Nature Interrupted

[Autumnal Light]

I have some complaints and confusion about the representation of nature in the neopagan scene.

There are some groups (usually the fluffy ones) who view Mother Nature/Gaia/[generic goddess representative of nature]/[bastardized goddess representative of nature] as loving, nurturing, caring, and nothing else. I'm wondering how they can possibly sustain that view. Even if you don't live out in the woods, any good nature program on the Discovery Channel will show you that nature is not always kind or even merciful. Given the chance to adopt a rival's orphaned cub, a leopardess is a lot more likely to leave the adorable, mewling ball of fur for the hyenas. Are the people in the "all-loving Mother Nature" crowd ignorant or simply selective in their knowledge intake?

And then there are the myriad issues surrounding the Wiccan Rede, which has mutated and spread throughout the neopagan community like a nasty strain of the flu. Many (mistakenly) interpret it to prohibit harming others. However, if a religion is nature-based, shouldn't its adherents accept the necessary institution of hunting, an activity that definitely causes harm? Saying that doing harm to others is wrong, while it can be incorporated into a nature-based religion, must be acknowledged as an unnatural sentiment. All animals will kill if it becomes necessary for survival.

Yes, there are a lot of beautiful, wonderful things that are a part of nature. There are also a lot of things that will make your stomach want to evict your last meal. In between, there are all sorts of strange, bizarre things for which humanity has no moral framework.

I suppose what I'm trying to understand is how some people who claim to be adherents of nature-based theologies can get so into the life-giving side of nature while avoiding its more destructive aspects. Isn't it hypocritical to condemn natural acts if one worships nature or nature deities? Is this a purely fluffy phenomenon or has it been observed in more legitimate traditions? Have other people noticed this?

((Please note that I am referring specifically to those neopagan religions that are nature-based. I am well aware that many, including Wicca, are not. Also, my reference to nature as being represented by a female deity is taken from the religions in which these anamolies seem to be the most common and should not be taken as representative of all nature-based religions.))

[Edited for late-night confusion at an even later hour when clarity struck.]  

[Starlock]

Man, to think optimism would be so out of fashion these days. Sheesh. wink

Most religious systems tend to focus on positive aspects rather than fixate on the bad, so it really isn't all that surprising that Neopaganism slants towards the more optimistic side of things. I'd agree that a purely benevolent projection onto Nature is naive, but I also apprechiate where it's coming from and its effects. 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. The second perspective in the end becomes self-defeating as humanity is part of, not seperate from Nature. I'd question if anyone truly holds an omnibenevolent view of Nature though; I think they may emphasize that aspect, but I suspect that they don't truly sustain that one-sided of a view. Or maybe I just can't comprehend that 've practically converted Winter Solstice into a holiday that honors Darkness and speakany more than you can, Mute Coyote. I will comment that we are *all* selective in our knowledge intake, though, regardless of our views.

On the Rede... the first question that popped into my head was this. Who decides the 'correct' interpretation? Even if there is a 'correct' interpretation, there is no authority to enforce that. Neopaganism by and large dosen't tell its adherents what to think. One of our strengths is that we interpret texts for ourselves rather than have someone else dictate what they mean for us. If someone wants to interpret the Rede as a prohibition against harm, sure. Anyone who contemplates the Rede deeply will probably at some point understand that every act of creation involves destruction and vice versa. In that case, what constitutes harm changes in your interpretation, with perhaps the key being intent. Hunting for food, for example, is okay, but hunting for sport is doing needless harm and prohibited by the Rede. It's those fine distinctions that arise on contemplation, but I suppose some people are just don't think about it to that depth. We can't expect everyone to be so contemplative and observant.

I'm not sure how people can ignore the Dark aspects of Nature myself. You also see it in how the Solar Wheel is celebrated. Take Winter Solstice. The focus is STILL on light, and yet it's the darkest time of the year. Why the fixation on light? I thought about that early on, and made the decision right then that my celebration of Winter Solstice would be about Darkness, not the rebirth of light. Dark isn't honored as much as it should be (IMHO) in the Solar Wheel. I don't think it's a matter of being fluffy or not; it's pretty universal.  

[TeaDidikai]

Short answer: Revisionist ideology compounded with limited experience with nature.

A friend of mine and I were talking when we noticed that the Fluffy groups usually have one of two personalities.

The "We're all light and love!" and the "We're dark and brooding- but really, we're good under it all!".

While most of the sane pagans acknowledge that they are human and given to human passions and foibles, others influenced by dualism cast themselves into the above mentioned roles. ~shrugs~

It would seem their theology reflects this.  

[TeaDidikai]

Starlock

Most religious systems tend to focus on positive aspects rather than fixate on the bad,

Don't really agree with this.

From Judaism and Dualistic influenced Christendom, to older pagan traditions- a huge chuck of the theology was "Life Sucks and then you die."

Huge chunks of the Torah are basically accounts of YHVH handing the Jews their arses for breaking covenant, then repenting.

Dualistic Christendom preaching hellfire and sin from the pulpit.
Even Eastern and Gnostic traditions with a strong sense of the rejection of the flawed worldly things can be considered "bad".

And that isn't even going into the plague beasties, cruelty and abuse some gods take part in.

That is to say- I think this is by far a hasty generalization.

Quote:

If you believe Nature is your mother, you treat it with a love and respect akin to that of loving parents.

And completely ignore that parents can be physically and emotionally abusive.

Quote:

On the Rede... the first question that popped into my head was this. Who decides the 'correct' interpretation?

However- Eisegesis is intellectually dishonest and habitually perpetuated by people who do not want to be confused with "bad elements" of society.

Quote:

I'm not sure how people can ignore the Dark aspects of Nature myself.

Dualism.  

[Autumnal Light]

Starlock

Man, to think optimism would be so out of fashion these days. Sheesh. wink

Yes. Damn those realists! mad

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I'd question if anyone truly holds an omnibenevolent view of Nature though...I will comment that we are *all* selective in our knowledge intake, though, regardless of our views.

Good points, but I contend that some people are much more selective in their intakes than others, which can lead to an overly-benevolent view of nature, if not omni-benevolent.

Quote:

If someone wants to interpret the Rede as a prohibition against harm, sure. Anyone who contemplates the Rede deeply will probably at some point understand that every act of creation involves destruction and vice versa.

What I was thinking of here was more along the lines of the fact that this guideline tends to get shoved places it doesn't belong. People start to assume that if you're a "good pagan", you'll follow that ideology. I've also read in several discussions that the Rede says something more to the tune of "if it doesn't harm anyone, then go for it" than "don't harm anyone". The first interpretation is an encouragement of certain actions, the second is a prohibition of certain actions.

Quote:

We can't expect everyone to be so contemplative and observant.

Insert natural selection. twisted

Quote:

Why the fixation on light? I thought about that early on, and made the decision right then that my celebration of Winter Solstice would be about Darkness, not the rebirth of light. Dark isn't honored as much as it should be (IMHO) in the Solar Wheel. I don't think it's a matter of being fluffy or not; it's pretty universal.

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?  

[Autumnal Light]

TeaDidikai

Short answer: Revisionist ideology compounded with limited experience with nature.

I was thinking something along those lines, but wasn't sure if that was the whole story or not. In the case of "revisionist ideology", I know this can be an issue among faux-wicca. I'm curious if you've noticed it in other traditions as well.

Quote:

A friend of mine and I were talking when we noticed that the Fluffy groups usually have one of two personalities.

The "We're all light and love!" and the "We're dark and brooding- but really, we're good under it all!".

While most of the sane pagans acknowledge that they are human and given to human passions and foibles, others influenced by dualism cast themselves into the above mentioned roles. ~shrugs~

It would seem their theology reflects this.

Makes sense. I've noticed that people tend to project their internal landscape onto the external world. I don't think in dualistic terms very often, so I hadn't thought about that possibility.  

[PurpleDragonsGems]

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.


And, personly, the Rede never made sence to me. I find it physicaly impossable to 'harm none'. confused  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

TeaDidikai

However- Eisegesis is intellectually dishonest and habitually perpetuated by people who do not want to be confused with "bad elements" of society.

I'm not familiar with the term "eisegesis" on more than a basic level. Where would one say the line between "reading in something that's not there" and "valid interpretation" exists?  

[TeaDidikai]

mute_coyote

I was thinking something along those lines, but wasn't sure if that was the whole story or not. In the case of "revisionist ideology", I know this can be an issue among faux-wicca. I'm curious if you've noticed it in other traditions as well.

Revisionist ideology and fluff is not limited to a specific sect of the pagan scene.

I've seen this in Asatru and some Recons as well.

(Okay- I have to tell this, so there was going to be a blood sacrifice. They were going to sacrifice a pig. The Kindred got all psyched up, the drumming was in full swing, and the woman who was going to slaughter the pig fainted.

No biggie- I can understand how people could faint at that- but it wouldn't have made her the laughing stock if she hadn't been talking trash for two weeks about how into the "darker half of nature" she was)

Daffodil the Destroyer

TeaDidikai

However- Eisegesis is intellectually dishonest and habitually perpetuated by people who do not want to be confused with "bad elements" of society.

I'm not familiar with the term "eisegesis" on more than a basic level. Where would one say the line between "reading in something that's not there" and "valid interpretation" exists?

Changing the actual meanings of words or removing words to change the context.  

[Autumnal Light]

Dragon_Witch_Woman

And, personly, the Rede never made sence to me. I find it physicaly impossable to 'harm none'. confused

From a purely linguistic point of view, I don't think the Rede really says "harm none."
Let's break it down:
"An it harm none, do what ye will" is the version I get off of wiki, although varying forms exist with more 'thou's and fewer 'ye's. I've even come across versions that actually use the modern English word 'you'! ((shocking, no?))

Now, as near as I can tell, this basically translates to "if it harms no one, do what you like." Or further translated; "if it doesn't hurt anyone, then you can do it if you want to."

Many people take this as saying that this prohibits harm. This, however, is not explicitly stated. The fact that many people draw this implication is indicative of their psychology, but not necessarily the thought process of whoever wrote the Rede in the first place.  

[Bastemhet]

mute_coyote

Many people take this as saying that this prohibits harm. This, however, is not explicitly stated. The fact that many people draw this implication is indicative of their psychology, but not necessarily the thought process of whoever wrote the Rede in the first place.

I don't see how it doesn't. Actually, I would agree that it doesn't outright "prohibit" the behavior, but if it's permissible to do whatever you want as long as it hurts no one, how could one go about cursing other people in which case their lives would be damaged in one way or another, without contradicting the rede outright?  

[Autumnal Light]

Sophist

mute_coyote

Many people take this as saying that this prohibits harm. This, however, is not explicitly stated. The fact that many people draw this implication is indicative of their psychology, but not necessarily the thought process of whoever wrote the Rede in the first place.

I don't see how it doesn't. Actually, I would agree that it doesn't outright "prohibit" the behavior, but if it's permissible to do whatever you want as long as it hurts no one, how could one go about cursing other people in which case their lives would be damaged in one way or another, without contradicting the rede outright?

I tend to view the Rede as being incomplete in and of itself. Think of all the ways you could follow it up:
"An harm it none, do as you will. An harm it some...
...don't even think about it."
...do it anyway."
...use your own god/dess-given brains to decide for yourself!"

As far as moral guides go, the Rede is a fairly vague one. I wouldn't take it as meaning more than explicitly stated. Anything beyond that is going to vary a lot based on what kind of implications people assume for it.  

[Bastemhet]

mute_coyote

Sophist

mute_coyote

Many people take this as saying that this prohibits harm. This, however, is not explicitly stated. The fact that many people draw this implication is indicative of their psychology, but not necessarily the thought process of whoever wrote the Rede in the first place.

I don't see how it doesn't. Actually, I would agree that it doesn't outright "prohibit" the behavior, but if it's permissible to do whatever you want as long as it hurts no one, how could one go about cursing other people in which case their lives would be damaged in one way or another, without contradicting the rede outright?

I tend to view the Rede as being incomplete in and of itself. Think of all the ways you could follow it up:
"An harm it none, do as you will. An harm it some...
...don't even think about it."
...do it anyway."
...use your own god/dess-given brains to decide for yourself!"

As far as moral guides go, the Rede is a fairly vague one. I wouldn't take it as meaning more than explicitly stated. Anything beyond that is going to vary a lot based on what kind of implications people assume for it.

I agree that personal psychology would dictate how you would interpret it. But it seems like you're interpreting the meaning of things that aren't even stated. This to me looks like you're adding text as you see fit to justify whatever actions you think are personally permissible. And sure, you can do whatever you want with your life, but I think it's erroneous to assert that the rede is incomplete by nature, and suggest that everyone interpret it as if whatever should be written is not, but is implicit.  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

But it seems like you're interpreting the meaning of things that aren't even stated.

Actually- it's other folks who are doing this.

See the words- as Mute outlined above, give express permission to do anything that doesn't harm.

Drinking the bottle of water you paid for doesn't harm anyone. You don't even need to bat an eyelash as to whether you should do it or not.

Quote:

This to me looks like you're adding text as you see fit to justify whatever actions you think are personally permissible.

Again- Mute is doing quite the opposite.

People who say the Rede prohibits harm put meaning into the Rede that is not present in the words themselves.

Quote:

And sure, you can do whatever you want with your life, but I think it's erroneous to assert that the rede is incomplete by nature, and suggest that everyone interpret it as if whatever should be written is not, but is implicit.

I don't see Mute making the bolded assertion- she's saying that the way some people (mis)interpret the Rede- they make it incompatible.

Let's look at "the Rede" closely.

First- the word Rede itself is not a Law- it's advice, or counsel.

Second- let's look at the structure.

And it harm none:
If it doesn't harm-

Do as ye will-
Do as your will moves you.

Anything that doesn't harm, you can do it without having to think about it beyond if it does harm or not.

But what is not addressed is what happens if it does harm. No where in "the Rede" does it say that there are steps to follow if it harms.

Further- it doesn't address what harm is.
There are many situations that harm people that don't hurt them. There are many situations that hurt someone, but doesn't harm them.

Does this make sense Sophist?  

[Bastemhet]

On your first point- I was mistaken that it was law. Now that that has been cleared up, does it really matter what the rede says? I know that wasn't the point of the post, I'm just asking the general question now.

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.

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