Pagan morality

[Wizard22]

By the way, my disappearance from PN these last several months was because the forum changes were blocking my proxies, in case anybody (my forum Nemeses) was curious...

[Wizard22]

By the way, little Iamb, aren't you like 65 or something? Way too old to be making gross advances on Maia, unless you own a yacht or a villa in Greece, which you don't...yuck. Grow some self-awareness.

[Fairy]

By the way, my disappearance from PN these last several months was because the forum changes were blocking my proxies, in case anybody (my forum Nemeses) was curious...

Why didn’t you just post as yourself though?

Welcome back Wiz

[Wizard22]

Why didn’t you just post as yourself though?

To avoid people like Iamb.

Welcome back Wiz

Thank you, good to be back, and in your company too.

[Fairy]

Why didn’t you just post as yourself though?

To avoid people like Iamb.

Welcome back Wiz

Thank you, good to be back, and in your company too.

Sincerely

[iambiguous]

What is the foundation of Pagan ethics?
by Yvonne Aburrow at Patheos

Ethics versus morality

I have always felt that ethics are a bottom-up approach to behaviour, where your ethical choices spring from your ethos, whereas morality was a top-down approach, where morals were arbitrarily imposed from above by a deity. (The dictionary definition of morals and ethics does not bear out this distinction, but I still find it useful.)

Of course, from my frame of mind, in using either word, there's still the part where dasein comes into play. And, in turn, I believe that is always rooted in historical and cultural contexts that are ever evolving over time given contingency, change and change.

But, given this, the tricky part here for Pagans is that there may or may not be a deity -- Gods and Goddesses -- embedded in their own spiritual rendition of the One True Path to immortality. Which is why with Maia, I often come around to what unfolds among Pagans when, in regard to conflicting goods, there are contradictory views of nature. And thus conflicting behaviors.

Which, in my view, is why depictions of Paganism in films like The Wicker Man and Sommar attempt to imagine a community of Pagans revolving around a shared ethos.

Some traditions may derive their ethics from the traditional body of lore of a particular culture. This wisdom from the past, embedded as it was in experience and an ethic of responsibility towards other beings, is an excellent source of ethical guidance. Have a look at these Irish triads and Scottish proverbs, which are full of wisdom.

And hopelessly abstract. My traditions, or your traditions? Our traditions or their traditions?

My past or your past, our past or their past?

My understanding of wisdom and your understanding of wisdom? Our understanding of wisdom or their understanding of wisdom?

And now, of course, all we need is a context.

[iambiguous]

oh, so you have expressed the opposing view that we are on to something when we criticize you behavior, then. Fractured and fragmented about an issue, for example, abortion, means that one really can see both sides, or so you have seemed to say.

Yeah: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

Now, how is my assessment not applicable to you in regard to your own views on the morality of abortion?

This thread is about Pagan Morality. In that thread I reacted to Prom's post where it seemed to me he fit your criteria of a Stooge.

On and on and on about Prom. But he is not the subject of this thread. Pagan morality is.

Or go here: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

Sift through the arguments of those who disagree with you regarding abortion and note the counterarguments that you would make in order to settle it once and for all...in your favor.

Or, as you noted...

All these years and you don't seem to realize I don't think there is an objectively correct position on that issue.

Okay, then how far removed is your own "there is [no] objectively correct position on that issue" frame of mind from my own "fractured and fragmented" assessment? Let's explore that given a paricular context.

Now you've asserted that you feel fractured and fragmented when it comes to the judgments about Stooginess. But I see none of that. Yes, you admit that you might be wrong, but you take a stand. You are confident enough to label people Stooges.

Right, I'm taking a stand here. Call it that if you wish but it's not at all how I construe my own frame of mind. Click, of course.

Right, you say you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge issue. I just haven't seen any sign of this, while I do with, for example, the abortion issue. There many of your many posts indicate things that it with fractured and fragmented.

Okay, In regard to the Stooge issue, I'm not nearly as drawn and quartered as I am in regard to abortion. I'm just not sure as to where to draw the line here given particular sets of circumstances.

It always seems to you the same thing: we are afraid of what you are saying and our criticisms are actually must a defensive pattern.

Look, it's not like I have just begun to pursue philosophical exchanges online. On the contrary, I've been doing it now going on 25 years. And from all of those accumulated experiences, I have come to certain conclusions regarding particular posters. It's called extrapolation.

Exactly, you are fairly confident in your Stooge assessment. This is exactly my point.

No, if I was truly confident -- adamant? -- regarding my assessment of Stoogery why would I then note that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I could change my mind about it. Why would I note over and again, that own my understanding of it "here and now" is rooted existentially in dasein.

Again, there's a difference between realizing you could change your mind and being fractured and fragmented.

One hell of a fucking difference! Click, of course. After all, for years I changed my mind over and over again regarding the One True Path to Enlightenment. God and No God. Changing my mind about really, really important stuff like this is par for the course.

But what disturbs any number objectivists here, in my view, is that one day that might be their own view in turn...as their own "I" begins to crumble in the is/ought world.

And, more than anything, what I wouldn't give to find someone able to actually convince me that "I" am simply being unreasonable in regard to things like this...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

...especially in regard to meaning and morality.

Okay, I suggest, let them note how, in regard to particular sets of circumstances, these things are not applicable to them. Or are considerably less so.

And, trust me, from my own particular vantage point, here and now, there was very little unfolding back then that I would myself call melodramatic. Especially the parts where I found it reasonable to completely upend one kingdom of ends "in my head" in order to replace it with another one.

But I've never asserted that you were wrong about those things. My focus has been as you have said earlier in making your behavior the issue, rather than the topic of the thread. Often I focus on both the thread topic and your behavior (or what I consider strange interpretations of other people's posts or articles).

That's how it unfolds over and over again here. And hardly just between you and I, right?

There's what someone thinks they mean in a particular post, then others respond to it, interpreting it in a different or conflicting way. Then back and forth they go getting more and more pissed off not just because others don't share their own convictions but because they are convinced in turn that others are completely missing the point of the post itself.

You just told me that my reason for focusing on you was because I wanted to show you were wrong about, for example, you position on objective morality. There was no basis for this. Instead of acknowledging that or providing some evidence that is why I focus on you, you just jump to something else.

Okay, then, in regard to moral conflagrations that revolve around such things as abortion, gun control, human sexuality etc., what basis do you use for differentiating right from wrong behaviors?

Some, in my view, "here and now" set out to clear it up so that others -- like Maia? -- don't tumble down into the hole with me.

The Prom issue is something that, [in my view] is all tangled up in your head. It's not an issue for me. Any more than reacting to people as Stooges is something that I spend hours grappling with...philosophically?

But you have in this exchange. I don't think the way you grappled with it made much sense, but it takes two to tango.

No, I have not spent hours grappling with whether or not Prom75 is a Stooge. Again, that's your "thing" here, not mine.

[iambiguous]

Sad to see that lamb's pestering and annoying reduced Maia to silence, AGAIN....

If anybody is remotely serious about 'Pagan Morality' then you'll be forced to argue the matter on knowhyself forum. You can't really engage that material here. Like most other Western philosophy forums, the undercurrent of Abrahamism and Zionism is too strong and overwhelming to give 'Paganism' a fair shake. And then there's the hocus-pocus sueprnatural Astrology that doesn't help things either.

Maia is a special girl; that much is obvious. It strikes me humorously how, despite her born-blindness, she still feels the overwhelming urge to publicly display herself visually (this is the power of the Female sex and gender), as a means to announce her sexual viability and desirability. If I were still single, then I myself would definitely give her another shot and another round of advancements.

I agree with one of the recent responses: it's Christmas, an intimate and dramatic time of the year.


I hope Maia returns, with more wisdom this time around.

If Maia weren't blind, I wonder if she would still have the same passion for Philosophy and Paganism as she has though...

Oh, my God [one of them], is this you, Lyssa?!

If so, then a hearty "Har Har Harr" right back at you.

[promethean75]

"If Maia weren't blind, I wonder if she would still have the same passion for Philosophy and Paganism as she has though..."

Yes, your homegirl Maia is one of the smarter ones around this neck of the woods... and her enthusiasm for history and paganism and philosophy is evident. So much so that if one were to ask her what she thought about one of these subjects, she very likely might say, "It's out of sight!" and then snicker.

[promethean75]

"No, I have not spent hours grappling with whether or not Prom75 is a Stooge."

Read in the voice of Billy Bob Thorton as Karl Childers:

I reckon every man takes a liken' to a stooge in another feller's eyes, mmhm. Folks have always told me i wasn't too bright m'self, don't reckon. Guess'n i might'n be a stooge then, mmhm.

[Wizard22]

Oh, my God [one of them], is this you, Lyssa?!

If so, then a hearty "Har Har Harr" right back at you.

Didn't you say that [we] are all Satyr? You can't tell the difference, can you? You've never been a bright one.

[Wizard22]

"If Maia weren't blind, I wonder if she would still have the same passion for Philosophy and Paganism as she has though..."

Yes, your homegirl Maia is one of the smarter ones around this neck of the woods... and her enthusiasm for history and paganism and philosophy is evident. So much so that if one were to ask her what she thought about one of these subjects, she very likely might say, "It's out of sight!" and then snicker.

The pretty female philosophers are a very rare breed; you know the type. Her innocence should be protected from the likes of lambo. She deserves a much, much better guide, to...all of Existence.

[promethean75]

I think Maia might need a Wizard to guide her through Existence, then.

[promethean75]

"The pretty female philosophers are a very rare breed"

You know I'm not even sure about that. I actually can't think of a single famous female philosopher who wasn't or isn't at least decent looking or hot. Hannah Arendt, Simone de, Lou with her whip, Emma, the Portuguese philosopher and conservative traditionalist phoneutria, even Judith Butler is hot in a strange lesbian matrix trinity way.

[accelafine]

Judith Butler is a fraud and a wanker.

What about the feminist philosophers of the 1970s like Germaine Greer? Many of them were stunners. It's an intelligent 'hot' so I doubt if they would appeal to your average idiot male; too intimidating.

And over 6 foot as well She would chew up creepy pervs like you and wiz before breakfast and flush you down the toilet.