Nature Interrupted

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

Second- my interpretation is that the way it is worded is a mandate. If it doesn't harm, then do it.

Why would it be a mandate?

Quote:

Doesn't that mean if it does harm, don't do it? Though now that I write it out my reasoning is probably fallacious because I'm doing the same thing I was debating against: positing my own interpretation to suit my needs. Still, I thought the wording made the idea clear.

It is fallacious. It's a false dichotomy and proof by assertion.

See- because there is no comment on what one should do if it does harm, there simply isn't anything to support the assertion.

Often people look at this along side the Three Fold Law.

Which means while there is no prohibitions against harm, there are consequences for doing so (well, there are consequences for everything).

The Witch decides if they will pay that toll.

Quote:

Harm and hurt I consider to be interchangeable. What are your definitions?

I'd rather do this by example. It'll be quicker.

A well formulated vaccine with a big frickin' needle will hurt like a b***h. Doesn't mean it will harm the person.

Same with tattoos.

Or- within the context of harming, but not hurting, you can give a heroine addict a shot- it will prevent the pain from withdrawal, but it will ruin their life.  

[Autumnal Light]

Sophist

Second- my interpretation is that the way it is worded is a mandate. If it doesn't harm, then do it. Doesn't that mean if it does harm, don't do it? Though now that I write it out my reasoning is probably fallacious because I'm doing the same thing I was debating against: positing my own interpretation to suit my needs. Still, I thought the wording made the idea clear.

I have a hypothetical example that may help this make a bit more sense.

A boy wants to go out to the desert to explore. Before he goes, his father give him this advice: "If you get bitten by a snake you can't identify, come straight home so we can take you to the hospital." Good advice, no? Well, the boy goes out into the desert, starts poking around beneath some rocks, and get bitten by a snake. Now, the boy is quite certain that the snake that bit him is a rattlesnake, but his father's advice only applied to snakes he couldn't identify. Does this mean that he can continue to roam about the landscape, ignoring the spread of poison through his veins? Of course not!

The key is in the conditional "if." Had his father actually only wanted his son to get medical treatment for unidentified snake bites he would have said something more like "If and only if you get bitten by a snake you can't identify, come straight home so we can take you to the hospital."

If the Rede said "If and only if it harms none, do as ye will", then you would have a sound case for saying it is prohibiting harm. Of course, even then it doesn't specify exactly what to do in the event that "what ye will" might cause harm.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Harm and hurt I consider to be interchangeable. What are your definitions?

I'd rather do this by example. It'll be quicker.

A well formulated vaccine with a big frickin' needle will hurt like a b***h. Doesn't mean it will harm the person.

Same with tattoos.

Or- within the context of harming, but not hurting, you can give a heroine addict a shot- it will prevent the pain from withdrawal, but it will ruin their life.

But in this context, if you were cursing someone it would hurt and harm them. I believe that would be the intent. What about in that case?  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

But in this context, if you were cursing someone it would hurt and harm them. I believe that would be the intent. What about in that case?

1) Why would "the Rede" only apply to magic?
2) Some works could be done to hurt someone without harming them. Phantom pain for example- very popular with some forms of sympathetic spell work.
3) All of said "harming" work depends on if the person decides if they can or cannot live with the repercussions.

Even if I held any faith whatsoever in "the Rede", I would take the "Threefold punishment" to cross someone who molested my child or injured my grandfather, or my Nana or my husband etc...  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Sophist

But in this context, if you were cursing someone it would hurt and harm them. I believe that would be the intent. What about in that case?

1) Why would "the Rede" only apply to magic?
2) Some works could be done to hurt someone without harming them. Phantom pain for example- very popular with some forms of sympathetic spell work.
3) All of said "harming" work depends on if the person decides if they can or cannot live with the repercussions.

Even if I held any faith whatsoever in "the Rede", I would take the "Threefold punishment" to cross someone who molested my child or injured my grandfather, or my Nana or my husband etc...

I'm sure anyone can apply it outside of just magic- it's certainly vague enough. But isn't that what it was created with in mind?

But anyway I think I understand your gist now. I'm just niggling on small matters.  

[Bastemhet]

mute_coyote

Sophist

Second- my interpretation is that the way it is worded is a mandate. If it doesn't harm, then do it. Doesn't that mean if it does harm, don't do it? Though now that I write it out my reasoning is probably fallacious because I'm doing the same thing I was debating against: positing my own interpretation to suit my needs. Still, I thought the wording made the idea clear.

I have a hypothetical example that may help this make a bit more sense.

A boy wants to go out to the desert to explore. Before he goes, his father give him this advice: "If you get bitten by a snake you can't identify, come straight home so we can take you to the hospital." Good advice, no? Well, the boy goes out into the desert, starts poking around beneath some rocks, and get bitten by a snake. Now, the boy is quite certain that the snake that bit him is a rattlesnake, but his father's advice only applied to snakes he couldn't identify. Does this mean that he can continue to roam about the landscape, ignoring the spread of poison through his veins? Of course not!

The key is in the conditional "if." Had his father actually only wanted his son to get medical treatment for unidentified snake bites he would have said something more like "If and only if you get bitten by a snake you can't identify, come straight home so we can take you to the hospital."

If the Rede said "If and only if it harms none, do as ye will", then you would have a sound case for saying it is prohibiting harm. Of course, even then it doesn't specify exactly what to do in the event that "what ye will" might cause harm.

Point taken. Thanks for the example.

I think mostly I have a problem with vague language. neutral  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

I'm sure anyone can apply it outside of just magic- it's certainly vague enough. But isn't that what it was created with in mind?

Actually- magic =/= religion.

It was created for The Wicca, to advise them and help them in their troubles.

Unless we assume that the only problems Wiccans as priests and priestesses of the Lord and Lady face deal with magic- I'd say no.  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

Point taken. Thanks for the example.

I think mostly I have a problem with vague language. neutral

Wouldn't be vague if you were initiated.

That's the problem with "the Rede". It's been removed from context.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Sophist

Point taken. Thanks for the example.

I think mostly I have a problem with vague language. neutral

Wouldn't be vague if you were initiated.

That's the problem with "the Rede". It's been removed from context.

Well that's annoying. No wonder I was confused. I too stumbled upon fluffy books in high school and their residual muck is still upon me. At least I can learn for the better.  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

Well that's annoying. No wonder I was confused. I too stumbled upon fluffy books in high school and their residual muck is still upon me. At least I can learn for the better.

Don't worry about it.

It's my understanding that part of getting one ready for their initiation would be ethics training. wink  

[Starlock]

mute_coyote

Starlock

If you believe Nature is your mother, you treat it with a love and respect akin to that of loving parents. If you believe Nature is out to get you, you treat it as the enemy and destroy it or seek to control it.

And what about the neutral ground; viewing nature as a powerful force that can help or hinder you but in the end leaves you in charge of your own survival? In my mind, this view breeds the most respect.

There's definately that neutral ground. That adjactive 'loving' doesn't always appropriately precede the word 'parent.' Depending on your idea of a parent and if you had good model parents, the phrase 'earth mother' might not mean something benevolent to you at all. The predominant archetype of the mothor IS loving and benevolent such that even disciplinary action of the mother is construed as for the child's 'own good.' In reality this may not always be the case, and most of us would call such abusers bad parents, perhaps even undeserving of the label 'mother' or 'father' in the first place.

I'm not sure the neutral view breeds the most respect though. I think the sort of respect generated by each view can be strong; rather the character of the respect changes. Resepect out of fear is different from respect out of awe or respect out of gratidude. I think you could probably say the respect from the more neutral view is more balanced than some others, so stronger in the sense of not being so one-sidedly modivated.

The Rede does seem to get put into places it doesn't belong. I see it flagged as a general Neopagan ethic, which while it is used by a great number of them, it isn't universal. The Rede in itself is to many inadequate as an ethical guideline in part because it's so vague. Taking it out of its original context and applying it to other systems creates some problems.

mute_coyote

This one's a fairly straightforward matter of instinct, IMHO. For the vast majority of humans, the primary sense through which the world is perceived is sight. Darkness will obviously make it much harder for a human to perceive the world around them. Night is also the preferred hunting hour of many large predators. It is fair to say that some degree of fear or avoidance of darkness is probably instinctive as a result of years spent as a diurnal species on a lower rung of the food chain.
Of course, if you're referring to "light" and "darkness" in a metaphysical sense, this may not be an appropriate response. If this is the case, could I get some clarification on how you define the concepts?

I was refering to it in both the literal and metaphysical sense, actually. It's definately true that there's an instinctual aversion to literal Darkness because we're not designed well to handle it as some other species are. I often see that translating into a metaphysical view of Darkness though that is very negative if not evil. Other metaphysical views of Darkness can get overlooked, there's such a dualistic streak in Western culture. What about Darkness as that needed 'rest' period? Darkness as keeper of secrets and mysteries? Darkness as bringer of things into unity through destruction of individuated forms? When is all that celebrated? Samhain comes closeset to honoring that sort of reading of Darkness but overall, Darkness seems to get the short end of the stick.  

[Kiwigrl]

You have a point... but nature itself doesn't run by the same rules.
Nature doesn't have religeon, which is what tells it's morals. all nature has is survivor of the fittest. If human nature went by that... we'd all be dead. We ignore the other aspects, because religion is supposed to teach how to be kind. We use it as moral guidelines, not the other way around.  

[TeaDidikai]

Kiwigrl

Nature doesn't have religeon, which is what tells it's morals.

This is inaccurate. Not all religions provide morals and not all morality comes from theology.

Quote:

If human nature went by that... we'd all be dead.

No. If humans went by survival of the fittest, only the unfit would be dead.

Quote:

We ignore the other aspects, because religion is supposed to teach how to be kind.

Ummmm... no. Not all theologies have any intention of teaching kindness.

Can anyone say Papa Anton?  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Dualism.

Strange, Dualism has never allowed me to ignore anything...
Altho I suppose if someone wanted to clump Evil into a category they call unnatural... But then they'd be just as silly as Jedi. xd  

[ShadowSharrow]

Dragon_Witch_Woman

It does seem to be a lot of neo-pagans forget that nature is as harsh and uncaring as it is beautiful. My favorate was when someone told me the goddess is the rain that gives life, and I countered with she's also the hurricanes that repeatedly smacked Florida.

People who think like this usually live in cities or the suburbs and have never been at the mercy of mother nature.