Speaking of high risk activities ... I'm about to give you a preview of articles that I haven't written, yet. Don't be too shocked if much of what you read is later revised or discarded altogether.
What does any of this have to do with "Hellenic Neo-Paganism"? Relatively little, as this isn't a Neo-Pagan group. Traditionalism is a far different movement, and some of what is done in the "politics" section, is set up one version of the culture of Traditionalism.
"So, you spent a few hundred pages of our time complaining about things that we already knew", is one response. But "we" didn't know anything of the sort, if "we" are the general readership. My very pseudonym, "Antistoicus", is a reflection of that fact : it was taken in protest against the lassez-faire attitudes that I had seen Stoicism and its modern religious sequels encourage (1). The acknowledgment of the notion that each human life, including one's own, is a thing that one is obliged to value, far from being universal, has been going out of fashion. It required a defense, as did the other values.
"Yeah, but you're just griping, and nobody wants to listen to that". But, I'm not, which is why this section isn't in a subdirectory of its own. It, in fact, is ever more richly intertwined with the rest of the arguments here. The defense of the valuing of life (Interview with a Brave Man), gives us one of our foundation stones for the construction of our view of the nature of the Divine, which in turn informs our decision to not establish or accept clerical orders at the Shrine. It all ties together.
"Yes, but what does this have to do with Hellenism?" The simplest answer is that we have to address practical concerns, if theological ones are ever going to be more than a hypothetical concern. However, that would not be the whole answer.
The pair of dictums that Hellenism is most closely associated with would have to be "know thyself" and "all things in moderation". "Know thyself", as I understand it, means that one is to be aware of one's own limitations, especially those that are an inescapable part of human nature. "Know thyself, and know thou art not God". Fallibility is most certainly part of human nature, and so is the unfortunate tendency for viewpoints to evolve toward dogmatism when not contradicted in speech or action. For moderation to exist at all, those trends that arise must meet with opposition should they go to an unwholesome extreme, and so the need for freedom is implied, by the acceptance of these two "laws". Our combined value set, then, would seem to be implied by those two classical teachings. One might suggest an examination of their moral implications, the Uniform Base Code merely being the start of such a discussion. Morality was very much a part of the old Polytheism, and, contrary to New Age practice, it is very much a part of Traditionalism as well.
Conversely, though, those who fail to "know themselves" and appreciate the limitations of their own viewpoints, will find it easy to assume an unearned Divine role and set aside the rights and freedoms of others for the "greater good" or even "for their own good". This much, history has taught us, and one might argue that this history was inevitable, once this failing was a given. "Know thyself" would seem to be a collary of the Universal Base Code.
"Now, wait a second!", might come the response. "In no fewer than two articles here, you speak of the moral obligations of the gods! Doesn't that run contrary to the dictate?" No, not at all, because even the gods aren't God, not in our view and not classically. Moros, the Fates, and the Virtues all existed on a level higher than that of the Olympians. So, if the Olympians should happen to set morality aside, they, theselves, for all of their greatness, would fail to "know themselves", and could rightly be called to task. Even our ancestors when praying, mere humans though they were, would do so, at times reminding the gods of their failings to live up to their own true natures.
What if we should discard the call for "all things in moderation"? Can the Uniform Base Code survive? This would seem unlikely. Extremes in matters of the body lead to harm to self, contrary to the call for benevolence toward self, and others. Extremes in the demands we make of ourselves, or others, would seem to directly undermine the value of limited egalitarianism, as the one of whom the heavier demands are made, would certainly not be getting treated in an equitable manner, even should that person be oneself. Patience taken to an extreme invites a lack of consideration in those lacking awareness (or concern) for the impact their actions have on others, as well as in those with an inadequate sense of self-control. This is a failing of civility on our part, for by electing to knowingly take a course of action that may be expected to lead to such consequences, we create uncivil conditions, with full knowledge of what it is that we are doing. Impatience taken to an extreme, violates that value in a more direct fashion.
On examination, it would seem that the Universal Base Code implies the classical dictates. Thus, we might anticipate a defense of those dictates, in the process of a defense of the Universal Base Code. So, which will it be, a defense of them, or an exploration of their implications? Both, of course, with the realization that neither task can ever be completed. An old metaphor applied to Mathematics applies equally well to Philosophy: it is like a tree, whose roots sink ever deeper, as its branches reach upward. The roots are the foundations of which we speak here. The branches are their implications.
Are we counseling intolerance, by attempting to argue for the necessity of these positions? No, not at all, unless one feels that the police are being "intolerant" when they refuse to allow a criminal to act on his belief that theft is morally permissible. One must have certain foundational assumptions in place, before a civilised discussion is even possible. Given those assumptions, however, a wide variety of viewpoints remains possible. Mainstream Christian thought is rooted in the Classical Philosophical tradition, but then, so is that of Rabbinic Judaism, and, some would argue, Liberal Islam. The directions these traditions have taken are certainly radically different. So, if I should decline to accept the Taliban at my table as equal partners in conversation, I shall do so without apology or regret, for I shall have plenty of company remaining.
Options ...
- return to the main page
- read the discussion about the Uniform Base Code of Morality,
in which this defense of the Hellenic dicta would find its roots
 |
||
| Conservative Pagans, Heathens and Traditionalists. | ||
(1) Yes, I know that isn't an outright opposition to Stoicism, as the name suggests, but Post-Stoic-Reformicus just doesn't roll off the tounge as well as one might expect.