On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

Some refer to various forms of Paganism as practiced around the earth and throughout history as religions; I don't. For me, for a particular system of beliefs to be a religion it must follow a world denouncing theme. Any belief system that rejects what is real in favor of something yet-to-be, or hidden-behind-the-scenes, is a religion. Christianity, Judaism, and many of the Eastern belief systems are religions.

An atheist, I guess, is simply one who doesn't believe in a god, or gods. Most modern Westerners who considers themselves atheists share common traits. Most Western atheists have either personally rejected what they understand to be Christianity or where raised by those who did.

There's a common misunderstanding for such people. Just because they rejected the gospel and its god, doesn't mean they rejected the world denying mindset. In the more extreme form they replace the idea of heaven on Earth with utopia. But, even those who're more moderate, still betray themselves in their world denunciation. The very idea that one should expect the world to be other than it is, or to change to an idealized form to better suit one, is world denouncing.

Even to claim that one wishes to take part in changing the world personally, hints at world denunciation. It's true that everyone has some effect on the world in their life time, and that with effort such effect increases, but its common for the modern Westerner to exaggerate the degree of this effect.

Firstly, we mustn't confuse the world with the Earth, or the Earth with humans. When I say the world I refer to all of reality, including all of outer space, for which humans, far from being the center are just one relatively insignificant part. When I say the Earth, I mean just that, the planet Earth, a giant rock of multiple elements which cares nothing for humans, nor for anything else.

The Earth, as I mean it, while a highly chemically active rock, is not a rock to care about the degree of it's chemical reactions. So even if humans have the power, collectively, to destroy all life on Earth, the Earth itself has no preference. In other words, even if humans were to destroy all life, they wouldn't be drastically effecting the course of events on the Earth, in general, and will be far from drastically effecting the world itself.

So one can't change the world in any significant way whatsoever, but neither can one change the course of human events easily. Even if something one does happens to start a chain reactions of events that has a large impact on humans, it must be based on understanding of reality, followed by a willed course of action. Otherwise, one is only a pawn, not anything close to what may be considered a source of the change.

When a person has developed an understanding of the world, through experience, perception, and honest evaluation, one can better develop values that aren't world denouncing, and implement those values though actions, which while trying to make some impact on one's surrounding environment, have no intention on trying to drastically change humans in general, the Earth, or the world.

Most modern Westerners who claim to have surpassed Christianity are still basically Christians, with a world denouncing mindset. They haven't freed themselves from superstition, but are still mired in it. They aren't rational minded, but let their emotions cloud their logic. It's true they believe in science and they usually believe in the rational higher quality forms of it, rather than quackery. And, it's true they don't believe in ghosts, or other supernatural forces like that. But, they still have supernatural values.

To understand what I mean by supernatural values, one must look at what natural values may be. Natural values, are what humans have naturally created for most of their existence. Whatever details their beliefs may have contained, such as myths and gods, they've generally been metaphors for the reality of their existence. Whatever particular system of beliefs most cultures of man have held throughout out the vast majority of their existence, they've generally had a consistent mindset, what I call the Pagan mindset.

They honor their ancestors, their kin, and the environment in which they lived. They have a love for the world, as it is, with no wish for anything to have been other than it was, and no wish for change other than that which furthers their traditions. As their environment changes, they adapt to it, rather than trying to change it or wishing to change it.

They are natural, therefore, naturally non-superstitious, or those who don't believe in the super-natural. Loving the world, as it is, they have no desire to try to find what is non-existent, hidden, or outside of the world.

So one may ask about the modern Westerner, who has been disconnected from his past, and ancestral lands. Some, far from having an intimate understanding of their ancestors and their traditions, are descended from relatively recently mixed ancestry. Even if they put all the pieces together through years research of family trees, anthropological studies and historical texts, they'd still have no basis for reestablishing or joining, when possible, their ancestors' Pagan traditions, because they would have more than one to choose from, often drastically different.

No, a modern disconnected Westerener, may wish to wait under a much latter date, if ever, to concern himself with the less intimate, often banal, details of his past. His past, which includes his ancestors, and the world in which they lived, is manifested in himself. An honest glance in the mirror - an honest look at his reflection, without guilt, fear, vanity, or any other emotion clouding his view, will provide more valuable information that a year of research.

He has no intimate understanding of a culture beyond the modernized mixed culture he was raised in. No family unity, rarely even knowledge of his family. He finds identity in shallow things. Such as the demarcated boundaries and power structures that developed through multiple motives into what's now called the state, or country in which he lives. Or by the political groups within. Or as an atheist, a minority, a woman among men, or a man among women. He finds identity based on the profession he's in even if it serves him poorly, and he can't even explain coherently why he chose it, or that he even finds it suits him.

No modern state values its citizens, it uses them, and the best case scenario with those states leaning towards some degree of democracy, is that they ask for nothing more than to be used in turn. If one is an American, be proud to be part of that exclusive club, and pay your necessary dues, but don't create your identity around that fact. Furthermore, to create an identity among a political group within is even more ill-advised. One casts one's vote, if its no problem to do so, but then forgets about it. The alienated Westerner I'm speaking of wasn't born to be a statesman. He needs not take the burden of the state onto his shoulders by identify with one of the internal competing interests for power. If he must choose sides, and be active in his support for it, then he'd likely choose based on safety alone. If he's from a country such as America, Canada, Australia, or most, if not all, of western Europe, then he has no need of that.

It exposes a profound dissatisfaction with the world to identify as an atheist. It's an identification, not of what one is, but of what one's not. So there are those who foolishly believe in the Judeo-Christian god, and if a person is not one of them, it doesn't mean he must identify as not being one of them. If one is intelligent and values intelligence more than any other trait, one doesn't call himself an anti-moron.

It's no different identifying as a woman among men, a man among women, a disabled person among the more healthy, or a part of a minority ethnicity among the majority ethnicity, or any other type of minority, or person in a group of those with supposed lesser power than those in another group. It's identifying as what one is not, as if what one is not is either something one should be spiteful not to be, or spiteful of.

A self-labeled feminists identifies not as a human of the female gender, but as a person whose not a supposedly oppressive male. She forgets her father was a male and her child may be a male. And those who identify as of a minority ethnicity, they don't take themselves as what they are for what worth they can find, but look to those who are not them - the majority ethnicity, and say I'm not that, as if they would prefer to be other than they are or would shame those who are different to give them what they couldn't take for themselves otherwise.

Using shame so-called oppressed groups have carved out a shallow existence of comfort for themselves for years, in American, I believe, specifically since the 1950s. If one is a healthy rich white woman then how can she identify as a victim just because she's not a man? If one is a healthy rich black man, how can he identify as a victim because he's not white. If one is a health white man, how can he identify as a victim because he's not rich? These labels, I use as examples among many; black/white, rich/poor, healthy/disabled, woman/man, are not all encompassing descriptions, but just factors that some people can make claim to. If one wishes to level all humans - make them all equal, one may as well work towards doing so directly, with courage, not indirectly and indecisively as is shown.

But, these those various groups claiming to be oppressed are not to be opposed. An alienated modern Westerner, let's say an American, need not make claim to having anything to do with any of them. There is no substantial consequence should he not do so.

If one is a healthy, rich white man, who's one of these alienated Westerners I speak of, he doesn't need to be resentful that he's meeting all the criteria as an oppressor by the so-called oppressed groups. He neither need feel anger at any disadvantage they give that he would otherwise not have, nor any shame for any advantage he does has. Nor does he need to take part in the activism, in either of the two supposedly diametrically opposed directions. If he has the Pagan mindset, he'll simply observe what is real, then adapt accordingly.

Of one is a disabled, poor back woman, who's one of these alienated Westerns, she doesn't need to be resentful that she meets all the criteria as an oppressed person by the so-called oppressed groups. She neither need feel anger at any disadvantage the supposed oppressing groups gave her, that she would otherwise not have, nor shame for any advantage the so-called oppressed groups may have gave her. She too, may avoid activism, and if she has the Pagan mindset, observe and adapt.

No, to have the Pagan mindset one doesn't identify with what one isn't, or doesn't have, or can't do. One identifies with what one is, what one does have and what one can do. One with the Pagan mindset doesn't act like a victim to the world. One loves them as that which made one what one is. One takes responsibility for everything. One would not change anything in the past, and would only change the present as first an adaptation, then creation, procreation, as one is reasonably able. If one must put on masks to better adapt, then fine. A person in the jungle may where animal skins to better be protected and blend in. A person in modern America may play the victim to get the protection and resources that pretense provides. But he'll be of the Pagan mindset in his own mind and as he speaks of himself outside his sphere of influence, such as anonymously online, he never speaks as a victim.

It takes courage to take responsibility and to strive to know oneself as one actually is, not as one may have fooled oneself, or have been fooled, into thinking one is. Courage can only be developed gradually. Awareness only found slowly. Responsibility only taken piece by piece. Self-love only comes after one has shed all delusional self-infatuation and had to deal with oneself in all one's humility and vulnerability.

The term Paganism has been abused by modern Westerners. The Pagan rituals of peoples' not one's own, or only with a thread of attachment are just further delusion. One may not know what to do, where to go, how to live, what to value, but one doesn't need to choose based on seemingly random convenience or choose what is offered from those with their own motives. One may attempt to obtain an excruciating degree of honesty about himself and the world. One may start from scratch with one's reflection and go from there.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Bobo »

So the old paganism and today's alienation are the same thing it's just that the first were simpler than the latter. And a step further from today's alienation is to see oneself as alien (outside) the world, someone outside the world would have little to change in this world - but that sounds like christianism. I would doubt that all christianisms are world denouncing though, in the philosophy of Augustine for example everything comes from god and god is good so everything is good, we could say then that any denouncing of the world could be considered some kind of blasphemy and that is coming from a christian philosopher.
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

Bobo wrote:So the old paganism and today's alienation are the same thing it's just that the first were simpler than the latter.
No, in fact alienated people are and have historically been the most prone to rejecting or never knowing paganism. What I should have made more clear in the above post was the extent of those who're alienated in modern western societies. Most are. The post above was written for those who can at least admit to their alienation to some extent. Those people are often known as the stereotypical alienated person, meaning one without any stereotypical standard of success.
And a step further from today's alienation is to see oneself as alien (outside) the world,
I never meant to imply that. Often as a form of escape from the seemingly purposeless life that many alienated westerners live is to live in fantasy worlds. But, even then, most would still claim to be living within the world. My advice in the above essay was not to try to disconnect oneself from the world, but to accept the world as it is, and to only have practical goals based on one's own nature. Certain types of social activism are so fantastical in both their purpose and in their actual impact, to engage in them is not to engage more in reality, it's to engage less.
someone outside the world would have little to change in this world - but that sounds like christianism.
I'm aware of the idea of some Christians claiming to have little connection to the world and wanting to change little in the world, but my assumption is that is rare. When writing the above post, I didn't even recall those types of Christians. The type of Christians I was think of is much like the modern atheist who has an agenda for human society as a whole and wishes to work towards that agenda.
I would doubt that all christianisms are world denouncing though, in the philosophy of Augustine for example everything comes from god and god is good so everything is good, we could say then that any denouncing of the world could be considered some kind of blasphemy and that is coming from a christian philosopher.
Christianity is unreal, so to claim it isn't unreal is to claim that something which is not, is. To follow that logic if one would claim that what is not, is, then one would claim that what is, is not. A denunciation of the real is a denunciation of reality.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Russell Parr »

Hello Stuart, welcome to the forum. You present some interesting ideas, I've never thought of paganism that way. Most of what you write seems agreeable by me so far. You describe what appears to be a solid frame of mind to be in, but I wonder, how do you go about achieving this mindframe? It is easier said than done, wouldn't you say?

Do you think there is a path to follow, so to speak, that would help facilitate the process of becoming 'pagan-minded'?
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

Hi Russell,

I collected some quotes from the OP that more specifically address your question. Otherwise, just keep in mind that guidance from others only goes so far. As well as the pain of shattering one's pride and delusions, the difficulty of not having a clear direction should be expected.
Stuart wrote:An honest glance in the mirror - an honest look at his reflection, without guilt, fear, vanity, or any other emotion clouding his view, will provide more valuable information that a year of research.
to have the Pagan mindset one doesn't identify with what one isn't, or doesn't have, or can't do. One identifies with what one is, what one does have and what one can do. One with the Pagan mindset doesn't act like a victim to the world. One loves them as that which made one what one is. One takes responsibility for everything. One would not change anything in the past, and would only change the present as first an adaptation, then creation, procreation, as one is reasonably able.
It takes courage to take responsibility and to strive to know oneself as one actually is, not as one may have fooled oneself, or have been fooled, into thinking one is. Courage can only be developed gradually. Awareness only found slowly. Responsibility only taken piece by piece. Self-love only comes after one has shed all delusional self-infatuation and had to deal with oneself in all one's humility and vulnerability.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hello Stuart, welcome. You signature line mentions the Knowthyself forum, I remember visiting that at times just to read a bit. Is Satyr still posting there? I used to follow his Blogger until it was suspended.

Your posts are appreciated, well thought out and conceived. It's something I came to value in and of itself. Of course that doesn't mean I just will agree with it mindlessly. There are some issues which stand out for me and I hope you can engage in some of it.
Stuart- wrote: Any belief system that rejects what is real in favor of something yet-to-be, or hidden-behind-the-scenes, is a religion. Christianity, Judaism, and many of the Eastern belief systems are religions.
There's a common misunderstanding for such people. Just because they rejected the gospel and its god, doesn't mean they rejected the world denying mindset. In the more extreme form they replace the idea of heaven on Earth with utopia. But, even those who're more moderate, still betray themselves in their world denunciation. The very idea that one should expect the world to be other than it is, or to change to an idealized form to better suit one, is world denouncing.
I'm willing to accept that definition of belief system for the sake of this discussion. But from my point of view you're describing more the human condition, that is: we conceive of what is real through a vision, which is related to some horizon (mental, physical) and as such future and expectation related. Indeed including "utopia" but in practice it's way smaller, way more fractioned. This is the whole ideation process and in a world that has become small are also manifesting as very tiny utopic and idealized forms. The classical form of religion is just one "iconic" systematized, highly organized instance of this and such to be admired in a context of chaos and ignorance. But the question "what is real" and how as such metaphysics will function with a "Pagan", in some "non-religious" way, that is something I might want to challenge here.
Even to claim that one wishes to take part in changing the world personally, hints at world denunciation. It's true that everyone has some effect on the world in their life time, and that with effort such effect increases, but its common for the modern Westerner to exaggerate the degree of this effect.
We're talking here about a "world construct" or perhaps "ego" in the sense that Freud conceived of it, as reality principle. It needs to function with the idea it's an important actor, to warp the reality, to create something like hope and faith, and as such various prime motivations.
The Earth, as I mean it, while a highly chemically active rock, is not a rock to care about the degree of it's chemical reactions. So even if humans have the power, collectively, to destroy all life on Earth, the Earth itself has no preference. In other words, even if humans were to destroy all life, they wouldn't be drastically effecting the course of events on the Earth, in general, and will be far from drastically effecting the world itself.
That may very well be but remains very conceptual. Assigning a property of "non-caring" seems just a pointless as assigning a property of "care" to the Earth or even the universe. One could just as well argue humans are nurtured and causes to be by the universe in an incredible tender and thoughtful way. Either way, it's a projection and speculation about whatever complex web of causality or general order there might be or a lack of it. The believer would argue "but we are here, so evolved and present". The denier claims "but that's random, it will pass like the rest".
When a person has developed an understanding of the world, through experience, perception, and honest evaluation, one can better develop values that aren't world denouncing, and implement those values though actions, which while trying to make some impact on one's surrounding environment, have no intention on trying to drastically change humans in general, the Earth, or the world.
In my environment, it seems most people have little to no intention to "drastically change humans, Earth or the world". And it seems that's the general outlook. Are you surrounded by people who want to change anything, besides the token liberal politicians and movie stars?
Most modern Westerners who claim to have surpassed Christianity are still basically Christians, with a world denouncing mindset. They haven't freed themselves from superstition, but are still mired in it. They aren't rational minded, but let their emotions cloud their logic. It's true they believe in science and they usually believe in the rational higher quality forms of it, rather than quackery. And, it's true they don't believe in ghosts, or other supernatural forces like that. But, they still have supernatural values.
Just quoting because I do agree with this quite a lot by the way. Sounds a lot like the writing of Max Stirner: Look out near or far, a ghostly world surrounds you everywhere; you are always having "apparitions" or visions. Everything that appears to you is only the phantasm of an indwelling spirit, is a ghostly "apparition"; the world is to you only a "world of appearances," behind which the spirit walks. You "see spirits."
Natural values, are what humans have naturally created for most of their existence. Whatever details their beliefs may have contained, such as myths and gods, they've generally been metaphors for the reality of their existence.
I'm not convinced that what you call supernatural values are not also metaphors for the reality of ones existence. Although I do believe (in the terms of Baudrillard) that what used to be simulations are becoming increasingly simulacra. But this happens to everything, including any imagined "natural values". It's because the horizon itself has shifted and all signifiers go with it. It's understandable one would desire and seek this mythical "natural value" but I have good reason to doubt it. It appears to me increasingly like a retrospective, even reactionary movement to attempt in such. But I do sympathize with it a lot though personally. But as philosopher I cannot allow myself to accept it.
They honor their ancestors, their kin, and the environment in which they lived. They have a love for the world, as it is, with no wish for anything to have been other than it was, and no wish for change other than that which furthers their traditions. As their environment changes, they adapt to it, rather than trying to change it or wishing to change it.
Wouldn't that just be close to the animal realm? The discriminating difference between animal and human, wouldn't that be exactly the human folly to project his desires into a longer term future? One could argue that the pagan would never have left the comfort of the trees. Their adaption would have been too slow, too conservative to upset the animal mindset?
They are natural, therefore, naturally non-superstitious, or those who don't believe in the super-natural. Loving the world, as it is, they have no desire to try to find what is non-existent, hidden, or outside of the world.
Even the world as it is will always be a projection, a symbol-loaded entity for it to contain any meaning, any interface to deal with it, manipulate it or have a (linguistic) relationship with it. You're implying some natural, pure, unloaded view of the surroundings. But I think that is naive, it seems a more primitive narrative, in most cases quite brutal, harsh and bloody. How conductive for the mind would it be in practice?
A person in the jungle may where animal skins to better be protected and blend in. A person in modern America may play the victim to get the protection and resources that pretense provides. But he'll be of the Pagan mindset in his own mind and as he speaks of himself outside his sphere of influence, such as anonymously online, he never speaks as a victim.
It's hard to understand the differences between Pagans and ordinary persons here. The victim is always about a role being played, forced or not. Perhaps it starts as forced and then it's repeated as identity. Aren't you perhaps justifying a personal situation? In my opinion it's only philosophy, of the existential and spiritual kind, a rare kind, which will lift the human out of the jungle of his illusions, being pagan or modern.
One may attempt to obtain an excruciating degree of honesty about himself and the world. One may start from scratch with one's reflection and go from there.
To me that sounds more like doing philosophy in its rawest form. If you'd replace the word pagan with philosopher or genius, it would perfectly fit many of the writing at the forum. But I'm not convinced that the word "pagan" adds much to the goal of providing clarity. But then again, what does?
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

Hi Diebert van Rhijn.
Hello Stuart, welcome. You signature line mentions the Knowthyself forum, I remember visiting that at times just to read a bit. Is Satyr still posting there? I used to follow his Blogger until it was suspended.
Yes, he's still posting there.
I'm willing to accept that definition of belief system for the sake of this discussion. But from my point of view you're describing more the human condition, that is: we conceive of what is real through a vision, which is related to some horizon (mental, physical) and as such future and expectation related. Indeed including "utopia" but in practice it's way smaller, way more fractioned. This is the whole ideation process and in a world that has become small are also manifesting as very tiny utopic and idealized forms. The classical form of religion is just one "iconic" systematized, highly organized instance of this and such to be admired in a context of chaos and ignorance. But the question "what is real" and how as such metaphysics will function with a "Pagan", in some "non-religious" way, that is something I might want to challenge here.
You seem to be using the terms "utopia" and "ideal" almost synonymously. Utopia is just one ideal among many. It's an ideal of peace or stasis. The need for peace or stasis relates to the need for rest, it's a need that one has when tired. If it's an omnipresent need it reflects a general tired disposition. Another way of putting it is that after much conflict one wants peace, but to have the omnipresent desire for peace speaks to cowardice.
We're talking here about a "world construct" or perhaps "ego" in the sense that Freud conceived of it, as reality principle. It needs to function with the idea it's an important actor, to warp the reality, to create something like hope and faith, and as such various prime motivations.
Right. One without roots will naturally be highly egotistical. I advocate developing the humility of a Pagan, which stems from having a well-defined coherent culture, and an extended family with a well established sense of identity as a people. The idea is that even without knowing one's roots, one still must know that he has them, and so that he's not an isolated being, but the accumulation of thousands of years of struggle, which gives him a sense of responsibility to continue it. And even if his past forever remains obscured it doesn't free him from responsibility, being that he may potentially become more of a foundation than a continuing link.

Altogether such an understanding leads to a greater humility or a more accurate sense of one's power and place in reality, which is the only way one can reasonably expect to significantly increase his power.
That may very well be but remains very conceptual. Assigning a property of "non-caring" seems just a pointless as assigning a property of "care" to the Earth or even the universe. One could just as well argue humans are nurtured and causes to be by the universe in an incredible tender and thoughtful way. Either way, it's a projection and speculation about whatever complex web of causality or general order there might be or a lack of it. The believer would argue "but we are here, so evolved and present". The denier claims "but that's random, it will pass like the rest".
I call the world uncaring as a response to those who call it caring. I understand that those that don't view the Earth as having care would find characterization of it as uncaring unnecessary or even strange.
In my environment, it seems most people have little to no intention to "drastically change humans, Earth or the world". And it seems that's the general outlook. Are you surrounded by people who want to change anything, besides the token liberal politicians and movie stars?
Yes. If a person won't admit to having a broad agenda for reality far beyond his own scope, then one only need look at his reactions to events. An agenda is like an expectation, if a person's reaction to events is that of surprise, which is often manifested as indignation/anger, it shows that he expected otherwise. His perpetual over-expectations speaks to his conception of a looming future that will finally meet his expectations.
Just quoting because I do agree with this quite a lot by the way. Sounds a lot like the writing of Max Stirner: Look out near or far, a ghostly world surrounds you everywhere; you are always having "apparitions" or visions. Everything that appears to you is only the phantasm of an indwelling spirit, is a ghostly "apparition"; the world is to you only a "world of appearances," behind which the spirit walks. You "see spirits."
I realize I didn't go into detail on the less stereotypical supernatural values. But, the idea of the world as only appearance is one of them.
I'm not convinced that what you call supernatural values are not also metaphors for the reality of ones existence. Although I do believe (in the terms of Baudrillard) that what used to be simulations are becoming increasingly simulacra. But this happens to everything, including any imagined "natural values". It's because the horizon itself has shifted and all signifiers go with it. It's understandable one would desire and seek this mythical "natural value" but I have good reason to doubt it. It appears to me increasingly like a retrospective, even reactionary movement to attempt in such. But I do sympathize with it a lot though personally. But as philosopher I cannot allow myself to accept it.
For many unraveling the simulacrum is a daunting task, which is why I advocate a more direct route, which is self-reflection.
Wouldn't that just be close to the animal realm? The discriminating difference between animal and human, wouldn't that be exactly the human folly to project his desires into a longer term future? One could argue that the pagan would never have left the comfort of the trees. Their adaption would have been too slow, too conservative to upset the animal mindset?
The idea of great change, genetically and/or culturally, as an adaption to changing environment, taking place among a large population is perhaps a common misconception. Evolution is sped up when circumstances cause a vast majority of a population to die out, leaving the small number most equipped, to recreate a larger population more equipped for the new specific challenges of the environment.

That description may seem to glorify those who don't cling to tradition, but who're more innovative, but keep in mind that innovators are common, while only a few make the correct innovations for survival. All animals except nihilistic humans seek preservation, innovation will happen naturally.
Even the world as it is will always be a projection, a symbol-loaded entity for it to contain any meaning, any interface to deal with it, manipulate it or have a (linguistic) relationship with it. You're implying some natural, pure, unloaded view of the surroundings. But I think that is naive, it seems a more primitive narrative, in most cases quite brutal, harsh and bloody. How conductive for the mind would it be in practice?
I'm not implying a pure view of reality, but that reality/interactivity is/happens exactly as it is/happens whether we have a relatively more accurate or relatively less accurate view of it. An accurate detailed view of the world comes from a love of it, or at least the lack of hatred for it.

In a sense there's two types of responses to weakness. The first is simply to reduce oneself to the background while he gains strength. The other is to wish to use deceitful tactics to gain an advantage. Both tactics may be reasonable at times, except when the latter tactic is done resentfully/emotionally rather than rationally it's ineffective outside of sheltered environments. To take the daunting task of facing reality with little connection to one's past, therefor in a sense with little help, and to realize more fully one's weakness is fine, and to adapt and blend in, in other words deceive, is tolerable, but many people let their weakness turn into resentment and deceive themselves more than anyone else.
It's hard to understand the differences between Pagans and ordinary persons here. The victim is always about a role being played, forced or not. Perhaps it starts as forced and then it's repeated as identity. Aren't you perhaps justifying a personal situation?
If they believe it, then it's hardly a role. In fact self-deception often makes one more convincing when deceiving others, but in the long run, it never helps one gain power.
In my opinion it's only philosophy, of the existential and spiritual kind, a rare kind, which will lift the human out of the jungle of his illusions, being pagan or modern.
Such things help, but by far more than anything the key to shedding delusions is agonizing pain. But, such pain must be either be in circumstances where one must adapt or die, or at least be taken and reflected on once past without excuse.
To me that sounds more like doing philosophy in its rawest form. If you'd replace the word pagan with philosopher or genius, it would perfectly fit many of the writing at the forum. But I'm not convinced that the word "pagan" adds much to the goal of providing clarity. But then again, what does?
If the Pagan mindset is a given then it adds nothing, but if not, then it's important. So it depends on who we're speaking to at any given time and place.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Stuart- wrote:...I advocate developing the humility of a Pagan, which stems from having a well-defined coherent culture, and an extended family with a well established sense of identity as a people. The idea is that even without knowing one's roots, one still must know that he has them, and so that he's not an isolated being, but the accumulation of thousands of years of struggle, which gives him a sense of responsibility to continue it. And even if his past forever remains obscured it doesn't free him from responsibility, being that he may potentially become more of a foundation than a continuing link.

Altogether such an understanding leads to a greater humility or a more accurate sense of one's power and place in reality, which is the only way one can reasonably expect to significantly increase his power.
That description may seem to glorify those who don't cling to tradition, but who're more innovative, but keep in mind that innovators are common, while only a few make the correct innovations for survival. All animals except nihilistic humans seek preservation, innovation will happen naturally.
About the parts I quoted above, there are a few things, assuming I understood their intended meaning correcting, which I'll have to challenge as they conflict to some degree with my own insights, while so much of what you're writing is not.

It's unclear what you mean by those last words in the quote: "innovation will happen naturally". In the sense of the human as rapidly innovating species? There's no other example to my knowing so it's part of our rapidly shifting and changing states of culture and consciousness which might form the right soil for "innovation" or the whole principle of techne.

Still, I'm not convinced this is connected to any highly developed sense of identity within any culture. All great examples I know of innovators or great minds appear to have at least some friction, some twist when it comes to this. As if they're like a 'lost sheep', straying away from the mores and confines of the people they live amongst.

If we talk about great philosophers and thinkers, their identity must always extent to the whole of humanity and peer over the confines of a culture. He might understand the connections and the power of belonging but his restlessness, his own alienation to the extreme will create the needed momentum to reach beyond. And I wouldn't know any example of anyone who, content like a cow in a field, his well defined coherent pasture and routines of milking and seasons nearby, would jump any fence.
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

It's unclear what you mean by those last words in the quote: "innovation will happen naturally". In the sense of the human as rapidly innovating species?
Humans had there times of rapid innovation, both culturally and genetically. I can't say that they're a rapidly innovating species in general though. At the moment my assumption is that the human species is devolving both genetically and memetically in terms of both the average members of the human species and in terms of the highest members of the human species. Chances are the highest evolved person alive today is not of either the genetic or memetic quality of his counterpart a few thousand years ago.
There's no other example to my knowing so it's part of our rapidly shifting and changing states of culture and consciousness which might form the right soil for "innovation" or the whole principle of techne.
To use the soil analogy, we have rich soil, but we need both room to grow, which is greatly lacking, and the seeds, which is knowledge of the past, which isn't lacking so much as obscured by weeds.

Rather than ignore the buried past and futiley push towards a poorly conceived ideal of progress, the most efficient option for anyone concerned with both the genetic and memetic evolution of the human species is to reach backwards and recover what was lost, how ever many centuries that may take, and once recovered to a good extent, then strive for progress. But, keep in mind, that's for those who are concerned about the evolution of the human species. I simply advocate the uncovering, and am almost without concern about the idea of progressing after words. I see that as something which either will happen quickly due to extreme circumstances, which while one should always be wary of, would have no reason to invite, or as something which will happen very slowly. A person not mired in false pride, but with a clear understanding of his place in reality, will be content to be part of a slow progression among people that he can call his own.
Still, I'm not convinced this is connected to any highly developed sense of identity within any culture. All great examples I know of innovators or great minds appear to have at least some friction, some twist when it comes to this. As if they're like a 'lost sheep', straying away from the mores and confines of the people they live amongst.
Since the advent of civilization it's been common for homogenous groups to be mixed, so while straying from the people they live among, they may or may not, in the cases of various people in question, be straying from their own kind.
If we talk about great philosophers and thinkers, their identity must always extent to the whole of humanity and peer over the confines of a culture. He might understand the connections and the power of belonging but his restlessness, his own alienation to the extreme will create the needed momentum to reach beyond.
It seems the key here is one's definition of greatness. Based on mine, those who were overly interested in the human species as a whole, while perhaps being geniuses, and highly influential in the course of human events, were not necessarily that great. I could be wrong but I think Socrates and Plato may be good example of that. Then I assume that those who were concerned with their own kind were great. And concerning them, even those who're unappreciative and not of their kind, but of a similar level of nobility, would recognize their greatness. Perhaps Nietzsche may be an example of that.
And I wouldn't know any example of anyone who, content like a cow in a field, his well defined coherent pasture and routines of milking and seasons nearby, would jump any fence.
I've not advocating apathy/passivity at all. I've advocating one not fight the battles of peoples and cultures not one's own. The alienated westerner should be anything but apathetic. But, not having a clear cause, his cause should be to improve himself, know himself, and find a clear cause, not to jump on one not his own.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Stuart- wrote:A person not mired in false pride, but with a clear understanding of his place in reality, will be content to be part of a slow progression among people that he can call his own.
In a fragmenting modern world, where old boundaries are rapidly dissolving, the question "which are my own people" can be heard more and more often. Alienation appears as hallmark of the modern man. It seems we're arriving at the point we cannot call a people our own anymore based on the fault-lines of the past. This then appears as a messy transmigration but not necessarily the end!
Then I assume that those who were concerned with their own kind were great. And concerning them, even those who're unappreciative and not of their kind, but of a similar level of nobility, would recognize their greatness. Perhaps Nietzsche may be an example of that.
"We are Hyperboreans"? It's clear your example of Nietzsche was one who felt often isolated and alone, like a prophet arriving two centuries too early for his vision to be understood. Generally hostile against his own genetic background and envisioning a time where identities were not anymore based on a race or country. Wouldn't the fault lines end up being ideological? But that needs a unifying concept not able to root in a world of fragmenting meaning and a general disconnect.
I've not advocating apathy/passivity at all. I've advocating one not fight the battles of peoples and cultures not one's own. The alienated westerner should be anything but apathetic. But, not having a clear cause, his cause should be to improve himself, know himself, and find a clear cause, not to jump on one not his own.
It's a common theme, where all the things being denied appear in the mirror as cause to fix. The Westerner is deeply mired in his own Anima that way, the psychoanalyst might say. But I also suspect this very deception has fueled the many expansions of knowledge and exploration drifts of the past.

Knowing oneself doesn't have a track record of being a very enabling or motivating venture. In most cases it damages even the natural instincts, which have relied on deception so far. So I believe the challenge is even bigger for humanity: not just to know himself but to recreate himself into something that hasn't been before.
User avatar
MisogynistDinosaur
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:05 am

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by MisogynistDinosaur »

If you say the world is whatever it is, and even if something big happened, and all life withered away, it would still be the world...

So I say I might as well make some absurd goals, such as trying to make every last man and woman on earth wise, or die trying. Cause either way, the world is whatever it is. If you propose submission to what is, submission is feminine. As for knowing my past heritage, I feel I am a genetic mutation at times. But is helpful to learn strategies, such as knowing what talents and tastes you have, based on your heritage..
Confusing.
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

MisogynistDinosaur wrote:If you say the world is whatever it is, and even if something big happened, and all life withered away, it would still be the world...

So I say I might as well make some absurd goals, such as trying to make every last man and woman on earth wise, or die trying. Cause either way, the world is whatever it is.
Making an absurd goal isn't just as well to you and all those you value, but it's just as well to all that is non-sentient, like the Earth.
If you propose submission to what is, submission is feminine.
You're proposing submission, because rather than set reasonable goals, you set unreasonable goals insuring that you're time is entirely ineffective.
As for knowing my past heritage, I feel I am a genetic mutation at times.
Productive mutations take 100s of years, if you have a major mutation, it's unlikely productive at all.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:"We are Hyperboreans"? It's clear your example of Nietzsche was one who felt often isolated and alone, like a prophet arriving two centuries too early for his vision to be understood. Generally hostile against his own genetic background and envisioning a time where identities were not anymore based on a race or country.
I haven't gotten that impression from Nietzsche, but I lack the expertise on him to argue.
It's a common theme, where all the things being denied appear in the mirror as cause to fix. The Westerner is deeply mired in his own Anima that way, the psychoanalyst might say.
Well said.
But I also suspect this very deception has fueled the many expansions of knowledge and exploration drifts of the past.
Maybe, but chances are that by far, more often than not such deception has been self-defeating for the person involved in the short run, and unimpactful in the long run.
Knowing oneself doesn't have a track record of being a very enabling or motivating venture. In most cases it damages even the natural instincts, which have relied on deception so far.
If one is wary of knowing himself better, or in ways different, than his ancestors, before civilization, knew themselves, then perhaps he's right. But, such knowledge probably is more full of unimportant details, perhaps relating to modern sciences, than substantial. Also, for a modern person a large part of knowing himself is undoing the obscuring and confusing effects of society, which aren't natural at all.
So I believe the challenge is even bigger for humanity: not just to know himself but to recreate himself into something that hasn't been before.
Maybe I should have asked this earlier, but can you expand on what you mean by humanity?
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Stuart- wrote:
So I believe the challenge is even bigger for humanity: not just to know himself but to recreate himself into something that hasn't been before.
Maybe I should have asked this earlier, but can you expand on what you mean by humanity?
This might sound cryptic but I'd say anyone being constantly challenged and defined by knowledge and identity: the game of "name giving". All knowledge takes form of challenges, in particular the one any human poses to his world and the one the world keeps posing to his existence. Any attempt to answer becomes then a form of taking up the challenge and raising the stakes. It's one of the many ways to define this but it has potential since it does not require the answers but still requires a good, natural effort.
Stuart-
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:50 am
Contact:

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Stuart- »

Perhaps you meant that to be an expansion on what a human is. I meant something different by humanity. I understand the idea of wanting a more evolved form to come out of the human species, and how memetic evolution can do so quicker than genetic evolution, but when you speak of a challenge for humanity to recreate himself/itself I doubt you mean the same thing.
knowthyself.forumotion.net
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Stuart- wrote:Perhaps you meant that to be an expansion on what a human is. I meant something different by humanity. I understand the idea of wanting a more evolved form to come out of the human species, and how memetic evolution can do so quicker than genetic evolution, but when you speak of a challenge for humanity to recreate himself/itself I doubt you mean the same thing.
What is a human, what is truth? I'm interested in the issue of defining what human nature is and any act of defining and self-defining is certainly part of it. In that sense I'm not as much concerned with humanity as species at all. That is like all types of knowledge and classifications part of the larger question of human nature already. A single human always relates to his matrix, his "well": dirt, tribe, sky, weather, calendars, festivals, culture, language and so on. The concept of humanity I find strange although I did use it before in the abstract sense. It might only exist in that most abstract sense though.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Bobo »

Humanity seems to be the collective of human (quantity doesn't help the definition), is it some essence (that is unique and not defining) or the commonality (that isn't unique and defining)? Plato was probably right when he said that forms are imperfect copies of perfect Ideas, humanity is an imperfect form of genius (or the human is a featherless biped with flat nails).
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Bobo »

Stuart- wrote:
Bobo wrote: I would doubt that all christianisms are world denouncing though, in the philosophy of Augustine for example everything comes from god and god is good so everything is good, we could say then that any denouncing of the world could be considered some kind of blasphemy and that is coming from a christian philosopher.
Christianity is unreal, so to claim it isn't unreal is to claim that something which is not, is. To follow that logic if one would claim that what is not, is, then one would claim that what is, is not. A denunciation of the real is a denunciation of reality.
I have no self respect, so you're unable to keep up with the advancements of 20th century logics, how good is that. To claim that something false is true is a tautology. Are you going to denounce this realtity too?
Morse
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:41 pm

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by Morse »

Stuart- wrote: They are natural, therefore, naturally non-superstitious, or those who don't believe in the super-natural. Loving the world, as it is, they have no desire to try to find what is non-existent, hidden, or outside of the world.
To a pagan it is not that they experience the world and then feel a lack, so they seek supernatural things. It is that they experience things that the non-pagan considers unreal. The skeptic generally thinks his position is based on some kind of pure, untrained consciousness, perhaps attained after undermining earlier superstitious training. He takes, often, scientific models and metaphors as not being metaphysical. He may not realize that these models are not the results of the data from research, but a way of explaining them, currently and also metaphysical explanations. One can be trained to not notice and importantly to cut off the emotions that are coupled to noticing things that are then deemed supernatural when perceived by others.
User avatar
amerika
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:14 am

Re: On the Alienated Westerner Developing the Pagan Mindset

Post by amerika »

The root of what is pagan seems to me as: not written down.

In other words, a living philosophy, not an exoteric one.

It seems like a broad category in which much variation can occur.
Locked