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

[Enmos]

I really do think it is time for the dead paradigm to leave the earth, while life still has some chance.

That is nonsense. Are you saying the 'dead paradigm' is harmful to life ?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

That is nonsense. Are you saying the 'dead paradigm' is harmful to life ?

While I didn't say it, I could. It seems to me that's what's leading/lead us to our pending planetary crisis. The whole mechanistic view of nature leads people to consider the earth and all within as 'stuff' to be 'used' and when it's trashed move to another planet. (This takes the paradigm to a extreme, admittedly)

the 'dead paradigm' is harmful to life

Strip away the question aspect and it answers it self.
Don't you think?

On the subject of white, black, and gray magic: I find them to be false divisions created by novices. There is just magic, Any difference is in intent.

I don't believe in gods per se or even god. The universe just is! Thou art god!
There is nothing to worship, god is us (gods-r-us) There is no one to revere. God is the combined consciousness of all that is.
I often do speak of god when talking to god types as explaining the difference takes too much time, (I am not fond of typing) and key concepts are often misunderstood.

As far as the three fold rule;
I prefer "An' it harm none, do as Ye will"
I don't think karma is about retribution, I think is about clearing the dross from our soul.

I call myself pagan ONLY because too few people understand the word "Pantheism"
In fact, the first time I heard the word many years ago, I was describing my beliefs to someone and he said "Oh you're a pantheist". said "NO, I'm not!" I proceeded to reiterate my beliefs. He said "That's pantheism, look it up." I did. He was right. I was amused and more than a little embarrassed at my ignorant vehemence.

About setting a demon after someone; foolhardy. While I don't believe in 'evil' or 'evil spirits' I do find that malevence exists. Any soul who would answer that call, would not likely be a soul interested in being 'commanded'. Are you sure you can conjure a soul 'bad' enough, or tough enough to take on Bin Laden's demon?

Oh well, more later. Time for bed here in America's heartland.

 

[Simon Anders]

That is nonsense. Are you saying the 'dead paradigm' is harmful to life ?

A better wording would be a paradigm of death. Or a paradigm puts the onus of proof on life and sees it as rare and the exception. And yes, I see this paradigm as very harmful. Right now this paradigm is excusing treating nature as a machine or individuals - animal, plant or human - as machines. It truly does treat nature as something with replaceable parts as if it were a dead machine to be serviced.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

A better wording would be a paradigm of death... ... It truly does treat nature as something with replaceable parts as if it were a dead machine to be serviced.

Very nicely put!

...as if it were a dead machine to be serviced...

or discarded.

 

[Enmos]

While I didn't say it, I could. It seems to me that's what's leading/lead us to our pending planetary crisis. The whole mechanistic view of nature leads people to consider the earth and all within as 'stuff' to be 'used' and when it's trashed move to another planet. (This takes the paradigm to a extreme, admittedly)

I don't agree. Do guns kill people ?

Strip away the question aspect and it answers it self.
Don't you think?

Well duh.. lol
>Are you saying that you are a not serious ?
>Strip away the question aspect and it answers itself: You are not serious.
:shrug:

On the subject of white, black, and gray magic: I find them to be false divisions created by novices. There is just magic, Any difference is in intent.

How do you define magic ?

I don't believe in gods per se or even god. The universe just is! Thou art god!

Strip away the God aspect and I agree

There is nothing to worship, god is us (gods-r-us) There is no one to revere. God is the combined consciousness of all that is.

Now this, to me, is the most scary part of religion. And it seems consistent in every religion.
I really think this mindset is to blame for the current predicament the world is in today.
People placing themselves above nature. The bible tells us to subdue nature for it must serve us.. disgusting.

I often do speak of god when talking to god types as explaining the difference takes too much time, (I am not fond of typing) and key concepts are often misunderstood.

Yes, it can be confusing to us atheists

As far as the three fold rule;
I prefer "An' it harm none, do as Ye will"
I don't think karma is about retribution, I think is about clearing the dross from our soul.

I don't need a soul to live by that though.
Also, most people interpret it as "If it doesn't harm anyone, do as you wish".
Note that they define "anyone" as "other people".

I call myself pagan ONLY because too few people understand the word "Pantheism"
In fact, the first time I heard the word many years ago, I was describing my beliefs to someone and he said "Oh you're a pantheist". said "NO, I'm not!" I proceeded to reiterate my beliefs. He said "That's pantheism, look it up." I did. He was right. I was amused and more than a little embarrassed at my ignorant vehemence.

Aren't you afraid that identifying yourself with a particular religion makes you conform to it ?
I bet you incorporated additional pantheistic views since defining yourself as a pantheist, that you otherwise would not have.

About setting a demon after someone; foolhardy. While I don't believe in 'evil' or 'evil spirits' I do find that malevence exists. Any soul who would answer that call, would not likely be a soul interested in being 'commanded'. Are you sure you can conjure a soul 'bad' enough, or tough enough to take on Bin Laden's demon?

I don't believe in good and evil as oppositions of each other either.

 

[Enmos]

A better wording would be a paradigm of death. Or a paradigm puts the onus of proof on life and sees it as rare and the exception. And yes, I see this paradigm as very harmful. Right now this paradigm is excusing treating nature as a machine or individuals - animal, plant or human - as machines. It truly does treat nature as something with replaceable parts as if it were a dead machine to be serviced.

No. That is simply ignorance and arrogance at work, not the 'dead paradigm'.
As far as I understand the concept it just claims there is no such thing as 'life force', or soul, or whatever.
All that exists is space, energy and matter (really just a form of energy).
Everything is made from it, including life.
That doesn't denigrate life at all in my view.

 

[Enmos]

Very nicely put!

or discarded.

Oh come on.. do you think I am that way ?

 

[Simon Anders]

No. That is simply ignorance and arrogance at work, not the 'dead paradigm'.
As far as I understand the concept it just claims there is no such thing as 'life force', or soul, or whatever.
All that exists is space, energy and matter (really just a form of energy).
Everything is made from it, including life.
That doesn't denigrate life at all in my view.

You misunderstood me. But since I was speaking at such a general level it's easy to understand why.

What I mean is that current science views most things as 'not living' or as 'dead matter' or 'simply energy'. Life is seen as an exception. A rare phenomenon. Even here on earth most things are seen as dead.

Further even life forms themselves are often seen as 'really' machines, however complicated. We don't think of cars as alive and I believe that even living forms are seen are 'non-living' - the mere, inevitable turning of 'small gears' to use a metaphor.

This kind of foray by scientists and interpreters of science where sometimes more and somtimes less that small subset of reality considered alive is considered mechanical only. Even ourselves and animals and certainly plants are shifted wholly or partly over into 'machine like processes'.

For a pantheist/animist/pagan like myself this seems rather a paradigm of death. Yes, that's polemical. I could make a softer name 'The pardigm of extreme predominance of non-living processes and entities' or some such.

I sometimes wonder if we are walking around in the same world.

 

[Simon Anders]

I don't agree. Do guns kill people ?

If you are taught that people are merely complicated machines this has subtle and direct effects on how one considers treating them. If you consider nature merely a bunch of determined albeit complicated machines, it is easier to consider gene modification, the cutting down of old growth, as a couple of examples.

How do you define magic ?

Natural cause effect relationships that can be controlled but whose mechanism is not yet understood by science.

Now this, to me, is the most scary part of religion. And it seems consistent in every religion.
I really think this mindset is to blame for the current predicament the world is in today.
People placing themselves above nature. The bible tells us to subdue nature for it must serve us.. disgusting.

But this is where Christians and some of the other larger religions join up with the technocrats. The complete subjugation of nature. Both agree that nature IS NOT SACRED. Of course nothing is sacred to the technocrats, but there is this area of overlap: nature. Further this 'nature' is not simply outside us, it is inside us also. Both the technocrats and the Christians distrust human nature, especially human emotions, passions and intuition.

 

[Enmos]

You misunderstood me. But since I was speaking at such a general level it's easy to understand why.

What I mean is that current science views most things as 'not living' or as 'dead matter' or 'simply energy'. Life is seen as an exception. A rare phenomenon. Even here on earth most things are seen as dead.

Further even life forms themselves are often seen as 'really' machines, however complicated. We don't think of cars as alive and I believe that even living forms are seen are 'non-living' - the mere, inevitable turning of 'small gears' to use a metaphor.

This kind of foray by scientists and interpreters of science where sometimes more and somtimes less that small subset of reality considered alive is considered mechanical only. Even ourselves and animals and certainly plants are shifted wholly or partly over into 'machine like processes'.

For a pantheist/animist/pagan like myself this seems rather a paradigm of death. Yes, that's polemical. I could make a softer name 'The pardigm of extreme predominance of non-living processes and entities' or some such.

I sometimes wonder if we are walking around in the same world.

It seems I understood you after all though.
I would never call life machines though, it doesn't do it justice.
But life, like everything else, is made from matter. Matter is not alive.
This, however, doesn't diminish the wonder of life at all to me.
Ah yea, and life isn't exactly rare.. it's everywhere
For now..

 

[Enmos]

If you are taught that people are merely complicated machines this has subtle and direct effects on how one considers treating them. If you consider nature merely a bunch of determined albeit complicated machines, it is easier to consider gene modification, the cutting down of old growth, as a couple of examples.

No, not necessarily. And not at all if you understand a little bit about nature and aren't a self-centered asshole.

Natural cause effect relationships that can be controlled but whose mechanism is not yet understood by science.

I agree. The damage is mostly done by our numbers though, either directly or indirectly.

But this is where Christians and some of the other larger religions join up with the technocrats. The complete subjugation of nature. Both agree that nature IS NOT SACRED. Of course nothing is sacred to the technocrats, but there is this area of overlap: nature. Further this 'nature' is not simply outside us, it is inside us also. Both the technocrats and the Christians distrust human nature, especially human emotions, passions and intuition.

Well yes, I guess we agree.
Although I have to say I don't respect humanity much as a whole.

 

[Simon Anders]

No, not necessarily. And not at all if you understand a little bit about nature and aren't a self-centered asshole.

Of course not necessarily. We have all resisted parts of our explicit educations - the facts we are taught - and our implicit educations - what is implied by these facts, by what is left out of our educations, by the form of our education and so on. We can all be immune or later unleard or not be so affected by these things. However if you are taught that something really is a kind of complicated non-living process it will affect the way you treat that thing.

I agree. The damage is mostly done by our numbers though, either directly or indirectly.

Numbers does a lot of damage and at this point I think only the radical effects of what we have done will create any motivation for change. When it is right in people's faces, which will be too late for many. But the damage has been radically increased by the attitudes of many people.

Well yes, I guess we agree.
Although I have to say I don't respect humanity much as a whole.

Nor do I.

 

[Simon Anders]

But life, like everything else, is made from matter. Matter is not alive.

Matter is very little like matter when you get up close to it. In fact it isn't really matter, even in the scientific view of it.

 

[Enmos]

Of course not necessarily. We have all resisted parts of our explicit educations - the facts we are taught - and our implicit educations - what is implied by these facts, by what is left out of our educations, by the form of our education and so on. We can all be immune or later unleard or not be so affected by these things. However if you are taught that something really is a kind of complicated non-living process it will affect the way you treat that thing.

No.
I'll have you know that I take that personally.

Numbers does a lot of damage and at this point I think only the radical effects of what we have done will create any motivation for change. When it is right in people's faces, which will be too late for many. But the damage has been radically increased by the attitudes of many people.

Made possibly through numbers. If the worlds population would be, say, 1.000.000 people there wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

Nor do I.

:thumbsup:

 

[Enmos]

Matter is very little like matter when you get up close to it. In fact it isn't really matter, even in the scientific view of it.

Matter = energy = strings. If that's what you mean.
Fact is that strings are still what we call matter.

 

[Simon Anders]

Matter = energy = strings. If that's what you mean.
Fact is that strings are still what we call matter.

I have no idea if string theory is correct.

What is matter, Enmos?

 

[Simon Anders]

No.

Made possibly through numbers. If the worlds population would be, say, 1.000.000 people there wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

I disagree. Given the technology we have today and the attitudes of a certain portion of the population, given that they could damage nature without stepping on so many toes, we really have no idea what would happen. If these people had access to the technology we have in gene modification, nano-technology and weoponry and given their current levels of lack of care, nature would be in danger.

 

[Enmos]

I have no idea if string theory is correct.

Me neither.

What is matter, Enmos?

Physical existence ? How would I know ?

 

[Enmos]

I disagree. Given the technology we have today and the attitudes of a certain portion of the population, given that they could damage nature without stepping on so many toes, we really have no idea what would happen. If these people had access to the technology we have in gene modification, nano-technology and weoponry and given their current levels of lack of care, nature would be in danger.

Well yea of course, but you are talking about active destruction. We can do something about that.
I'm talking about passive destruction..

 

[Simon Anders]

Well yea of course, but you are talking about active destruction. We can do something about that.
I'm talking about passive destruction..

I am not sure who this 'we' you are talking about is, but if 'you' can do something, please do it.