Te Wiki Wiki Wiki

In New Zealand, after English (spoken by 95.9 percent of people), the most common language in which people can have a conversation about everyday things is Maori, spoken by 4.1 percent (157,110 people).
(See? Statistics ARE interesting.)

So for those who don't work in a government department, I thought I'd share some new words I'm learning. Next time you go to the kitchen at work, take note of these:

Ti = Tea
Kawhe = Coffee
Huka = Sugar
Miraka = Milk
and of course
Maero = Milo

and now for the harder ones

Pouaka Whakamatao = Fridge
Mihini Horoi Pereti = Dishwasher


But what I _really_ want to know is how to say "@$!! I'm tired, didn't sleep well last night and I think I have a cold. Hope my kawhe kicks in soon."

Actually, there are people here who could tell me that.

Also - it's my first payday. *massive kermit flail*



[Who rememembered that wiki is Maori for "week", as in "Te Wiki O Te Reo Maori" ? Which is, of course, this week.]

listening to The Rapture | Wey Ahh (Claude Somebody remix)

Atheism, Universal Negatives and Stuff

Have been reading friend Wildilocks' online stuff. Being an atheist (a nice one), she sometimes writes about that. Here's something I replied to one of hers...

The “knowing God can't exist” argument gets people sometimes, and people on both sides of the divide make mistakes in their thinking imo. eg I came across a slightly erroneous article not long ago where the writer says:

Sophomoric critics of atheism often charge that atheism is committed to proving the negative proposition "no gods exist" and, since allegedly no one can prove a negative, this shows that atheism is an absurd doctrine. The first thing to note is that it is often possible to prove negatives. Euclid proved that there is no highest prime number. I can prove that my bicycle is not in the basement by going downstairs, turning on the light, and looking around.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html

But it's not “proving a negative” that is impossible. It's proving a UNIVERSAL negative that is impossible, and this is both good logic, and misunderstood by the writer in question.

For example, take the statement “no aliens have ever visited earth”. I don't personally believe aliens have visited planet earth – but I can't prove that, because I don't have all knowledge about all alleged visitations on earth at all times (universal knowledge). So if pressed, the best I can do is say “From what I know, I don't believe it likely that aliens have visited earth. But I might be wrong.”

In the same way, I cannot state – in a logical sense – “No gods exist”. If pressed, the best I can do is say “From what I know, I don't believe any gods exist. But I could be wrong.” So technically, it's correct to say only agnosticism is valid. (Epistemology is an interesting, but arcane subject.)

HOWEVER, most of us aren't entirely logical in every single thing we do/think. I think it's perfectly ok to say: “I can't prove there is no god, but I think the evidence is so overwhelming against her existence, that I call myself an atheist. So that atheism might be called the extreme end of agnosticism. I am thinking of Dawkins' chapter title “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God.”

===

Here is the bestest article ever on atheists and christians being nice people to each other because they actually have things in common http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

I also learned a new word: Transhumanism. Generally, the use of technology to expand human capabilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism and http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index


listening to Helix - Afterglow (my new trance track i made - it's good!)

The Dawkins Disillusionment

Picked up Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion in Borders tonight. I was expecting not to enjoy it, as he has a reputation for being a rude, grumpy bigot in writing (the opinion of a number of atheists I know, ironically) , and the little I've read of his backs this up. EthicsDoctor who I picked up from the airport says he has a reputation for being nice in person.

Anyway, the first chapter was quite warm, welcoming and engaging and I thought "yay, maybe this will be different". So I turned to chapter 3 where he treats philosophical arguments for/against g0d. And he pooh poohed the cosmological argument in less than two pages! With virtually no argument, and weak argument at best.

I immediately lost respect for him. He might be a great scientist, but some basic research would tell him that the cosmological argument is currently very strong in philosophical circles. (Half my major was in philosophy for my second degree.) It wasn't when Dawkins was an undergraduate many decades ago, but it is now. To be fair, he spends a few more pages on the ontological argument, and quite a bit more on the teleological argument - I imagine because it has implications on his own field, of biology. But again, he seems ignorant of how strong the design argument is, and trots out the same lame old arguments that were dismissed twenty years ago.

I'm sure he would rightly be concerned if someone tried to present the evolutionary biology of 20, 30, 50 years ago as current.

I may be premature. Unfortunately i can't quote from the book as g0d hasn't blessed my with the money to purchase it ;) But at some point I will read the whole book, much as I read the Da Vinci Code, because it's trendy. I hope my small delve into it doesn't portend Dawkins' scholarship is as weak as Dan Brown's.


[Edit: Many of the reviews the The God Delusion I've just read online imply that i will be in for more unpleasantness after all, when I do get to read the full thing. One commentator said: "the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding." Oh joy.]

listening to Opeth | Godhead's Lament (brilliant gutteral death metal fused with 70's prog rock)

Satan Wants Illegal Immigration

Ahh, my dear interwebs. If ever the dictum 'truth is stranger than fiction' needed confirmation, we need look no further than you.

Surfing the net, as you do, when you should really be in bed... and saw a link to this. I shouldn't be astounded by the idiocy of ignorant religious people (matched only by ignorant non-religious people). But I am. Come ON guys, are you serious?

Note that "christians" here may well be "mormons", given this is Utah. (Quite different in belief, in spite of appearances.) But don't worry, trinitarian theists can be just as ignorant as polytheistic do-gooders. *snark*

CALEB WARNOCK - Daily Herald

Utah County Republicans ended their convention on Saturday by debating Satan's influence on illegal immigrants.

The group was unable to take official action because not enough members stuck around long enough to vote, despite the pleadings of party officials. The convention was held at Canyon View Junior High School.

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan's minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants "hate American people" and "are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do."

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order -- and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said.

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry, saying illegal immigrants were trying to bring about the destruction of the U.S. "by self invasion."

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as "Joe," said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because "they are not going to become Republicans and stop flying the flag upside down. ... If they want to be Americans, they should learn to speak English and fly their flag like we do."

Senator Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, spoke against the resolution, saying Larsen, whom he called a "true patriot and a close friend," was embarrassing the Republican Party.

"I agree with 95 percent of this resolution but it has some language that is divisive and not inspiring other people to its vision," he said. "This only gives fodder to the liberal media to give negative attention to the Republican Party."

Joel Wright, a member of the Cedar Hills City Council, was booed as he opposed the resolution.

"This might be the most divisive issue in the Republican Party," he said. "I support President Bush but he needs to support this issue harder."

When Wright said "the economic benefit (of illegal immigration) outweighs the downside" he was jeered. He warned that the Republican Party of California had "killed themselves" by taking a hostile stance against illegal aliens.

He also said the LDS Church has studied the issue and tried to determine whether illegal aliens could be given temple recommends and allowed to serve missions but "gave up" because the issue was too complex. He ended by saying "President Bush needs to fix this now" and was booed again.

Larsen was allowed to finish the debate with a one-minute speech.

"If the Democrats take over the country, we will be dead, and we will have abortion and partial-birth abortion and the Republican Party will go into extinction," he said. "Nancy Pelosi and the ACLU would oppose this (resolution)."

A member of the audience moved that the convention suspend its rules to allow the "objectionable part" of Larsen's resolution to be stricken, retaining only the final paragraphs of the resolution, which condemn illegal immigration. Eventually party officials counted all delegates in attendance, only to discover that, with 299, they were about 30 short of a quorum and could take no action.

"I did ask people to stay so we could have this discussion," said Senator Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who chaired the convention. Bramble had earlier asked those gathered not to thwart a discussion on the resolution, saying it would be "good for the party."

In other business, those gathered voted against removing some of the party's leadership.

Letters supporting the re-election of party chairwoman Marian Monnahan and secretary Susan Bramble were mailed in envelopes bearing the party's return address, causing delegate Russell Sias to demand they be removed from office. A spokesperson for Alexander's Print Advantage, which handled the mailing, spoke at the convention, saying employees had mistaken put the address on the envelopes and the company took full responsibility for the snafu.

In a speech, Enid Greene, state Republican Party chair, announced to applause that she will remarry in a few months. Greene's first marriage came to an infamous end during her tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives when her husband, Joe Waldholtz, who was her campaign manager, was charged with embezzling. He eventually pled guilty to campaign fraud and other charges.

Greene said she was disappointed in BYU professors who protested Dick Cheney's visit to campus, calling them "self-appointed intellectuals."

"I'm not calling for BYU to fire them but if no one signs up for their classes ..." she said. "If they say the Vice President doesn't have anything to say we want to hear, I'm not interested in having my daughter learn from them."

All of the speakers praised those gathered. Lt. Governor Gary Herbert said Utah County Republicans are "guided by correct principles" and are the "best of the best" of the Republican Party.

Bramble assailed those who would called the local Republican Party "broken," saying the party was accountable and accomplishing good work, including the approval of school vouchers and granting UVSC university status.

Congressman Chris Cannon and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff both received a standing ovation from some members of the audience. Cannon said Democrats have just as many corrupt party members as the Republicans but the media does not report Democratic ethics violations.

Shurtleff said that while Americans are divided on the war in Iraq, Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson should not refer to President Bush as a war criminal.

Caleb Warnock can be reached at 443-3263 or cwarnock@heraldextra.com.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page B1

from http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/220065/4

Global Ethics, Stupid Vegans

I've been reading a little into Animal Ethics, and of course Peter Singer is one of the seminal recent thinkers here. Regardless of whether one finds his ethical theory compelling - here is one easily understandable essay that doesn't - this article of Singer's in New Internationalist impressed me with its clarity on global responsibility.

Somewhere along the way, I bumped into this very sad story of a vegan couple recently convicted for the murder of their baby. It does not prove veganism is bad, only that stupidity is. However, according to this article, while a vegan diet can be ok for adults, it is not adequate for infants.

Best Excuse Ever

Hee hee hee. Thanks to Wildilocks, get well soon.

re-listening to untitled psy track by Me (inspired after listening to Manmademan). I surprise myself, it's actually not bad.

Intellectual Pursuits

I've finished reading Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. Good novel, believable sympathetic characters and settings. It's made me aware of intersexualism and hermaphroditism which, while unusual, is not as rare as one might think.

I've also finished Principles of Druidry by Emma Restall Orr and concluded I don't want to be a druid. It's well written, though descends into waffle occasionally. I found it attractive for a short while. It tickled my fantasy racial memories of noble celtic wise people. But I finished the book feeling repulsed. One of the main reasons being neo-Druidism doesn't seem to have anything to show it is true. I'm sorry to those who bought the once-trendy idea that truth is a relative thing, but i can't get away from that. If someone can't give me more evidence for their spirituality than "it feels true for me", or "I have nice experiences doing it" then i feel like it's a waste of time for me. Much as I'd like to, I can't 'believe' what i know ain't true.

I feel like I'm not putting that across right, or not being senstive, or something. But if other peoples' feelings count, then so do mine. And my feelings say no religion at all is preferable to one that is knowingly made up.

I watched Alien again last night with all the flatmates here and across the road. It was a fun experience, as several hadn't seen it, and Gardenergirl screamed satisfyingly.

My back is sore, my fingers are sore, my arm is sore. My coffee is hissing, gurgling and choking on the stove signalling it is time to consume.

See? Other People Agree With Me

This goes nicely with this post :)

Bigups sinfest

I Would Like a Great Lake of Beer

I would like to have the men of Heaven
In my own house:
With vats of good cheer
laid out for them.

I would like to have the three Marys,
Their fame is so great.
I would like people
From every corner of Heaven.

I would like them to be cheerful
In their drinking.
I would like to have Jesus too
Here amongst them.

I would like a great lake of beer
For the King of Kings,
I would like to be watching Heaven's family
Drinking it through all eternity.

Celtic poem from 10th century Ireland

Man, those Irish Celts, eh? Pity I don't like beer.


listening to Hard Hat | Eat Your Head (a track I'm creating)

Spreading the Meme

Just in case you haven't seen the hilarious Internet vs Real Life

Literacy

I've just read Thomas Harris' Hannibal in 24 hours. Good book, don't know that I would rave over it the way the reviews on the cover do, but i thoroughly enjoyed it. Have started Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides (who wrote the Virgin Suicides). This also looks promising. The life of the mind is the pleasant life.

listening to Goldenhorse | Cold Mountainside

How to Live Well

How do you behave when you know the conventional honours are dross? When you have come to believe with Marcus Aurelius that the opinion of future generations will be worth no more than the opinion of the current one? Is it possible to behave well then? Desirable to behave well then?

Thomas Harris, Hannibal, page 164

This is a variation on my long-pondered theme that if there is no ultimate source for ethics (most likely from g0d; there don't seem to be any other options) then there is no real right and wrong, and selfishness is the only rational ethic. I will write more on this one of these days, as so many people are under the illusion - from an unacknowledged theistic past - that people have real value and should be treated well. If we live in a naturalistic 'verse, people have no more value than mud.


listening to Camisra | Solid Ground

It's All About Me

Uh oh. Yet more online video. Some years ago in a church i was put off by how self centered the "worship" seemed to be. Now someone's decided to market it - check out the rather humorous Me Worship.

Thanks to Saxpest from BLJ for passing this on.

===

And flatmate PoetryMan introduced me to young Lasse. This is a rather clever piece of music, and illustrates how i make music myself - by building it up from samples. Unlike Lasse, I can play guitar passably and piano falteringly.

listening to Cripple Mr Onion | Six Days of Silence

New Favourite Band: Opeth

Doom Metal meets Blue Oyster Cult meets classical and folk music? I believe it's called progressive metal, although no-one seems to agree. Whatever, it's good. They're from Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opeth
http://www.opeth.com

And while we're here, check out the hilarious video interpretation of Slayer's Angel of Death. Thanks Tatjna. "Hey, Johhny Depp!"


listening to Opeth | Serenity Painted Death

Getting Off Your Face For Jesus

Friend pornoculture posted this Huxley quote elsewhere, which has made me think a bit.

A similar conclusion will be reached by those whose philosophy is unduly "spiritual." God, they will insist, is a spirit and is to be worshiped in spirit. Therefore an experience which is chemically conditioned cannot be an experience of the divine. But, one way or another, all our experiences are chemically conditioned, and if we imagine that some of them are purely "spiritual," purely "intellectual," purely "aesthetic," it is merely because we have never troubled to investigate the internal chemical environment at the moment of their occurrence.

Furthermore, it is a matter of historical record that most contemplatives worked systematically to modify their body chemistry, with a view to creating the internal conditions favorable to spiritual insight. When they were not starving themselves into low blood sugar and a vitamin deficiency, or beating themselves into intoxication by histamine, adrenalin and decomposed protein, they were cultivating insomnia and praying for long periods in uncomfortable position in order to create the psycho-physical symptoms of stress. In the intervals they sang interminable psalms, thus increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the lungs and blood stream, or, if they were Orientals, they did breathing exercises to accomplish the same purpose.

Today we know how to lower the efficiency of the cerebral reducing valve by direct chemical action, and without the risk of inflicting serious damage on the psychophysical organism. ... Knowing as he does (or at least as he can know, if he so desires) what are the chemical conditions of transcendental experience, the aspiring mystic should turn for technical help to the specialists-in pharmacology, in biochemistry, in physiology and neurology. And on their part, of course, the specialists (if any of them aspire to be genuine men of science and complete human beings) should turn, out of their respective pigeonholes, to the artist, the sibyl, the visionary, the mystic-all those, in a word who have had experience of the Other World and who know ... what to do with the experience.

- Aldous Huxley 'Heaven and Hell'

I am not at present sure if we have a spirit as such or where it interacts, but I agree with my friend that we are much more physical than many believe. It's been one of my hobbyhorses for years that, if one accepts Y'shuan theology, Jesus was physically resurrected, now has some kind of body, and there will be a new earth in teh world to come.

I have only recently realised i am, by my practice, a supporter of drug-induced happy states. I must be, I drink alcohol, which is a drug. I also take caffeine, another drug, rather more than i used to. My alcohol use is sometimes with the intention of getting tipsy. (I stay away from getting really plastered, but it's a slippery slope definition.) Which is not to say i therefore support ALL drug states; I have never taken any other recreational drugs.

I haven't ever had what i consider a spiritual experience while drunk. And I am still of the opinion that drug experiences aren't spiritual, although will ponder Huxley's point that all our experiences are chemical-physical ones in the brain.

Two of the practicing neopagans i most respect are adamant that drug experiences are not spiritual experiences, and i've already quoted a buddhist monk saying the same thing.

I am wondering if drugs could be a gateway to the spirit, but we are not equipped to handle them in a discerning way, much like we are not equipped to handle encounters with other spirits well. (see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sh6end.html and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/eyesopen.html for what i think are very insightful discussions of this topic)

listening toSaeed and Palash | Losing Control

People

What a lovely lot of them I've just hung out with, and a great wedding on Waiheke. But what's with all their mosquitos? My feet were eaten alive, and i had blood trickling down my forehead from being bitten there lots too.

So great to be with people dear to me - HiDive and Ingrid, of course. Kiwi, Kathy, Bruce, Jen, Sam, Poppy, Hana, Heather, artist Abbie and meet some kewl new peeps too, eg Stephen the hairdresser, Kirsten (old aquaintance), Monica, that English guy, that Scottish guy, Michelle from Canada/San Fran... etc.

I had the lovely Tatjna and Mistress Polly staying with us there and back. A drizzly, grey Auckland day coincides with returning to earth and having STUFF TO DO.

But i'm mostly happy.

I'm really craving Tuna or Salmon a lot these days, what's with that? *Goes to find can opener*

listening to the distant sound of children playing

My favourite boy in all the world

... is DJ Rich D Rich.

He's a very generous chap. He's lent me his nice new DJM600 and 2 X Technics 1200 Mk5 's for a while. He offered, I didn't ask. You rock dude.

With my crappy old belt drive pitch controllable turntable i now have three decks + non-pitch control CD/MP3 player. Three vinyl decks simultaneously is increasingly becoming my default option, I just can't do enough with only two.

May the gods of blessing rain... er... blessings on you. Except i don't think you believe in gods. Come to think of it, neither do i. For those who care, I am still a theist. Not atheist. And if you don't like it, #%$! off :)

Another thing that makes me happy: Going through my fairly sizeable record collection, discovering tracks i've never listened to, or haven't heard for ages. And organising everything so i can find them again. Happy happy joy joy.


listening to Joel Armstrong | Silver Moon (Derek Howell remix) ON VINYL!!! IN SPACE!!! (Burning Man peeps might understand that in-joke) And now i think i might know Joel Armstrong. Hmm...

Stupid Toaster

It doesn't pop up. So i go down to my room, and get engrossed in something ...

...and after a while i smell smoke...

AAAAAaaaargh!

This is about the 3rd time I've had to throw out a flaming cinder and open all the windows. The other day the smoke was so bad it was literally choking me.

Stupid toaster. It dies tonight.

Or should that be stupid me? ;)

Good news tho'. I found another toaster in our flat. And it works fine. I shall sacrifice the old toaster to Satan at the dark of the moon.

listening to Bloc Party | I Still Remember (a really GOOD dance remix, today's new favourite track)

Musick

Today was a good day, sunny and fun. Had a good catchup with Designerlady and did a wee bit of IT consulting/training. I've been bery productive musicwise in the last few days. I have four tracks I'm working on - a slow breaks one, some psy trance, my 'Seasons' drum 'n bass track and I've just whipped up a pounding Techno stormer with a killer bassline in the last few hours. They're in various stages of completion and all are showing promise. Yay.


listening to Lemmy | Hi Tech Soul [one of mine! yaaay! :) ]

Blandscapes

I coined a new word today: Blandscapes.

The endless farmland and dull countryside you see on long boring trips.

Now to search and see if i am truly original or if someone else has beaten me to it.

Oh. Oh well. It's already out there. But i did think of it myself. Truly i am a genius.
Really.

listening to Alex West | Late Nights and Dog (pounding minimal techno. nice)

Muddy Earth : Integrity and Pagan Ethics

I've just realised that my attending Magick Earth (Neopagan festival) was a kind of unintentional anthropological 'participant observation'. This is part two of my response, the first being my experience and emotional response. This is an incomplete reflection, abandoned, rather than finished. (Long blog warning, grab a cuppa tea.)

===

So. Why does doing something 'reglious' badly rub us up the wrong way? Somehow it seems worse than someone doing something else badly, like lacking integrity at work.

A few at Magick Earth were bothered by integrity. To one friend, there appeared to be a lapse in integrity among those leading the Friday night ritual in that the leaders didn't seem to believe in what they were saying and doing and were merely going through the form of it. Also, the the ritual itself seemed lame. It appeared that way to me too. In a separate example, a husband and wife, one of whom I think was a seminar leader, got drunk and had a long, vocal and abusive fight in the wee small hours. I can't comment as I slept through it, but I'm told they've done it before. Several people there seemed to regard them with some degree of ambivalence, even contempt.

My friend commented that these people should be “living what they believe”. I agree. Most people have a sense that those publicly presenting a belief should have a degree of integrity about them. Here I am speaking of ethical integrity, I consider intellectual integrity below. I think the nature of spiritual belief seems to imply that it is 'more special', that some kind of special effort to be reverent and integral is required. (Why we assume that is an interesting question.) I recall that hypocrisy among the then-leaders of his own Jewish religion was despised by Y'shua (Jesus), and got quite a bit of airtime from him.

My first response, and perhaps that of others is: “Oh, they're hypocrites, I want to distance myself from them.” What makes me hesitate to judge them is twofold: Firstly, I am a hypocrite myself. Secondly, on what basis should I judge them?

1. I am a hypocrite

A hypocrite is someone who doesn't live by what they actually believe. It doesn't matter whether that belief is publicly articulated. Every single person on earth is a hypocrite; at least, I haven't met someone who isn't. One thing I believe is that I should be kind and loving to everyone. I am often unkind and unloving even to people close to me. Hence I am a hypocrite. This is not fun.

Another thing I believe is “do to others what you would have them do to you.” I don't want others to reject me for being a hypocrite. I want them to be patient with me, hope that I improve, and perhaps lovingly help me to overcome my faults when I ask for help. Hence i should do the same for other hypocrites. I cannot help someone remove a speck in their eye if I have a log in my own.

2. How should I decide whether someone is practicing integrity?

I think integrity has to be measured firstly from within someone's own system of belief. Their behaviour as viewed by other ethical systems is also important, but comes second. (Spot the nod to relativism or postmodernism here.) Integrity is measured against ethics and the dictionary definition of ethics is formed around the concepts of morality, behavior and character. I guess 'character' is how ethical one is over a period of time; how one 'usually' acts. So if someone was consistently doing a poor job of rituals we could say they had bad character. But only if 'doing a poor ritual' is already defined in paganism as unethical. So I had to find out what paganism says about how its people should conduct themselves.

There are Neopagans who have written about their ethical beliefs, here's a few sites I found discussing them.

http://www.paganpastoraloutreach.ca/ethics/pagan.htm
http://www.iit.edu/~phillips/personal/grammary/ethics.html - this one in particular i thought was good.
http://www.solitary-pagan.net/Ethics,%20Philosophy,%20&%20Politics.htm
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usxx&c=words&id=8106

Some pagan or wiccan principles that might come into play concerning doing rituals:

1. The Wiccan Rede

The ethics espoused in a particular Pagan tradition may be different, but there is a general common basis in honouring Nature and all Life. The foundation of Wiccan ethics is the Wiccan Rede - "an ye harm none, do as ye wilt" - simple but far-reaching in its implications (both individually and collectively). ... in most Pagan traditions, the individual is responsible for determining how their tradition’s ethic or principles are lived out in any given moment and situation – most traditions do not have ‘commandments’ that direct their personal decisions.

from http://www.paganpastoraloutreach.ca/ethics/pagan.htm

“If it harms none, do what you will”. I can't see how doing a ritual badly harms people. If wasting others' time is 'harming' or if offending the goddess harms someone, then perhaps so. Several pagan writers say that the wiccan rede alone is not a good enough basis for all ethics.

2. What we do affects the deity

After all we generally subscribe to a belief system that supports both immanent and internalized Deity and, to use a theologically technical term, is panentheistic -- we and the Deity are mutually dependent on one another. That is, what we do has a direct effect upon the Deity. If our actions are honorable and ethical the Deity is enhanced by us, and likewise, if our actions are dishonorable and unethical the Deity is correspondingly impoverished.

from http://www.iit.edu/~phillips/personal/grammary/ethics.html (and see note 1)

Hmmm. Maybe a badly done ritual impoverishes the deity. If a ritual gives paganism a bad name, which perhaps impoverishes the deity, this could be the basis for saying they lack integrity.

3. Codes of Conduct

There are differences within paganism (eg druids can have different ethics to witches). Though different organisations have published their codes (see http://www.paganpastoraloutreach.ca/ethics/pagan.htm ), there's no universally accepted code of ethics. A code of ethics could be held by one pagan individual or at most a relatively small local group/coven. Although there are national groupings with developed codes, my feeling is that paganism tries to steer away from highly developed organisation structures. Or maybe that's just my bias against large organisations.

Here is Magdalena Merovingia's local coven code (I think – she's not clear in her otherwise fine article about where this comes from).

A Coven Code of Ethics

While attending ritual or other coven functions you agree to:

* Relate to others with general politeness, manners, and common courtesy as befitting any gathering of friends.
* Abide by any formal rules, covenants, or guidelines adopted by the coven.
* Enter the circle "in perfect love and perfect trust." Settle any differences with other participants beforehand or don't participate. If it is impossible to settle the differences all parties involved must be able to truly set the issue aside and relate to one another "in perfect love and perfect trust" while in sacred space.
* Try to distinguish between having psychological issues come up and truly being in a compromising position regarding beliefs and values. If you feel you are compromising your integrity by further participation quietly ask the maiden to cut a door in the circle and quietly leave. If something comes up for you that has been triggered by the ritual, speak up so those in charge can address the situation in an appropriate manner.
* Commit to thinking for yourself and not just blindly accepting everything said or done.

In general you agree to:

* Follow the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
* Make a reasonable effort to consider the difference between will and whim and to consider that harm is not always easily pinpointed.
* Commit to opposing patriarchal oppression and strive to counteract it in positive, non-violent ways. Consciously choose to wield "power with" and "power within" and not "power over."
* Observe the legal code of your cultural location except when by doing so you are violating your personal integrity and morality in such a manner that cannot be overlooked or justified and you have considered the effects of your decision on the coven and the broader community and you consciously choose to take full responsibility for those effects.
* Commit to learning the ways of magick and the Craft that work for you and to apply what you have learned to the best of your ability with intent for the highest good of all according to the free will of all.
* Never work magick or offer prayers on behalf of another without their knowledge and consent.
* Commit to respecting the environment and working towards its recovery.
* Promise to maintain a policy of non-discrimination based on race, age, gender, occupation, physical ability, or sexual orientation.
* Promise to maintain a policy of non-discrimination based on religion as appropriate. Maintain an awareness of Wicca as a religion and the legal and social repercussions of religious discrimination both toward Wiccans and by Wiccans. Be aware of your own biases in this area and walk this line very carefully.
* Commit to remaining open-minded in your contacts with organized religion and seek to "take what you need and leave the rest" realizing that opportunities for encounters with Deity are limited only by yourself.
* Refrain from "Christian bashing" or arbitrarily condemning other religions or religious peoples.
* Refrain from graphic or offensive sexual behavior in public or semi-public situations and maintain an awareness of the changing definitions of graphic and offensive in varied situations.
* Commit to taking responsibility for all aspects of your life, physical, psychological, and spiritual.
* Commit to taking responsibility for your own psychological healing and to overcome the internalized effects of social programming in accordance with Wiccan teachings.
* Commit to the spiritual path and to continued growth and learning.
* Encourage fun, beauty, and play in your personal life and in the lives of others in accordance with Wiccan teachings.

Again, I stress that this is just the code for one group, and that wiccans don't represent all pagans.

However, if it applies to the group in NZ, “Commit to learning the ways of magick and the Craft that work for you and to apply what you have learned to the best of your ability with intent for the highest good of all according to the free will of all.” would certainly apply to doing a ritual at less than the best of your ability. For example, the male leader in the Friday night ritual acknowledged he made mistakes because he hadn't read his part before the ritual.

As an aside, I also noticed that “Refrain from "Christian bashing" or arbitrarily condemning other religions or religious peoples.” wasn't followed by everyone at the fest.

Some other ideas:

* I think it's crucially important to realise that modern paganism has as it's background the modern Western world, much of which is (arguably) based on christian theism, Greek philosophy and classical law. So a lot of ethics are assumed from there, eg those about patriarchy and discrimination against minorities. These assumptions perhaps should be more explicitly acknowledged.

* If paganism comes to hold a set of beliefs that excludes – as the article on the impossibility of Christian Wicca by a fellow Wiccan suggests – then it will become as intolerant as the christianity it despises. I suspect there is much intolerance under the surface already, purely based on my observations of people both pagan and non-pagan. Intolerance seems to be in our human blood.

* HOWEVER, this should be carefully nuanced. I think it's perfectly sensible, even essential that a belief be able to set boundaries around what is and is not orthodox. Christians should be able to define their religion so that COSMIC CHICKEN WORSHIPPERS cannot be considered christian. Satanists should be able to exclude nice people who are not selfish enough. Buddhists who believe in no g0d and many reincarnations should not be required to consider g0d-bothering one-stop-and-then-you're-off Muslims as part of their fold. Of course, those who believe that all is "one" can try to define how all these mutually exclusive concepts can logically be the same. Good luck.

* Based on my workplace experiences and some theory, I currently believe the inherent nature of organisations – including religious organisations - is to become inhumane. By which I mean they come to serve the rules of the organisation itself, rather than the people within the organisation – who, in a young organisation, may even have created the rules in the first place.


Finally,

Even if I decide they are hypocrites, what does this mean about their beliefs?

What does "living what they believe" mean in practice? Someone who is living a religious belief will probably do something like having a ritual. (It would possibly be lacking integrity for them NOT to have a ritual. See note 2)

But what happens if they make a crap ritual? And what happens if we know there are other parts of their life where they are unethical? Does that mean their beliefs themselves are invalid?

By analogy, let's imagine an atheist tries to "live" their beliefs and does something others don't like (lying, stealing, abusing their spouse or similar). Does that invalidate the belief system itself? Does an atheist's hypocrisy mean atheism itself as a religious choice is invalid?

Or perhaps we just say they are a poor example of an atheist.




===

Here is where I'll abandon this section. Comment welcome.


Notes

1. “What we do has a direct effect upon the Deity” is not an exhaustive definition of panentheism and I'm not sure how many witches would agree with it. I think some definitions of panentheism are compatible with traditional theistic thinking. If god is there, a transcendant AND immanent god as per Eastern Orthodox christian theology makes more sense to me than a strict separation of god and nature. This is not saying nature IS god, only that god indwells all nature. I may be muddling things a bit here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.html
http://www.pantheist.net/society/panentheism.html
http://www.websyte.com/alan/pan.htm

2. If I understand one friend, she prefers people who don't talk about their beliefs but just get on and 'do it'.

I wonder, What does “do-ing” a spiritual belief involve? There is always a thought-part or theoretical part to doing. Having a ritual is a way of expressing that thought-part. Perhaps it's possible for a religion to develop which involves no public expression, merely private in-one's-head stuff.

===

Another question: Intellectual Integrity

I have a separate question to that of strictly behavioural ethics around intellectual ethics. Or maybe congruency is a better word.

I want my religion to be reasonable. Note this does not necessarily mean prove-able, but it does mean that if someone asks me for a rational explanation of what it is, how it works and most importantly WHY i believe something, i want to be able to explain that. Among other things it should not have any insurmountable internal logical conflicts.

At present I conceive of intellectual integrity as a subset of ethical integrity. It may be the other way around.

The main question I want to ask NeoPagans around this is: “If you know that your spirituality was 'invented', how does this impact your intellectual integrity?”

I cannot (at present) “believe” or gain satisfaction from something I know to be untrue. I can play it as a game and enjoy it as a fantasy or intellectual exercise. But that is quite different from experiencing something real. If “true for me” is not congruent with “true out there”, then it is not true at all.



listening to unknown techno track

Electric Bicycles + Blog Praxis

Friend Wildilocks is about to cycle from Melbourne to Sydney to publicise electric bicycles. I didn't know they existed. So in the interests of promoting another option in sustainable transport, I'm telling you. :)

Have a look at
http://www.suitabletransport.com

I've been thinking about my blogging practice. (Praxis is a cool word, i just felt like using it.)

Sometimes what I write are the beginnings of some thoughts. They're often not complete, but I record them while they're on my mind. This is both the nature and the danger of a blog. My thoughts may be criticised by myself or others, and I may decide to amend them. One day I may encounter a past reader who says, “ah, you think x, y and z”. But my thoughts develop over time. I'd hate to be hung by what I believed 20 years ago.

Every now and then I also have a dilemma as to how much personal information to reveal given the very public nature of the internet. For now, I choose to err on the side of caution by not using real names and not revealing every detail of my life. Not that i have anything in particular to hide right now.

listening to Master T strumming badly on my out of tune guitar

Celtic Reconstructionist NeoPaganism

How's that for a title?

In thinking about the dark side of spirituality, I was wondering if the ancient Celts were violent, and if so, why that isn't part of an honest attempt to honour those traditions.

It doesn't take much hunting to find the ancient celts were violent, patriarchal and practiced human sacrifice, as documented in The Religion of the Ancient Celts
By J. A. MacCulloch (1911) and other places http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac19.htm

The Semites are often considered the worst offenders in the matter of human sacrifice, but in this, according to classical evidence, they were closely rivalled by the Celts of Gaul. They offered human victims on the principle of a life for a life, or to propitiate the gods, or in order to divine the future from the entrails of the victim.

Reading further in the chapter just quoted reveals a way of life that seems incredibly bloodthirsty, eg

Among the Celts of Britain human sacrifice still prevailed in 77 A.D. Dio Cassius describes the refinements of cruelty practised on female victims (prisoners of war) in honour of the goddess Andrasta--their breasts cut off and placed over their mouths, and a stake driven through their bodies, which were then hung in the sacred grove. Tacitus speaks of the altars in Mona (Anglesey) laved with human blood.

It was a culture of violence, human sacrifice, head collecting (the houses of chiefs and kings were decorated with possibly hundreds of human heads) and cannibalism.

Yet modern Celtic reconstructionists do acknowledge this.

eg, in the very good introduction http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uswa&c=trads&id=6645

CR makes no claims to being a True and Authentic Survival of any Celtic tradition. We acknowledge fully and openly that what we practice are a set of modern creations, based in and inspired by early Celtic beliefs. We follow our inspiration while remaining as true as we can to the guidelines we find in early texts, the work of scholars and archaeologists, and the practical aspects of what works well for us.

...

Most of the founders of CR ... [from the mid 70s to late 80s] worked to gather enough material to create the groundwork for a modern Celtic tradition that respects the ancient sources while rejecting those components of early Celtic religions that are inappropriate for modern worshippers, such as human sacrifice, slavery, and other strongly patriarchal elements of those early societies. Ethical concepts were sought out, sorted through for relevance, and applied to daily lives.

My question is: In rejuvenating even a modern 'version' of an ancient religious system, how honest is it to pick and choose among the elements we choose to 'bring back'? Is this not disrespectful of the culture and the gods we claim to revere? Is there an ethical system from outside Celtic culture being followed here? And if so, where does that ethic come from?


listening to more Bassnectar

Blah

Recovering sickness. Sitting at home rumpled and unshaven. To rebalance myself away from intellectualism I'm reading "A Civil Campaign" by Lois McMaster Bujold - good, as usual.

listening to Bassnectar | Track 13 of Mesmerising the Ultra disk 2

Cold

1. Low temperature.
2. Mild illness involving a chest cough, occasional muscle aches and wooziness.

My external, and internal environments are both suffering a cold. Staying wrapped up and reading. Craving imaginary food and coffee. Brain still working.

listening to (in my head on endess repeat) The Front Lawn | We don't know how lucky we are EDIT: It was Fred Dagg, thanks to BeKitty for correcting me.

Ama et quod vis fac

Having nearly completed Garry Wills' biography of Augustine which I blogged earlier, I agree with the reviewers who say it's not really an introduction. Short it is, but it seems to move at an unclear pace and assumes knowledge of philosophy and theology that a lay person might not have. Having said that, it's well enough written and has been reasonably diverting.

I particularly liked these words of Augustine

Because of various circumstances, we see one man looking harsh because he loves and another looking pleasant because of vice. The father gives a son blows, the whoremonger gives blandishments. Consider them in themselves, blows or blandishments – who wouldn't take the blandishmenst and duck the blows? But look at the motives – they are the blows of love, the blandishments of vice. You see my point, that human acts should be judged by their basis in love. Many things have a surface appearance of good, but are not based on love – like blossoms on a thorn plant. Other things look hard, look forbidding, but they instill a discipline informed by love. Once again, to put it simply: Act as you desire, so long as you act with love. If you are silent, be silent from love. If you accuse, accuse from love. If you correct, correct from love. If you spare, spare from love. Let love be rooted deep in you, and only good can grow from it.

(Interpreting John's Parthian Letter 7.8)


I'm conscious I'm writing on academic topics a lot these days; I must find something trivial to comment on next time. It's blinkin cold tonight ;)

listening to Glad I'm Not A Kennedy | Shona Laing

Esoteric Secrets of The Evil Christians

(For those who have no idea, Nicea is in modern day Turkey, and the first Nicean council was a major gathering of christian leaders in 325 CE with the support of the Roman emperor Constantine – a nice change as many past emperors were as likely to have christians killed in gruesome ways.)

One of the things that was presented as a short story at Magick Earth (in an informal context, but with academic authority) went something like: “Here is how the list of what books should be in the Bible got created. Constantine called a council at Nicea, and they decided what books should go in the Bible, and got rid of all the ones they didn't like”. Along with various, sometimes true and sometimes plain wrong facts about Constantine himself, who I couldn't care less about so will say no more.

That “story” didn't accord with my reading of history but I said nothing as my memory was vague and I wanted to check my facts. I read the appropriate chapters of a couple of history books on my shelf, and surfed the net a bit.

Cutting it short, deciding the canon (list) of books which belong in the bible was never on the agenda at Nicea, and never happened there. Furthermore, the only book burning that was commanded were those of Arius. None of what are now called non-canonical books (such as the Shepherd of Hermas or Gospel of Thomas) were burned or prohibited there.

===

While I'm here, apparently some people believe the idea of reincarnation was in the bible, but was removed at this first council in Nicea. Again, this was never discussed, and never happened at this council. Or any other one, for that matter.

I've decided to quote Roger Pearce's footnote in full

This idea [about reincarnation being removed at Nicea] may derive from some confused statements in Shirley MacLaine, Out on a Limb, Elm Tree Books, London (1983), ISBN p-241-11106-6. Unfortunately the book seems to be a fictionalised autobiography, so all the personae are more or less fictional, as a note on the frontispiece makes clear. (MacLaine is apparently a New Age propagandist). The book is without any footnotes, index or bibliography. Quotations are typed from the original.

"So, are you religious, Kevin?" I asked.
He choked involuntarily on his tea. "Are you kidding? What church would have me? I'm treading on their territory. I say folks have God inside them. The Church says it has God inside of it. There's a phrase in the Bible which states that one should never countenance spiritual entities other than God. Most Christians go by that. But then the Bible says nothing about reincarnation either and it's quite well known that the Council of Nicea voted to strike the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible."
"How do you know that?" I asked.
"Well, most serious metaphysical students of the Bible know that. The Council of Nicea altered many of the interpretations of the Bible. The man Jesus studied for eighteen years in India before he returned to Jerusalem. He was studying the teaching of Buddha and became an adept yogi himself. He obviously had complete control over his body and understood that the body was only the house for a soul. Each soul has many mansions. Christ taught that a person's behavior would determine future events--as karma, as the Hindus say. What one sows, so shall he reap."
I didn't question these rather sweeping assumptions. I offered Kevin a cookie. He seemed to like sugar. He ate it in two bites.
(p.182. 'I' is MacLaine's persona - 'Kevin' is a medium).

And another later on:

"... He said that when Christ returned to Israel he taught what he had learned from the Indian masters, that is, the theory of reincarnation.
"But David," I said, "why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?"
"They are," he said. "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an Ecumenical Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea. The Council members voted to strike those teachings from the Bible in order to solidify Church control.
"The Church needed to be the sole authority where the destiny of man was concerned, but Christ taught that every human being was responsible for his or her own destiny -- now and future. Christ said there was only one judge--God--and he was very opposed to the formation of a church of any kind, or any other kind of ceremonial religion that might enslave man's free will or his struggle for truth."
This confirmed what Kevin had said, but it seemed logical that anyone heavily into reincarnation would have read about that famous Council.
The sun began to set behind the waves now, sweeping a pink-purple slash across the clouds above the Pacific. (pp.236-7.
'David' is another persona, identified earlier only as 'a painter and a poet').

The occasion referred to here is clearly not the First Ecumenical Council - the First Council of Nicaea - but the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Constantinople). This council condemned the propositions known as Origenism, and with them the pagan idea of the transmigration of souls (not reincarnation), which some writers had picked up as a technical idea from Greek philosophy without realising all the implications. The idea that the bible was edited to remove the idea in 553 is not consistent with the extensive manuscript evidence for the text (including complete codices) from the 3rd century onwards.

It would seem reasonable to propose that a hazy recollection of these passages lies at the root of this legend.

In conclusion,

From [all of these collected documents] there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards.

from http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.htm

but you could also look at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm or even (shudder) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Agenda_and_procedure


listening to Buzzcocks | I don't mind

The Earth is Magick. And Bloody Cold.

It's been a few years since I did a little reading around modern paganism (also called neo-paganism), notably Margot Adlers' sympathetic overview Drawing Down the Moon.

For those who are unfamiliar, the wikipedia article is a useful place to start, bearing in mind the dangers of relying on Wikkipedia too much. (There are Wikipedia articles on other topics I've read which have, if not error, a misleading use of language.)

I'm not a pagan but I went to a pagan camp/festival near Levin over the Easter weekend to hang out with some friends. I've been thinking about the experience, partly in response to other participants' responses. I will divide my response in two, namely my experience and my reflection on the long weekend.

My experience and feelings while there

Disclaimer: I'm well aware that a non-adherent of a religion usually makes mistakes in emphasis, nuance and understanding when writing about it. My apologies for any factual errors.

There were about 70 people or so there for the whole weekend, and i imagine with visitors the numbers would have been over 100. The whole thing reminded me of a slightly tacky christian church camp of the kind I used to go to. (Note, i do not identify as a christian any more, although even that simplifies things too much.) Most people camped; it was nice to be out under the stars drinking wine or cider and chatting. There was lots of free time to socialise, communal breakfast and evening meals, seminars and workshops and a sort of market where people were selling items like herbs, candles, jewelery and old-style “witchy” brooms (seriously). This was derided as Pagan 'bling' or 'tack' by one or two I was at the festival with. Pentacles abounded. (Star-like symbols, they can be six sided but the 5 sided pentagram type was more common. Not upside down tho' - only naughty people wear those.) I went to 3 seminars that were focused on the academic or theoretical end of things which I really enjoyed. It was clearly stated several times by one seminar leader: “Modern Paganism/Witchcraft was invented by Gerald Gardner in 1954”.

Each night there was a ritual, followed by drumming and dancing around a fire. The rituals were not well received by a minority. Some had issues with the ritual elements themselves (eg, “I didn't like it 'cos they used four watchtowers which is from Freemasonry and they had a priest and a priestess leading it”). To be fair, the organisers were trying to do their best to make the rituals inclusive of the diversity that is neopaganism (see below.) Some people simply found the rituals tacky, contrived, unconvincing, fake or couldn't respect those leading them. I was in this second group. Whatever its failings, one thing Episcopalian christianity has learned is how to do robed-up liturgical rituals well. The second night's ritual was very late, and long. Fortunately I missed that as the second two nights a small number including myself chose not to go to the rituals because of our dissatisfaction.

The second and third nights were used to celebrate Samhein (pronounced “Sow-win”) two weeks early, the organisers acknowledged. The third night, the ritual was led by someone else and appeared to be much more satisfying. I liked the sitting around the fire talking, drumming and dancing and joined in that afterwards, tho' it was much more restrained than i would have liked. For Samhein in remembrance of his Irish Celtic ancestors one guy painted his face and arms with woad. OK, it was acrylic paint and mud. Needs must. I thought it was cool. No-one was nude (“skyclad”) at the fest by the way.

At Magick Earth I was trying to understand paganism, participate where I felt comfortable and simply experience, not to criticise. Sometimes that was hard as some of it seemed rather silly to me. But then much human behaviour is silly, and certainly other religions do silly stuff. What matters, is whether it is true. ('True' is a loaded word, for some. More on that another time.)

Robes were the fashion du jour, although mainly at night. At first I thought the robes were a bit silly, but they're very practical when your religion involves standing outside in the Autumnal cold for hours. Some robes were in crushed velvet. I saw one woman in a native South American traditional costume. I should also add the couple of women who were into belly dancing and dressed er... pseudo Persian at night. (There was a seminar on belly dancing too.)

It's fascinating, i am at a unique point in history where i can watch a religion birthed and develop. Neo-paganism is a young spirituality, with the concomitant challenges baby religions face. Or rather, it's a family of religions as Paganism is not a single unified entity.

Paganism is fairly diverse, although the Wikipedia article above does mention common threads. There are wiccans, who are pagan, but not all pagans are wiccans, and druids who can be pagan, but also can be christian or buddhist or other. Most people seemed to believe in a goddess. The goddess is often paired with a god. The exact cosmology, and how the world got here I can't comment on. I got the impression some believe the goddess/god are like Jungian archetypes “made real” somehow. Some seem content to acknowledge their beliefs are “made up”, but it's obviously still valid to them. I'd like to hear more of their opinion on that.

Some happily derive their beliefs and practices from a mixture of sources. Others are “reconstructionists” following mainly one type of spirituality, eg Celtic reconstructionists who are trying to reconstruct what we know of ancient Celtic religion. A small number were Christopagans and/or Christian Wiccans, trying to syncretise Christianity and Pagan beliefs. I learned New Age beliefs are not necessarily pagan, but many practices of New Age followers are also used by some Pagans, eg the tarot, astrology and the belief in the beneficial powers of crystals. No pagans are practicing satanists as such; nor do most believe in satan as they don't believe in the christian worldview. These were generally what might be called 'humanitarian' pagans, although I'm interested in how a “dark” or “shadow” side might fit with this, and why it is not also practiced. There was the occasional belittling and discussion of christianity, with varying degrees of accuracy. Which might be expected if christianity is considered the dominant religious influence in New Zealand - a thesis which is arguable in my opinion.

And then there's the sociocultural blends which are not explicitly pagan – or are they? Many festivalgoers seemed to be into tie dye or medieval clothing – 1 or 2 there were part of medieval reenactment groups. A few were in jeans and heavy metalish clothing. Plenty of tattoos and piercings, so i fit right in ;-) A few dressed pretty plainly. I couldn't help thinking Paganism's dress sense is remarkably similar to Boganism. Or hippiedom. Oh, and many of the pagans there at least had a sense of humour about all this.

I did think, if Magick Earth is representative of modern paganism, the people who write scaremongering books have nothing to fear.

Another thing I came away with was a renewed conviction that religion, spirituality and belief is something that should be discussed in the public domain. There is something in Kiwi culture that says it should be private in the same way most people don't discuss their sex lives. I think open, respectful and frank discussion is vitally important both for society and to enrich/critique those who hold spiritual beliefs. Which, let's face it, is the vast majority of people, much to many atheists' disgust.

So much for this limited account of my experience. Overall I enjoyed myself, especially the chance to socialise and relax, and learn something new. Something I want to explore further is the concept of integrity and how it relates to pagan ethics. And perhaps a few other things.

I will save that for next time.