Pagan morality

[iambiguous]

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.

Stoicism? Then the part where down through the ages any number of moral, political and religious movements either were around, are still around, or probably always will be around insisting that nothing is unfair in the best of all possible worlds. That would be how they construe it.

With you, however, much like myself [if I'm understanding either one of us correctly], you seem more intent on explaining to others how you have come to understand your life, an understanding you are comfortable with and can defend, but not one in which, as with any number of FFOs here, you divide up the world between those who think just like you do or those who are wrong. It's that ambiguity regarding immortality and salvation, I can empathize with as well. I just don't know what death entails for human beings. Only life itself can seem more mysterious.

On the other hand, philosophically or otherwise, the part where any number of communities connect the dots between moral commandments and immortality and salvation. What might be at stake in other words on both sides of the grave.

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.

Reminds me a bit of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand..."metsphycal" cult? Back again to what I would construe to be that crucial distinction between a community consisting entirely of Pagans 24/7, and communities in which Pagans are but a tiny percentage of the population. Then the part whereby, with respect to the landowners, what can become particular important is not so much what is believed, but that which is actually able to be enforced by those with the political and economic power.

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 because the Nick Cage remake basically revolves around Hollywood. Burbank's rendition of Paganism? Show me the money! Unless it's a flop.

Anyway, what fasinates me here is this: what if those who attend the Pagan gatherings that you have been to were in fact able to live in a community of Pagans all year round? What then of abortion, nihilism and sexuality. One way or another, it seems, actual "rules of behavior" must be both enacted and enforced.

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.

Yes, but then my own understanding of the world around me pertaining to value judgments is no less fractious. On the other hand, I live in my own imploded cocoon world these days. It's just that it's now turning into decades.

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.

Can't ask more from you than that. And, of course, the other way around. In other words, if someone does manage to persude me that I can extrude myself from this hole.

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.

This is the part I have the most difficulty understanding about you. You believe this "deep down inside" but the manner in which I construe an Intrinsic or Spiritual or Natural "self" is no less fractured and fragmented. On the other hand, you are still all those other things that fascinate me as well. Mostly the part about how blindness itself becomes a factor in how you understand yourself when there was never really any other reality to compare it with.

The thought of becoming blind or deaf scares the hell out of me. But mostly because when you've lived a good portion of your life being able to see and to hear, there's just no getting around how profoundly that might change things if you no longer have access to either one.

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.

Which is why it would be interesting to attend a discussion group composed of, say, 30 men and women. Ten who were blind from birth, ten who were able to see for many years and ten who have never been blind at all. What experiences might overlap between them and what experiences might they have to come back to again and again trying to understand each other better. But recognizing the possibility that some things will only be understood going in so far.

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.

Well, in that case, going back to the Big Bang or to God or to Nature or to Pantheism, around and around and around the antinomies swirl.

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.

Well, that's only because Astro Cat is [to the best of my knowledge] still a lesbian.

Seriously though, "looks" and philosophy forums? All I can do here is to extrapolate from past experiences. If you'll recall, I suggested that you remove the "sexy" avatar from ILP and other places because my own "gut feeling" "just knew" that there would be any number of men who would be attracted to you for all the wrong reasons. The UrwrongX1000 Syndrome, let's call it.

Few men [philosophers, Pagans or otherwise] can resist going there. As Harry once tried to explain to Sally.

Unless, of course, he was wrong.

Just be careful, okay?

[Maia]

+++Stoicism? Then the part where down through the ages any number of moral, political and religious movements either were around, are still around, or probably always will be around insisting that nothing is unfair in the best of all possible worlds. That would be how they construe it.+++

Unfairness certainly exists, and we can either choose to try and do something about it, or not. I prefer to try and do something.

+++With you, however, much like myself [if I'm understanding either one of us correctly], you seem more intent on explaining to others how you have come to understand your life, an understanding you are comfortable with and can defend, but not one in which, as with any number of FFOs here, you divide up the world between those who think just like you do or those who are wrong. It's that ambiguity regarding immortality and salvation, I can empathize with as well. I just don't know what death entails for human beings. Only life itself can seem more mysterious.

On the other hand, philosophically or otherwise, the part where any number of communities connect the dots between moral commandments and immortality and salvation. What might be at stake in other words on both sides of the grave.+++

I think if it was really possible to know for sure about an afterlife, then we'd already know about it, and would have done for untold thousands of years, ever since humans first evolved. It would simply be common knowledge, taken for granted, and human civilisation would have been very different. Completely unrecognisable, in fact, if it even existed at all. So given this, the search for definite answers seems a bit futile. Better, I think, to concentrate on the here and now, and improving our lives. Others may disagree, of course.

+++Reminds me a bit of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand..."metsphycal" cult? Back again to what I would construe to be that crucial distinction between a community consisting entirely of Pagans 24/7, and communities in which Pagans are but a tiny percentage of the population. Then the part whereby, with respect to the landowners, what can become particular important is not so much what is believed, but that which is actually able to be enforced by those with the political and economic power.+++

A lot of Pagans, myself included, prefer to live in normal society. Most of the people I interact with on a daily basis, at work for example, are not Pagans, and that's how I like it.

+++That's because the Nick Cage remake basically revolves around Hollywood. Burbank's rendition of Paganism? Show me the money! Unless it's a flop.+++

A good chunk of the dialogue is lifted unchanged from the original script, but the one crucial thing it lacks is the music, and that, I'm afraid, is sacrilege.

+++Anyway, what fasinates me here is this: what if those who attend the Pagan gatherings that you have been to were in fact able to live in a community of Pagans all year round? What then of abortion, nihilism and sexuality. One way or another, it seems, actual "rules of behavior" must be both enacted and enforced.+++

Yes, such rules would certainly need to be enforced, if such a community was ever set up. Whoever set it up would presumably have to make the rules, or at the very least, set up a process for doing so.

+++This is the part I have the most difficulty understanding about you. You believe this "deep down inside" but the manner in which I construe an Intrinsic or Spiritual or Natural "self" is no less fractured and fragmented. On the other hand, you are still all those other things that fascinate me as well. Mostly the part about how blindness itself becomes a factor in how you understand yourself when there was never really any other reality to compare it with.+++

It's difficult to quantify just how much being blind has affected the sort of person I am, though it undoubtedly has, in all sorts of ways, many of which I probably don't even realise. It's not something that I constantly think about, though, because it's just, well, normal. I'm happy with who I am.

+++The thought of becoming blind or deaf scares the hell out of me. But mostly because when you've lived a good portion of your life being able to see and to hear, there's just no getting around how profoundly that might change things if you no longer have access to either one.+++

I can definitely relate to that. Going deaf would indeed be an extremely scary thing.

+++Which is why it would be interesting to attend a discussion group composed of, say, 30 men and women. Ten who were blind from birth, ten who were able to see for many years and ten who have never been blind at all. What experiences might overlap between them and what experiences might they have to come back to again and again trying to understand each other better. But recognizing the possibility that some things will only be understood going in so far.+++

I think the chances of organising such a meeting would be pretty slim.

+++Well, in that case, going back to the Big Bang or to God or to Nature or to Pantheism, around and around and around the antinomies swirl.+++

"The little old beetle goes round and round. Always the same way, you see, until it ends up right up tight to the nail. Poor old thing."

+++Well, that's only because Astro Cat is [to the best of my knowledge] still a lesbian.

Seriously though, "looks" and philosophy forums? All I can do here is to extrapolate from past experiences. If you'll recall, I suggested that you remove the "sexy" avatar from ILP and other places because my own "gut feeling" "just knew" that there would be any number of men who would be attracted to you for all the wrong reasons. The UrwrongX1000 Syndrome, let's call it.

Few men [philosophers, Pagans or otherwise] can resist going there. As Harry once tried to explain to Sally.

Unless, of course, he was wrong.

Just be careful, okay?+++

Absolutely, yes, I'm always careful.

[promethean75]

"Well, that's only because Astro Cat is [to the best of my knowledge] still a lesbian."

Now wait just a second. Why couldn't i want them both if i were wanting?

Astro Cat (aka Josie) may not even be real tho. I had a strong hunch she was a sock puppet being played by some homo savant in a basement somewhere to stir all the dorks up here at PN.

And as for Maia, she's just a darling in every way. Intelligent, polite, workable sense of humor, all that stuff. My paternal instincts also get fired up becuz i feel like she's been cheated by being born blind and i wanna somehow lavish her with joy and happiness. I mean what kind of a god would create chemistry laws that allow for genetic errors like that to happen? The most critically important sense a human being can have and she gets cheated of it. That pisses me off like nobody's business. If i ever meet this god I'm gonna poke his fuckin eyes out.

Oh and the reason why i acted like a total ass to Astro and her mate (who posted briefly here) was becuz i thought she was a sock puppet and i wanted to fuck with whoever was playing her.

[promethean75]

^^^ ... and i can only imagine what kind of PMs these two got about me from the peanut gallery or some shmuck tryna move in on em.

[Maia]

"Well, that's only because Astro Cat is [to the best of my knowledge] still a lesbian."

Now wait just a second. Why couldn't i want them both if i were wanting?

Astro Cat (aka Josie) may not even be real tho. I had a strong hunch she was a sock puppet being played by some homo savant in a basement somewhere to stir all the dorks up here at PN.

And as for Maia, she's just a darling in every way. Intelligent, polite, workable sense of humor, all that stuff. My paternal instincts also get fired up becuz i feel like she's been cheated by being born blind and i wanna somehow lavish her with joy and happiness. I mean what kind of a god would create chemistry laws that allow for genetic errors like that to happen? The most critically important sense a human being can have and she gets cheated of it. That pisses me off like nobody's business. If i ever meet this god I'm gonna poke his fuckin eyes out.

Oh and the reason why i acted like a total ass to Astro and her mate (who posted briefly here) was becuz i thought she was a sock puppet and i wanted to fuck with whoever was playing her.

Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment, but there's honestly no need to feel bad for me. I don't feel that way. I like my life, and feel very lucky, in fact, about a whole load of things, and do not consider myself to have been cheated in any way. Quite the opposite.

I'm far from flawless, though, and I know I have a quick temper at times, but it soon passes. Well, usually, anyway.

[promethean75]

Yeah, you could argue that. If you were born blind, you can't experience the absence of sight as a lack... becuz you can't know what it is you lack; you don't know what's missing. Now, what would have truly sucked would have been if you weren't born blind and became blind at some point.

But let me tell you that there is a lot of horrible crap in this world that you are fortunate enough not to be able to see. I envy that.

Hey yo has your hearing become super bionic as compensation for not being able to see? Have you ever had a hearing test?

[Maia]

Yeah, you could argue that. If you were born blind, you can't experience the absence of sight as a lack... becuz you can't know what it is you lack; you don't know what's missing. Now, what would have truly sucked would have been if you weren't born blind and became blind at some point.

But let me tell you that there is a lot of horrible crap in this world that you are fortunate enough not to be able to see. I envy that.

Hey yo has your hearing become super bionic as compensation for not being able to see? Have you ever had a hearing test?

Yes, as I've always said, people who lose their sight are in a very different position from those who have never had it. I can't imagine what that must be like, though having met quite a few people who have, at school for example, and at work too, since I work with the elderly, I know how traumatic and difficult it can be for them.

My hearing is fine, and I rely on it a lot, of course. Not least for navigation, using echolocation, which is, incidentally, a skill that those who lose their sight later in life find it difficult to pick up. To me, though, it just comes naturally.

[promethean75]

I'm sorry.... echolocation? What are you, a bat?

That can't be right, can it? Human ears are anatomically equipped with that ability?

Damn this is the first thing I've learned in years. I totally did not know that.

[Maia]

I'm sorry.... echolocation? What are you, a bat?

That can't be right, can it? Human ears are anatomically equipped with that ability?

Damn this is the first thing I've learned in years. I totally did not know that.

Well, I might be a bit batty, but I'm not a bat...

I do it by clicking my tongue a few times, and can tell, for example, the size of a room I'm in, and if there are any obstacles in it. Same if I'm walking along the pavement. I use my cane for the immediate stuff in front of me, and by clicking my tongue for things up ahead, such as lampposts, trees, people, and so on.

[promethean75]

I'm gonna try that tongue clicking trick. If I get hit by a car, I blame you.

Also, does your text reader produce speech nuance to indicate statement type, or is it monotone?

For instance, if it's reading a question, do you recognize it as a question by how it is read, or does the reader have to say "question mark" at the end of the sentence?

And what happens when it's reading slang or colloquial language? I always type 'u' instead of 'you' and 'aks' instead of 'ask'. How does it deal with that?

I ask becuz I'm always afraid I'll short-circuit the thing when i reply to you.

[Maia]

I'm gonna try that tongue clicking trick. If I get hit by a car, I blame you.

Also, does your text reader produce speech nuance to indicate statement type, or is it monotone?

For instance, if it's reading a question, do you recognize it as a question by how it is read, or does the reader have to say "question mark" at the end of the sentence?

And what happens when it's reading slang or colloquial language? I always type 'u' instead of 'you' and 'aks' instead of 'ask'. How does it deal with that?

I ask becuz I'm always afraid I'll short-circuit the thing up when i reply to you.

I can set it to read punctuation, or not. I usually don't, unless something is unclear. I can also set it to spell out every letter, but again, that's not usually necessary. It doesn't really matter if you spell a word incorrectly, within reason, as it'll recognise it phonetically. It's monotone but you can choose male or female voice, and accent.

[promethean75]

What you need is a pair of google glasses with advanced AI that can interpret text and reproduce it exactly as it would sound if it were spoken. They'd have little speakers built into them too. You could get the Austin Powers ones. How awesome would that be?

Alright, kids, we're getting Maia a pair of these things, so I'm setting up an account for everyone to pitch in because Musk or Gates or whoever is going to charge us an arm and a leg to get a pair.

[Maia]

What you need is a pair of google glasses with advanced AI that can interpret text and reproduce it exactly as it would sound if it were spoken. They'd have little speakers built into them too. You could get the Austin Powers ones. How awesome would that be?

Alright, kids, we're getting Maia a pair of these things, so I'm setting up an account for everyone to pitch in because Musk or Gates or whoever is going to charge us an arm and a leg to get a pair.

Horrendously expensive, I imagine. I can use OCR (optical character recognition) with my scanner to produce a text file of any printed document. It even works with handwriting, some of the time.

[iambiguous]

Stoicism? Then the part where down through the ages any number of moral, political and religious movements either were around, are still around, or probably always will be around insisting that nothing is unfair in the best of all possible worlds. That would be how they construe it.

Unfairness certainly exists, and we can either choose to try and do something about it, or not. I prefer to try and do something.

Unfairness, however, from what point of view? Some insist it is clearly unfair to the unborn baby/clump of cells to abort it...to destroy it. While others insist it is clearly unfair to force women to give birth in a world where men never, ever have to confront their own unwanted pregnancies.

And, again, it's how you have come to think and to feel about this that I am still trying to understand. Though maybe I never will. Some here will fall back on Scripture...connecting the dots between that and God and Judgment Day. Others anchor their own set of assumptions in one or another deontological -- Kantian -- philosophical assessment. Some bring it all back to "biological imperatives" insisting that only the manner in which they understand Nature...counts?

Then those like me who are "fractured and fragmented"...drawn and quartered, tugged and pulled ambivalently in conflicting directions with respect to human morality.

But then this part...

With you, however, much like myself [if I'm understanding either one of us correctly], you seem more intent on explaining to others how you have come to understand your life, an understanding you are comfortable with and can defend, but not one in which, as with any number of FFOs here, you divide up the world between those who think just like you do or those who are wrong. It's that ambiguity regarding immortality and salvation, I can empathize with as well. I just don't know what death entails for human beings. Only life itself can seem more mysterious.

On the other hand, philosophically or otherwise, the part where any number of communities connect the dots between moral commandments and immortality and salvation. What might be at stake in other words on both sides of the grave.

I think if it was really possible to know for sure about an afterlife, then we'd already know about it, and would have done for untold thousands of years, ever since humans first evolved. It would simply be common knowledge, taken for granted, and human civilisation would have been very different. Completely unrecognisable, in fact, if it even existed at all. So given this, the search for definite answers seems a bit futile. Better, I think, to concentrate on the here and now, and improving our lives. Others may disagree, of course.

Yes, that certainly seems reasonable to many. Unfortunately, for some of us, however, it doesn't make that part about oblivion go away. There's death philosophically and then there's death existentially. Then the part where each of us one by one embodies a set of circumstances such that death itself is either near or far. The closer we get to the abyss, in other words.

Think about it like this:

Suppose it was announced on the news that a huge asteroid had just been discovered. It will smash into the Earth and, if we can't divert it, it becomes the final extinction event of them all. Imagine then as we get closer and closer to the impact, we here at PN create a thread to discuss it. We are all going to die if the asteroid isn't stopped.

Imagine that discussion about death. We're all just a few months away from the impact. And the impact will kill each and every one of us. We're all in the same boat then, right? Whereas now some of us are considerably closer to it than others. And then those who wonder how on Earth someone can remain a Pagan when it is Nature itself that wipes out the human race.

Reminds me a bit of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand..."metaphyseal" cult? Back again to what I would construe to be that crucial distinction between a community consisting entirely of Pagans 24/7, and communities in which Pagans are but a tiny percentage of the population. Then the part whereby, with respect to the landowners, what can become particular important is not so much what is believed, but that which is actually able to be enforced by those with the political and economic power.

A lot of Pagans, myself included, prefer to live in normal society. Most of the people I interact with on a daily basis, at work for example, are not Pagans, and that's how I like it.

Until one day, for any number of profoundly problematic reasons, you don't like it anymore. Now, from my frame of mind [which may be entirely or largely incorrect], we are on the same page here in recognizing that, given the lives we live, any new experiences, new relationships and/or access to new information and knowledge can result in our changing our minds.

Just not about some things though, right? You are able to convince yourself "here and now" that there is a spiritual, natural, intuitive Intrinsic Self inside you that nothing can touch. The part, for those like me, deemed to be just one more psychological defense mechanism. It's less what some believe here, in my view, and more that they have been able to "comfort and console" themselves by at least being able to believe in something.

Anyway, what fascinates me here is this: what if those who attend the Pagan gatherings that you have been to were in fact able to live in a community of Pagans all year round? What then of abortion, nihilism and sexuality. One way or another, it seems, actual "rules of behavior" must be both enacted and enforced.

Yes, such rules would certainly need to be enforced, if such a community was ever set up. Whoever set it up would presumably have to make the rules, or at the very least, set up a process for doing so.

So, what would seem crucial in any particular Pagan community is the extent to which "might makes right", "right makes might" or "moderation, negotiation and compromise" prevailed. In the Wicker Man it seemed [to me] to be a long-standing combination of a strong leader and a population that supported him...religiously?

This is the part I have the most difficulty understanding about you. You believe this "deep down inside" but the manner in which I construe an Intrinsic or Spiritual or Natural "self" is no less fractured and fragmented. On the other hand, you are still all those other things that fascinate me as well. Mostly the part about how blindness itself becomes a factor in how you understand yourself when there was never really any other reality to compare it with.

It's difficult to quantify just how much being blind has affected the sort of person I am, though it undoubtedly has, in all sorts of ways, many of which I probably don't even realise. It's not something that I constantly think about, though, because it's just, well, normal. I'm happy with who I am.

Of course, I can't say that I am. Though I suspect that were I born blind and lived my entire life unable to see, it wouldn't make the part about being "fractured and fragmented" go away. With all of us though there's the part where we are happy and then the part where we might be happier still. And of course, the thing about being around others is that what makes them happy might make us miserable.

The thought of becoming blind or deaf scares the hell out of me. But mostly because when you've lived a good portion of your life being able to see and to hear, there's just no getting around how profoundly that might change things if you no longer have access to either one.

I can definitely relate to that. Going deaf would indeed be an extremely scary thing.

Then there were/are those like Helen Keller...blind and deaf from birth. And yet that's all she knew. That was her normal.

Which is why it would be interesting to attend a discussion group composed of, say, 30 men and women. Ten who were blind from birth, ten who were able to see for many years and ten who have never been blind at all. What experiences might overlap between them and what experiences might they have to come back to again and again trying to understand each other better. But recognizing the possibility that some things will only be understood going in so far.

I think the chances of organising such a meeting would be pretty slim.

I agree. And that's probably being optimistic. But just thinking along those lines might prompt some to forge attempts at narrowing the communication gaps.

Well, in that case, going back to the Big Bang or to God or to Nature or to Pantheism, around and around and around the antinomies swirl.

"The little old beetle goes round and round. Always the same way, you see, until it ends up right up tight to the nail. Poor old thing."

Of course, that's when Sergeant Howie says, "poor little thing? Then why in God's name do you do it girl?" Only to find out in the end that he is the beetle?

Also, the scene was important to me because it depicted a crucial component of my own philosophy...the part where for years and years children [in such a community] are indoctrinated to view the world around them only as they are instructed to.

Well, that's only because Astro Cat is [to the best of my knowledge] still a lesbian.

Seriously though, "looks" and philosophy forums? All I can do here is to extrapolate from past experiences. If you'll recall, I suggested that you remove the "sexy" avatar from ILP and other places because my own "gut feeling" "just knew" that there would be any number of men who would be attracted to you for all the wrong reasons. The UrwrongX1000 Syndrome, let's call it.

Few men [philosophers, Pagans or otherwise] can resist going there. As Harry once tried to explain to Sally.

Unless, of course, he was wrong.

Just be careful, okay?

Absolutely, yes, I'm always careful.

Well, we're both on the same page here then.

[Maia]

+++Unfairness, however, from what point of view? Some insist it is clearly unfair to the unborn baby/clump of cells to abort it...to destroy it. While others insist it is clearly unfair to force women to give birth in a world where men never, ever have to confront their own unwanted pregnancies.

And, again, it's how you have come to think and to feel about this that I am still trying to understand. Though maybe I never will. Some here will fall back on Scripture...connecting the dots between that and God and Judgment Day. Others anchor their own set of assumptions in one or another deontological -- Kantian -- philosophical assessment. Some bring it all back to "biological imperatives" insisting that only the manner in which they understand Nature...counts?

Then those like me who are "fractured and fragmented"...drawn and quartered, tugged and pulled ambivalently in conflicting directions with respect to human morality.+++

I can only really judge what's fair, and what it isn't, based on my own feelings and instincts. Are these likely to be flawed in some way? Yes, absolutely, but I still think they're a far better guide than anything else available. It goes without saying that there are many people who would dispute this, pointing to some ancient religious religious text as a more reliable source of wisdom, usually singling out just one among the many competing examples, and if this works for them, that's fine. I suppose it all boils down to individual temperament in the end.

+++Yes, that certainly seems reasonable to many. Unfortunately, for some of us, however, it doesn't make that part about oblivion go away. There's death philosophically and then there's death existentially. Then the part where each of us one by one embodies a set of circumstances such that death itself is either near or far. The closer we get to the abyss, in other words.

Think about it like this:

Suppose it was announced on the news that a huge asteroid had just been discovered. It will smash into the Earth and, if we can't divert it, it becomes the final extinction event of them all. Imagine then as we get closer and closer to the impact, we here at PN create a thread to discuss it. We are all going to die if the asteroid isn't stopped.

Imagine that discussion about death. We're all just a few months away from the impact. And the impact will kill each and every one of us. We're all in the same boat then, right? Whereas now some of us are considerably closer to it than others. And then those who wonder how on Earth someone can remain a Pagan when it is Nature itself that wipes out the human race.+++

I like to think that I would face it with calmness and dignity, and a sense of gratitude, even, for having been given the time I've already had. Well, that's what I *like* to think, anyway, but we never really know how we'll react to such a situation until it happens. I might be running around like a headless chicken instead, for all I know.

+++Until one day, for any number of profoundly problematic reasons, you don't like it anymore. Now, from my frame of mind [which may be entirely or largely incorrect], we are on the same page here in recognizing that, given the lives we live, any new experiences, new relationships and/or access to new information and knowledge can result in our changing our minds.

Just not about some things though, right? You are able to convince yourself "here and now" that there is a spiritual, natural, intuitive Intrinsic Self inside you that nothing can touch. The part, for those like me, deemed to be just one more psychological defense mechanism. It's less what some believe here, in my view, and more that they have been able to "comfort and console" themselves by at least being able to believe in something.+++

I think it's perfectly possible that I could change my opinions about anything, given time and changing circumstances. Perhaps extremely unlikely, though, for some things. But who knows what might happen? That's what makes life interesting.

+++So, what would seem crucial in any particular Pagan community is the extent to which "might makes right", "right makes might" or "moderation, negotiation and compromise" prevailed. In the Wicker Man it seemed [to me] to be a long-standing combination of a strong leader and a population that supported him...religiously?+++

Yes, all that would have to be decided by the founder of the community. Lord Summerisle, if you like, or rather, his grandfather, who set the whole thing up.

+++Of course, I can't say that I am. Though I suspect that were I born blind and lived my entire life unable to see, it wouldn't make the part about being "fractured and fragmented" go away. With all of us though there's the part where we are happy and then the part where we might be happier still. And of course, the thing about being around others is that what makes them happy might make us miserable.+++

Well, as you know, I'm very much a glass half full sort of person, and I don't believe I've ever suffered from what one might call depression, which is not to say that I've never been sad about anything, but that's a different thing altogether. I'm very familiar, however, with how it can affect people, some of the clients at work, for example, and it can be extremely debilitating. Sometimes I just want to shake them and tell them to snap out of it, but I don't actually do that, obviously. Instead I befriend them, and listen to them.

+++Then there were/are those like Helen Keller...blind and deaf from birth. And yet that's all she knew. That was her normal.+++

I can't imagine what that must be like. The last thing that anyone wants is to be felt sorry for, but sometimes, it's very difficult not to. We had at least two deafblind students at school when I was there, younger than me, though in both cases, I think, they had a small amount of usable vision and/or hearing.

+++I agree. And that's probably being optimistic. But just thinking along those lines might prompt some to forge attempts at narrowing the communication gaps.+++

I hope that in my own small way I've managed to narrow the communication gap. That's why I'm always happy to answer questions, of course.

+++Of course, that's when Sergeant Howie says, "poor little thing? Then why in God's name do you do it girl?" Only to find out in the end that he is the beetle?

Also, the scene was important to me because it depicted a crucial component of my own philosophy...the part where for years and years children [in such a community] are indoctrinated to view the world around them only as they are instructed to.+++

There's a fine line between education and indoctrination, or maybe no line at all. No society could function without teaching its kids the values that underpin it. Humans are social animals, after all.

+++Well, we're both on the same page here then.+++

I think I'm pretty open and approachable when it comes to making friends, and while this has occasionally led to unfortunate places, it would be a great shame to wish to change that.