From tyagi Sat Jan 21 12:29:47 1995
Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id MAA08386; Sat, 21 Jan 1995 12:29:45 -0800
Message-Id: <199501212029.MAA08386@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Subject: Re: (For Sherry) Responses to Lesson 1
To: moonowl@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Sherry Michael)
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 12:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Cc: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred)
In-Reply-To: <199501211913.OAA16244@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> from "Sherry Michael" at Jan 21, 95 02:13:28 pm
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Lorax)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL0]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 5210      
Status: O

Kali Yuga 49950121
 
> > Of this I have no doubt.  My concern has always been with the purity of
> > the Neopagan tradition, which I see is fast eroding away on the heels of
> > popularized generalities.
> 
> So what would you tell them? How can I give them a change to disagree 
> with the generalities if they are unaware of them? 

What would I tell them?  I guess I'd pass on generalizations which seem true,
like 'Wicca is not uniform as regards doctrine or mythos and what I'm telling
you is some commonalities', and then 'Reincarnation is a favored concept among
Wiccans' or 'Wiccans often have a strong distaste for Christian ideas'.  There
could be followups as regards why all these are the way they are and lead to
some very interesting sociological discussion.

How can you give them a chance to disagree with the generalities?  I'm sure
that if they have any exposure to Wicca they've heard them (and thus you may
be reinforcing them slightly).  If they haven't, then they're likely going
to be quiet and accept what you say as true, which is slightly dangerous.
If nobody who has experience speaks up and says 'Um, that ain't my experience
of Wicca', then a student may get a somewhat skewed vision of the subject,
short-term.

Unfortunately, people have short attention-spans.  That means that if much
instruction is done this way, the bulk of those educated in Wicca will 'take'
the bit about 'what Wiccans believe' most strongly, while the less emphasized
bits regarding breadth of mind and tolerance of practice will be lost in the
haze.  

I've also noticed that most Americans (could be Euros too) have a distinct
bias toward defining religious traditions on the basis of intellectual
positions.  Reinforcing this may do more harm than good, especially if the
follow-through doesn't totally curb the notion when it comes to the Craft.

I won't say more on it unless you ask.  I'm really trying not to overstep
my bounds and yet I have strong feelings about this.  I wasn't raised with
the value of doctrine and I see it as one of the most prevalent problems
in religious conflict throughout the world.
 

> > Understood.  I'm one of them.
> 
> But you response to questions I give to the students is, "I don't need to 
> think about this, I all ready know". The questions are for people who 
> have never thought about these concepts to know if they agree/disagree.

Um, I hope that I can be better at expressing myself in the future.  I wish
to give the impression that I favor NOT-knowing, uncertainty, lack of
assumption, and general confusion.  I think that these are beneficial states
from which to operate and may be the core of what most today call 
'spirituality'. 

I think that what you must be referring to is the response to the question
about exploring reincarnation.  1) it presumes we haven't explored; 2) I
took it on the heels of other questions as sort of persuasion to believe
it is true, kinda like when a Christian Fundi asks me 'have you ever tried
believing in God?'  3) I was probably already peeved about the notion that
Wiccans believe in reincarnation, especially without the background that
the concept may originally be foreign to most Western religion (as 
contrasted with metempsychosis, which appears to be the Greek 'transmigra-
tion of souls' and is arguably of different character).
 
(caution, I'm no scholar in this area and am treading on brittle ground)


> > > As the course progresses the dogma disappears as they develop.
> > 
> > An interesting method.  I'll try to keep up.
> 
> In art classes they teach you how to hold the paintbrush and certain 
> strokes. Later, as far as the teachers care, you can paint with your 
> toes. However, they want you to know the traditional basics first, so you 
> know WHY you may want to paint with your toes.

That explains my reaction. ;>  Whenever instructed in this way I tend to
immediately place the brush between my toes, cheeks and up my nose to see
what neat things I can do.  Could be I'm an incurable rebel.  Could be I
learn best by doing.  Could be that is one reason I like to become a first
timer again, so that you can teach me my limitations again and again.

Thanks.

 
> I'm sorry if I took your comments the wrong way. 

You certainly took them more seriously than I meant them!  Treat me like a
grouchy old person who has a hard time with new ways of learning and loves
to criticize until he sees that this isn't being appreciated. ;>


> I shall answer you questions that you sent later on. 

Ok, great, thanks!


> I'd quess I'm a tad touchy. :) 

We are just strong personalities with need for coalesce, methinks.


> Please continue with your methods, I shall adjust.

That is very kind of you.  I'll temper slightly so that you can hear
me more easily.  Also, I'm likely to begin focussing more on constructive
inquiry (I am good at that, but sometimes barrage with Qs and so it comes
to the same).  Perhaps a stray Q here and there regarding statements
being made in discussion will do.

Also, when I send you something, do you usually relay it to others and
not to me, or is there some reason that I'm not seeing my posts?  I was
just curious.  Thanks for your patience. ;>

Lorax