Thursday, June 18, 2009

Socrates: still making people crazy after all these years

"Theorists have not been at a loss to explain; but they differ."
Aleister Crowley, Book Four, Part One

Liberal philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) portrayed Plato as possibly the world's first fascist, and one often hears people (who have probably never read a single word written by Popper, nor even know his name) mindlessly repeating something similar. Plato also has his defenders, including even Marxists, like Sean Sayers, as well as Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and his followers (yes - the people who brought us Neoconservatism and the invasion of Iraq).

Socrates, however, continues to stir even more controversy and disagreement than his most famous student - although it is easier to find actual detractors of Plato than of his teacher. Popper, even while condemning Plato as a totalitarian, lauded Socrates as a friend of democracy. Nietzsche had imagined Socrates to be his own "greatest, and closest, philosophical rival", while despising Plato (almost as much as he despised Christianity). Strauss, for his part, devoted most of his life to developing a theory of political philosophy largely centered on Socrates and his trial. Gregory Vlastos (1907-1991) spent most of his life chasing after a "real" Socrates that was largely a figment of his own imagination.

In 1988 leftist author I.F. Stone garnered attention by claiming that Socrates so despised democracy that he eagerly sought martyrdom in order to bring shame on it. Soon after Stone's book, Thomas Brickhouse and Nicholas Smith (together) along with C.D.C. Reeve (separately) published major book length studies putting forward a new (and deeply flawed - though not as badly as Stone's) interpretation that tries to turn Plato's Apology into just an ordinary piece of forensic rhetoric, rather than a daring, and soaring, defense of philosophy itself. And just recently the general public was subjected to screaming headlines declaring that "Socrates' trial and execution was completely justified, says new study"!!! Srsly.

During his lifetime, opinion about Socrates was even more divided than it is today. By the time he was brought to trial, at the age of 70, he had already been the target of a vilification campaign, led by some of Athens most prominent citizens, that had gone on for a quarter of a century. Among some Athenians, however, and especially among the young, he was wildly popular, even adored. Of course if it hadn't been for this popularity, his enemies would most likely have simply ignored him - or, if they had bothered to have him killed, it would have passed without notice and we certainly wouldn't still be discussing it today. Of course we are discussing it 2400 years later. And in another 2400 years there will likely (hopefully!) still be passionate debates about Socrates and his trial, while very few, if any, current day persons or events will be thought worthy of even passing consideration.

Socrates was mercilessly and masterfully ridiculed in Aristophanes' The Clouds, which was entered into the comedy competition of the City Dionysia in the year 423 BC, when Socrates was 45 years old. One story holds that Socrates was in attendance during the performance, and at one point stood up and cheerfully took a bow while the play was in progress. This was just one year (or possibly even less) after Plato was born, as well as being the time of a one-year truce in the ongoing war between Athens and Sparta (a detailed "chronology of the historical Socrates" can be found here).

The year before The Clouds was first performed, Socrates had distinguished himself by his heroism during the Battle of Delium (in which Athens was defeated by the Boeotians, who were allies of Sparta). Plato's dialogue on courage, The Laches, is named for the Athenian general in command at that battle, who praised Socrates as a model of bravery [181b]. According to Plato, Socrates was also a good friend of the famous Athenian general Nicias. We also know that Socrates was very close with the most famous, and most infamous, of all of Athens' military leaders, Alcibiades.

It is difficult to assess the extent and quality of Socrates' fame and/or notoriety during these years. Aristophanes' play came in third (out of three) in the competition when it debuted in 423, which could signal, among other things, that it's anti-Socrates message was not well received, or possibly that the viciousness of its humor was not appreciated (that is, regardless of its target). But Aristophanes continued to work on the play, revising it several times and circulating it privately in manuscript form, which indicates both that there was an audience for it, and that the author was determined to reach and cultivate that audience. In that way The Clouds might actually bear comparison to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which came out at a time when George W. Bush was still quite popular, but which nevertheless resonated strongly with a significant portion of the population.

We know that Aristophanes continued polishing The Clouds possibly as late as 417. Then in 415 Athens launched the disastrous Sicilian expedition. One night just before the ships were launched, nearly all of the Herms (ithyphallic statues of the God Hermes - the God of travel) of the city were desecrated. That blasphemous act, combined with the military debacle that then proceeded to unfold in Sicily, resulted in a climate of recriminations and near-hysteria (in the city whose patron was the Goddess of Reason and Wisdom). At least five of Plato's dialogues are named for associates of Socrates' who were arrested during this time. Soon afterwards, Socrates was once again attacked in a play by Aristophanes, The Birds.

In the coming years Athens went from defeat to defeat in her war with Sparta. Even when they won a victory in the Battle of Arginusae, the generals who commanded that battle were put on trial, accused of failing to come to the aid and defense of their own wounded men, as well as failing to to see to the burial of their dead. What followed was a show trial that violated Athens' own laws. Socrates, by luck of the draw, served on the presiding committee of the Council, where he was the only member, out of 50, who raised his voice against the way in which the proceedings were conducted. That was all in the year 406 - Athens never recovered from her "victory" at Arginusae, and within two years the Spartans were camped outside the city walls.

Under siege, the citizens of Athens elected a pro-Spartan government hoping to save themselves from the worst. During this time an attempt was made to pass a law forbidding Socrates from speaking to anyone under the age of 30, a chilling testimony to his popularity among the youth. That failed attempt to silence him also showed that he had enemies among the pro-Spartan camp, although it is usually assumed that Socrates himself had strong "Laconophile" tendencies.

Political turmoil in Athens continued for years. As was the case with the pro-Spartan crowd, Socrates had both supporters and detractors among the "democratic party" (which was also the "war party", the ones who had enthusiastically supported the disastrous war with Sparta). One of Socrates' closest and most devoted friends was Chaerophon, who was considered an especially hot-headed democrat. But when the pro-Spartan "oligarchs" were defeated in a "pro-democracy" uprising, Socrates' democratic enemies were determined to succeed where his oligarchic enemies had failed. Socrates' friend Chaerophon was among those who fought to bring the "democrats" back to power, although he had died before Socrates was charged and brought to trial.

One interpretation of the trial and execution of Socrates is that it represented an opportunistic move by his long time enemies who seized what they saw as a chance to settle an old score during a time of political instability and high emotions. In a word, Socrates was presented as a "scapegoat" for the plumetting fortunes of what had once been the Athenian "Empire". He had insulted, and quite publicly, many of Athens' most illustrious citizens with his blunt and often disarmingly folksy style of philosophizing. And, a true democrat at heart, he had also wandered among Athens' less aristocratic citizens, subjecting shoe-cobblers and others to the same public humiliation, with a charm that was not appreciated by many. During his "philosophic mission", as it is often referred to, it is said that he even suffered physical abuse at times, in response to his probing questions.

The important thing here is that Socrates was neither universally hated nor universally admired. He divided people. So once again we find yet another parallel with Martin Luther King. However powerful his enemies were, we can never forget that his supporters were also numerous, and some of them were quite prominent, and they even came from across the "political spectrum" of the day. Some indication of just how divided people were is given by the jury vote. Socrates insisted on mounting an unapologetic and thoroughly "philosophical" defense, and he even lectured the jury, warning them against the negative results to their souls if they acted unjustly and convicted him, while haughtily assuring them that he himself was unconcerned about what they might do to his body. And yet despite essentially daring them to convict him, they almost didn't.

When it comes to Socrates and King, we cannot rely on the opinions of others. Even, or perhaps especially, those who praise them, often offer little of substance, since they are mostly engaging in Santaclausification. And, besides, the essence of both of their messages was a direct, and even intimate, appeal to the intelligence and the conscience of the individual. Nor can we take refuge in "taking sides". Socrates, as already discussed, divided the two main political camps in Athens, in both of which he had ardent supporters and committed enemies. And in King's famous letter from a Birmingham jail he was taking to task precisely those who claimed to be on his side. We must decide, then, for ourselves.

As Seneca wrote:
Away with the opinions of mankind, always uncertain, always a split vote.
[Epistles XXVI]
And also
Yes, I do not change my opinion: avoid the many, avoid the few, avoid even the individual.
[Epistles X]

Iran, 2009: "Revolutionary moments change everything"

Move over Al Jazeera. My favorite source of information on Iran is now another "Al", that ever irrepressible enemy of oppressors everywhere, Al Giordano of Narconews. His long analysis piece, Iran: A 1930s Level Crossroads for the International Left, includes eyewitness accounts, freshly translated from Farsi, of the crowd, that may exceed 1 million strong, gathered right now in the heart of Tehran, honoring those who have been killed or injured during the last 6 days of protests.

Giordano has the infectious optimism that is the sign of a true revolutionary. There is plenty to be depressed about in this world, and there is no guarantee that the protest movement in Iran won't be drowned in its own blood, or, worse, won't turn into yet another verse in Won't Get Fooled Again. But as Al Giordano points out, at least for now we can all take "pleasure at seeing People Power rise up" - except, of course, for anyone who doesn't take pleasure in such things.

Al's analysis is that what the people of Iran are doing right now has the potential to do nothing less than change everything. Gods, I hope he's right!

Keep an eye on Narconews in the coming hours and days. Al promises that they will be posting English translations of news coming straight out of Iran in Farsi, news that is almost impossible to get even inside Iran, with greater and greater frequency as this continues to play out.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Immanence v. Transcendence: a false dichotomy

[This is the first part of a three part series. Here is Part Two, and Part Three.]

Of the Isha Upanishad, Gandhi-ji said that if
all the other scriptures ... were reduced to ashes, and if only the first verse of the Isha Upanishad were left in the memory of Hindus, Hinduism would live forever.
Fortunately we have not only the first verse, but the whole of this marvelous teaching. Other translations might be more technically accurate, but in my opinion Eknath Easwaran's is the most beautiful:
The Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.
The Lord is the supreme Reality.

Rejoice in him through renunciation.
Covet nothing. All belongs to the Lord.

Thus working may you live a hundred years.

Thus alone will you work in real freedom.


Those who deny the Self are born again

Blind to the Self, enveloped in darkness,

Utterly devoid of love for the Lord.


The Self is one. Ever still, the Self is
Swifter than thought, swifter than the senses.

Though motionless, he outruns all pursuit.
Without the Self, never could life exist.


The Self seems to move, but is ever still.

He seems far away, but is ever near.

He is within all, and he transcends all.


Those who see all creatures in themselves

And themselves in all creatures know no fear.

Those who see all creatures in themselves

And themselves in all creatures know no grief.

How can the multiplicity of life
Delude the one who sees its unity?


The Self is everywhere. Bright is the Self,

Indivisible, untouched by sin, wise,

Immanent and transcendent.
He it is
who holds the cosmos together.

In dark night live those for whom
The world without alone is real; in night

Darker still, for whom the world within
Alone is real. The first leads to a life

Of action, the second to a life of meditation.

But those who combine action with meditation

Cross the sea of death through action

And enter into immortality

Through the practice of meditation.

So have we heard from the wise.


In dark night live those for whom the
Lord
Is trancendent only; in night darker still,
For whom he is immanent only.

But those for whom he is transcendent
And immanent cross the sea of death

With the immanent and enter into

Immortality with the transcendent.
So have we heard from the wise.


The face of truth is hidden by your orb
Of gold, O sun. May you remove your orb

So that I, who adore the true, may see

The glory of truth. O nourishing sun,
Solitary traveler, controller,

Source of life for all creatures, spread your light

And subdue your dazzling splendor

So that I may see your blessed Self.

Even that very self am I!


May my life merge in the Immortal

When my body is reduced to ashes.
O mind, meditate on the eternal Brahman.

Remember the deeds of the past.

Remember, O mind, remember.


O God of Fire, lead us by the good path
To eternal joy. You know all our deeds.

Deliver us from evil, we who bow

And pray again and again.


OM shanti shanti shanti

Iran: what's goin' on?

For my money the place to go for real journalism on what is going on in Iran is good old Al-Jazeera.net. In addition to the fascinating analysis piece by UC Irvine Prof (and world-music rock-guitarist) Mark Levine that I already blogged about, here's what else they have to offer right now (there are also two non-Al Jazeera pieces by Robert Fisk if you scroll down):

The latest on today's opposition protest in Tehran:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009617151249642655.html

An analysis piece on why the US govt isn't crazy about either side in the election dispute:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009616235841279404.html

A video piece on the increasing censorship in Iran:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961710038288858.html

An unsigned analysis piece largely based on quotes from Robert Fisk:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009616105827477948.html

Another unsigned analysis on the "deeper power struggle" between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009616184556951795.html

And much more.

Speaking of Robert Fisk, here are two (very) recent items by him:
Iran's Day of Destiny (from the UK Independent)
Extraordinary Scenes: Robert Fisk in Iran (from the australian "abc news" website)

I know some people might find the whole idea of actual news and analysis written by actual professional journalists just so, you know, 20th century. But I am basically a luddite and a reactionary, when it comes right down to it.

I do wish cursor.org was still around. Sniff ... sniff. Man, they were the absolutely the best leftish meta-news site ever in the history of teh internets!!

Iran on the brink?

Mark Levine is a musician with a degree in Comparative Religion who also happens to be a Professor of History at the University of California at Irvine. As a rock guitarist he has performed with Mick Jagger, Chuck D, Michael Franti and Doctor John. He is also fluent in Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish, Persian, Italian, French and German. Someone really needs to tell this guy that no one likes a show off!!!

Anyway, Levine has a piece right now over at Al-Jazeera online in which he poses the musical question: will the current turmoil in Iran turn out to be more like Czechoslovakia in 1968, or more like Czechoslovakia in 1989??

But since this blog is largely focused on classical Paganism, and on ancient Pagan philosophy in particular, let me zero in on one particular aspect of what Levine has to say:

It seems that the Iranian elite has been caught similarly off-guard, and is still trying to read its own society to understand how broad is the societal discontent reflected in the mass protests.

This calculus is crucial - in some ways more so than whether the results are legitimate or, as some claim, electoral fraud.

It will determine whether the Iranian power elite - that is, the political-religious-military-security leadership who control the levers of state violence - moves towards negotiation and reconciliation between the increasingly distant sides, or moves to crush the mounting opposition with large-scale violence.

A lot depends on what the elite thinks is actually happening on the ground, and why the alleged fraud unfolded as it did....

What seems evident as the crisis deepens is that Ayatollah Khamenei, who most commentators have long assumed holds near absolute power in the country as Supreme Leader, is in a weaker position than previously believed. The collective religious and military leadership, along with the Revolutionary Guard, will likely have a lot of input into determining what course the government takes.

And it is certainly questionable whether these factions have shared core interests during this crisis, as the Revolutionary Guard - from whose ranks President Ahmadinejad emerged - is both culturally more conservative and economically more populist than much of the political and religious leadership.

The religious establishment is itself split into hard-line, moderate and more progressive factions, each of whose members are tied to factions within the economic, political and security elite, producing a complex and potentially volatile set of competing and contradictory loyalties and interests.

Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's decisions in the coming days will be telling.

In other words, it appears that Iran might be experiencing (possibly in the very beginning stages) the classic precondition for revolutionary change: a split in the ruling class. Plato first pointed out the crucial role of divisions within the ruling class in Book VIII of his Republic:
Clearly, all political changes originate in divisions of the actual governing power; a government which is united, however small, cannot be moved.
In this section of the Republic, Plato is especially critical of oligarchy, "a form of government which teems with evils". Plato considers oligarchy to be the form of government natural for those who "honour and look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonour the poor man." Plato says (or, more precisely, he writes in the Republic that Socrates said) that choosing political leaders based on wealth is as stupid as choosing the captain of a ship on a similar basis, while "a poor man were refused permission to steer, even though he were a better pilot?" The inevitable result for such a ship is shipwreck, and even more so is the case for a society that picks its rulers in such a way, for
such a State is not one, but two States, the one of poor, the other of rich men; and they are living on the same spot and always conspiring against one another.
If anything, "oligarchy" describes the United States of America at least as well as Iran! The two main differences, however, are that in the USA the people don't care (or are at least complacent), and the rulers are united.

[All pictures are from Mark Levine's extremely excellent flickr photostream.]

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Paganism has always been a Magical Religion

[This is the fifth in a series on What is Paganism?]

What's Love got to do, got to do with it?
In his Witches Druids and King Arthur, Ronald Hutton claims that ancient Pagans (in addition to having no theology at all) made a "sharp distinction" between religion and magic, whereas modern Pagans "dissolve" such distinctions. For many decades it was fashionable to insist, as Hutton still does here, on a nice straight bright line separating magic from religion in the ancient world. But "scholarly consensus" is ever fickle in her affections, and now she is no longer returning Hutton's phone calls. Here is what one group of experts wrote in 2003 (the same year that Witches Druids and King Arthur was published) in their Introduction to a collection of papers presented at a conference that had occurred in 2000 (emphases added):
[R]ecent work has provided compelling documentation for the broad area of overlap between 'religion' and 'magic' in the Graeco-Roman world. From the courtrooms of classical Athens, there is ample evidence for the deployment of magical rituals, objects, and words. These written, spoken, or sung words--whether we call them spells, incantations, or charms--draw upon a ritual and conceptual vocabulary closely linked to the 'official' forms of civic and public prayer. In contrast to earlier scholarship, which tended to see such shared elements as evidence for magicians' surreptitious appropriation of public religion, recent scholarship has preferred to view 'magical' and 'religious' practices as part of a continuum that encompassed both individual and communal forms of piety.
[Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World, p. 2]
I suppose one cannot expect scholars to just come right out and admit that they had been barking up the wrong tree, let alone an imaginary tree. And therefore they must claim that "recent work has provided compelling documentation" .... to the effect that they had been very wrong about the nature of the relationship between religion and magic. The problem is almost certainly attributable to hyper-specialization, for anyone familiar with Plato would know full well that according to one of the most famous passages in all of ancient philosophy, the priestess/philosopher Diotima had taught young Socrates, as part of his education in Love, that through the good offices of Eros
all divination is made possible, and the science of the priests and of the specialists in sacrifices and initiations and spells, and all prophecy and goeteia.
[202e-203a]
The Greek goeteia is variously translated as "sorcery", "magic", "witchcraft", "enchantment", and so forth, whereas the Greek word here translated as "spells" is epodas, which is often translated as "incantations". The important thing is that "divination ... the science of priests ... sacrifices and initiations ... and all of prophecy" - are all very conventional aspects of traditional Greek Paganism. But the same principle (Eros) lies behind those mainstream, respectable aspects of Pagan religion and also behind "spells" and "sorcery". The implication is that "proper" religion (divination, priestcraft, sacrifice, initiation) and "magic" (incantations and enchantment) are just different manifestations of, or possibly even just different words for or ways of looking at, the same underlying phenomenon.

The same section of the Symposium also tells us this about Eros:
being in between both [Gods and humans], it fills the region between both so that the All is bound together with itself.
[202e]
As already mentioned in a previous post (but this definitely bears repeating) Plato's Symposium posits a Cosmos densely populated with many different varieties of spiritual beings, and among these are Eros and the other Daimones, who are liminal, intermediary beings actively "binding" everything in the Cosmos to everything else. So not only was there, undeniably, Pagan theology centuries before Christianity existed, this theology was both magical and erotic.

Magic as a subversive activity
Lets look more closely, and practically, at the relationship between "magic" and "religion" in ancient Paganism. James Rives gives some indication of just how false the "magic versus religion" dichotomy is when he discusses "Religious options" in his Religion in the Roman Empire:
In the Roman world as in our own, different people had different tastes in matters of religion. Some found comfort in the familiar, and valued the practices and beliefs that were current in their communities and that they had known all their lives. Others, by contrast, were attracted to what seemed remote from ordinary life, esoteric traditions reputedly handed down from the distant past or imported from an exotic foreign culture. In the Roman world, as in our own, the two qualities "ancient" and "foreign" often went together, since Greeks and Romans believed the cultures of the Near East to be much older than their own (in many cases quite rightly). Yet the Greek tradition had its own ancient religious authorities, and they also played an important role....

While anyone could pray and make offerings, and even interact directly with the Gods through oracles, dreams, and visions, some people claimed a special connection with the divine that gave them insights and abilities unavailable to ordinary people. Within the normative Graeco-Roman tradition, the socio-economic elite tended to view such charismatic religious leaders with suspicion, inasmuch as they constituted a potential threat to their own authority ... [y]et they flourished all the same, if more often on the fringes of the mainstream Graeco-Roman tradition than near its center.

[p. 159]
Rives describes a spectrum of religious options, as he calls them, available to ancient Pagans. These options included local, well established practices that were conventional and respectable in the most dull and ordinary senses of those words. Another option might consist of foreign practices that were nevertheless even more ancient, and in some cases perhaps even more prestigious and respectable, than one's own local cults. Or one could go further afield and explore religious options that left both familiarity and respectability far behind. But, as Rives also discusses in his book, Roman law criminalized certain options, including, especially, "magic".

A superficial interpretation of just such legal proscriptions against magic (combined with, among other factors, ignorance of Plato) helps to explain the falsely imagined dichotomy between magic and religion that characterized much of late 20th century scholarship. What, exactly, was actually meant by laws prohibiting "magic"? An invaluable source for understanding this is Apuleius' Apology, the only written account that we have from the ancient world of a trial in which someone is accused of illicit magic. In his account (of his own trial) Apuleius spends little time denying the specifics of the charges against him, according to James Rives (in the above mentioned book):
Apuleius denies very few of these allegations outright, and argues instead that his accusers have misinterpreted his actions, which in fact result from his philosophical and religious interests.
[p. 192]
Before looking at Apuleius' trial in more detail, lets first stop and take a moment to look at a more recent, and, to us, far more famous, legal proceeding.

In a letter written from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., explained that 'We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal"'.

King then goes on to state that he had
almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Interestingly, the name of Socrates is invoked three times in that famous letter. According to King, Socrates "practiced civil disobedience", had an "unswerving commitment to truth", and "felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."

I bring up Martin Luther King in order to highlight just how ambiguous our notions of "criminality" and "legality" can be. Hitler did not break any laws, but the "founding fathers" did, as did civil right activists during the 60's. Apuleius' trial also highlights this same ambiguity (albeit in a very different way - although perhaps not as different as one might think at first) as discussed by Rives here:
The trial thus seems in an important sense to have turned on the issue of acceptable religious behavior. The great interest that some people had in religious arcana must have appeared to others as beyond the pale; if in addition they perceived it as in any way a direct threat, they could attack it as magic.... If, as Apuleius apparently did, the accused could persuade the presiding official that his behavior fell within the limits of the normal, he could hope to be found innocent; if he failed to do so, however, the official would have little hesitation in condemning him. In this respect, trials for magic were at their heart a context in which Roman authorities and the people of the empire could work together to determine the limits of acceptable religious interests and activities.
[p. 193]
It's important to emphasize that where "magic" was viewed as a crime in the Graeco-Roman world, this only applied to malefic magic, either in the sense that it is intended to harm specific individuals, or in the broader sense that it is seen as harmful to society in general. I should point out that the the modern Wiccan tradition that I belong to also absolutely prohibits any kind of malefic activity of any sort. And, for that matter, the Wiccan Rede itself forbids anything that violates the principle "an it harm none". And just such an absolute commitment to non-harming also lay at the heart of the non-violence philosophy of the civil rights movement of the 60's. In a very real sense, both King and Apuleius present the same basic answer to their accusers: their actions, far from being harmful to others (or to society as a whole), were based on sound philosophical and religious principles that, in theory, society at large upholds and recognizes as beneficial.

There is, of course, nothing more subversive in the eyes of the powers-that-be than exposing the ignorance and hypocrisy of the leaders and rulers of society. If we now set Apuleius aside for a moment, we can see that just this kind of subversion was central to the "missions" of both Socrates and King. In Socrates' case he exposed the fact that those who were thought most wise by their fellow Athenians did not, in fact, understand the true meanings of either virtue or piety, nor did they possess even the beginnings of self-knowledge. When brought to trial Socrates mounted a philosophical defense, and treated the jury just as he had treated the politicians, poets and shoemakers. As for King he argued that those "white moderates" who imagined themselves to be the best friends the civil rights movement had, were, in fact, "the Negro's great stumbling block" because they were "more devoted to 'order' than to justice." In their devotion to order, these white moderates exposed their ignorance of the underlying principle of Justice, the principle of which social order should be a reflection. Like Socrates, King paid for his convictions with his life, and did not hesitate to do so.

Apuleius's case is rather different, but also has important parallels to that of Socrates and King. Apuleius' accusers were powerful individuals, but they did not enjoy the broader societal support of either Socrates' enemies or the white moderate clergymen addressed by King in his letter. Nevertheless Apuleius still makes the same basic kind of appeal by showing that the those who had brought charges of "magic" against him did so only out of their own ignorance of the basics of religion and philosophy. Socrates, Apuleius and King all address themselves to "higher" principles that go far beyond the mindset of those who oppose them.

Precisely here is revealed the great danger, in the eyes of some, posed by people like Socrates, Apuleius and King. Such individuals pose a challenge to those who want to control who is authorized to speak about virtue, piety, philosophy and justice. Those who are able to convincingly present themselves as understanding and even personally representing such principles have tremendous potential power, a power that is truly magical in its seemingly "supernatural" ability to work outside of or even in direct opposition to the established "order".

The "sharp distinction" that Hutton and others have tried to insert by assertion between magic and religion is not, after all, only a figment of the imagination of misinformed scholars. There are always those who wish to exert control over who is, and who is not, an authority on matters pertaining to religion and morality. But even when they succeed their success can only ever be partial. In part this is because of the natural tendency of people (or at least some people), if only out of curiosity (a major theme of Apuleius' most famous work, The Metamorphoses), to explore and experiment with various religious options (including magic). Even worse, though, for those in power (or who wish to be, or imagine themselves to be) is the case of individuals who have made it their business "to create a tension of the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal." This leads to (possibly deadly) conflict with those who prefer "a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice."

What I am talking about (and what Socrates, Apuleius and King clearly represent) is not mere "anti-authoritarianism" for it's own sake. Fortunately there is something far more subtle, profound and powerful than a juvenile rebelliousness directed against all those in charge. This is resistance to those who exercise their power unjustly, or who attempt to do so. There is no escape from this criterion. It is not authority itself that is opposed, it is injustice. "Order" is not rebelled against just because it is "orderly", but precisely because it is only superficially orderly, because it fundamentally diverges from the inherent order of the kosmos. But natural "laws" can never be truly violated. If an apple appears to fall up, that just means some force has impelled it upwards, and if one continues to observe the apple carefully it's trajectory will trace out a parabola, or "gravity's rainbow" as Thomas Pynchon called it.

In addition to the complacency of those committed to "order", King also had to face the accusation that in Birmingham he was an "outside agitator". To which he responded:
I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all.
King's appeal to "interrelatedness" is a good place to end this rambling investigation into religion and magic. Interrelatedness is not only fundamental to both Martin Luther King's ethical world-view, and to Plato's erotic cosmology, it is also a key principle of Mahayana Buddhism, as I discussed earlier in a post on "Fractal Buddhism". And it is the essence of Wicca as a magical religion.

Paganism is not a European religion

[This is the fourth in a series of posts on the question What is Paganism? Also see this follow-up post.]

One thing that confounds and obstructs our ability to understand modern Paganism's deep connections with the past is the pervasive and pernicious idea that Paganism is European. Essentially this boils down to Paganism being viewed as some kind of indigenous religion for white people, not to put too fine a point on it.

Take, for example, the very popular A History of Pagan Europe by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick. Nearly one third of that book (Chapters 2, 3 and 4) is devoted to "Greeks" and "Romans", but Jones and Pennick fail to appreciate and communicate the fact that Greco-Roman civilization was in no meaningful sense "European".

After Alexander's conquests (334-323 BC, see blue area in map to the right, which was found online here), the Hellenistic world lay primarily in Asia and Africa, not in Europe. In fact, the center of "Greek" culture for at least the next half millenium would be the Egyptian city of Alexandria. And when the Roman Empire was at it's peak, Alexandria was its second largest city and the third largest was the Greek-speaking Asiatic metropolis of Antioch (these were probably the three largest cities in the world - at a time when the Roman Empire may have comprised as much as 1/4 the entire human population). And as far as Rome itself goes, the patrician class of that city was proud to claim descent from the Asiatic Trojans.

The demographic, cultural and economic center of gravity of the Roman Empire was always in the Greek-speaking east. This point is driven home by the fact that when the western Empire devolved into "successor states", where there then ensued a centuries long cultural decline known quaintly as the Dark Ages, the eastern empire (which continued to be called, simply, Rome, and whose ruler continued to be known as far away as Britain as, simply, the Emperor) remained a militarily powerful, politically coherent, and culturally advanced Empire for centuries to come. The so-called "Byzantine" Empire reached the peak of it's power in the year 550 AD under the Emperor Justinian (see green area in map to the right), and five hundred years later it was still the most powerful state in the mediterranean (see map from 1045 AD to the left - both this and the previous map are taken from here). The Byzantine state went into serious decline in the 12th century, only to experience a resurgence in the late 13th century. But even as its political and military power steadily eroded in the 14th and 15th centuries, it still remained a great center of culture and learning, especially compared to western europe, where Plato and Homer had been unavailable for centuries, even in translation. And even when Byzantium came to an end as a political entity (in 1452), its learned scholars fled to western Europe, especially Italy, and became part of the impetus behind the Renaissance.

Those who wish to portray Paganism as European usually (and revealingly) go further and posit neatly separable ethnically based hyphenated Paganisms, anachronistically reflecting national "identities" that arose in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries (along with other pleasant ideas such as "racial purity"). A look at the map of ancient Italy (where Greeks, Phoenicians, Celts and Etruscans were among the more important populations - map taken from here) shows just how doomed and ridiculous such a paradigm is. The first historical attestation of people speaking a Celtic language actually occurs in Italy with the sack of Rome by Cisalpine Gauls in 387 BC (Rome would not be entered by hostile forces again for nearly 8 centuries). Both Livy and Vergil were from Gallia Cisalpina, and may have been ethnic Celts themselves.

Ancient Pagans turn out to have been quite cosmopolitan, which is only reasonable since they invented the word in the first place! The cosmopolitanism of (most) modern Pagans is, therefore, yet another way in which we reflect the proud traditions of our ancient Pagan ancestors. For more on cosmopolitanism in ancient Paganism see my previous series of posts on Prisca Theologia. For a closer look at the non-European roots of classical Greek civilization in particular see the the writings of Walter Burkert, especially his The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greece in the Early Archaic Age and Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture, and also M.L. West, especially his East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Literature. M.L. West wrote in the introduction to his edition of Hesiod's Theogony that "Greece is part of Asia; Greek literature is a Near Eastern literature."

Monday, June 15, 2009

Pagans, Christians and "Charity"

Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick state in their A History of Pagan Europe that Christians were the first human beings to ever "introduce" the world to "charity, the idea of the spiritual worth of the poor", and, not satisfied to leave it as an implication, they explicitly assert that the idea of charity was one "not shared by the many cults of the Pagan world." Jones and Pennick further assert that "Christianity was from the start a socially revolutionary movement." [p. 60]

It is crucial to understanding where Jones and Pennick are coming from, I think, to see clearly that they are not interested in simply giving Christians whatever credit they might deserve for their charitable works. They feel compelled to claim, falsely, that the idea of helping poor people was not only foreign and strange to ancient Paganism, it was something viewed with hostility and even actively resisted by Pagans because "Pagan society was deeply stratified and snobbish."

However, Geoffrey Rickman points out in his Roman Granaries and Store Buildings, that in distributing food to the needy "in fact, the Church had taken upon itself, although in a smaller way, the distributions and frumentationes of the [Pagan] Roman Empire." [p. 157 - emphasis added] Centralized distribution of food, an absolute pre-requisite for the existence of cities in the first place, had, at least in Rome, always included free distribution of food to the poor and tight regulation of food prices. O.F. Robinson in his Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration goes so far as to state that food, "subsidized or free", along with amusements, were the true "opiate of the masses" in Pagan Rome. This is hardly an obscure bit of information known only to a few specialists, as anyone familiar with the origins of the phrase "bread and circuses" knows perfectly well.

Not only did Pagan Rome already have an extensive and systematic distribution system for providing food to the poor (and price subsidies for everyone else), centuries before Jesus came along, but this was done under the auspices of the Goddess Ceres. Interestingly, in addition to being the Goddess of Grain, Ceres is also sometimes (and not without justification) referred to as the Goddess of the Plebs, that is, the plebian class (which essentially included all Roman citizens who were not patricians). Some scholars have suggested that the frequency with which Ceres appears on coinage during the late Republic is evidence of attempts (by those in charge of issuing the coins) to garner the support of the plebs. The association of Ceres with the plebs probably goes back to the earliest days of the Roman Republic (for more on Ceres and the plebs see Barbette Stanley Spaeth's The Roman Goddess Ceres, especially the third section of the first chapter: The Early Republic, as well as the entire fourth chapter, which is devoted to The Plebs).

Elsewhere in this blog I have already discussed the strange notion of Christianity as a force for "social revolution" (here, here and here). Please see those posts for the gory details (and numerous references). The simple fact is, as everyone knows, that Christianity's "triumph" in the ancient world did not result in the springing up of egalitarian utopian societies - or even in modest, incremental improvements for slaves, the poor, women, or any other social group.

Jones and Pennick cite Robin Lane Fox's Introduction to his 1986 Pagans and Christians to support their statements about Christian charity (and the Pagan lack thereof). My 1987 Alfred Knopf hardback (American) edition of that book has a Preface, but no Introduction, and that Preface does mention Christian charity, but Fox's words do not in any way resemble those of Jones and Pennick. Fox also discusses charity later on, in his chapter on The Spread of Christianity (chapter 6). But as Fox points out in that chapter, where Christians had their "charity", Pagans had "philanthropy". And as far as "social revolution" goes this is what Fox has to say about the supposed idealism of Christianity concerning the less fortunate: "Christians did not always live up to it [surprise!], least of all in their attitude to the slaves whom they continued to own: if Christian women beat their maidservants to death, so an early council in Spain decided, they were to be punished with several years communion. The mild scale of punishment was hardly less revealing than the existence of such sinners." [p. 323] Fox also points out that Christianity inherited the practice of giving alms from "the synagogue communities", as well as inheriting the idealization of "abject poverty" from "its Jewish heritage". [p. 324]

More on Paganism, Christianity, and "Charity":
  1. On the Emperor Julian's supposed admiration and emulation of Christian "charity" (July 3, 2009)
  2. "An inescapable network of mutuality" (July 8, 2009)
  3. World Vision: Only Christians Need Apply (January 12, 2010)
  4. Comparing World Vision and Hezbollah (January 14, 2010)
  5. US Gov't Funding Cultural Genocide in Haiti (January 21, 2011)
  6. "Travesty In Haiti": The truth about Christian missions, food aid, etc (January 25, 2011)

How it's done

Why didn't we see anything like this in the US in November, 2000???

I'm pretty sure this is how you are supposed to react when an election has been stolen.