tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883567827950405204.post8288694916169465571..comments2023-10-24T11:53:12.980-04:00Comments on Meadowsweet & Myrrh: A Fool's Chance: Coincidence & MagicAlihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01738190874181111086noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883567827950405204.post-91435108970141602132008-04-06T19:48:00.000-04:002008-04-06T19:48:00.000-04:00I find paganism to be perhaps the one true democra...I find paganism to be perhaps the one true democratic religion, rather than dogmatic theology, granting me the freedom to retain my skepticism while simultaneously enjoying the idea that crafting a spell will actually CAUSE something to happen that might not otherwise have, and not feel conflicted. One might think that magik cannot exist due to repeatability or controllability, yet I suggest it can exist due to our inability to fashion a method of observation due to our inherent biological sensory cabilibilities. I can imagine all kinds of entities sitting over in their other dimensions shaking their heads at US wondering why we just don't "get it".Alex Pendragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15877845166621794334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883567827950405204.post-11321509588131561212008-04-01T21:56:00.000-04:002008-04-01T21:56:00.000-04:00You are a lovely writer! Mandy had edited this epi...You are a lovely writer! Mandy had edited this episode (which was recorded over a couple different days, months apart), and so I hadn't heard the finished product as a whole until the show was released. As I finished listening to the episode, I had similar thoughts to yours (though not nearly as well formed as yours are). <BR/><BR/>In particular, I was thinking that Paganism is an inherently *literary* perspective. No wonder it's incommensurable with the scientific framework! Don't get me wrong: I'm aware of the literary aspects of science as well (see David Bloor's work on the sociology of science, for example, and put that together with Richard Rorty's work on 'final vocabularies'), but science would rather not have its literary dark side... its embarrassing blemish beneath its proud clothes.<BR/><BR/>Paganism, on the other hand, revels in it. Witness the mythology that it takes as its history, the songs, the chants, the living mythology of personal deities... Witness the form of Pagan ritual, with its vocabulary, its drama and its formal kinship to the life of a person. Paganism is a beautiful epic poem that moves the heart and stirs the soul.<BR/><BR/>My mistake was always taking Paganism as a from of inquiry into the nature of the mind-independent universe, as if some deep metaphysical truths could be found within it. Paganism is not suited to such an inquiry. As you suggest, Paganism in general is suited to meaning-making, not ontological discovery. If you confuse these two as I had, Paganism looks like a jumbled mess, barren of value... or at least badly in need of repair.<BR/><BR/>If I have understood what you're saying, it seems that you don't attribute any mind-independent causal efficacy to magic. Rather, magic is a kind of projection of meaning onto random (or otherwise-caused) events. It does exceedingly well at this function. Not only can it furnish a narrative about past events, it can construct narratives to handle many future eventualities. Come what may in terms of observations, the magical perspective has a way of assimilating those observations into its own framework, into its own story. And its most useful feature in this regard is the priority of the aesthetic, and not the rational.<BR/><BR/>But for me, there are ironies about talking how we are talking. When we 'meaning-make' in Paganism and in magical perspectives, we use ontological vocabularies, treating magic and the gods as if they were mind-independently real. If we simultaneously know that we are meaning-making, then we somewhat undermine the full force of those vocabularies to knit together a meaningful narrative whole (even if it need only be an aesthetic whole, and not a rationally coherent whole). This isn't necessarily a fatal flaw: I've spoken about this on the show before---we could be similar to what Rorty calls 'Ironists' insofar as how we talk and behave is self-consciously contrary to our meta-theory, and we engage in this self-contradiction for pragmatic reasons. In Rorty's case, it's the continuation of a free democracy. In the case of Paganism, it's something more aesthetic, as you suggest.<BR/><BR/>It's very possible that there are people out there who either 1) don't need to be ironists because they're not quite savvy enough to be in an ironic position, or 2) are fully capable of switching the hats of ontological commitment. I have found, though, for myself, the role of ironist was not allowing me to commit fully to one side or the other (inquiry into mind-independent world/Pagan aesthetic), and so I was not realizing either to their fullest extent. This was particularly problematic for my chosen profession. When I gave myself permission to release the Pagan aesthetic portion of my perspective, the other side began to flourish and I found that it was rather easy to find aesthetic fulfillment in other, more compatible, places.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious to hear about your own journey as an Ironist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883567827950405204.post-89145523168063076272008-04-01T11:26:00.000-04:002008-04-01T11:26:00.000-04:00Well written, Ali!Why not post this to your LJ?Well written, Ali!<BR/><BR/>Why not post this to your LJ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com