Date:	2009-10-02 08:03
Subject:	Truth and lies in sacramentalism
Security:	Public
Mood:	thoughtful
Music:	silence

I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for. ~Georgia O'Keeffe

Date:	2009-09-20 10:37
Subject:	Musings on modern Paganism
Security:	Public
Mood:	awake

A friend of mine recently highlighted this post by Dianne Sylvan. Though there are some important differences, it reminds me in some ways of a few criticisms presented when the hosts of Deo's Shadow and a few others "grew out" of Paganism. In essence, it seems that a common concern among these posts that modern Paganism is lacking maturity or depth in some way which leads people to reach out to other faiths -- or at least distance themselves from the more prevalent forms of public Paganism -- in order to continue maturing on their own spiritual path. Perhaps this isn't surprising, since although our faith draws on ancient roots, the modern practice is still very young by many standards.

In a way, this concern also parallels the observations expressed in our local community that many participants who were very active group participants in their 20s and 30s tend to withdraw in their 40s and beyond. Sure, much of this is probably due to changing roles in life, less free time, greater responsibility at home and at work, etc. At least, that has played a big part in this tendency for me. But I wonder how many have also lost patience with the "You're joking, right?" aspects of modern practice that Dianne points out, or are needing a deeper approach than they're finding in general Paganism.

One of the comments which came out of the discussion about Sylvan's post was this:

At its best, pagan ritual is refreshingly creative and allows for a good deal of individual expression. In this way it is very unlike ritual in what are considered the US's mainstream religions.

1. Inclusiveness, which goes hand in hand with what was said above. There were lots of different ideologies represented in the group and all were welcome. In this ritual, space was made for each person to honor their own deities aloud for the entire group to hear. (On the flip side, there were a few individuals who gasped when the names of a couple supposedly "darker" deities were named, including when I named Chaos. But my guess as to why these people gasped could be wrong.) However, this may be a double-edged sword, as radical inclusiveness allows for a lot of "You're joking, right?" things to take place.


2. The drumming and dancing. When done well, or even just adequately, I can't think of any other practice which can simultaneously be so engaging, communal, sacred, fun, and at the same time still "make space" for individual work and expression within the whole. Descriptions of drum circles being "sacred containers" for deeply religious communal and personal activity seem really accurate.


3. Sacramental religious expression. By this I am referring to the use of symbolic objects and actions which express Divine power in the world. Nearly all religions embrace some form of sacramentalism, but Paganism allows for and even encourages a very wide range of sacramental expression, which I find meaningful personally and fascinating from both socio-religious and artistic perspectives. Sacramentalism has its limits, though. It has been understandably criticized by iconoclastic faith traditions which argue in an apophatic way that sacramental expressions are inadequate or misleading when representing Divinity. However, although it may be imperfect, I see it as a rich expression of the sacred in action and form that I find meaningful beyond any approach I've experienced from the "Via Negativa"... with one important exception which occurred a decade ago.

Date:	2009-09-06 22:51
Subject:	Take the new Pagan Census!
Security:	Public
Mood:	curious

From the website:
"We are conducting an international survey of contemporary Pagans. If you are a Pagan we would appreciate your taking the time to complete this survey.
"This survey builds on an earlier one completed over twenty years ago, primarily in the United States, which was conducted by Helen A. Berger and Andras Arthen (of the EarthSpirit Community) entitled the Pagan Census."

Here's the link...

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WYCq4kaxG_2bYrJ8xnemeR3A_3d_3d

Date:	2008-01-27 10:29
Subject:	Chimps Beat Humans in Photographic Memory Test
Security:	Public
Mood:	rejuvenated
Music:	G.O.L. "Angelica in Delerium"

The video:
( Click to unhide... )

The article:
BBC News: Chimps beat humans in memory test

( What Plato said... )

What do you think? ( Did the ancients have better memories than we do now? )

Date:	2007-11-04 22:47
Subject:	The Dialectic
Security:	Public
Mood:	awake

In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates contrasts the value of spoken words with those that are written. Written words are like paintings, he says, because although they may seem "alive," they can't answer any questions and will only say the same thing to everyone they encounter, indiscriminately. Anyone not understanding the words, or who has questions or alternate ideas, is out of luck. In Socrates' view, since written screeds are incapable of defending themselves, they are not able to teach the truth adequately.

By contrast, spoken words have a living speaker that can a) answer questions and b) choose how best to explain an idea to a particular person. Spoken words can also be answered with another idea which could even lead to a third that reconciles both points of view. This verbal give-and-take learning process is the dialectic.

A segment explaining one way of looking at the dialectic was shown on the powerpoint presentation I embedded in the blog a while back. It described how a thesis and antithesis (two differing ideas) can create a synthesis (a third idea that transcends both). This was certainly going on in the ancient world and can be seen in the syncretization of religions in later times. The powerpoint is correct in its questioning whether this process necessarily leads to "progress." When religions are syncretized, isn't something from each original religion lost in the process? Some modern people whose religions are now being co-opted seem to think so. What's your view?

Back to writing vs. the dialectic. Socrates believed that the best use of writing is to remind people of things they already know, whereas the dialectic should be used to investigate truth. "Truth springs from argument amongst friends," David Hume once said. It's thought that this is why Plato wrote dialogues: the conversations between various speakers in his books demonstrate how the dialectic works. Using this method, Plato could present a number of different arguments in a way that lets the reader take sides and consider which argument is more convincing. In fact, some arguments Plato makes are not convincing at all. The "ideal city" he describes in the Republic is a place most people wouldn't want to live in, for example. Because this form of writing helps us to take sides and disagree, it performs at least part of the service that true dialogue with another person can provide.

How has engaging in dialogue and/or reading a dialogue between others helped you?

Date:	2007-10-13 15:27
Subject:	The Power of Riddles
Security:	Public
Mood:	curious

The Delphic Oracle is probably the most famous oracle of all time. Situated in Apollo's sanctuary at Delphi, its mysteries have been shrouded for centuries. What gave the famous Pythias their powers of foresight? Within the past decade, a groundbreaking study concluded that volcanic vapors could well have inebriated the oracular priestesses, but would this alone explain the accuracy of the oracle's predictions?

Though how Apollo's priestesses could know the future remains a mystery, one thing is certain: the oracles given at this temple were highly enigmatic and their interpretation often stirred great debate until historical events revealed their truth.

Imagine this scenario: You're in Athens, which is about to be attacked by Xerxes of Persia. (Remember the bad guy from the movie 300? That guy.) Your city sends someone to ask the Oracle of Delphi what to do. The first answer is:

Now your statues are standing and pouring sweat. They shiver with dread. The black blood drips from the highest rooftops. They have seen the necessity of evil. Get out, get out of my sanctum and drown your spirits in woe.

which obviously amounts to "Flee. You're doomed." Oh boy. You send someone back to ask again, to see if there is anything at all that can save you. The answer:

...a wall of wood alone shall be uncaptured, a boon to you and your children.

Now, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Some people thought it meant that a literal wooden wall would magically protect the city. But think about it... wouldn't Xerxes just set it on fire and sack the city when it burned down? How could a literal wooden wall protect them? Did it mean something else?

This is the kind of deliberation that often had to occur after receiving an oracle. They were riddles that had to be figured out. Robert Temple, in his paper on Fables, Riddles and Mysteries of Delphi, argues that Delphi became "a centre of new thinking" by provoking the tradition-bound people of Greece to think in novel and creative ways. In fact, when they didn't, the more enigmatic oracles could be interpreted wrong, leading to disaster. Take the instance of Croesus, king of Lydia, who, after asking whether he should attack the Persians or not, was told that if he did, "a mighty empire shall be brought down." Thinking this meant he would be successful, he attacked and in the end was captured by the enemy. It was his own mighty empire which was destroyed.

Back to the Athenians facing Xerxes. What did they finally decide the "wooden walls" referred to? Those who did interpret the phrase literally decided to barricade themselves inside the Acropolis with a wooden wall. As can be expected, this wooden wall was destroyed, those people were killed, and the Acropolis with its temples sacked and burned. (Incidentally, the temple artifacts desecrated by the Persians were ceremonially buried after the Athenians returned, and thus were preserved for thousands of years until they were uncovered in an archaeological dig.)

Themistocles, a leader in the Athenian democracy, thought instead that the "wooden walls" referred to their ships. Many Athenians who agreed with him evacuated their women and children in the ships and then manned their triremes (warships) in preparation for the battle with the foe. This interpretation of the oracle proved correct, and the naval battle at Salamis was the turning point of the Persian war. The riddle of the oracle had been solved, and with it, Persia was vanquished.

Another oracle given by Delphi, one which was not so hard to figure out, was an answer given to a Roman statesman and lawyer named Cicero. His question was how he could find the greatest fame. Apollo, through the Pythia, replied:

make your own nature, not the advice of others, your guide in life.

Cicero did so, studying both philosophy and persuasive speaking, which served him well in the Senate and for which he is now famous. His books on Divination and On the Nature of the Gods are stimulating reading for Pagans even today. You may not agree with everything he says, but that's one of the main points of philosophy... thinking for yourself.

Do you see any similarities between how these oracles were interpreted and how modern Pagans perform divination now?

In the spirit of thinking and riddles, here is a question for you:

Some Neoplatonist philosophers argued that people should pray in the following way:

Wherefore we should pray to God for that which is worthy of Him, and we should pray for what we could attain from none other... Neither ask of God what you will not hold fast when you have attained it, since God's gifts cannot be taken from you, and He will not give what you will not hold fast.

Although the term "God" is used here, philosophers like Porphyry are Pagan. The term God can be thought of as a personal God that one communicated with, or a high God among many.

So what is it that he's referring to here? What is it that could only be given by a God, and that once it is given, can never be lost? It's not things like money or objects, because those can obviously be taken away. It might not even be something like strength, because bodily strength can also be lost or taken away.

Any ideas?

(P.S. You don't have to agree with this idea to speculate about what it might mean.)

Date:	2007-10-13 15:22
Subject:	Philosophy Powerpoint Presentation
Security:	Public
Mood:	excited

I want to share with everyone this fun and informative powerpoint presentation that I ran across recently.


I don't know who created it, but I imagine that the lecture that probably accompanied this was similarly engaging.

Some things I like about it is that it spells out the different branches of philosophy, and it also brings up the importance of the dialectic in philosophy. Dialectic, debate, dialogue, [insert other D-word here] is something very useful in philosophy and will come up again, I'm sure. :)

What I don't agree with in this lecture is the portrayal of Chaos towards the end (or as it looks in ancient Greek, Xaos). To the modern mind, those might be fitting images of chaos in the modern sense, but to the ancient Greeks, Xaos was simply a void, or a gap. It was a space of potentiality where nothing existed and nothing had occurred... YET. Xaos was the first primordial Divinity, the "Prime Mover", in Hesiod's creation myth. This void of pure space held infinite possibility for the future, and is regarded as such even today by some modern Chaotes.

The slides in the presentation depicting "Xaos" might have been better attributed to "Enyo", the city-sacking Goddess of war and female counterpart of Ares Enyalios. Destructive Perses might also fit the bill.

What helpful, provoking, interesting, or even maddening things stood out for you in the powerpoint?

Coming soon: a philosophical riddle.......

Date:	2007-10-13 15:20
Subject:	Truth, Fantasy, Plato and Homer
Security:	Public
Mood:	busy

When people today think of Greek philosophy, most think of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Yet when ancient Athenians educated their children, they'd teach them Homer's Illiad and Odyssey. These were the national poems of the culture, and were not only used for education, but also for divination and protection (a spell in the PGM entails writing a certain verse on a tiny scroll and concealing it in an amulet).

These philosophers, however, may not have agreed with that. Plato's Republic describes his version of an ideal city in which children are raised to be ideal citizens and philosopher-kings. In this "ideal city," however, he bans poetry because, in his view, poets have the power to distort reality with their words.

Would Plato have banned the Illiad and Odyssey, two epics so important to the Athenian culture? Hard to say, but one thing that's clear is that Homer and Plato had some pretty different ideas about what the Gods were like. Plato also goes further and articulates what he believes to be a "quarrel between poetry and philosophy," which is a much wider disagreement than whether the Gods have feelings or not. His argument cuts to the heart of how people determine truth. In a nutshell, he believes that only philosophy in all its rigor can deliver Truth with a capital T, and poetry such as Homer writes are dangerous fantasies that are too often mistaken for truth.

Oh, dear. That's a heavy charge, and one worth considering. If Plato were to come to a modern Pagan circle and listen to our modern, poetic invocations and stories of the Gods, would he scoff? Would he accuse modern Pagans of believing too much in fantasy?

In Homer's defense, though, Sannion made a blog post a few weeks ago in which he provided samples of helpful teaching quotes from these great epics.

What do you think? Have you read the Illiad, the Odyssey, or another Pagan epic? Can poetry such as this be trusted to contain truth?

Date:	2007-10-13 15:17
Subject:	Marcus Aurelius 5:9
Security:	Public
Mood:	nerdy

I'm starting this series on the ancient philosophers with the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. This philosopher-emperor was one of the most important Stoic philosophers, and his book of Meditations is relevant and well-regarded today.

The Stoics agreed with Aristotle that the goal of human life was to be happy. Unlike some other philosophers, they believed that the greatest happiness could be found in possessing human virtue. It didn't matter what happened to you, in their view, you could still be happy simply by having the virtuous qualities of self-control, wisdom, courage, justice, and so on. They thought things like wealth, health, and prestige, though nice, weren't necessary to achieve the finest human goal in life.

What do you think about this? Is it possible to live a happy life simply by possessing virtue? Is it possible to be happy without health or wealth?

Here is one of my favorite quotes from this Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. It's found in Book 5, meditation 9.

Do not be disgusted, nor discouraged, nor dissatisfied, if you do not succeed in doing everything according to right principles; but when you have failed, return back again, and be content if the greater part of what you do is consistent with human nature, and love that to which you return.

And do not return to philosophy as if she were a master, but act like those who have sore eyes and apply a bit of sponge and egg, or as another applies a plaster, or drenching with water. For thus you will not fail to obey reason, and you will repose in it.

And remember that philosophy requires only the things which human nature requires; but you would have something else which is not according to nature. -- It may be objected, Why what is more agreeable than this which I am doing?-- But is not this the very reason why pleasure deceives us?

And consider if magnanimity, freedom, simplicity, equanimity, piety, are not more agreeable. For what is more agreeable than wisdom itself, when you think of the security and the happy course of all things which depend on the faculty of understanding and knowledge?

Date:	2007-10-13 15:15
Subject:	Pagan Ethics: Beyond Harm None
Security:	Public
Mood:	curious

Since coming home to hellenic paganism, I have really come to appreciate the wisdom of the ancients. Both the poets and the philosophers have inspired me to live virtuously, use my brain, and to have courage in adversity. Their words have helped me greatly in the development of my own Pagan ethics.

When first entering the Craft, I loved the freedom and sensible guideline of the Rede. An it harm none, do what thou wilt. Of course! It made so much sense. Just don't hurt anybody and follow your bliss. I had entered Wicca after leaving Christianity several months before, and the simplicity of "harm none" was refreshing.

What's more is that the Rede also helped me to break away from some self-destructive tendencies once I realized that it also applied to how I treated myself. That was an important realization.

However, I think that the Rede best functions as a jumping off point for thinking about ethics beyond "harm none." After all, who defines what "harm" is? If you tell a white lie when your friend asks you if you like her new clothes, is that harm? Who or what are included in those things of which none should be harmed? Only people? Animals? Plants? Ecosystems? Rocks?

There are times, too, when some people who start thinking deeply about the implications of the Rede end up rejecting it in some way, because in the strictest sense, it is not possible to continue living without bringing harm to some things. After all, even if someone lives alone in a cave, he or she must still eat to survive, and even vegetarians must kill plants to do so. Life feeds on life, and although the web of life is interdependent, resources are not unlimited, so one individual or species doing well can often mean another one won't. From this perspective it is simply not possible to truly "harm none."

Ancient philosophical writings, like the Rede, also make good jumping off points. The maxims inscribed in Apollo's Temple at Delphi contain some truly helpful precepts. They also contain a few outdated ideas, such as "Rule your wife". Drew Campbell has a nice essay about some aspects of Hellenic ethics which mention several of the most respected maxims here.

The ancient Greek poets and philosophers provide much food for thought as well. In the coming weeks I hope to illustrate some of these.

(Comments are welcome.)

Date:	2007-10-11 20:01
Subject:	Where to find philosophical defenses of Polytheism
Security:	Public
Mood:	content

I saw a post on another blog about believing in Gods and thought it might be helpful to post some references here for people who are interested in this topic.

Not that anybody "should" or "shouldn't" believe in many Gods vs. one God/dess of many aspects.   Nevertheless, there are a number of books around that do provide an intellectual introduction to and defense of Polytheism. An oldie but goodie is simply The New Polytheism by David Miller, which you can get through an "InterLibrary Loan" at any US public library (you have to ask for it specifically).  A couple other recent books are: A World Full of Gods by John Michael Greer, or The Deities are Many by Jordan Paper, both of which can be purchased online if you can't find them locally.

I've also seen a few websites around, one of the most interesting being a Hindu defense of Polytheism that I can no longer find.  Oh well.  There is this, however:
http://www.hermetic.com/webster/polytheism.html

Also, since many Pagans came from a Christian background, you might be interested to know that the Bible itself mentions other Gods.  There are some examples here:
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/bible2.htm
but the example I like most is Exodus 12:12, where Yahweh says he will "bring judgment upon all the Gods of Egypt."  So, let me ask you, if the Gods of Egypt didn't actually exist, how could YHWH bring judgment upon them?

See, the ancient Jews were actually "henotheists," not "monotheists."  They believed there were many Gods, but that one God, YHWH, had called them apart from all the other peoples of the earth to be his people, and he alone was to be their God.  Other peoples, on the other hand, had other Gods.  There's a nice discussion of this here:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1835144&displaytype=printable
as well as a humorous Pagan example here:
http://www.caw.org/articles/otherpeople.html

Enjoy!

Date:	2007-10-11 19:58
Subject:	The Mirror Site...
Security:	Public
Mood:	ready to start

... which may become the primary site in the future.

Welcome to the LiveJournal version of the Philosopher-Huntress.  This is a mirror site for my Covenspace blog where I talk about philosophy.  Some friends requested that I post it here.   As would be obvious on a forum like Covenspace, my intended audience is Pagan.

This may prove to be a better forum for this topic.  LJ allows people to have more of a discussion, because people can respond to comments posted on a topic, and then others can respond to theirs, and so on.  Being able to engage in a dialog like this is important.   Covenspace unfortunately doesn't allow that.