From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Witches and death
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:26:09 GMT
Organization: Radian Cormp.

In article <-1367347768snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <BvppMn.D2H@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com writes:
>
> > In article <aHw4RB1w165w@hogbbs.scol.pa.us> 
> > wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman) writes:
> > >Maybe all we need are personal and individual explanations for death? 
> >  
> > OK, so what is your personal and individual explanation for death?
> >  
> > >Who knows? I think if this modern paganism wants to be taken seriously, 
> > >it's eventually going to have to develop some form of rigorously tested, 
> > >yet flexible general philosophy. I imaginbe it will be one of those 
> > >"evolution in action" sort of things, wherein the less useful ideas get 
> > >left behind....
<stuff deleted>  
>The distinction between a rigorously tested philosophy and less useful
>ideas is perhaps not best expressed in Darwinian terms. It is neither
>terribly fruitful to respond with some of those less useful ideas,
>particularly expressed as bipolar agonies associated with mere physical
>survival as a carnal entity.
>
>The intention, as I read it here, is the formation of a far more
>integrated and coherent pagan teaching we might deploy to greater
>benefit. To this extent, there is neither contradiction nor ambiguity
>in the notion of Unity in Diversity, or Diversity in Unity, or
>whatever.
>
>Gil

Actually, going along with what Gil said above, I would like to suggest that
what was being suggested, with the idea of a "tested philosophy", is one
that a) does not conjure up an immediate, knee-jerk reaction of bullshit, or
airhead, and b) gives some coherency to how we relate to each other. Sort of
the difference between getting in the car, then deciding where to go, or 
deciding to play a game, *then* making up the rules as you go along (like
Calvinball), and a game where you have at some *idea* of what you're doing. For
those of you who've been rpg'ing for a while, the original version of D&D said,
in book 1, that they were *suggestions* for how to set up & play a game. Y'know,
like a road map, which doesn't *say* that you need to end up in Portland, OR,
or Portland, ME, but shows you the way to both.

What I'm saying goes along with the post I made last month, of finding ways
to work together, and agree to differ on the rest. Along the lines of saying
"we all follow the Western Pagan tradition (or fill in a word for that phrase),
and one sub-branch is Wicca, and another are the Druids, and there are
unaffiliated, etc."

I suppose we could break it out, also, into the Central Indo-European trads,
where the Goddess is usually primary (flamers, please note adjectives (Def: 
adjective - a word which qualifies or modifies a subject), or (as the saying
goes) first among equals, and the non-Central (Northern & Southern, Norse-ish
(that's funny, you don't *look* Norse-ish (B-)} and Egyptian, for example), 
where they are equal, or the God is primary. Note that in both cases, there
are more than one "God", and they are of *both* sexes, with something resem-
bling the balance that the J-C-I does not portray.

	mark (the long-winded)