Some Pagan Perspectives (and other news)

[tcpip]

When pressed on my religious attitudes I tend to answer that am an empirical atheist, a normative agnostic and an aesthetic pagan. This means that whilst I note there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, laws and morals should treat the question as if we do not and cannot know, and, as a personal appreciation, I delight in the expressive beauty engaged by humans with their sense of reverence. This does sound like Naturalistic Pantheism, although I am wary of any metaphysical claims to naturalism - indeed, my stubborn pragmaticism makes me wary of all metaphysical claims, although one may find me arguing along the lines of supervenience to explain mind-body issues (the cool kids cool have returned to calling it emergent properties, I've noticed).

Point being in a few week's time I'm giving a presentation at the Melbourne Interfaith Philosopher's group on Celtic Paganism: Histories and Mysteries. I was particularly interested in Celtic history and religion in the mid-1990s, and even made a modicum of effort in learning a few phrases of Breton. What was interesting from this interest was how little we genuinely know, how much of the Celtic Reconstructionist is highly speculative at best, and how deeply we are in the period of the Celtic twilight. It is these key messages which I'll bring to the presentation on May 14.

In two different tangents, I'm taking the service at the Unitarians this Sunday with chairperson Peter Abrehart's address on "Looking from the side - never the bystander", words from Amira Hass. Also, from my hobby perspective, the next issue of RPG Review has two pagan-inspired "actual play" reports - from Agon (Hellenic) and In A Wicked Age. RPG Review is, again, late but that's fairly much par for the course in a volunteer project like this. Looking forward to receiving interview responses from Liz Danforth (who I suspect is a little paganish as well) and then we'll be "hot of the press", so to speak.

Also, reminder to self. Update DW/LJ at least twice a week.

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

There is some reasonably good scholarship among various reconstructionists, which is of course is as good as it can be. But that in particular points out the failure of some supposed adherents of pagan faiths to, well, take the onerous task of reconstruction seriously. It's damn hard work, and much popular literature on the subject is written by dilettantes.

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that archeology is a science and history is trying to be, so this decade's"truth" is next decade's quaint discredited theory, but unfortunately also the central Mystery of the Cult of Juno (Reformed).

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say history is "trying to be a science", as such, so much as I'd say that history is more a Wissenschaft. You cannot really come up with a historical hypothesis and then run experiments in laboratory, with one eye always peeled for your control group. That's just physically impossible. But it is systematic.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I recently led the discussion for a philosophy group discussion on history and one wise commentator likened it to forensic investigation and the creation of a criminal prosecution case.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

And much of the basic foundational material for the very process reconstruction -- now that we're on the topic of northern European reconstructionists, although I'm sure this is a very widespread phenomenon -- has been compiled, written or edited by a cavalcade of long-dead Christians.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Well, in the case of the Celts much of what we know of their religious practises comes primarily from the Roman commentators - at least say that they had a couple of biases in their assessment. The Christians simply took many of the themes, stories, symbols etc, as they did elsewhere, and in a sense preserved part of the history, in a colonised and distorted manner - Brigit of Kildare being a well known example.