![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Metaphysical Free Agency and the Eschewing of Labels
Periodically I like to ask myself just for kicks, "So, what is my religion?" Then there's a few alternatives to this self-inquiry that might go something like, "What's my philosophy?" or "What's my political ideology?" After a few minutes of thinking back and forth on the matter, the vague answer that comes back seems to always be, "none of the above." In other words, "don't even try and put me in a box!" Yeah, that does sounds kind of snowflakeish, but oh well.
It seems to me in this day and age of non-compulsory metaphysical beliefs (though currently under threat, I might add) that the aspiration of independent-mindedness and the self-identification with some prepackaged set of beliefs are two things that stand in opposition to one another. If I'm to identify with an "ism" then it seems that I cease to be a free inquirer and instead must function as an apologist, shill, or sophist in service of the "ism" in question, whenever I'm to speak in the company of others about said "ism." Also, when I do identify with any philosophy or belief system, then the person or people I'm conversing with will automatically assume I support ever position popularly-ascribed to that doctrine or school of though.
No, I'm a Metaphysical Free-Agent, or as I like to put it simply, a Seeker. Does this mean I believe in nothing? Or that I'm some kind of milquetoast fence-sitter who is incapable of settling on a position on whatever issue? Or that I'm some kind of postmodern relativist who doesn't believe there is a such thing as objective truth? Or that I'm a perma-rebel who refuses to accept an external epistemological authority?
Well, maybe there's some truth to that last one. But for the other rhetorical-hypotheticals? No. In fact, I would say the idea that one must identify with a concrete belief system is something peculiar to an era encapsulating roughly the last 2000 years. Prior to that, it was quite normal for philosophers, seers, and other thinkers to professor their own peculiar beliefs and most especially to clash with the other known thinkers of their time. I'm reminded of Cicero, who was a sort of philosophical eclectic, drawing many influences from the Platonism from his time, and some ideas from the very popular Stoicism, yet not strongly identifying with any particular school. Many other Greco-Roman intellectuals of that time took a similar approach. Yet, most of these men were very pious, conservative, and patriotic. It's only in the modern era that it's popularly-assumed that to be conservative and loving of one's own culture/society, it's imperative to be "religious" in the dogmatic sense. Not being a "religious" person of this type must mean giving into the political opinions of liberals/leftists who are out to erode society, or whatever it is they are doing.
I don't think so.
The other charge that conservative and pseudo-traditional tryhards tend to issue forth is that not being "religious" though being "spiritual" at the same time must mean one buys into the usual grab-bag of "New Age" fluff that religious sectarians associate with any and all non-canonical spiritual ideas of the current time. No, in fact, the spiritual ideas I give most credence to tend to be rather ancient, yet they don't need to be boxed up in a book or some convenient collection of writings. So, yeah I think the implication that not "believing" in some closed set up beliefs makes one a "libtard" is quite silly and groundless. As if independent thinking and epistemological chaos are one in the same. Rather, it seems this sort of reflexive "conservativism" is just the usual lazy thinking and desperate search for easy answers that most people tend to default to in times of confusion. The kind of dogmatic religion we know too well, just be the only kind of religion, because that's what seemed to work in the recent past. Any inquiry beyond that is asking too many annoying questions and trying to introduce too much nuance and debate into what should be such a clear-cut issue.
On my own "beliefs" I could say that I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic ideas compared to the ideas of other philosophical schools. Yet I'm loathe to declare myself a "Platonist" partisan and box myself into a a limited set of concrete propositions on the nature of reality. I'd rather just keep asking questions and see what insights then come to me (for better or worse). With regard to any specific religion, the answer is a resolute "none of the above." I think all the big religions that have survived to this day are highly flawed and ill-suited to the present times we live in; not to mention, many of them are plagued/burdened by what I see is as just plain bad doctrines and dogmas. I'm sympathetic to polytheism as a concept, but I will not pretend for one moment that I hail from any of the cultures the old pagan cults came from. I like some ancient Greek motifs, but I am of course not an ancient Greek. Nor am I an ancient Germanic/Norse person. Nor pre-Christian Celtic, or anything of that nature. And I'm not going to start randomly cold-calling the various deities from those old traditions anytime soon. Again, I'm going to be patient and see what insights might or might not come to me.
In summary, I think there's much to be said for taking the humble position of being a Philosophical Independent, or simply a Seeker.
It seems to me in this day and age of non-compulsory metaphysical beliefs (though currently under threat, I might add) that the aspiration of independent-mindedness and the self-identification with some prepackaged set of beliefs are two things that stand in opposition to one another. If I'm to identify with an "ism" then it seems that I cease to be a free inquirer and instead must function as an apologist, shill, or sophist in service of the "ism" in question, whenever I'm to speak in the company of others about said "ism." Also, when I do identify with any philosophy or belief system, then the person or people I'm conversing with will automatically assume I support ever position popularly-ascribed to that doctrine or school of though.
No, I'm a Metaphysical Free-Agent, or as I like to put it simply, a Seeker. Does this mean I believe in nothing? Or that I'm some kind of milquetoast fence-sitter who is incapable of settling on a position on whatever issue? Or that I'm some kind of postmodern relativist who doesn't believe there is a such thing as objective truth? Or that I'm a perma-rebel who refuses to accept an external epistemological authority?
Well, maybe there's some truth to that last one. But for the other rhetorical-hypotheticals? No. In fact, I would say the idea that one must identify with a concrete belief system is something peculiar to an era encapsulating roughly the last 2000 years. Prior to that, it was quite normal for philosophers, seers, and other thinkers to professor their own peculiar beliefs and most especially to clash with the other known thinkers of their time. I'm reminded of Cicero, who was a sort of philosophical eclectic, drawing many influences from the Platonism from his time, and some ideas from the very popular Stoicism, yet not strongly identifying with any particular school. Many other Greco-Roman intellectuals of that time took a similar approach. Yet, most of these men were very pious, conservative, and patriotic. It's only in the modern era that it's popularly-assumed that to be conservative and loving of one's own culture/society, it's imperative to be "religious" in the dogmatic sense. Not being a "religious" person of this type must mean giving into the political opinions of liberals/leftists who are out to erode society, or whatever it is they are doing.
I don't think so.
The other charge that conservative and pseudo-traditional tryhards tend to issue forth is that not being "religious" though being "spiritual" at the same time must mean one buys into the usual grab-bag of "New Age" fluff that religious sectarians associate with any and all non-canonical spiritual ideas of the current time. No, in fact, the spiritual ideas I give most credence to tend to be rather ancient, yet they don't need to be boxed up in a book or some convenient collection of writings. So, yeah I think the implication that not "believing" in some closed set up beliefs makes one a "libtard" is quite silly and groundless. As if independent thinking and epistemological chaos are one in the same. Rather, it seems this sort of reflexive "conservativism" is just the usual lazy thinking and desperate search for easy answers that most people tend to default to in times of confusion. The kind of dogmatic religion we know too well, just be the only kind of religion, because that's what seemed to work in the recent past. Any inquiry beyond that is asking too many annoying questions and trying to introduce too much nuance and debate into what should be such a clear-cut issue.
On my own "beliefs" I could say that I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic ideas compared to the ideas of other philosophical schools. Yet I'm loathe to declare myself a "Platonist" partisan and box myself into a a limited set of concrete propositions on the nature of reality. I'd rather just keep asking questions and see what insights then come to me (for better or worse). With regard to any specific religion, the answer is a resolute "none of the above." I think all the big religions that have survived to this day are highly flawed and ill-suited to the present times we live in; not to mention, many of them are plagued/burdened by what I see is as just plain bad doctrines and dogmas. I'm sympathetic to polytheism as a concept, but I will not pretend for one moment that I hail from any of the cultures the old pagan cults came from. I like some ancient Greek motifs, but I am of course not an ancient Greek. Nor am I an ancient Germanic/Norse person. Nor pre-Christian Celtic, or anything of that nature. And I'm not going to start randomly cold-calling the various deities from those old traditions anytime soon. Again, I'm going to be patient and see what insights might or might not come to me.
In summary, I think there's much to be said for taking the humble position of being a Philosophical Independent, or simply a Seeker.
no subject
If you'll permit me to quote old Laozi:
no subject
no subject
no subject
Yeah, exactly! I agree this is where labels are most useful; in finding like-minded people to connect with.
On the topic of Druid groups, but sort of off topic wrt this post, I've been contemplating the combination of (a), the desire to join a Druid group, and (b) the overall fate of RD lately. I joined AODA not too long ago (though I haven't yet been active there), thinking they were the last "sane" organization of this type still around, i.e. not totally overtaken by the woke mind virus, especially given that its current form is one JMG was almost wholly responsible for reviving and stewarding. After joining, I read quite a bit of the org's literature and I was a bit off-put by the sheer amount of wishy-washy relativism, permissiveness (the seeming urge to be 'inclusive' of everything under the sun), and general female-orientation, that is so typical of new age, neopagan, and alt-spirituality groups in this era. Basically, RD in its current form is culturally an offshoot of the Neopagan scene, a scene that happens to be in a state of full-blown collapse right now. Thus I don't think it's a good idea to get involve with any of these groups right now, as they've all been infected by said woke virus. I recently read a rumor posted on one of these blogs that AODA itself is "imploding from wokeness"....I have no idea if there's any truth to that remark but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this were true, given everything above I've laid out.
Perhaps maybe it's time for an informal Druid "order" that is free from wokeness, new age fluff, and catty organizational politics?
no subject
The more I hear about the collapse of the neopagan/alt-spirituality scene of the last few decades, the more I try to remind myself to look on the bright side that JMG points out: it means that the only folks who stick around are here for more than the party.
As for an informal order, that certainly sounds reasonable, but I know that getting organizations to be functional and not to devolve into organizational politics is tough.
no subject
Finally, I think even the best and well-meaning organizations within the Neopagan/Alt-Spirituality fold are essentially defenseless against the woke onslaught. It's not so much these groups get "infiltrated" by wokesters; rather it's the membership base that has been in these groups all along is constantly downloading mental "software updates" via their preferred media echo chamber, and what typically happens is that next week the The Current Thing updates to some new cause-du-jour, and the rank and file start making demands on the leadership to "take a stand" against whatever The Current Thing is raging at the moment. If the leadership is evasive or does nothing, an even bigger stink is made until they capitulate; if still nothing is done, some kind of split or schism with the group happens and the "old faction" which refuses to get with the times is quickly denounced as being complicit or sympathetic with whatever the mob happens to be shrieking about. I think in most cases, otherwise-well-meaning leadership is weak or simply afraid of negative press or people being offended, thus they fold. And thus another one bites the dust.
You are right though that this whole shale-show might end up proving to be a very effective weeding-out process. All who will be left are those who were serious about spirituality the whole time.
no subject
Axé and all blessings...
no subject
The "need" for labels is almost always a response to someone else asking me, "so what are you?" I think most ordinary people find it difficult to converse about abstract things without the use of all-encompassing categories to guide their thinking (or really, to do their thinking for them).
no subject
no subject