Deeper Studies
There Is So a Spoon!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, hello my friends. Be at peace. Once again, we're here around the fire, ready to discuss, oh, "ships, and shoes, and sealing wax." OK, maybe not the sealing wax, but you know what I mean. Grab yourself a stick, get some s'mores going, and we'll get started.
This part of the chapter will give people a very basic grounding in my own version of Wiccan philosophy, but since most people have not formally studied philosophy, I'm also going to have to include a heck of a lot of background. Frankly, the remainder of this series is on this vein--if this section loses you, then the rest will probably bore you to tears.
For those of you who stuck around--brave souls--sit down and be comfortable. We're going to discuss things much deeper than the previous fireside chats, we're going to be covering a lot of ground, and we are going to be moving fast, so I may confuse people by what I'm saying. If I lose anyone, pipe up, and I'll do my best to clarify any confusion.
As I said, we're going to discuss philosophy--specifically, the philosophy of Earthstar Wicca. Unfortunately, any discussion of philosophy is dry, technical, usually filled with jargon, and frequently makes reference to old, moldy authors who spent more time in ivory towers than experiencing the reality they claimed to be writing about. Many people find philosophy to be boring--but it's also one of the best ways to make a clear and distinct definition of beliefs, and to show in concrete terms where the foundations of those beliefs come from. Bear with me, and I'll try to make it interesting ... or, at least, bearable.
Last time we were here, we discussed subjective feelings, and their relation with choice in faith. (We also discussed such things as random chance, but that is a side issue.) Now, with all the emphasis on "subjective experience," you might begin to believe that I view subjective experience as more important than objective truth. And nothing could be further from fact.
OK, let's give a few basic definitions. When I say a fact is "objective," I mean that just about anyone and everyone can grasp that fact. The fact that the sky is blue is an objective fact. (Quibblers who mention night-time, weather, blindness, or other hair-splitting chicanery are going to get grounded from the s'mores. I mean it! )
I would hazard a guess that most of us are in agreement that there is such a thing as objective fact. We can all point to a phenomenon and say "This occurred: we perceive it by how it affected our senses." The occurrence is real, and so are the effects--or, in other words, when the tree falls in the forest with no one to hear, it does indeed make a sound: its reality does not depend on the mind that perceives it.
Now, that point of view is usually called "realism."
Realism is not universal: I know people, including one I work with several days a week, who believe that if they can change the way they think about something, then the nature of that thing is changed--its reality and nature depend on the consciousness of the observer (one definition of a philosophy called "idealism"). Generally speaking, Idealism, in one form or another, is becoming more prevalent today. Movies like "The Matrix" are not driving post-modern philosophy because they are popular; instead, they are popular because they reflect post-modern philosophy. In our contemporary society, there is a tendency to ignore the reality of the physical world. There is a greater tendency toward the conflicting aspects of existentialism, and--at its extreme--towards solipsism (informally defined).
Oops, I think I lost some folks. OK, let's get some basics here.
Existentialism: Among other things, Existentialism states that perceptions are private; what I perceive does not have any necessary connection with what you perceive. Existentialism is quite centered on the Self, but does acknowledge the existence of others.
"Solipsism" is the belief that "Nothing outside of my own existence can be proven." An "extreme" Solipsist believes that any thing that he perceives is not intrinsically real, but is only a projection of his own mind, while a "mainstream" Solipsist believes that anything outside of his consciousness has no meaning to him. While it is true that no great philosopher has ever espoused Solipsism, it is also true that much of philosophy from Descartes onward has taken an Ego-centered view of perception.
Postmodernism: Postmodern philosophy, briefly stated, asserts that there are no "meta-narratives." Sound like gobbledygook? It's not. What that means is that there is no over-arching "story" of people; more precisely, there are no over-arching "people stories" that legitimize knowledge and cultural practices. Post-modernism is the cornerstone to the "Me First" philosophical thought that has come out since World War II.
As the joke goes about the well: "It's a mighty deep subject, and sometimes quite dry." It's actually quite simple: existentialism says that "My reality can be different than yours." Solipsism is extreme existentialism, and states that "My reality is the only reality that I can attach meaning to." Post-modernism says that "Your ideas and concepts do not justify me changing my mind unless I want to." These are the philosophies of individualism, and though they had their roots before World War II, they gained a great deal of popularity as a rejection of the totalitarian philosophies of the World Wars.
Individualism has its place, and it is in individualism that Neo-Paganism found one part of its beginnings--one "root," if you will. Yet it is also with individualism--especially extreme individualism--that we see the advent of destructive, nihilistic systems of thought: among them the destructiveness of "Absolutist Capitalism," that form of Capitalism that recognizes no ethical limits to profit; the moral and ethical bankruptcy of "Absolutist Existentialism," which denies any objective basis for right and wrong; and the intellectual sterility of "Absolutist Pluralism," which states that all ideas must be respected equally, regardless of ethics, accuracy, or even of usefulness.
Note the common ground: "absolutist." It seems to be a truism that any single idea, followed absolutely, leads only to ruin. Human experience does not seem to be amenable to the black-and-white world of absolutes: instead, we seem to do much better with a give-and-take relativism that can adjust for changes in circumstances. But even with the relativism of human experience, we find certain recurring questions that occur. Is there such a thing as absolute right and wrong? Is there even such a thing as objective right and wrong?
Well, so far we can't answer that. We haven't yet defined what is "real," much less what is right and wrong. The first we can begin to do here, and the second will wait for a later fire. (Believe it or not, all of that was back-ground!)
What is real? Most Wiccans and Neo-Pagans take a very hard-line view of Realism: the world is not only real, it is also Sacred (as in "sharing or possessing Divine nature"). We come to that conclusion because of our belief in the manner that the Universe was created.
Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All.
And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One.
And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love.
And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One).
And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One).
And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love.
And thus was everything made that was made.
Now we need to make a distinction. Is the above story an accurate, scientific view of the creation of the universe? Of course not--all jokes about the "Big Bang" to the side.... The story above is one version of a Wiccan Creation Myth--a culturally significant story that explains (among other things) our relationship to the Gods, and the nature of reality. It is "religious Truth," not scientific fact.
And as religious "truth," it illustrates many points of Wiccan belief. We believe that the Universe is real, because we believe that the Gods are real; the above myth, or any other creation myth (of any religion), has far more to do with how that religion perceives the Gods than it does with how the world was actually made.
Metaphysics: The Investigation of Ultimate Reality
It sounds so pretentious, doesn't it? Metaphysics is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot: philosophers can argue all day on what is real, what is ultimate reality, and still go home to supper without worrying if their meal--real or imaginary--will fill their bellies. By itself, metaphysics is a relatively unimportant study: it only becomes truly important when it is used as a basis for other segments of philosophy.
This is the real importance of metaphysics: our understanding of what is real is the foundation for how we react to the world around us. If the world that we sense is not real, then we are reacting to projections of our own awareness, our own sensations, or even of our own illusions and delusions. If the world is real, then we are reacting to something that has substance -- and we, as part of that world, have substance. Our concepts of the reality (or lack of reality) of the world around us have profound implications on our understanding of learning, and on our values, especially ethical values. If the world that we see does not have a fundamental 'reality" to it, then ethics becomes much less important: why should we behave in an ethical fashion to something that, on many levels (as some argue), does not exist?
I cannot speak for your understanding of the basic "reality" of the Universe--such is beyond my ken, unless you choose to share those views with me. But I can state that, if the Universe has an innate reality and we treat it as if it does not, then we run the risk of devaluing something that is real. If, on the other hand, the Universe has no innate reality, and we treat it like it does, we still interact with a universe that reacts consistently to the stimuli that we observe, or initiate.
That sounds a lot deeper than it actually is: basically, whether or not the Universe is innately "real," it behaves as if it were. Or, in other words, a hammer dropped on your toe will still cause pain.
This concept--that the universe is real, and that it has innate value--is the foundation for understanding other branches of Wiccan philosophy. If we accept the Universe as real, then our senses are perceiving real things. And if we are perceiving real things, then we are gaining knowledge....and it goes on from there.
And it's probably time for us to close for the evening. We've covered a lot of ground, and you need time to think and reflect on what I've said. You may find yourself disagreeing--if you do, tell me. I may learn from you, just as you may learn from me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
