Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heathen Dawn · 10-05-2002, 08:47 PM

Thanks, Jesse!

Valmorian · 10-15-2002, 08:49 AM

Heathen Dawn:

I don't understand how you can reject supernaturalism and yet still maintain that there is no objective reality.

Jackalope · 11-11-2002, 12:01 AM

Getting back to the idea that "knowing what the animals do" and other science stuff is somehow antithetical to a spiritual experience...

_How_ can you study nature and _not_ notice these things? Only if you're a city child who's never lived in a wooded area. The things the animals and plants do are a matter of everyday life. There are more ways to learn science than sitting down with a textbook. Volunteer for your local Wildlife Rescue organization, or any of the local conservation groups. You'll learn the science _and_ you'll be learning in context. A lot of what people find boring around science is the fact that it's usually taught out of context. Doing observations at the edge of a salt marsh certainly showed me a great deal more about nature and gave me a better connection with it than sitting outside and meditating.

And before someone says, "Yeah, but you're a science geek," I spend most of my time being a professional musician playing traditional irish and english music these days. I still teach irish dance. I see nothing wrong with living for the moment. However, I think it a great foolishness to buy into the city-dweller's view of nature as some monolithic thing that you don't _need_ to learn about. Or that you _shouldn't_ learn about it, lest it destroy your enjoyment of it.

I'm still constantly amazed at the number of nature-worshipping pagans I run into who have _no idea_ what a normal seasonal cycle actually looks like for the area they live in. Or any clue about the interlocked systems that produce that truely miraculous cycle.

It isn't either/or. If you're truly going to go on about your connection with nature, you should spend enough time observing it to know what you're looking at.

Waning Moon Conrad · 11-11-2002, 12:23 AM

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Heathen Dawn · 11-11-2002, 09:45 AM

Jackalope,

You seem to have missed out the part where I said: I don't want to STUDY nature! Well, this is it: I don't want to STUDY nature, I want to EXPERIENCE her! STUDY is a boring, rationalistic activity. STUDY is what I've been doing my whole life long and it was a MISTAKE. A BIG MISTAKE! Because of so much STUDYING, I forgot to BE ALIVE! I forgot to ENJOY LIFE! So when I came out at the age of 20, without having ENJOYED LIFE, without having had any sexual EXPERIENCE, without having done anything REALLY WORTHWHILE, I decided: NO MORE STUDYING!!! I want to be ONE WITH NATURE, not STUDY her like an outsider! Nature is a girl I want to have sex with, not a subject I want to read about!

NATURE IS GODDESS! TO HER IS ALL GLORY!

Too erudite is inhuman,
to study hard is to die on the vine!

Valmorian · 11-11-2002, 03:06 PM

"Heathen Dawn:
I don't understand how you can reject supernaturalism and yet still maintain that there is no objective reality."

Heathen Dawn, could you let me know what your answer is to this?

Thanks..

Yellow3 · 11-11-2002, 08:42 PM

Yes, but if I can borrow your girl analogy - when you date a girl, don't you actually take the time to notice things like what color her eyes are, what sort of things she likes, the little things about her that you find so endearing? However do you commune with nature without at least looking at it long enough to recognize the signs of spring and fall, to watch the fog roll in or see what the birds are up to?

That's what Jackalope was talking about. You don't have to run sequencing gels and calculate an animal's energy budget to do any of that sort of thing.

- Jen

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Yellow3 ]</p>

ELECTROGOD · 11-12-2002, 02:02 AM

Hormone levels (among other things) might account for some of that emotional need to commune with nature while at the same time rejecting any intrest of formal study of nature (appeals to some & not to others).

If you learn about nature by communing with it, how do you actually learn more about it and what is it that you are learning about nature?
Is the social aspect of a earth-religion or other "emotional" people like yourself the real appeal?
Does worshiping nature mean that you don't want to know everything (or even that much) about it? (mystery?) The ancient earth-religions didn't know that much about how nature worked but rather how to live within it.
Many women could care less about how their car works, just as long is it gets them where they want to go. Does this reflect your intrest in nature or religion?

Waning Moon Conrad · 11-12-2002, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian:
<strong>"Heathen Dawn:
I don't understand how you can reject supernaturalism and yet still maintain that there is no objective reality."

Heathen Dawn, could you let me know what your answer is to this?

Thanks..</strong>

Don't hold your breath.

Heathen Dawn · 11-12-2002, 10:16 AM

The sensory impressions are what count for me: the green colour of the plants, the fresh air, the chirping of birds. I stay with nature not for the philosophy of it, but for what touches the senses. Likewise if I had a girl, I would much more touch her and kiss her than talk with her. Rationality, deep thought and philosophy are, in my view, a waste of time; sensual impresssions are everything.

As for the question of objective reality: I believe reality is for us to create. If I so wish, I can be a superstitious theist; and if I so wish, I can be a hard-core rational atheist. I try my best to avoid both extremes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2002, 08:47 PM	#91
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	Thanks, Jesse!

10-15-2002, 08:49 AM	#92
Valmorian Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 235	Heathen Dawn: I don't understand how you can reject supernaturalism and yet still maintain that there is no objective reality.

11-11-2002, 12:01 AM	#93
Jackalope Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hayward, CA, USA Posts: 1,675	Getting back to the idea that "knowing what the animals do" and other science stuff is somehow antithetical to a spiritual experience... _How_ can you study nature and _not_ notice these things? Only if you're a city child who's never lived in a wooded area. The things the animals and plants do are a matter of everyday life. There are more ways to learn science than sitting down with a textbook. Volunteer for your local Wildlife Rescue organization, or any of the local conservation groups. You'll learn the science _and_ you'll be learning in context. A lot of what people find boring around science is the fact that it's usually taught out of context. Doing observations at the edge of a salt marsh certainly showed me a great deal more about nature and gave me a better connection with it than sitting outside and meditating. And before someone says, "Yeah, but you're a science geek," I spend most of my time being a professional musician playing traditional irish and english music these days. I still teach irish dance. I see nothing wrong with living for the moment. However, I think it a great foolishness to buy into the city-dweller's view of nature as some monolithic thing that you don't _need_ to learn about. Or that you _shouldn't_ learn about it, lest it destroy your enjoyment of it. I'm still constantly amazed at the number of nature-worshipping pagans I run into who have _no idea_ what a normal seasonal cycle actually looks like for the area they live in. Or any clue about the interlocked systems that produce that truely miraculous cycle. It isn't either/or. If you're truly going to go on about your connection with nature, you should spend enough time observing it to know what you're looking at.

11-11-2002, 12:23 AM	#94
Waning Moon Conrad Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Victoria. Australia Posts: 1,417	[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

11-11-2002, 09:45 AM	#95
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	Jackalope, You seem to have missed out the part where I said: I don't want to STUDY nature! Well, this is it: I don't want to STUDY nature, I want to EXPERIENCE her! STUDY is a boring, rationalistic activity. STUDY is what I've been doing my whole life long and it was a MISTAKE. A BIG MISTAKE! Because of so much STUDYING, I forgot to BE ALIVE! I forgot to ENJOY LIFE! So when I came out at the age of 20, without having ENJOYED LIFE, without having had any sexual EXPERIENCE, without having done anything REALLY WORTHWHILE, I decided: NO MORE STUDYING!!! I want to be ONE WITH NATURE, not STUDY her like an outsider! Nature is a girl I want to have sex with, not a subject I want to read about! NATURE IS GODDESS! TO HER IS ALL GLORY! Too erudite is inhuman, to study hard is to die on the vine!

11-11-2002, 03:06 PM	#96
Valmorian Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 235	"Heathen Dawn: I don't understand how you can reject supernaturalism and yet still maintain that there is no objective reality." Heathen Dawn, could you let me know what your answer is to this? Thanks..

11-11-2002, 08:42 PM	#97
Yellow3 Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Riverside, CA, USA Posts: 212	Yes, but if I can borrow your girl analogy - when you date a girl, don't you actually take the time to notice things like what color her eyes are, what sort of things she likes, the little things about her that you find so endearing? However do you commune with nature without at least looking at it long enough to recognize the signs of spring and fall, to watch the fog roll in or see what the birds are up to? That's what Jackalope was talking about. You don't have to run sequencing gels and calculate an animal's energy budget to do any of that sort of thing. - Jen [ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Yellow3 ]</p>

11-12-2002, 02:02 AM	#98
ELECTROGOD Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: GR, MI USA Posts: 4,009	Hormone levels (among other things) might account for some of that emotional need to commune with nature while at the same time rejecting any intrest of formal study of nature (appeals to some & not to others). If you learn about nature by communing with it, how do you actually learn more about it and what is it that you are learning about nature? Is the social aspect of a earth-religion or other "emotional" people like yourself the real appeal? Does worshiping nature mean that you don't want to know everything (or even that much) about it? (mystery?) The ancient earth-religions didn't know that much about how nature worked but rather how to live within it. Many women could care less about how their car works, just as long is it gets them where they want to go. Does this reflect your intrest in nature or religion?

11-12-2002, 10:16 AM	#100
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	The sensory impressions are what count for me: the green colour of the plants, the fresh air, the chirping of birds. I stay with nature not for the philosophy of it, but for what touches the senses. Likewise if I had a girl, I would much more touch her and kiss her than talk with her. Rationality, deep thought and philosophy are, in my view, a waste of time; sensual impresssions are everything. As for the question of objective reality: I believe reality is for us to create. If I so wish, I can be a superstitious theist; and if I so wish, I can be a hard-core rational atheist. I try my best to avoid both extremes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.