.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/

Yes, certainly I can't compromise on the aesthetics although if I expected a particularly larger number of people with slight impairment I suppose I would give a clickable option to view it with those standard fonts on plain background...I certainly notice what you mean when I viewed: https://www.rnib.org.uk/

I've got some docs now on ARIA (for others: Augmented Reality In Audio) from JAWS website and will implement required elements into the site to assist.

Hopefully when I pull my finger out and finish the site I may get a tick of approval from you and certainly would like any feedback for improvements.

Thanks again Maia.

Always happy to help, and please let me know when it's up and running.

[attofishpi]

Cheers, will do.

[iambiguous]

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...?

Then they will have different opinions about it, and either argue about it or agree to differ.

Okay, but in most communites there are actual rules of behavior -- customs, traditions, folkways, mores, laws -- that either reward or punish particular behaviors. I'm just trying to get a sense of how that might unfold for all practical purposes in a community that consists entirely of Pagans as opposed to Pagans coming together from time to time but then going back home to communities that include many, many others who are not Pagans.

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?

Group leaders are definitely not anything like that. It would be quite possible for everyone in a group to leave and set up a new group, if they didn't like what the leader was doing. I know of a Pagan Morris dancing group that did exactly that. There have also been attempts to set up groups where no one was in charge, but it goes without saying that these don't last very long, as no one takes responsibility organising anything. In most groups, the authority of the leader is derived from the fact that the group meets at their house.

From my frame of mind, however, there's still the part where Pagans are confronted with conflicting goods and everyone is allowed to embody his or her own personal assessment of Nature. How for all practical purposes would that be sustained? Then the distinction between a Wicker Man/Sommar community where everyone seems to be on the same page -- right makes might -- and those Pagans such as yourself who do not live among other Pagans day in and day out but have to accomodate communities where Paganism is just one of many, many other spiritual paths.

Thus...

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?

I don't think I could live in any such community. I value my own personal space and independence too much.

I hear that! On the other hand, in believing that my own life is essentially meaningless, and in being fractured and fragmented morally, and in getting closer and closer to oblivion, I really do want to bump into someone able to, say, startle me with an argument such that I actually begin to hope there's a way out of the existential abyss I've dug myself down into.

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!

That sort of conflict seems to be a particular feature of monotheism, which I suppose is exactly what happens when you claim to have the one true way.

Why then do millions upon millions of men and women around the globe make that claim about their own path? That's the part I root historically and culturally in dasein. On the other hand, the reason many make that claim is because they might be surrounded by those who command them to. The "or else" objectivists. And many do command obedience [and get it] precisely because so much is at stake here on both sides of the grave.

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"?

I'm sure it would be an interesting experience, but mainly just to meet people.

On the other hand, the more people you meet the greater the possibility -- the likelihood -- you'll meet someone able to change your mind about Paganism. Just as over the course of my own life I bumped into others who managed to change my mind regarding Christianity, Marxism, Objectivism, Existentialism, etc.

But here it seems that, unlike me, you have discovered a part of yourself that is able to transcend dasein and "just know" that some things are right and some things are wrong.

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 ever known.

Yes, my experience is completely different to someone who loses their sight. To me, everything is just completely normal and feels exactly as it should be.

Sigh...

What I wouldn't give to be able to think and to feel the same way. Again, in other words.

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.

That's definitely understandable.

In fact, it's this part of the "human condition" which always fascinates me the most. In other words, how two or more people can be confronted with the same set of circumstances and yet come to completely conflicting reactions to it.

Clearly, as you noted, there are many, many other factors beyond "looks" that can lead to a fulfilling relationship:

1] personality
2] character
3] wit
4] emotional depth
5] social skills
6] accomplishments
7] sexual prowess
8] tolerance
9] athletic abilities
10] all of the cultural and historical memes you share in common

Yes, all of those things are true, to varying degrees.

And, for each of us as individuals, they matter in different orders. Also, for someone blind from birth, all of those other factors are considerably less dependant of being able to see.

Which, I suppose, is why I and others here are interested in how your interactions with others do come around to "looks". Do you recall any particular instances where that was discussed. Either with sighted men and women or with those who are blind. You can't react to how others look because you can't see them. But how do they react to you?

Like I always say, "whatever works".

On the other hand, if the "signals" were good and you commenced a relationship with someone, how did your sighted friends react to how he "looked". Or she "looked"? Looks never came up?

Like you say, in being a Pagan or not, each of us as individuals accumulates his or her our own personal experiences and "looks" and "smells" and "sounds" and "caresses" and "touches" may or may not be something you are able to communicate to others.

If by looks you mean facial attractiveness, as perceived visually, then this is simply not a factor, for me, and it wouldn't bother me what other people thought.

Okay, but how are they reacting to you? They see your face, they see your body. And for some -- many, most -- looks are considerably more important than for others.

I think I'll explore this more myself by Googling it.

Not that it has ever come up in conversation.

Wow. It has come up over and over again in regard to my own relationships.

It's also a myth, incidentally, that blind people want to feel random strangers' faces to find out what they look like. Whatever it is that sighted people see in someone's face that makes it attractive, is not the same info that you pick up by feeling it.

Back to Al Pacino in The Scent of a Woman?

Yes, but in regard to how most would describe a romantic relationship, there is also that crucial distinction between love and lust. Especially in regard to how men come into this world hard wired genetically to make that distinction as minimal as possible. In fact, it was Supannika who tried to convince me that sexual intimacy is by far the most powerful way in which to communicate love to another. And I believe that is true. Sort of. At least given my own relationships down through the years.

Physical attraction is extremely important, obviously, but it's just the beginning.

Accepting of course that the ending will often be construed in very differ ways because of how the beginning is construed in regard to something like "looks".

[Maia]

+++Okay, but in most communites there are actual rules of behavior -- customs, traditions, folkways, mores, laws -- that either reward or punish particular behaviors. I'm just trying to get a sense of how that might unfold for all practical purposes in a community that consists entirely of Pagans as opposed to Pagans coming together from time to time but then going back home to communities that include many, many others who are not Pagans.+++

I don't know of any specifically Pagan communities like that, though there are quite a few that you could call Pagan friendly, with their focus more on environmental issues. The people who call the shots are the people who own the land.

+++From my frame of mind, however, there's still the part where Pagans are confronted with conflicting goods and everyone is allowed to embody his or her own personal assessment of Nature. How for all practical purposes would that be sustained? Then the distinction between a Wicker Man/Sommar community where everyone seems to be on the same page -- right makes might -- and those Pagans such as yourself who do not live among other Pagans day in and day out but have to accomodate communities where Paganism is just one of many, many other spiritual paths.+++

Perhaps, for practical purposes, a community of Pagans like that couldn't actually be sustained, and would soon break up due to arguments.

+++I hear that! On the other hand, in believing that my own life is essentially meaningless, and in being fractured and fragmented morally, and in getting closer and closer to oblivion, I really do want to bump into someone able to, say, startle me with an argument such that I actually begin to hope there's a way out of the existential abyss I've dug myself down into.+++

I hope you do too.

+++Why then do millions upon millions of men and women around the globe make that claim about their own path? That's the part I root historically and culturally in dasein. On the other hand, the reason many make that claim is because they might be surrounded by those who command them to. The "or else" objectivists. And many do command obedience [and get it] precisely because so much is at stake here on both sides of the grave.+++

It's clearly part of human nature to do so. Presumably such attitudes gave advantages to communities that had it, such as cohesion and common purpose, as opposed to those that didn't. The downside of this is constant war with other communities.

+++On the other hand, the more people you meet the greater the possibility -- the likelihood -- you'll meet someone able to change your mind about Paganism. Just as over the course of my own life I bumped into others who managed to change my mind regarding Christianity, Marxism, Objectivism, Existentialism, etc.+++

Yes, that could happen.

+++But here it seems that, unlike me, you have discovered a part of yourself that is able to transcend dasein and "just know" that some things are right and some things are wrong.+++

Only for myself. And these things may change over time, too.

+++Sigh...

What I wouldn't give to be able to think and to feel the same way. Again, in other words.+++

There is always hope. That's very much what I think, anyway.

+++In fact, it's this part of the "human condition" which always fascinates me the most. In other words, how two or more people can be confronted with the same set of circumstances and yet come to completely conflicting reactions to it.+++

Because we're all different. Thankfully.

+++And, for each of us as individuals, they matter in different orders. Also, for someone blind from birth, all of those other factors are considerably less dependant of being able to see.+++

Completely independent of being able to see, in fact.

+++Which, I suppose, is why I and others here are interested in how your interactions with others do come around to "looks". Do you recall any particular instances where that was discussed. Either with sighted men and women or with those who are blind. You can't react to how others look because you can't see them. But how do they react to you?+++

I've never enquired after the looks of someone who I've been attracted to. It's not really the sort of thing you ask someone, and I don't care about it, anyway. As for my own looks, well, that's a different matter, and yes, of course I take care of my appearance. Not just for the sake of others, important though that obviously is to function in society, but for my own sake, too. I hate feeling dirty and dishevelled. Whether I succeed in that I'll have to leave up to others to decide. You know what I look like.

+++Okay, but how are they reacting to you? They see your face, they see your body. And for some -- many, most -- looks are considerably more important than for others.

I think I'll explore this more myself by Googling it.+++

I've never had any complaints in that department, but, again, that's not really the sort of thing you say to someone, so who knows? I do, of course, elicit the opinions of friends, especially those who I know will be honest with me.

+++Wow. It has come up over and over again in regard to my own relationships.+++

I have different priorities.

+++Back to Al Pacino in The Scent of a Woman?+++

I know you described that film to me once. As a general rule, Hollywood depictions of blind people are usually way off the mark, though individual examples might be better than others.

+++Accepting of course that the ending will often be construed in very differ ways because of how the beginning is construed in regard to something like "looks".+++

Yes, absolutely.

[iambiguous]

All I can do is to suggest [over and again] that we bring our own respective moral philosophies "down to Earth" given different contexts. Maybe there will be a "breakthrough" in regard to our "failures to communicate" or maybe not

Well, a suggestion:
If you are writing about a post here and quoting from it OR you are quoting from an article and someone says, hey, I don't think you are interpreting that correctly and then they present/justify their interpretation, you could point out what part of that you quoted fits your interpretation. Or you could point out what part of their jusification doesn't make sense of fit the quote.

On the other hand, how about if you note what you construe to be the most egregious misinterpretation on my part. Then offer up your own interpretation so we can all note the contrast.

Then we can take our respective philosophical assessments of meaning and morality here and, well, take a wild guess.

Then you and others insist that you have already done this repeatedly with me. As though your own interpretation of our exchanges need be as far as we go. And while that may well be the case given particular posts of mine, I suspect in turn that anyone who does not share your own interpretation of what the author argues is wrong.

That way we get a sense of how you drew your conclusion.

I make that abundantly clear given the points I raise in the OPs here:

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

Then I challenge anyone here [or there] to note how my own understanding of "I" at the existential intersection of identity, dasein, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy is not applicable to them. Then we can explore why their own understanding here is existentially is, what, far more rational?

Given an issue and a context of their own choosing.

On the other hand, as a moral nihilist, I'm still convinced that "failures to communicate" are an inherent component of human interactions in a No God world.

Sure, though sometimes, improvements can be made, however humble they may turn out to be.

Improvements can be made by doctors performing abortions or by corporations manufacturing guns or by folks growing marijuana but where is the equivalent of that in regard to the morality of these behaviors. Ask those on all sides and they can attest to improvements that, in the either/or world, either can be demonstrated or not. As for making things better here in the is/ought world?

You first.

OK, prometues's speculations about another poster's sex life did help us understand Pagan Morality, but then why haven't you brought in more about your non-pagan sexual experiences, since mulling over Maia's experiences as a blind pagan could be compared and contrasted with those.

Again, the thrust of my own set of assumptions here is such that I am less interested in what people believe about sexuality, or what they choose to do sexually or how they react to what others choose to do...and more interested in the extent to which they argue that their own sexual behavior reflects either "the best of all possible worlds" or literally the one and the only objective truth regarding sex.

And I missed this focus on your sexuality and other nihilists' sexual experiences there in the Nihilism threads.

Nihilism and sex? How about this: anything goes in a No God world. Why? Because any and all sexual behaviors are simply rationalized given one or another set of hopelessly conflicting "personal opinions".

I really do get the impression you read what you quote - from people's posts here, from articles - extremely quicky and with little care. I said, your sexuality.

What difference does it make whose sexual behavior we examine here? Instead, the far more important discussion [in my view] revolves around whether those behaviors can be defended philosophically such that the deontologists among us can pin down objectively moral and objectively immoral behavior. And then the extent to which our individual prejudices are or are not rooted in dasein.

Given there's no way to discuss Pagan Morality without mulling over Maia's personal sexual relationships.

Actually, Maia left me with the impression that she is not really comfortable discussing these things

So, then it could be, possibly Stooge behavior to focus on it.

Sure, I'll let you know when she does cross the line. And, by all mean, please keep me informed if you spot it first.

Now she found it amusing when he brought it up. This issue isn't her. The issue was for me that in defense of focusing on her, you said it fit the topic of Pagan Morality - I don't really see Promethian's post as making any real connections to that, even though obviously sex and sexuality relate to the issue. And I notice that if this is a good thing, finding out about particular individuals sex and sexual mores, it's odd that it has come up from regarding anyone else.

Note to others:

What on Earth, in your opinion, is he trying to convey here about Maia and myself. About Paganism and morality. I didn't read Prom's post and I only click on iwannaplato when he responds to something that I post. Otherwise, he is obviously much more comfortable up in the clouds with those like Veritas Aequita.

Theoretical constructs galore!

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Then back to this:

Certain personal attitudes about sex relate to conflicting goods and nihilist for example, but I can't remember reading about where you and promethian (pardon my repeat misspellings of his name) have talking about your sexual attitudes in relation to these or other topics, or asked other people about them.

That's not the focus at all with me. Instead, with Maia, I'm trying grasp this [to me] mysterious Intrinsic Self that allows her not only to grasp my own argument regarding dasein but [up to a point] to agree with it. But only up to the point where her Intrinsic Self takes over. And then, given her own understanding of Nature, the Goddess and Paganism, she "just knows" that in regard to some things all the new experiences, the new relationships and access to all the new information and knowledge in the world won't matter.

In fact, a part of me is rooting for her to lead me to my own new understanding of this truly mind-boggling existence.

So, given that Stooge behavior has been defined by you as a focus on you rather than the topic, I thought perhaps his focusing on her sexaul experiences might be Stoogy. I now see that the potentiall connection that someone might make sometime about sexual experiences and paganism, magically made it not Stoogey.[/.quote]

We would not likely be having this exchange at all if you weren't following me around here and posted in the Pagan Morality thread. I stopped posting here [12/22] because Maia did not respond. Though she does take breaks from philosophy from time to time.

[Iwannaplato]

On the other hand, how about if you note what you construe to be the most egregious misinterpretation on my part. Then offer up your own interpretation so we can all note the contrast.

Taking out the word 'egregious' that is precisely what I do each time. I explain why I think it is a misinterpretation and generally go back to the quotes to show why I drew the conclusion I did. Your reaction has generally been to label these interpretations and you do not go back to the quote and explain how you reached your conclusion. It is as if it is a rule that differing interpretations can't ever be resolved and any attempt to try to engage in that process is hegemonic or about dominance. Two people simply cannot explore the justifications of their interpretations and see if they can agree.

Then we can take our respective philosophical assessments of meaning and morality here and, well, take a wild guess.

Why must it be a wild guess? Why is that the default and assumption? If someone came, quoted you, and said: Iambiguous is asserting that Christian morals are the correct and objective morals, I'd hop in and say they were misinterpreting what you wrote - unless suddenly you write things that could be interpreted that way. I think I'd be able to back that up, using quotes and justification. And if they managed to find quotes that satisfied their interpretation, well, I could potentially, with great surprise, acknowledge that. Not everything is a wild guess. Yes, sometimes, differing perspectives on what a text means cannot be resolved but it's hardly a rule.

If it is all wild guesses, then there is absolutely no reason to quote people.

Then you and others insist that you have already done this repeatedly with me. As though your own interpretation of our exchanges need be as far as we go.

No, that is precisely false. In fact I have, and even in the post you quote here, suggested you do the same. That you then present your reasons for interpreting it the way you do. And I specifically mention that this could lead to us understanding each other positions and perhaps coming to agreement. That it is the beginning of a process.

I specifically suggested something that is requesting that you respond with the reasons for your position and you took this to mean my interpretation 'need be as ar as we go.' Please reread what I wrote. Seriously, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. I have been requesting for a while that you explain how you arrive at the interpretations you do. That is me specifically asking you, after I have explained mine, present your reasons for yours. I am directly asking to hear your reasoning and that is after I presented mine.

That way we get a sense of how you drew your conclusion.

I make that abundantly clear given the points I raise in the OPs here:

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

I am talking about how you drew the conclusion about the post you are quoting. Was that really unclear. I have been responding to your interpretations of what you quote for a while. I am not saying you never justify anything. I am saying that when I disagree with your interpretation of a text, or someone else does this, you do not justify your interpretation. You assert that it's a guess or that I am trying to dominate or force something on you. Or that they are just perspectives. I present my reasoning and use quotes. Most people respond by trying to demonstrate why they arrived at their conclusion.

Yes, you have presented arguments for your main positions. I am talking about the interpretation of articles and other posters.

I understand that you have presented your positions on those issues and made your case for them. I am talking about how you respond to posts,

And again, I have asked for you to further present your position, which you have interpreted as, nothing should come after my position is said.

[iambiguous]

Okay, but in most communites there are actual rules of behavior -- customs, traditions, folkways, mores, laws -- that either reward or punish particular behaviors. I'm just trying to get a sense of how that might unfold for all practical purposes in a community that consists entirely of Pagans as opposed to Pagans coming together from time to time but then going back home to communities that include many, many others who are not Pagans.

I don't know of any specifically Pagan communities like that, though there are quite a few that you could call Pagan friendly, with their focus more on environmental issues. The people who call the shots are the people who own the land.

Landowners? Do you mean "in general" or in regard to particular men and women who host "Pagan friendly" gatherings?

Here's a link that explores Pagan reactions to the Wicker Man: https://www.quora.com/Do-pagans-and-Wic ... gative-way

From my frame of mind, however, there's still the part where Pagans are confronted with conflicting goods and everyone is allowed to embody his or her own personal assessment of Nature. How for all practical purposes would that be sustained? Then the distinction between a Wicker Man/Sommar community where everyone seems to be on the same page -- right makes might -- and those Pagans such as yourself who do not live among other Pagans day in and day out but have to accommodate communities where Paganism is just one of many, many other spiritual paths.

Perhaps, for practical purposes, a community of Pagans like that couldn't actually be sustained, and would soon break up due to arguments.

That's what I suspect as well. If for a different reason. It's just that I react to my own reasons much the same as I do the reasons of others: drawn and quartered.

I hear that! On the other hand, in believing that my own life is essentially meaningless, and in being fractured and fragmented morally, and in getting closer and closer to oblivion, I really do want to bump into someone able to, say, startle me with an argument such that I actually begin to hope there's a way out of the existential abyss I've dug myself down into.

I hope you do too.

I'll be sure to let you know once I'm up out of it. Just be sure to let me know if you start to tumble down into it yourself.

Why then do millions upon millions of men and women around the globe make that claim about their own path? That's the part I root historically and culturally in dasein. On the other hand, the reason many make that claim is because they might be surrounded by those who command them to. The "or else" objectivists. And many do command obedience [and get it] precisely because so much is at stake here on both sides of the grave.

It's clearly part of human nature to do so. Presumably such attitudes gave advantages to communities that had it, such as cohesion and common purpose, as opposed to those that didn't. The downside of this is constant war with other communities.

Dueling dogmas, for some.

On the other hand, the more people you meet the greater the possibility -- the likelihood -- you'll meet someone able to change your mind about Paganism. Just as over the course of my own life I bumped into others who managed to change my mind regarding Christianity, Marxism, Objectivism, Existentialism, etc.

Yes, that could happen.

And if that ever does happen to you, well, what a whole different exchange that might be.

But here it seems that, unlike me, you have discovered a part of yourself that is able to transcend dasein and "just know" that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Only for myself. And these things may change over time, too.

Well, if they ever do, I'd be curious to discuss that with you.

In fact, it's this part of the "human condition" which always fascinates me the most. In other words, how two or more people can be confronted with the same set of circumstances and yet come to completely conflicting reactions to it.

Because we're all different. Thankfully.

On the other hand, some clearly seem intent on confronting those differences. I quote for example human history to date.

And, for each of us as individuals, they matter in different orders. Also, for someone blind from birth, all of those other factors are considerably less dependant of being able to see.

Completely independent of being able to see, in fact.

No one can take that away from you, of course. To me, you seem especially comfortable in your own skin. And you do have access to a frame of mind that allows you to accept certain behaviors as "deep down" either Good or Bad.

Which, I suppose, is why I and others here are interested in how your interactions with others do come around to "looks". Do you recall any particular instances where that was discussed. Either with sighted men and women or with those who are blind. You can't react to how others look because you can't see them. But how do they react to you?

I've never enquired after the looks of someone who I've been attracted to. It's not really the sort of thing you ask someone, and I don't care about it, anyway.

Over and again, however, the part where not being blind myself -- and in factoring in how important sight was for me in my own relationships -- there will only be so far in that we are able to go in communicating certain aspects of what some call "love and human remains"

As for my own looks, well, that's a different matter, and yes, of course I take care of my appearance. Not just for the sake of others, important though that obviously is to function in society, but for my own sake, too. I hate feeling dirty and dishevelled. Whether I succeed in that I'll have to leave up to others to decide. You know what I look like.

That's true. And all you can do is to articulate your own thoughts and feelings about it to others -- blind or sighted -- and be prepared to go back and forth regarding the things that are most difficult to communicate. And maybe they never will be. But, as you noted, that, in part, is what actually makes human relationships considerably more intriguing...you are never entirely sure what to expect from others. And, of course, for better or for worse depending on the circumstances.

Okay, but how are they reacting to you? They see your face, they see your body. And for some -- many, most -- looks are considerably more important than for others.

I've never had any complaints in that department, but, again, that's not really the sort of thing you say to someone, so who knows? I do, of course, elicit the opinions of friends, especially those who I know will be honest with me.

Of course, in the sighted world complaints about "looks" often abound. We turn on our TV or go to the movies and note how "beauty" is still the bottom line for many. The billions of dollars spent on plastic surgery each year alone speaks volumes. And the part where some attribute this all to genes and others to memes.

[Maia]

+++Landowners? Do you mean "in general" or in regard to particular men and women who host "Pagan friendly" gatherings?+++

I mean the people who own the land on which the gatherings take place. Land is extremely expensive in the UK, being a small and crowded island, and those lucky enough to own any, or rich enough to buy any, are in a very privileged position. Unfair? Absolutely, but that's the world we live in. There have been attempts, over the years, to set up Pagan land funds in order to buy some land somewhere, which all, as far as I know, share one thing in common, namely, their abject failure. I'm happy to be proven wrong on that but I've certainly never heard of a successful outcome.

+++Here's a link that explores Pagan reactions to the Wicker Man: https://www.quora.com/Do-pagans-and-Wic ... gative-way+++

An interesting set of responses, which I think can be summed up by saying that Pagans love the film and know it's just fiction, though also well researched. And no one likes the Nick Cage version.

+++That's what I suspect as well. If for a different reason. It's just that I react to my own reasons much the same as I do the reasons of others: drawn and quartered.+++

Pagans are an extremely fractious bunch even at the best of times, which is one of the reasons why I prefer to do my own thing these days.

+++I'll be sure to let you know once I'm up out of it. Just be sure to let me know if you start to tumble down into it yourself.+++

I'm confident that the latter will never happen, though if it does, I'll let you know.

+++On the other hand, some clearly seem intent on confronting those differences. I quote for example human history to date.+++

Human nature, again. I doubt that it will ever really change.

+++No one can take that away from you, of course. To me, you seem especially comfortable in your own skin. And you do have access to a frame of mind that allows you to accept certain behaviors as "deep down" either Good or Bad.+++

Thank you. I like to think that I am, too.

+++Over and again, however, the part where not being blind myself -- and in factoring in how important sight was for me in my own relationships -- there will only be so far in that we are able to go in communicating certain aspects of what some call "love and human remains"+++

It's the same for me too, of course. I have no idea what it's actually like to be able to see. Perhaps you can imagine what that's like when growing up.

+++That's true. And all you can do is to articulate your own thoughts and feelings about it to others -- blind or sighted -- and be prepared to go back and forth regarding the things that are most difficult to communicate. And maybe they never will be. But, as you noted, that, in part, is what actually makes human relationships considerably more intriguing...you are never entirely sure what to expect from others. And, of course, for better or for worse depending on the circumstances.+++

I agree. A little mystery makes the world go round, I think.

+++Of course, in the sighted world complaints about "looks" often abound. We turn on our TV or go to the movies and note how "beauty" is still the bottom line for many. The billions of dollars spent on plastic surgery each year alone speaks volumes. And the part where some attribute this all to genes and others to memes.+++

A certain disreputable member here thinks I look like a "sexy british beatnik spy in an Austin Powers movie" according to what he said over at ILP, anyway. I presume he's referring to the shades.

[promethean75]

Oh behave, Maia!

If only u could see Mike Myers play this ridiculous Austin Powers guy. It's such a wonderful parody of 60's british fashion, culture, and character.

In this scene he's driving in a convertible with a sexy British woman he's trying to persuade to do a photo shoot for him.

[Maia]

Oh behave, Maia!

If only u could see Mike Myers play this ridiculous Austin Powers guy. It's such a wonderful parody of 60's british fashion, culture, and character.

In this scene he's driving in a convertible with a sexy British woman he's trying to persuade to do a photo shoot for him.

Well, groovy. Sounds fab.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, how about if you note what you construe to be the most egregious misinterpretation on my part. Then offer up your own interpretation so we can all note the contrast.

Taking out the word 'egregious' that is precisely what I do each time.

Then, here and now, we're stuck. And all you can do is to provide us with further example of how I misconstrue the meaning of others.

On the other hand, pertaining to meaning and morality, that happens all the time here, doesn't it? Thread after thread after thread in which someone is accusing someone else of failing to understand what to them, only a fool could possibly have missed. Then those here who yammer on and on about "woke" when, from my frame of mind, they're actually just pissed off because others refuse to embrace their own moral and political prejudices.

I explain why I think it is a misinterpretation and generally go back to the quotes to show why I drew the conclusion I did. Your reaction has generally been to label these interpretations and you do not go back to the quote and explain how you reached your conclusion.

Again, all I can think to say "here and now" is that this is just more mental masturbation to me. And as soon as your own definitions and deductions of meaning and morality do take aim at Pagan morality or abortion or human sexuality, etc., then the parts that I propound here just vanish into thin air.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Then we can take our respective philosophical assessments of meaning and morality here and, well, take a wild guess.

Why must it be a wild guess?

That was tongue in cheek.

Why is that the default and assumption? If someone came, quoted you, and said: Iambiguous is asserting that Christian morals are the correct and objective morals, I'd hop in and say they were misinterpreting what you wrote...

On the other hand, there is absolutely no possibility here that our failure to communicate above reflects instead the fact that my own understanding of the author is actually more pertinent given the world that we live in, given the assumptions I make about meaning and morality in my signature threads. Right? I'm still waiting for those of your ilk here to go there and given sets of circumstances of their own choosing note how my points are simply not applicable to them.

It is as if it is a rule that differing interpretations can't ever be resolved and any attempt to try to engage in that process is hegemonic or about dominance. Two people simply cannot explore the justifications of their interpretations and see if they can agree.

That is simply preposterous. Unless, perhaps, you're right?

Seriously though, sure, different people can resolve moral and political conflagrations. On the other hand, in following philosophers down through the centuries, we notice that for any number of particularly fierce "conflicting goods", they have not even come close to resolving anything. Well, other than in insisting that they are already on the one and the only true path.

So, more to the point [theirs] why aren't you on it with them? Then those who won't take no for an answer? Join us...or else. Also, those who insist that however you might agree with them about some things, if you are not a white Northern European straight male, you are naturally inferior anyway.

Then we can take our respective philosophical assessments of meaning and morality here and, well, take a wild guess.

Why must it be a wild guess? Why is that the default and assumption?

It is for me. Here and now. Why? Because I flat-out recognize the enormous gap between what I think I know about the universe and my place in it and an actual definitive, objective grasp of existence itself.

Are you really able to convince yourself this is, what, considerably less applicable to you?

If someone came, quoted you, and said: Iambiguous is asserting that Christian morals are the correct and objective morals, I'd hop in and say they were misinterpreting what you wrote - unless suddenly you write things that could be interpreted that way.

Only a pinhead, in my view, is able to sustain a frame of mind such as that. And though few objectivists are pinheads [many are quite intelligent, in fact], there are apparently places where that is actually the exception. And, of course, where I hop in here is when the FFOs among them begin clamoring about all those who, due to ignorance or stupidity, refuse to toe the line.

If it is all wild guesses, then there is absolutely no reason to quote people.

On the contrary, others maintain. For those here who are particularly fierce and fanatical about dividing up the world between "one of us" vs. "one of them", if you are not quoting them and them alone, who knows, you might come across something like this:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

Then you and others insist that you have already done this repeatedly with me. As though your own interpretation of our exchanges need be as far as we go.

No, that is precisely false. In fact I have, and even in the post you quote here, suggested you do the same. That you then present your reasons for interpreting it the way you do. And I specifically mention that this could lead to us understanding each other positions and perhaps coming to agreement. That it is the beginning of a process.

Again, all we can do here it seems is to keep on keeping on. Try again and again to communicate our respective moral philosophies existentially. As a result, a breakthrough might bring me closer to your frame of mind or you to mine. If not, then we can simply move on to others. Or come back a few months down the road and see if we have gotten any closer to understanding each other.

I specifically suggested something that is requesting that you respond with the reasons for your position and you took this to mean my interpretation 'need be as ar as we go.'

Indeed, that is how the objectivist mind works by and large, from my perspective. Some are just more flagrant -- more insufferably arrogant and authoritarian -- than others.

That way we get a sense of how you drew your conclusion.

I make that abundantly clear given the points I raise in the OPs here:

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

I am talking about how you drew the conclusion about the post you are quoting. Was that really unclear. I have been responding to your interpretations of what you quote for a while. I am not saying you never justify anything. I am saying that when I disagree with your interpretation of a text, or someone else does this, you do not justify your interpretation.

Note to others:

Do you agree? Yes? Then [going forward] please note for me your own reactions to additional examples like this. Besides, over and again I suggest that, in a No God world, meaning and morality themselves may well be beyond the reach of philosophers.