NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/pagan/12979

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 7.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!news.netmbx.de!mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE!math.fu-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!duke!wolves!wolfe
From: [e-mail] (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: any atheist pagans out there?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:26:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
Lines: 142
X-Md4-Signature: 1f71d6d84931743085501e5fde18a276

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Reykja Sigurdsson) writes:
>G. Wolfe Woodbury ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>My main point remains that, in order to find meaning, we have to get out
>of the sick cycle this culture perpetuates. Produce-and-consume means
>absolutely nothing and has no significant value. Those who are caught
>up in that (which is bloody well most of us!) have to begin to look
>beyond that.

    Certainly, the human population of the planet has to realize
that there are limits to what the planet can tolerate in terms of abuse
of the limited natural resources there are.   I will freely admit that
all too often I forget this and go ahead and toss a metal can into the
landfill instead of tossing it in the recycling bin, or buy a six-pack
of cans with a plastic rings binding instead of putting them into a
paper sack.   (When I catch myself, I deduct 10 karma points from my
score and try to do better. :-)

>I fundamentally disagree with your premise that life is meaningful
>simply because it is life. Is anything meaningful simply because it
>exists?  I think not. Life's value is determined by that which we
>contribute to our environment. I don't see where we have contributed
>a lot. We have raped the earth beyond all comprehension, we live for
>self-gratification and sensation.
>
>I have always had a problem understanding the love-is-the-answer, New-Age
>ding-dongs who try to say that *all* life has value and it all has
>equal value. I have a problem with the idea that every action has
>meaning. Is the life of the mold in my refrigerator as valuable as that
>of your life or my own? Hardly!

    You're using the "royal we" again.  And that is what makes it
easy to get misled by what you are saying.  You're tarring everyone with
the same brush, not noticing that there *are* some folk who do take the
limitations of the planet seriously and who do choose "voluntary
simplicity" over the hedonistic and  self-centered mode of the popular
western culture.

    All life has an equal "base" value.  Action and intent can add
or subtract "value" to/from it.  Action has meaning, and a lot of
actions can have "value-null" meanings.  I will certainly agree that
there is a difference in the value of my life, and the life of a mold
growing on something I've stored in my refrigerator.  But that is a far
cry (a very far cry) from saying that the mold's life has NO value.

The mold's appearance "out of place" is a powerful reminder that we are
not the only life on this planet that counts.  That mold, growing in its
"natural" place is one of the planet's means of recycling organic
material.  If it happens to be a penicillium mold, it is also one of the
planet's hidden wonders that we happen to have discovered.

>: >: You have some kind of worth that they don't?
>:
>Okay! Okay! Grammar alert! I should have said 'we' instead of them.
>So pillory me!

    Yep, I'll be glad to take you to task for saying "we" without
qualification any time :-)

>: .  The implication is read from your statement that "Anyone who tries
>: to tell me that there is meaning and purpose in the mundane lives of
>: most people is full of crap."   I can't see much of any other way to
>: respond when you say that something is crap.
>:
>I can only say what my reaction would be. I would say "why do you think
>that is crap?" I would want to know the motivation for that conclusion.
>I would want more detail.

    There wasn't much room for that.  I suspect that you misspoke
yourself there.  And I overlooked the important qualification of "most"
which I will still disagree with.   Most folk live lives of quiet
desparation, struggling to survive in the face of humanities own
onslaught on itself.  If *most* folk were made aware of the limited
resources and the means that exist to live comfortably in harmony with
the rest of nature, then quality of life for most of the humans in the
world would take a turn upward. (Remember *most* of humankind does not
live in western eurasia or north america!)

>:     Life, in and of itself, is plenty of meaning.  The pure miracle
>: of life, totally without regard for the mental state of the liver, has
>: its own purpose.
>:
>And what is that purpose in your opinion?

    To add as much to the quality of other lives as possible, by
living in harmony with all life.

    That is the simple and trite answer, and one that works for me
in general.  Whether it works for you is another matter entirely.  I
will react strongly if something occurs that interferes with the choices
I wish to make in living my life.  I can only work to make sure that the
choices I make are the correct ones in view of my models and metaphors.

>:     You may not recognize the inherent worth of that life, or the
>: dignity that is due for the person *simply because they are alive*, but
>: I see in that life a spark of the divine, and I will honor that.
>:
>If that works for you, that's great. I choose to honor those who are
>deserving of honor. As I mentioned above, I disagree with the premise
>that all life has value. I can not say that the life of Adolf Hitler
>or Jeffrey Dahmer has value. It is an abberation.

    As I said above, actions can add or SUBTRACT from the "base
value" of a life. (Using an economic model.)   In hindsight, it can be
judged (yes J U D G E D !) that a particular human has taken actions
that negate the value of their life in relation to the lives of others.
Once that has been judged, I have just as much problems with such folk as
you apparently do.

    Let me ask you if you can agree that each life begins with an
equal inherent (potential, if you like) value?

    I will refuse to comment on the particular cases cited, since
anything said can and will be misconstrued due to the emotional charge
attached to the ones cited.

>There is not really much I can do about that. We disagree, clear and
>simple. But -- I will still look forward to your posts. I think they
>are thought-provoking and I truly enjoy them. You are obviously an
>extremely intelligent person, clear-thinking and interesting and I
>hope you will continue.
>
>Sometimes it is best to just agree to disagree.

Well, now that we have actually figured out enough about each other to
really start communicating, I can recognize that you have a set of
verbal patterns that I tend to misunderstand.  I think there is some
more basic agreement here than there is in specific disagreement over
the choices of words and how they are strung together.

I did say some harsh words, and at the time they were said, that is what
I thought.  After reflection, I would withdraw them (were it possible.)
The best that can be done is to appologize.  If what I said offended you
or was based on misunderstanding, then I'm sorry.  I find the resulting
discussion engaging and worthwhile.

                Wolfe
--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den, Durham NC    [This site is NOT affiliated  ]
[e-mail]            [with Duke University! Idiots!]
UUCP: ...!duke!wolves!wolfe      <Standard Disclaimers apply>
    Above All, we celebrate!  --Celebrate the Circle, Statement of Purpose.