"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...

[jessiej920]

Jessie, could you please read the bottom part of post 291 and give me your view on it ?
One_raven can reply as well of course

All apples may only have "appleness" but apples and oranges are all fruit, right? All fruit is alive? No? They may be different, but they still fall under the same category. I confess I didn't read through your guys' entire argument. Pagan is a confusing term. If you take Pagan to mean "non-Christian" then that could encompass many things. So if people from the Dianic tradition are "non Christian" then they could be Pagan, yes. But if you consider Pagans "Polytheistic" then people from the Dianic tradition would probably not be Pagan, because even though they call on many Goddesses they believe that they are all one. Just like I really don't understand the difference between Baptist Christians and Protestant Christians. It's confusing unless you are in it.

 

[jessiej920]

A term coined by Christians to refer to "others".


I know they are two very different things.
I'm likely a lot more versed in this than you think.
I married a former Wiccan, and have known quite a few "pagans".

I did not say that all pagans only believe that because they are rebelling against their parents - I said that the majority that I have known are.
I am speaking from my personal experience, and I as I said, it is sad.
The fluff bunnies and dejected children cause this stereotype and cloud some extraordinarily beautiful belief systems.
The simple fact of the matter is that all the gods, goddesses and stories of the polytheistic old world religions appeal to lost little children who are desperately trying to cling onto their childhood innocence and run away from their parents established ideas and the cruel, hard world.
If someone can pretend to be a witch and believe in faeries and beautiful goddesses, they can escape the harsh realities of the world they were thrust into.


I would actually be interested in reading it.
Are you planning on posting it here?

Sure, I could post it here...depending on my grade . Hopefully it will be a decent one. I agree that the 'polytheistic old world' appeals to many, especially lost souls, but sometimes (as stupid as it sounds) that is why I love it. So many diff. people from diff. walks of life.

 

[Enmos]

Well, I haven't been involved from the beginning, but I'll interject a bit.

Let me ask you this...
I am fairly sure you are aware of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.
Does earth itself not exhibit all the characteristics of an organism - of life?

Not really, life (as defined by science) should display all of the following characteristics:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

The Earth as a whole fails a number of them, if not all.

Maybe you mean that all the organisms of the Earth combined are like a super-organism and that all the non-organisms are like the outer skin and hair of animals, part of a living thing but not living in it self.
There are a few problems with that view as well, not the least of which is that that means that sand (for example) is indeed not alive in itself in this view.

 

[Enmos]

All apples may only have "appleness" but apples and oranges are all fruit, right? All fruit is alive? No? They may be different, but they still fall under the same category. I confess I didn't read through your guys' entire argument. Pagan is a confusing term. If you take Pagan to mean "non-Christian" then that could encompass many things. So if people from the Dianic tradition are "non Christian" then they could be Pagan, yes. But if you consider Pagans "Polytheistic" then people from the Dianic tradition would probably not be Pagan, because even though they call on many Goddesses they believe that they are all one. Just like I really don't understand the difference between Baptist Christians and Protestant Christians. It's confusing unless you are in it.

Jessie, thanks. But I don't think you understood the analogy..
"Apples" are analogous to objects considered "life" by science.
"Appleness" is analogous to the "unique set of characteristic that, scientifically, define life".

You are mixing up analogy and reality.

 

[one_raven]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Check.

2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Check.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Check.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

Check - though I am not sure this necessarily applies.
All life grows physically?
Is bacteria not life?
I know some who would argue.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Check.
(heredity not withstanding - but the Earth certainly adapts.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

Check.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Check.

Maybe you mean that all the organisms of the Earth combined are like a super-organism and that all the non-organisms are like the outer skin and hair of animals, part of a living thing but not living in it self.
There are a few problems with that view as well, not the least of which is that that means that sand (for example) is indeed not alive in itself in this view.

Sand is not alive - neither is your fingernails or hair.
The line between organism and superorganism is blurry to me.
Is it just packaging? All in one skin?
Is it the aspect that if one part dies all will? That can't be it, because I can chop my finger off or remove a lung and survive.
What makes an organism a discrete life form?
If it weren't for some of the bacteria in our bodies we could not digest food - thus not survive. Should they be considered a part of us, or a discrete organism in a symbiotic relationship?

I have read quite compelling arguments that beehives can be viewed a single organism.

 

[jessiej920]

Jessie, thanks. But I don't think you understood the analogy..
"Apples" are analogous to objects considered "life" by science.
"Appleness" is analogous to the "unique set of characteristic that, scientifically, define life".

You are mixing up analogy and reality.

That is truly fascinating. I confessed I didn't read through your whole argument, so I don't even know if what you are trying to convey responds to what I believe in. But...as I've found here in the wonderful realm of SF, there is no point in trying to convert or explain or define or convince others of what you believe when it comes to religion...but I don't think of myself as religious. I confess (fuck, I should be on the I Confess thread) that I am not a scientist. I enjoy science. I enjoy reading about it. I get good grades in science. Yet I never really got analogy in elementary school and I failed online logic in College. Analogy...reality...you didn't even ask about my reality. What is reality to you? To me, apples are apples, apples and oranges are fruit, fruit is life, life comes from the Earth, that is what I enjoy, so there you go.

 

[Enmos]

Check etc

One_raven, I don't agree but let's not include yet another thing into this discussion until the basic stuff is resolved.

Sand is not alive - neither is your fingernails or hair.

But pantheists claim that sand IS alive, and when I point to the scientific definition of life they basically respond with "Well, we don't agree with that definition".

The line between organism and superorganism is blurry to me.
Is it just packaging? All in one skin?
Is it the aspect that if one part dies all will? That can't be it, because I can chop my finger off or remove a lung and survive.
What makes an organism a discrete life form?
If it weren't for some of the bacteria in our bodies we could not digest food - thus not survive. Should they be considered a part of us, or a discrete organism in a symbiotic relationship?

I have read quite compelling arguments that beehives can be viewed a single organism.

Granted, but not the discussion here

 

[Enmos]

That is truly fascinating. I confessed I didn't read through your whole argument, so I don't even know if what you are trying to convey responds to what I believe in. But...as I've found here in the wonderful realm of SF, there is no point in trying to convert or explain or define or convince others of what you believe when it comes to religion...but I don't think of myself as religious. I confess (fuck, I should be on the I Confess thread) that I am not a scientist. I enjoy science. I enjoy reading about it. I get good grades in science. Yet I never really got analogy in elementary school and I failed online logic in College. Analogy...reality...you didn't even ask about my reality. What is reality to you? To me, apples are apples, apples and oranges are fruit, fruit is life, life comes from the Earth, that is what I enjoy, so there you go.

Your reality is irrelevant to science

Do you believe that things that don't display the characteristics of life as defined by science are alive ? For example a rock ?

I'm not trying to convert anyone though, I'm trying to understand. So far I can't understand why pantheists say a rock has appleness..

 

[one_raven]

One_raven, I don't agree but let's not include yet another thing into this discussion until the basic stuff is resolved.

Fair enough.

But pantheists claim that sand IS alive, and when I point to the scientific definition of life they basically respond with "Well, we don't agree with that definition".

As I said, I haven't been involved in this whole discussion, but I have not heard before that pantheists claim that sand is alive.
Sand is part of God, a part of Gaia or affects all life? I've heard that. Just as your fingernails are a part of you and play a large role in shaiping your life and who you are.

Sand has a soul? Sure, Jains believe that (I don't know if anyone else does). Though I don;t think pantheists beleive in distinct souls.

But sand, itself, is alive? Did someone on this thread make that claim?

Granted, but not the discussion here

We'll get to that later then.

 

[jessiej920]

Your reality is irrelevant to science

Do you believe that things that don't display the characteristics of life as defined by science are alive ? For example a rock ?

I'm not trying to convert anyone though, I'm trying to understand. So far I can't understand why pantheists say a rock has appleness..

First off, the reason I say you didn't ask about my reality, is because not once on this thread have I said what I believe falls within the scientific realm. Secondly, since you're not asking, I'll tell you, that I believe in the power of the Earth. A rock may not have a "soul" or "spirit" and neither may a tree, but all that comes from the Earth is sacred because it is a part of the life we live. Rocks have been the building blocks of houses for centuries, have put roofs over the heads of countless humans, have enabled life and so have trees. Fruit has filled our bellies. The sand provides the shore on which the ocean breaks and which ships have sailed and created history. We are not all one because of "spirit", but one because "we" and I mean all, alive or dead, on Earth, exist/don't exist (depending on your analogy/scientific definition) together. The Earth inhabits everything we try to know and understand and so I believe in it and rejoice in it and curse it and sometimes fucking hate it, but still, it is a part of me and I am a part of it.

 

[Enmos]

Fair enough.

It's agreeing with the scientific definition, you only come to a different conclusion.

As I said, I haven't been involved in this whole discussion, but I have not heard before that pantheists claim that sand is alive.
Sand is part of God, a part of Gaia or affects all life? I've heard that. Just as your fingernails are a part of you and play a large role in shaiping your life and who you are.

If that is what they meant.. hmm
But I don't think so.

Sand has a soul? Sure, Jains believe that (I don't know if anyone else does). Though I don;t think pantheists beleive in distinct souls.

I don't know either, they speak of "spirit" and "energy" and that it is interchangeable with "life".

But sand, itself, is alive? Did someone on this thread make that claim?

Simon and Tht1gy do.. they are panteists.

We'll get to that later then.

Well, I more or less agreed with you on that one though

 

[Enmos]

First off, the reason I say you didn't ask about my reality, is because not once on this thread have I said what I believe falls within the scientific realm. Secondly, since you're not asking, I'll tell you, that I believe in the power of the Earth. A rock may not have a "soul" or "spirit" and neither may a tree, but all that comes from the Earth is sacred because it is a part of the life we live. Rocks have been the building blocks of houses for centuries, have put roofs over the heads of countless humans, have enabled life and so have trees. Fruit has filled our bellies. The sand provides the shore on which the ocean breaks and which ships have sailed and created history. We are not all one because of "spirit", but one because "we" and I mean all, alive or dead, on Earth, exist/don't exist (depending on your analogy/scientific definition) together. The Earth inhabits everything we try to know and understand and so I believe in it and rejoice in it and curse it and sometimes fucking hate it, but still, it is a part of me and I am a part of it.

This makes sense, it doesn't seem to contradict science at all.


Hum.. got to go. Be back later

 

[one_raven]

I don't know either, they speak of "spirit" and "energy" and that it is interchangeable with "life".

I get annoyed when people talk of such things without defining them.
It makes me think they really don't know the answer and are simply giving a feel-good response and avoiding the question.

Simon and Tht1gy do.. they are panteists.

Panteists? Was that a Freudian slip?
I'd like to hear an explanation of that as well, then.

Well, I more or less agreed with you on that one though

Yes, but we will get to whether or not Earth is a super-organism later.
Be prepared.

 

[jessiej920]

This makes sense, it doesn't seem to contradict science at all.


Hum.. got to go. Be back later

Well...I await your return and I'm glad to see that at least some of what I have said makes sense to you.

 

[Hapsburg]

I ask them why they are pagan or Wiccan, and for too often the response I get is filled with statements about Christianity and how horrible it is.

I have to agree that responses like that are really ridiculous and stupid; the more fluffy Wiccans whose viewpoint that comes from, often were raised in Christianity, and go into Wicca just to rebel against the religion they were raised in or something similarly superficial.

Which is an incredibly stupid reason to go into a religion. You should go into one because it meshes well with your beliefs, not just because, "well, it's not the religion I grew up in." Luckily, the neopagan community is very diverse and broad, and you will find a lot of people who are truly genuine about their religious beliefs.


Oh, and on the whole life debate- there is a difference between organism and life. The earth is a functioning superorganism. It is not per se a living creature, nor are the individual bits on it necessarily living entities (the sand you've been talking being a notable example of a non-living component of a superorganism). Remember, as life is defined scientifically, a virus isn't exactly a living being, but it is a functioning organism.

 

[Enmos]

I get annoyed when people talk of such things without defining them.
It makes me think they really don't know the answer and are simply giving a feel-good response and avoiding the question.

Too be fair, they did give their definition of "life". At least Simon did, I'm not sure to what extend Tht1gy agrees with it though, but I think he mostly does.
The definition Simon gave was "has consciousness and preferences".

Panteists? Was that a Freudian slip?
I'd like to hear an explanation of that as well, then.

They most likely offer you the above definition.
In light of this, what do you think of my earlier post (291) ?

Yes, but we will get to whether or not Earth is a super-organism later.
Be prepared.

Fine with me

 

[Enmos]

Well...I await your return and I'm glad to see that at least some of what I have said makes sense to you.

lol

You are a Wiccan right ?
To what extent do you worship nature ? And do gods come into it ?

 

[Enmos]

Oh, and on the whole life debate- there is a difference between organism and life. The earth is a functioning superorganism. It is not per se a living creature, nor are the individual bits on it necessarily living entities (the sand you've been talking being a notable example of a non-living component of a superorganism). Remember, as life is defined scientifically, a virus isn't exactly a living being, but it is a functioning organism.

I see what you mean, but it's not really part of the discussion
Viruses are still debated, but they are not considered life according to current consensus.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Enmos, Enmos, Enmos, I never said "sand is alive" I fact I have said it is not. What I said is that it has life. That it is part of the whole. And, as all of existince is one...
The George Carlin thing is a joke, He was :bawl: a comedian. (He just recently died) And I have a hard time believing you didn't see my definition. Was I really that vague? Did anyone else think I was unclear on the subject?

one raven I get annoyed when people talk of such things without defining them.
It makes me think they really don't know the answer and are simply giving a feel-good response and avoiding the question.

Well, pls read the thread before making such statements.

pagan - Latin paganus ‘villager, rustic,’ from pagus ‘country district.’ Latin paganus also meant ‘civilian,’
Dictionary
Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Inc.,
All Rights Reserved.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos, Enmos, Enmos, I never said "sand is alive" I fact I have said it is not. What I said is that it has life. That it is part of the whole. And, as all of existince is one...

To me there is no difference between "is alive" and "has life".. :shrug:

The George Carlin thing is a joke, He was :bawl: a comedian. (He just recently died) And I have a hard time believing you didn't see my definition. Was I really that vague? Did anyone else think I was unclear on the subject?

I didn't get the Carlin thing
If I missed your definition I apologize.. Could you please state it again ?

I'm a bit confused right now..

Simon did say sand was alive though.
Hmm I did say that I didn't know to what extent you agreed with Simons definition.