morality within evolution

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Thank you for your posts!

I just want to mention here that it's a lovely thing that you start your posts this way. Truly.

In the end, I think you are correct, experience is probably the best teacher.

Come to think of it, isn't that a motivation for following a particular faith walk, at least now in places where a specific walk is not mandated by government or culture? That is to say, so many people "switch" to a different faith walk that seems to "work" better for them, and provides them with a better experience. In my own case, I stay with my path because it works for me, by experience.

Absolutely. Of course, there are many folks who will say that this is insufficient reason; that there *is* only one correct path. I'm not one of them.

May I conclude that, at least in your walk, you do not acknowledge the Divine? If so, then it would seem your path does closely parallel Buddhism.

Ah, no. I'm Pagan; I acknowledge the Divine in nearly everything around me, and far away (the "nearly" has everything to do with my limited vision, not with a lack of Divine Spark in those things I'm unable to recognize as being infused with the Divine).

You could, on the other hand, accurately conclude that I don't acknowledge a "personal savior" or "God" the way most people use that word.

I agree. I think many feel entitled to outside justification for their actions. I see it as "enabling" behavior that otherwise would not be acceptable. "Oh, the poor kid had such a rough life..." Yet, such enablement can potentially lead to very destructive behavior to self or others if it is not checked somewhere.

And there's this, too: it's not a satisfying way to live. Responsibility is the obverse side of coin called "freedom".

Good posts, BTW. Gotta go for now. I am enjoying my discussions with you!

I'm enjoying them, too!

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I agree - the human animal is torn by two opposing sociobiological forces - survival of the group, and survival of the individual.

Survival of the group requires that everyone understands their positions, and are held to account by the group in the interests of the group.

Survival of the individual plays out in the dynamics of social inequalities - by nature, social groups have heirarchies and increasing the chances of survival tends to relate to increasing social standing, ie, access to resources, mates, protection, etc.

I think it's especially worth suggesting that the lower social classes - where social advancement is less of an option - may be more prone to positive moral judgements with regards to the group element. The need to stick together due to the vulnerability of being alone. The reverse is that the higher social standing, the the greater the opportunity of flouting social rules for personal gain.

Spot on.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I made the comment as a historical fact. Human sacrifice to nature gods, to my knowledge, has not been culturally acceptable commonly in Western cultures for a long time, at least a thousand years or more. But Frazer pointed out that in rural parts of Europe within the last 200 years, it was a common practice to sacrifice in effigy. He presented examples that still echo in some of the modern festivals and holidays, such as May Day. I am not well versed, but I think this is related to what is commonly called "sympathetic magick." I wish I had a copy of the book here to quote.

Are you referencing "The Golden Bough"?

A word or two about effigy sacrifices.

This is very very old. It has echoes in present-day things like Guy Fawkes Day and football rallies, or more seriously in the burning of political figures in effigy.

There are two views of effigy burnings. One view is that burning a human effigy is intended to create a spirit messenger - to connect the celebrants with energies and powers which would ordinarily be beyond their control. For early peoples, the energy of fire was connected with the sun which brings light, health, and growth, as well as the hearth fire of food and hospitality. Fire was the spark of life which connected human hearts with the stars; for some it was the fire of inner change and transformation, the quest for knowledge and power.

Frazer suggested that effigy burnings were rites of purification rather than seasonal solar rituals. But the timing suggests otherwise, or at least a confluence. The most important fire festivals of Old Europe were held in conjunction with the turning points of the solar year: Midsummer, Winter Solstice, the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes.

And the practices themselves suggest a solar connection, as the wheel that is set alight and spun or rolled down a hill.

In any case, fire festivals, including the burning of effigies, are related to the Earth's cycle of growth, maturing, decay and death; in particular, they focus on fertilization and growth. Leaping the bonfire (and, in the process, exposing one's reproductive organs to its flame) is widely held to promote fertility. Frequently, torches are carried through orchards, pastures, and fields to insure good crops.

BTW, the major authority for the burning of humans in a wicker effigy is Caesar's account of his observations of Druid rituals (during his Gallic Wars - hardly unbiased). No other ancient authority verifies this. It is assumed that the prevalence of effigy burning, together with evidence of human sacrifice in at least some groups, implies that effigies are a later substitution for earlier, more literal, practices.

Effigy buring, today, is used by modern Pagans as a process of transformation, an acknowledgement of the neccessity of change (including death) in the process of life. The sacrificed image represents the spirits of vegetation, the cycle of fertilization, growth, maturity, and death which defines the parameters of life on earth. The dried stalks of last year's growth must be burned and returned to the soil to prepare the way for new growth. Death is intrinsically linked to the emergence of new life. Everything enters the fire and is transformed.

So, we burn away those things that we wish to change in ourselves, adding them to the effigy on pieces of paper, or calling them out as the effigy burns. We may also burn things (things that burn) representative of what we wish to have transformed - this could be pieces of trash (to transform our consciousness of littering/befouling the Earth), or pieces of clothing from a person whose connection to us we wish transformed or broken), and so on.

If folks want to know *much, much* more about this, I'd suggest reading The Golden Bough, particularly those chapters about fire festivals in europe, his interpretations of fire festivals, and especially "The Burning of Human Beings in the Fire".

[Käthe]

Oh, a further bit on the above. it's difficult to get the requisite permits to do a large-scale effigy burning, or even a large bonfire, so some folks have adapted this practice for indoor sork.

My ritual working group, for example, has changed it, while carrying over the intent, by *rending* an effigy. At Lammas/Lughnasad (the autumn grain harvest festival) we each contribute something to the making of a (small) straw man effigy, which is torn apart during the working.

Note: Present-day effigy burning is(at least here in the US) almost exclusively associated with the grain harvest festival (Lammas/Lughnasad), although there are fire festival practices associated with the other harvest festivals (Midsummer - harvest of fruits, Fall Equinox - harvest of nuts, and Samhain - harvest of meat)

[Käthe]

Y'kow, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm actually contributing anything to the original question of this topic thread by slogging through pages and pages of posts and replying to some of them.

Perhaps it would be better to just read all the way through (over the course of a few days) and try to summarize my thinking on the major issues/ideas.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I would think, in the terms of this discussion, that "sociopath" is a relative term. A sociopath within the group is detrimental to the survival of that group (which would be immoral). A sociopath directed towards "others" outside of the group may be a patriot or hero (which would be moral, and potentially very moral, at least to the group "he" represents).

Woof. This is pretty profound, and it goes a far bit towards arguing the evolutionary basis for morality. That which enhances our (family, tribe, etc.) survival is "good", that which diminshes it is "bad".



BTW, this calls to mind the practice in some societies of the suspension of all moral rules/behavior limitations for the "Year King".

[Käthe]

Ok, folks. I'm a little bit burned out on this topic for the time being.

I'll pick it up again after my eyes stop smarting and my brain-fog clears.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Käthe

This made me chuckle. There a lot of folks out there in the wide world who join Neo-Pagan groups because they think it's "cool" or becasue they are rebelling against something, or some equally odd reason. ~shrug~ There's a LOT of misinformation out there, too.

One thing to keep in mind is that Paganism has more than one tradition; as mentioned earlier, there's "schools" of Pagansim, usually culturally-related.

So there's a lot of varity of opinion, as well as variety of actual practice.



I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify something about the Rede ("An it harm none, do as you will").

This is something that has spawned a lot of disagreement within the larger Pagan community, and even in the Wiccan community.

Some say it boils down to "Harm none".

Others say it boils down to "Do the least harm" (in recognition of the fact that it's not always (ever?) possible to do NO harm, unless one doesn't do *anything* at all - and that can certainly be harmful too).

This is my understanding of those eight words.

1. It is expressed in the terms of an "If...then" statement.

Here's another example of an "If...then" that might serve as an example:

"If it rains today, then I'm going to make soup for dinner"

With just the information above, what will be for dinner if it does NOT rain today?

1. Soup.
2. NOT soup.
3. No way to tell; it could be soup, it could be something else.
4. No way to tell; we can't even tell that there will BE dinner.

Let's get responses to that before I go on.

hi kathe & welcome to CR. i know nothing of Wiccan/paganism & never heard of the Rede, but was struck by its apprent identical wording to the famous dictum by the Christian theologian St. Augustine: "love and do what you will." the reason that guideline makes perfect sense to me is that, if 1 approaches Life with an open heart of love-not of the more sentimental & often mixed with self-interest variety that passes for love but with agape as the Christians put it-then 1 will tend to innately act in an optimal manner that automatically takes the action which optimizes the self-other dynamic. so what "we will" will in that moment of action tend to be the "correct" thing to do. take care, earl

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by earl

hi kathe & welcome to CR. i know nothing of Wiccan/paganism & never heard of the Rede, but was struck by its apprent identical wording to the famous dictum by the Christian theologian St. Augustine: "love and do what you will."

Thank you, earl.

"Love and do what you will".

Y'know, with a couple of commas, this could certainly clear up the whole dilemma that some Christians have about the GLBT community:

"Love, and do, what you will"

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Thank you for your posts, I'll try to catch up on some of them.

In addition, we have a need, for some reason, for things that don't directly contribute to pure physical survival - the things that uplift us (although I could make a good case for these being a needed componenet for survival, as those things that give us a feeling of confidence, or worthwhileness, or a goal to reach could be seen to contribute to survival - as in something to survive/life *for* rather than surviving just to live long enough to pass along genetic material).

I think that this has expanded into the idea that every human is worthwhile investing in.

So in human socieities we nurture members of the group that would be culled out, or passively allowed to die, in other animal groups.

I like this. I have found it difficult to understand why we got to the point of realizing the value in those "not quite whole." I think you may be on to something here.

A harsh and judgemental one; when there is little wiggle room for survival, our perception of "God" reflects that, IMO. Which may be a contributing factor in the variety of ways in which people living in different places perceive the Divine.

I am inclined to agree. In some sense, I think we "paint a picture" of G-d in our own image in our minds.

Is morality not to be found in societies without "a great history and culture and religion"? And who deterines the "greatness' of same?

Yes, of course. In Alexa's defense, I don't think anything was implied by the comment. One must admit, at least in the West, of a form of "superiority complex." I suspect as much is true in other major cultures as well. To bastardize Orwell, "all cultures are great, some are greater than others." I say this with all sarcasm, and no hidden intent.

Originally Posted by Brian

the human animal is torn by two opposing sociobiological forces - survival of the group, and survival of the individual.

Survival of the group requires that everyone understands their positions, and are held to account by the group in the interests of the group.

Survival of the individual plays out in the dynamics of social inequalities - by nature, social groups have heirarchies and increasing the chances of survival tends to relate to increasing social standing, ie, access to resources, mates, protection, etc.

I think it's especially worth suggesting that the lower social classes - where social advancement is less of an option - may be more prone to positive moral judgements with regards to the group element. The need to stick together due to the vulnerability of being alone. The reverse is that the higher social standing, the the greater the opportunity of flouting social rules for personal gain.

BTW, Thanks Brian!

I think I see this, great post!

I especially see this latter part at work in business, where having morals is not equivalent to good business, but being aggressive and predatory for gain is.

Yes, business is another that seems to be morally a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we need it. On the other, human nature being what it is, business is all too often an abuse of privilege or power.

I am sure it is a struggle, to sincerely try to be a morally inclined business person.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe (again, )!

BTW, thank you Earl, for stopping by! I hope your injury heals nicely and timely! Kindest Regards!

I just want to mention here that it's a lovely thing that you start your posts this way. Truly.

Why thank you. I credit my mother for good manners, and Vajradhara for showing me that this is just good forum etiquette.

Absolutely. Of course, there are many folks who will say that this is insufficient reason; that there *is* only one correct path. I'm not one of them.

On one hand I do agree with you, and I limit my critiques of other paths. On the other hand, do we not have to see the value in our path for it to be of service to us?

Ah, no. I'm Pagan; I acknowledge the Divine in nearly everything around me, and far away (the "nearly" has everything to do with my limited vision, not with a lack of Divine Spark in those things I'm unable to recognize as being infused with the Divine).

You could, on the other hand, accurately conclude that I don't acknowledge a "personal savior" or "God" the way most people use that word.

In some ways we share views. I do not see G-d as an old white beard on a throne looking for people to punish (and I realize that may not sit well with many of those I consider allies). In the role of "Creator," I think what you say holds merit. I do draw a distinction though, in that I am not the potter, I am the clay.

And there's this, too: it's not a satisfying way to live. Responsibility is the obverse side of coin called "freedom".

Ah yes, freedom is not free. It comes at a cost. That cost is responsibility.

Are you referencing "The Golden Bough"?

Indeed I am. When I submitted a term paper to a favorite professor on this very subject (the development of religion, rational thinking and language), along with my grade he gifted me with a high honor of loaning me his copy. I know of no other student he ever did this with.

It is assumed that the prevalence of effigy burning, together with evidence of human sacrifice in at least some groups, implies that effigies are a later substitution for earlier, more literal, practices.

Right! Of course, Frazer also went to lengths to touch on the "Wild Man / Green Man" tradition, which in (yet another!) thread we were able to tie this from very far back in antiquity to the modern day Santa Claus.

Thank you for the modern version and understanding.

Y'kow, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm actually contributing anything to the original question of this topic thread by slogging through pages and pages of posts and replying to some of them.

You are contributing more than you may realize. It is always nice to get fresh opinions in this discussion.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Frazer also went to lengths to touch on the "Wild Man / Green Man" tradition, which in (yet another!) thread we were able to tie this from very far back in antiquity to the modern day Santa Claus.

Really?

It seems that a LOT of fascinating discussions I'd like to have participated in happened before I got here.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Here is a link to the thread I mentioned, it starts to get pretty good at post 30. The link I included still worked when I checked this afternoon. Enjoy!

Santa Theory