As we explain here, the Council's activities of community networking and writing are far from being unrelated to each other.

Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:48:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Antistoicus To: (our old mailing list) Subject: Council, Newsletter, was : parking,carpools, etc On Mon, 8 May 2000 Sally wrote: > ... Antistoicus said regarding editor for new mag > > ......... "aim is to make the choice of editor > ......... a consensus decision, that the Council will, > ......... in general, be happy with (or at least > ......... succeed in making it reasonably close to > ......... being one)." > > > ... Will only Council members have a say in > ... the running of this new publication or > ... is it open to all interested Pagans? Submission to the newsletter will be open to all interested local Pagans. Editorial decisions will be made solely by the staff, as they have been at preceding newsletters (eg. The Metaphysical Gazette and The Gathering). However, I would expect that Council members would probably be more active in the making of the newsletter (including the writing of articles) than most outsiders. I wouldn't suggest putting freedom of expression within the newsletter to a community-wide majority vote. Once the staff for a project is assembled, the project becomes autonomous. As I'm not about to propose taxation without representation, it is also understood that the staff becomes responsible for the expenses of the project. If they want funds from the rest of the council, they have to make a pitch to persuade people to give. One option, if we feel uncomfortable about donating the funds for, say, a desktop publishing program, to a relative stranger, would be for us to establish a legal not-for-profit organization, purchase the needed items in the name of the organization, and lend them out (with suitable receipts). One virtue of this approach, is that it allows us to advertise our events in the Reader (and maybe a few other places) for free. > ... What is the Council and what do they do? The simplest answer, is that the council is us. Well, at least offline. Online, it includes a few people who joined with me in the effort to put the Agora site together. Overall, it is a writers' group. Generally speaking, both on and offline, the Council is a meeting place, where people go to discuss their projects, and find people to join in on them. There are certain ideals that tend to be supported. Namely, the desire to promote a vibrant and cohesive local community, and respect for the rights and the dignity of the individual. (That last remark, in part, comes in response some of the nastier authoritarian tendencies too much of the community acquired during the Witch Wars of the Mid-90s). The first project, being done by the Online branch of the membership, is the listing of Pagan groups on The Agora. The value of this, as the listings are fleshed out, is threefold. First of all, it helps newcomer find groups in which they would be comfortable (thus, helping the community to grow, and the groups within it to enjoy a greater compatibility within their memberships). Secondly, it gives the reader who already belongs to a group, more of a sense of who those people in the other groups are, and thus facilitates the forming of bonds between them. (Or, at least it will, if we can get people to be a little more open). Thirdly, on the rare occasions when someone arises in the community, that newcomers should be warned about, we have the chance to see to it that those who approach him, do so with open eyes. For example, there is one group in this area, that on being questioned, defended its practice of charging $400 - 500 /class, after a lot of circumlocution, by saying that the hiring of caterers and professional musicians for their events ran up the bills, and putting the squeeze on those who felt drawn to them was a convenient way of raising money. Something like that shouldn't be anyone's introduction to Paganism. By helping people to avoid this sort of scam operation, we serve both the newcomer and the community we hope she will find herself at home in, alike. There is such a thing as a collective reputation to worry about. The newsletter in question would continue the work of helping the community to get to know itself, in detail, both the good and the bad. Further, in providing a place where the ideas of all can be heard, including those who are unpopular, we create open lines of communication in the community that can't be shut down by politicing. One can say (and some have) "let us shun that person, and all who associate with him", but it is very hard for our would-be rulers of the community to monitor who reads which article. This insures that dissenting voices can be heard and undermines the tendencies toward intolerant dogmatism that have defined not only the recent history of our community, but so much of the recent history of the larger society it resides in. But, it's not just serious philosophical, or political discussions that serve to bring us together. If we get a group of people together for the creation of a play, or the holding of a poetry or fiction writing night, aside from the ideas that may come out of the writing, those who take part are sharing a memory, and a non-passive bit of recreation, and that serves to form bonds. So, as our listing in the Agora indicates, we seek to achieve positive, conscientious change in the local Pagan community, through the Written word.

A note on the letter above :

In this way, we see that writing can serve the purpose of networking. The reverse is equally true. Networking broadens the base of experience a writer draws from as he writes, brings him into contact with others who he can collaborate with and learn from, and well as bringing him into contact with his audiences.

It truly amazes us how many alleged Pagans can't seem to grasp the idea that a writer (or bard) plays a role in promoting the cohesion of a society, yes, even when controversial. Perhaps, especially then, because he gives the listeners something to discuss. This is a concept that we certainly did not originate, as it has some millenia of precedent behind it.

What image could be more quintessentially Pagan than that of the crowd gathered around the storyteller (or the philosopher) as he speaks? For that matter, what image could be quintessentially Jewish, to this very day? The presence of these things are the mark of a culture that still lives and evolves, guided by reason, not blind obedience to authority or traditions that have long since ceased to have any meaning for those called on to follow them.

It is in the telling of stories that the traditional values and ways of the community are illustrated and preserved, in a manner that a simple expounding of doctrine would be inadequate to achieve. In any sane resolution of a conflict, for example, there will be a balancing of one good against another. No finite set of rules can capture this process, even in principle, as has often been argued, so at some point, common sense itself must intercede to amend the provisional codes of behavior that we work by. That which can not be defined by axiom, can only be defined by experience and example. This, our literature keeps us in mind of, or should.

When our values fail, as they inevitably must (*), it is in the writing of philosophy, that new values are first developed and explored and measured against that sense of the desirable, that common sense has brought us. How can somebody call himself Pagan and not understand these simple truths, that did so much to define the character of real Pagan societies when they existed ?



What have we seen instead, in a subculture that more and more, accepts a "cooperative" vacuousness as a substitute for substance in its discussions and gatherings? A 1990s - style politically correct call to "go along to get along", shrugging aside all complaints of the lunacy of what follows with a smirk and a nod, and a misplaced sense of victimhood when one discovers that the patience of one's increasingly put-upon neighbors is, indeed, an exhaustible resource. In the place of principle and common sense, those precious commodities that a respect for tradition puts within our grasp, one has a pecking order, and a craving for alliances, that allow one to rise within it.

But, the only way to rise is to shove another down. As alliances are maintained by the expectation that one will unfailingly come to an ally's support, all conflicts rapidly escalate, if neither party quickly submits. Each ally in turn, calls on another to support him, until the process is cut off, either by running out of unmobilized allies or by the fact that as one calls upon an ally, an ally higher in his personal pecking order has called on him to take the other side. (This, naturally, often ends what had passed for a friendship between him and the lower ranking ally).

Not only can a system not produce anything other than tyranny, it can not even produce a stable tyranny. For all to be guided by the same version of the pecking order, the lines of communication would have to be clear enough for the stories of the events that defined that order to be transmitted clearly. But local considerations, as higher ranked people (in one's own order) near one object to the transmission of this story or that, and demand either revision or silence, serve to insure that this would never be the case. End result, nobody ever quite knows where he stands in this mess, and so the wars never cease.



How ironic, that so often others will tell us to "go along to get along" for the sake of peace, when doing so serves to preserve those very institutions that guarantee that peace is never seen. For a situation to calm down, some would have to break rank and become the isolated targets of somebody's next outburst. The only exits from the situation are either capitulation (made doubly galling by a code that measures a man's value by his clout) or by departure from the circle of associations. Count the number of cases where one is told never to speak of person A to person B. Does this boundless respect for politics seem to be building community, or destroying it?



Given this, to those who tell us to choose whether we wish to write or build community, and foolishly speak of the "damage" that free and open discourse (and the questioning of the views of self-appointed elders) will bring, our response is this : when you speak of community, remember where it is, that it has been found and how it is, that it was maintained.



Click here to return.

(*) A very old argument : to create a set of rules that would rightly govern all decisions, one would have to have a perfect understanding of the human psyche, the nature of which determines that which is desirable for those who would live under that code and that which is not. But one can not even perfectly know oneself, so how is this understanding to be achieved?

The very act of getting to know oneself better is an experience, that will arouse thoughts and feelings that one can not help but react to, thus changing the very thing that one seeks to study - one's own character.

End result - perfect self-knowledge is a mirage that forever recedes from those who would seek to pursue it. Any formulation of Philosophy that claims finality has little to offer, but a false sense of confidence.