April 15th, 2011 §
Why are people violent?
Years ago, during a visualization meditation on physical violence (I wanted to try and get at the root of it, to understand where it came from), I found myself on a path edged with tall, tangled bushes. Their branches were bowed with huge blossoms and masses of matted leaves. The air was hot and heavy with humidity, and the sun was high and blistering. Up ahead, around a corner, I could hear voices shouting in anger.
People say that humans are violent because it’s just in our nature to be so, but for me that isn’t a satisfying answer (and there is recent evidence against it). Even if it’s true, it doesn’t explain why it’s in our nature; and it offers no solutions for preventing or mitigating violence.

Something that also puzzled me was the high incidence of violence in European culture. Europeans and European-derived cultures have become much more peaceful in the last couple of hundred years, but for a long time we were among the most violent on earth. The histories of China, Japan, Africa, and the Americas are not bloodless by a long shot, but compared to the history of Europe, they’re like pacifistic fairy-tales. Of course there were wars in these areas, but they tended to be either brief periods of intense violence followed by long years of peace, or else millennia of small-scale, ritualistic tribal struggles. But from the end of Pax Romana to the World Wars, Europe has almost always been at war. You can get a visual, visceral view of this at this site, which maps all the wars and battles of human history on a single Google map.
It’s particularly odd because the religion of Europe during those two thousand years was Christianity, which preaches peace and love quite insistently. What’s going on here?
» Read the rest of this entry «
Similar Posts
March 28th, 2011 §
Every natural fact is a symbol of some spiritual fact. – Emerson
Most modern religions have doctrine: holy books, sacred scripture, lists of quoted dogma from sainted heads, annals of kings and battles adjudicated by the eternal powers, recipes for weddings and births and deaths, and so on. Beliefs to be memorized.
I’ve written at length about doctrine and dogma before, and I think it’s dangerous stuff. Instead of opening the mind and allowing spiritual growth and development, doctrine shuts everything down. It can be valuable to have blind faith in some things, for a while, at least; but to keep yourself open to the world and to Spirit, it’s essential to keep your mind alert to new experiences that might contradict your faith. You have to believe in something, but hold your beliefs lightly.
Pagans generally avoid doctrine. Instead of big books of instructions, we rely on two currents: tradition and nature.
» Read the rest of this entry «
Similar Posts
February 14th, 2011 §
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd Law
Do you agree with this statement?
I think that it’s true, in a certain limited sense, if you take “magic” to mean “something without rules, that can make anything happen.” I suppose it’s conceivable that technology could someday reach something like that point. I think that’s the meaning Clarke intended.
I also think it’s true in a very deep sense: technology, sufficiently advanced, really is magic. Magic — real magic — is a very powerful engagement with the world, spiritually and physically. It’s a way of finding that sweet spot where your personal goals and the patterns of the universe merge and align. Technology is really the same thing.
But Clarke’s Law is profoundly false if you think of technology as most people do: a non-spiritual exercise, in which the world is played with, manipulated as if it were nothing but raw material, rigidly bound by scientific law — and our own will. That has nothing to do with magic.
» Read the rest of this entry «
Similar Posts
February 2nd, 2011 §
I’ve been talking with Alison a lot over the past week about insanity — particularly insanity in societies. Obviously individual people can be insane — usually broadly defined as mental or emotional distress that interferes with functioning normally in society. But what would it mean for a whole community to be insane? Is that even possible?
Alison recently wrote a post on this over at Pagan+Politics, with some thoughts on the recent shooting in Tuscon. I’m not going to repeat everything she said there, but to summarize, some recent thinking suggests that aggregates of people can indeed collectively suffer from mental illness. In such a situation, the sane person is one who experiences mental or emotional distress.
» Read the rest of this entry «
Similar Posts