NMR ISSUE 36

An Urban Wicca
Artemis
Astrological Forecast 36
Daddy Long Legs, Stork & Swallow
Editorial 36
Esoteric Symbology of the Tarot
Eve of Persephone
Gematria
Guidance vs. Thou Shalt
Letters 36
Never Again the Burnings?
Pysanky Spring
The Magical Flute VIII:
Year of Vision

Articles
Authors
Rituals
Book Reviews
NMR Issues
NMR Covers

The Editorial

By Scot Rhoads

Sol Invictus is the Reason for the Season

I get tired around Xmas time of the Jesus is the Reason for the Season billboards. I certainly don't mind the sentiment, because Jesus Himself symbolizes only good things to me; but I cringe at the association with the sanctimonious, hypocritical, ignorant Yahoos who I imagine to be responsible for such ads. Not that I know that these really are unpleasant people, but we all know the history: Xmas was originally pagan, and the Church co-opted or destroyed everything that was the real reason for the season. I applaud those who want to bring spirituality back to Yule (OK, Xmas), but I cringe at the political implications. The main way I distinguish spirituality and religio-politics is: spirituality doesn't mind what others believe, religio-politics demands certain beliefs of others.

So next year I'd like to put up a Sol Invictus is the Reason for the Season billboard next to Jesus is the Reason for the Season. It would offer a more accurate historical allusion, an announcement of our religion, a broader call for spirituality and (I hope) inspire some thought.

Of course, it needn't be Sol Invictus. It could be the Sun King, or whoever Pagans like, as long as the, is the reason for the season, reference is clear.

We should not consider this a challenge to the Jesus people. As far as I'm concerned, all those who are spiritual are allies. The spiritual Christians should welcome our billboard as I welcome theirs (hesitantly, but optimistically). But there will be many who can only consider it a challenge. Those are the ones concerned more with what others believe than what they do themselves believe. This billboard will rattle their cages, which (I feel) is also a good thing.

Tragically, billboards are bloody expensive. Here in San Diego it's $500 for the paper plus $1000 for a month on a surface street billboard, or $5000 for a month on a Freeway billboard. Yikes! Still, I encourage people to write in if this is something they would donate to. DO NOT SEND DONATIONS! (Yet) For now, I'm just trying to see if it has a chance. If you might donate to this project, send us a card or letter. If we get en encouraging enough response, we'll start accepting donations when the next issue of NMR comes out. If any other groups try this project, please let us know how it goes.

The Death and Birth of the Individual

Recently I've been in another knockdown, drag-out discussion on a computer Bulletin Board System. Some Fundies were picking fights and I took up the gauntlet. Once again I tried my hand at shaping attitudes toward cooperation without challenging basic paradigms. For instance, they defended Creation Science; I pointed out that science assumes that there are no unnatural causes (e.g., the Fundamentalist's God). It doesn't matter if this is True, the point is science searches for the best descriptions of nature under this restriction—philosophical Truth is irrelevant. Thus, for instance, theology could discuss God having created the world 7000 years ago, and science could talk about how that world (even though created 7000 years ago) looks 4.5 billion years old without stepping on each other's toes. Everybody's happy, right? If you've ever tried this stunt, you're probably laughing now. Though it's designed to mollify both sides, it seems to piss off everyone instead.

I kept hammering at my points, desperately (and vainly) trying to explain that I wasn't saying they had to change any of their paradigms. I soon got a remark about the coming Judgment Day when I would have to answer to God. I decided to change tack slightly and suggest to the Fundies that they try more effective and less invidious means of communicating their ideas. I told them a comment like that would undermine anything else the writer had to say to anyone who didn't already accept his statement. That was the end of all previous discussion, we went on to an exchange that boiled down to:

`Comments like this make you look like a fanatic to nonbelievers, so they won't listen to you.'

`But it's True.'

`That doesn't matter, if people don't believe you. You should segregate such points, because those who don't take Judgment Day seriously, will take less seriously anything you put along side it.'

`That's their problem.'

`No, it's the problem of your pet theories when you undermine them in other people's eyes.'

`But it's True.'

And on it went till they finally gave up (because `I refused to listen to them.')

From this, I concluded that the people I talked to had a greater interest in believing in the way they wanted than they had in their stated goal of having others agree with them. They seemed to desperately want others to agree, but they were unwilling to consider modifying their approach to achieve this.

I wondered how this could be. I concluded that I was transparent. I had hoped to get them to change their approach by arguing in terms of their stated goals—e.g., don't mix threats of Judgment with arguments for Creation Science because people are less likely to listen. But I had an agenda here—I feel that getting people to act more respectful of other views can lead to them being more respectful. I thought I could out-clever them. In retrospect, I believe they were three steps ahead of me the whole time. I doubt they knew it consciously, but they must have been subconsciously aware of the threat I posed to their absolute beliefs to have reacted so strongly to suggestions designed to further their own stated goals.

I think this is the nature of being human. Consider nonlinear functions. These are functions with more than one variable. Chaos science is dedicated to exploring and describing such functions. Though describable, they are not precisely predictable like our beloved linear functions. The components themselves may be simplicity itself, but the way two or more variables interact produces results too complex to predict. They are so complex that we cannot get our brains around them. They are beyond our cognitive ability. That's why Chaos science was impossible before powerful computers.

Before computers, we could only deal with complex situations by artificially simplifying them. One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is isolating a single variable in experiments. When peers find a second variable in an experiment (which they love to do), that nullifies all the results. Though it is not ever truly possible to eliminate all variables but one, we can do well enough to produce stunning results. But, there are limitations, some of which Chaos addresses.

Since our unaided brains are incapable of working with nonlinear functions, we can expect our minds to naturally simplify them—and to make us unaware of this process, lest we be tempted to circumvent it. Back when we were hunting and gathering, we did not have the luxury of billions of directly recorded observations or the time and energy to process them. Our brains evolved in an environment where it would have been much easier to think too much. By too much, I mean cogitating over a dangerous situation until it's too late to act, or questioning proven methods to the point that the cost of failed efforts is greater than any improvements made. But we have a different environment now—we have much more resources and information. We do not have the same selective pressures that shaped our minds until the last few centuries.

So our past leads us to expect our minds to find absolutes on which to anchor conscious thought. And we can expect conscious thought to be unable to recognize any arbitrariness or flaws in these absolutes, because in a stable environment, we could expect that kind of cognition to be selected against. An ironic image comes to mind from the recent news reports of the storms in our area: A dock had come loose of its moorings and was floating free, with three boats still attached. That dock is our paradigms. We think of them as being absolute because that is how we are supposed to think of them, but they are not. They only seem anchored because we naturally will not allow ourselves to think of them differently.

OK, maybe there really are absolutes in some philosophical sense, and there are probably some things that we should treat that way, but in any case it is impossible to know otherwise. People should be free to believe in absolutes or whatever else blows their dress up; but no matter how people choose to believe, we still have a problem that we need to address: I talked about the human mind reflecting a stable environment—well, we no longer share that with our ancestors. Our linear thinking has been so successful that it has changed our environment to the point that it threatens our existence. Welcome to evolution.

We now have to be able deal with a world more complex than our ancestors had. This is not to say that the environment itself is somehow more complex, but that our influence has grown to the point that we are forced to deal with that complexity more than ever before. For instance, there is probably less cultural diversity now than only a few decades ago thanks to increasing interaction, communication and transportation; but thanks to these same things, we have to deal with more diversity than ever before. We need to suppress our natural xenophobia and embrace plurality, not only because it is now hopeless and self-destructive to try to fight diversity, but also because diversity strengthens us and improves our quality of life. Yet, ironically, in recognizing a situation that cries out for tolerating the greatest individuality, we see the loss of our individuality in a sea of differences. Though privately we should embrace whatever absolutes we like, publicly we must be prepared to abandon them.

Here is my latest mistake. I did not expect the subconscious to recognize the threat of public tolerance. It is not going to be as easy as I thought to encourage others to be civilized. There seems to be a powerful natural block on a level I didn't expect.

I think of this block as one of self-preservation, not only because it probably evolved to do that physically, but because it also does so mentally. To give consideration to opposing ideas, to respect those who hold such ideas, to accept that some will never agree with you—these things demand a kind of death of the individual. It admits that an individual is unable to have paradigms sufficient to address the whole universe, and that (at least in the long term) a pluralistic group will do a better job as a whole. When one is part of a homogeneous group that holds ideas consistent with a single set of paradigms, one can have the illusion of being an individual. You can predict linearly what everyone will do, and what the results of your choices will be in this context (or think you can, anyway).

In a group that encompasses conflicting paradigms, and more paradigms than can be encompassed by one person, things are nonlinear. You're never sure where you stand or what will happen. More important, the whole has a character that cannot be extrapolated from isolated parts—there is an us in which I cannot find me. The individual (or illusion there of) dies. Very scary! But now our alternatives are worse.

But, happily, I was lying before when I implied the inescapability of these unfortunate reactions. That was (ironically) a linear simplification. We are not really incapable of dealing with nonlinear functions—we do so all the time (most cultures better than ours!)—but we can't use only our left-brain on them. We need to rely more on our aesthetic sense, so horribly maligned in our culture. We need to keep the rational, linear part, or course, but not where it is counter productive. In fact, we have to develop our rational side more so that it can help tell us when we should not use it.

But how do we use aesthetics to address fears of the death of individuality in a complex heterogeneous society? There are many ways, and I think Wicca is a good example. In Wicca we say thou art Goddess, thou art God. If we are all Goddess and God, the obvious corollary is I am you, you are me (in a metaphorical sense, of course). Thus, in seeking a reunion with the divine in religious ecstasy, we suffer that death which we must get used to in order to form a new society capable of addressing our new environment. And in recognizing that union cognitively, we remind ourselves that we need to treat others and ourselves with the same respect, for we all participate in an existence greater than our individuality can encompass.

But what do we do about those who are too afraid to contemplate acting (much less thinking) more civilized? For myself, I feel I need do nothing special. I address their public comments—make their ideas share the stage with mine. I try to treat them and their ideas with respect (no matter how I feel—I'm learning too!). That way I feel I am addressing the problem in the way which my proposed solution dictates (i.e., I'm not being hypocritical). I expect this to have no visible effect, but that's good. Visible effects seem to be the result of demagoguery or snapping (when an unstable person abruptly switches from one personality to another—such people are no good to any idea). So I work toward invisible effects. Massive social change takes decades, when it's fast! And I won't see it in a particular person in a short time. Although I may seem to be talking to an individual, when I talk publicly, I am really talking to an aspect of our social consciousness—so I hope that my thoughts can positively influence that consciousness. If I succeed (and I'm right), everyone will benefit. And, if I succeed, it will not really be my success, for it will only come through many, many, others lending their energies to similar goals. Thus, I'm hoping to participate in a positive change (though I may not live to see it, or even have an understanding of it) by dedicating myself to ways of thinking and acting which (I hope) are in accord with happiness and cooperation. In the Craft, I would call this being dedicated to the Goddess.

Blessed Be!