What's in a name?

Why "egregores"?

An egregore is almost, but perhaps not quite, a living Being. It is not quite a living being in the full sense because it probably does not have sufficient independence to be called that. Yet it is alive, aware and intelligent (after a fashion), and very active. An egregore comes into existence through the interactions of mortal human beings and divine Beings. This is where the dependency of the egregore comes in. An egregore must be sustained by the ongoing interactions of humans and Spirits, or else the egregore will dissipate and cease to exist.

An egregore is more "real", stable, and powerful than your average "group mind" astral thingy. But it is "lower" than a God-form. God-forms can (thank the Gods) survive for long periods without much (but probably not without any) active participation of human beings. A God-form is not a God, but rather, as the name implies, the "form" of a God that is knowable by humans.

I have read more precise Qabalistic definitions of egregores, especially in the writings of Denning and Phillips (Ogdoadic Magi extraordinaire). Bascically when a sufficient number of people over sufficiently long periods of time share a common set of symbols, ritual acts, etc, with respect to some specific God or group of Gods, a new Being is created: an egregore. The Gods being worshipped already existed, but these Gods have responded to some particular group of humans who have called upon Them. So an egregore is basically a relationship, one might even get all Biblical and say that an egregore is a covenant. But it is not just that - it is a covenant "come to life". And like all that is born, it is mortal.

I like to think of an egregore as a dance in which one partner is human and the other divine. The music is all of the rituals, iconography, etc, that defines a particular "tradition". When the humans and divinities come together, they strike up the music ... and the dance begins.

Gabriel Emerson has put together a compilation of definitions of "egregore":
http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/gegregor.html

And here is an essay written by occultist Walter Ernest Butler of the Servants of the Light Mystery School:
http://www.servantsofthelight.org/knowledge/butler-egregore.html

And here is an essay by Phil Hine:
http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/ess_egregore.html

My interest in the word comes from the fact that an egregore, to the limited extent that I understand the term, only comes into existence when a given spiritual path is lived. It is not a result of mere "belief", it can only come about as a result of what Gandhi-ji called "a constant heart-churn". When Gandhi said that he was talking specifically about renunciation, but really I think he was describing devotion in the truest, widest, and best sense. One common perspective found in Hinduism is that there are (at least) four kinds of Yoga: bhakti (devotion), jnana (knowledge), raja (meditation), and karma (works). I think this is a useful idea - but only if it realized that (1) we must have all four, and (2) bhakti takes precedence over the other three.

Of course the greatest of care is called for in deciding what to devote oneself to.

[The cool image at the top of this post is the logo for a small publishing house called Egregore Press, with which I have no affiliation. But they do have a catchy name, don't they?]

The varieties of sceptical thought, Part Two: Don't know much about ... death

"A highly peculiar masterpiece"
In his Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius nonchalantly tells us that Socrates was "the first to discourse on the conduct of life, and the first philosopher who was tried and put to death." Diogenes does not offer an opinion as to whether or not these two things are connected, but even if it is not his intention, he certainly raises that question.

In what way did Socrates "discourse on the conduct of life"? Socrates was concerned especially with what he called "the proper care of the soul", but it must be emphasized that for Socrates "caring for the soul" was not some special activity set apart from the rest of one's life, it is something that permeates every aspect of living one's life. In fact, more than anything else, how we care for our souls is synonymous with how we live our lives, at least in Socrates' view.

Socrates dedicated himself to discussing with his fellow Athenians how we should live, that is, how we should care for our souls. And in return they put him on trial and executed him. But "the first philosopher who was tried and put to death" did not go quietly. Socrates used his defense speech to turn the tables and put his accusers on trial. That speech is justifiably considered to be a masterpiece of soaring rhetoric. But the function of rhetoric is to win over one's audience, and this Socrates failed to do: a (narrow) majority of the jury voted to convict him.

Here is how R.E. Allen assesses the speech:

[T]he Apology is a highly peculiar masterpiece. Socrates constructs an engine of rhetoric according to a well-marked plan. But engines have a function, and the function of forensic rhetoric is to win conviction if prosecuting and win acquittal if accused. The engine Socrates constructs does not work this way at all. Far from aiming at acquittal, the speech avowedly aims at telling the truth in accordance with justice even if the truth leads to conviction. [Allen 1984, p.64]

While it is true that the jury sentenced Socrates to die, Diogenes Laertius writes that "not long after" the execution, "the Athenians felt remorse." He even states that those who had brought the accusations against Socrates were banished from the city, except for one, who was himself put to death, and that the city of Athens then erected a bronze statue in Socrates' honor. [DL II.42-44]

Socrates' speech to the jury was a seamless of continuation of how he had lived his life. This is one of the things that seems to evade people who puzzle over why Socrates acted as he did at the end of his life. But all one has to do is to look carefully at what Socrates had said and done leading up to his trial, and to realize that he really meant what he had been saying all along.

"Not knowing very much about the other world, I do not think I know."
At a pivotal point in Socrates' speech he says "But perhaps someone might say: 'Are you then not ashamed, Socrates, of having followed such a pursuit, that you are now in danger of being put to death as a result?'" This is an important question to answer: if Socrates' conduct has been lawful and even admirable, why does he now find himself so widely hated? But Socrates insists that anyone who poses such an objection does not "speak well":

You are wrong if you think a man in whom there is even a little merit ought to consider danger of life or death, and not rather regard this only, when he does things, whether the things he does are right or wrong and the acts of a good or a bad man. For according to your argument all the demigods would be bad who died at Troy, including the son of Thetis, who so despised danger, in comparison with enduring any disgrace, that when his mother (and she was a goddess) said to him, as he was eager to slay Hector, something like this, I believe, “My son, if you avenge the death of your friend Patroclus and kill Hector, you yourself shall die; for straightway, after Hector, is death appointed unto you; he, when he heard this, made light of death and danger, and feared much more to live as a coward and not to avenge his friends, and said, “Straightway may I die, after doing vengeance upon the wrongdoer, that I may not stay here, jeered at beside the curved ships, a burden of the earth.”. Do you think he considered death and danger?

For thus it is, men of Athens, in truth; wherever a man stations himself, thinking it is best to be there, or is stationed by his commander, there he must, as it seems to me, remain and run his risks, considering neither death nor any other thing more than disgrace.

So I should have done a terrible thing, if, when the commanders whom you chose to command me stationed me, both at Potidaea and at Amphipolis and at Delium, I remained where they stationed me, like anybody else, and ran the risk of death, but when the god gave me a station, as I believed and understood, with orders to spend my life in philosophy and in examining myself and others, then I were to desert my post through fear of death or anything else whatsoever. It would be a terrible thing, and truly one might then justly hale me into court, on the charge that I do not believe that there are gods, since I disobey the oracle and fear death and think I am wise when I am not.

For to fear death, gentlemen, is nothing else than to think one is wise when one is not; for it is thinking one knows what one does not know. For no one knows whether death be not even the greatest of all blessings to man, but they fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils. And is not this the most reprehensible form of ignorance, that of thinking one knows what one does not know? Perhaps, gentlemen, in this matter also I differ from other men in this way, and if I were to say that I am wiser in anything, it would be in this, that not knowing very much about the other world, I do not think I know. But I do know that it is evil and disgraceful to do wrong and to disobey him who is better than I, whether he be god or man. So I shall never fear or avoid those things concerning which I do not know whether they are good or bad rather than those which I know are bad.

And therefore, even if you acquit me now and are not convinced by Anytus, who said that either I ought not to have been brought to trial at all, or since was brought to trial, I must certainly be put to death, adding that if I were acquitted your sons would all be utterly ruined by practicing what I teach—if you should say to me in reply to this: “Socrates, this time we will not do as Anytus says, but we will let you go, on this condition, however, that you no longer spend your time in this investigation or in philosophy, and if you are caught doing so again you shall die”; if you should let me go on this condition which I have mentioned, I should say to you, “Men of Athens, I respect and love you, but I shall obey the God rather than you, and while I live and am able to continue, I shall never give up philosophy or stop exhorting you and pointing out the truth to any one of you whom I may meet, saying in my accustomed way: “Most excellent man, are you who are a citizen of Athens, the greatest of cities and the most famous for wisdom and power, not ashamed to care for the acquisition of wealth and for reputation and honor, when you neither care nor take thought for wisdom and truth and the perfection of your soul?” And if any of you argues the point, and says he does care, I shall not let him go at once, nor shall I go away, but I shall question and examine and cross-examine him, and if I find that he does not possess virtue, but says he does, I shall rebuke him for scorning the things that are of most importance and caring more for what is of less worth.

This I shall do to whomever I meet, young and old, foreigner and citizen, but most to the citizens, inasmuch as you are more nearly related to me. For know that the god commands me to do this, and I believe that no greater good ever came to pass in the city than my service to the god. For I go about doing nothing else than urging you, young and old, not to care for your persons or your property more than for the perfection of your souls, or even so much; and I tell you that virtue does not come from money, but from virtue comes money and all other good things to man, both to the individual and to the state. If by saying these things I corrupt the youth, these things must be injurious; but if anyone asserts that I say other things than these, he says what is untrue. Therefore I say to you, men of Athens, either do as Anytus tells you, or not, and either acquit me, or not, knowing that I shall not change my conduct even if I am to die many times over."[28b-30c, Harold North Fowler translation]

Here is my own summary of the above:
(1) Socrates uses Homer's Iliad (modestly comparing himself to Achilles!) to remind his audience that courage is a basic virture of the Hellenes, and that anyone who fails to do what is right out of fear of death is a coward and a "burden of the earth".
(2) Then Socrates recounts his own military service ("at Potidaea and at Amphipolis and at Delium"), not to boast, but simply to once again remind his audience that not "remaining at one's station" even "at the risk of death" is "a terrible thing", and that if Socrates had failed to "obey the oracle" out of fear of the consequences then his fellow Athenians would be right and justified in hating him.
(3) But then Socrates subtly switches his argument. Fearing death is not only cowardly, it is presuming to know what one does not know, unless one knows what death really is (that is, what awaits us in "the other world").
(4) And now Socrates states (once again) that there is, perhaps, one way in which he truly is wiser than others: "that not knowing very much about the other world, I do not think I know."
(5) But no sooner has Socrates proclaimed that he does not know "very much" about the other world, he unconditionally asserts that the does know "that it is evil and disgraceful to do wrong and to disobey him who is better than I, whether he be God or man."
(6) At this point Socrates then renounces what we might today call "plea bargaining". He states that he does not wish to be acquitted if this entails the condition that he refrain from carrying on as he has always done. He assures the jury that if he is freed he will continue to do "as the God commands me to do", and that he would do so even if it were possible to kill him "many times over"!

[The entire text of the Apology is available online here. That is Benjamin Jowett's translation - the translation used above is by Fowler, which can be found at the Perseus website.]

The Varieties of Sceptical Thought:
[1] Sceptical Scepticism
[2] Socrates on Death
[3] Socrates' Advice to the Jury
[4] Richard Popkin
[5] Overview of the Trial of Socrates
[6] "Socrates of all mortals is the wisest"  

"The Zendo is not a mental hospital"

Once during a retreat led by the late Deshimaru Roshi one of the retreatants started acting in a very bizarre manner. She was screaming and running around - when she was supposed to be, like everyone else, sitting perfectly still and silently. Or maybe I'm not remembering the story right - it might have been during a question and answer session, not a silent zazen session. In any case her behavior was extremely disruptive, and Roshi insisted that she leave the retreat, and he explained that "the Zendo is not a mental hospital."*

First of all let's be very clear: a Zen meditation retreat is not a time or place where "anything goes". All participants are assumed to be capable of making the kinds of commitments necessary for such a reteat. In particular, retreats are conducted mostly in silence, and there are many rules governing everyone's behavior throughout the entire retreat. These rules are an integral part of a Zen retreat, and everyone knows what they are going into it (or at least they should, and as adults they are expected to prepare themselves properly before a retreat). A person who cannot remain quiet and still or in any other way can't follow the rules simply has no business at a retreat in the first place.

One reason I am bringing this up is that the issue of Zen and mental illness seems to be making the rounds these days. Brad Warner has recently written an article on the question of whether or not Zazen might be dangerous for some people, in particular for trauma survivors (clicking this link will take you directly to the article at Suicide Girls, but as Brad sometime mentions on his website: "You don't need to be a member to view this article and you will not be able to see any naked pictures on this page. So don't worry!"). Even before Warner's article came out, an online Buddhist discussion list I've belonged to off and on since the mid-90's, Buddha-l, also had a discussion lasting several days on basically the same subject. And now just today the NYT has an article about a 63 year old Zen teacher who had a severe psychological crisis which led him into psychotherapy (click on this link to go to the article - unfortunately it does require membership but you still won't see any nekid pictures). And that article, in turn, is now being discussed on another online Buddhism discussion group, the Zen Forum International.

But really the main thing prompting me to write on this subject is the recent suicide of JW Harrington, longtime Executive Director of the Kwan Um School of Zen, which I used to be a member of. I didn't know JW closely. I had probably only met him in person once or twice, and had exchanged emails with him on several other occasions when I was still a member of the KUSZ. But he was such a presence in the KUSZ, really and truly a "fixture" in the best possible sense. A grounded, serene, friendly, and incredibly competent and hard-working guy. He always gave me the impression of being "above it all", while at the same time still knowing exactly what was going on all around him. I know next to nothing about the circumstances, but I read on one blog that he had jumped off a bridge and that he had been sick for several months.

One of my closest friends of my youth, Steve Millen, also committed suicide. But that was almost 20 years ago now. He had attempted suicide by taking a drug overdoes on the night of Thanksgiving, 1990. At the last minute he called 911. But then on Christmas night he jumped from the top of Ballantine Hall on the campus of Indiana University in Bloomington, and died. Steve made a big impression on lots of people throughout his life. There's even a discussion group dedicated to his memory: "Rebel Without a Cough". The name is inspired by Steve's life-long love-affair with recreational drugs in general and Robitussin-DM in particular. Steve's friends and fans have also created a web archive of the 'zine that Steve put out irregularly during the last 5 or so years of his life: Tussin Up.

Anyway, I bring up Steve, well, because I can't help but think of him whenever the subject of suicide comes up. But not just that. From a very early age Steve was a political activist and all around troublemaker and provocateur. His friends were revolutionaries, punk-rockers, college students, college professors, Bloomington "townies" (like himself) and so forth. He had talents, friends, ideals, and a full and exciting life. But he was plagued with inner demons. I know it sounds cliche - but I don't know how else to put it. He was severely manic-depressive, and suffered periods of intense depression. He had already been in therapy for years by the time I met him (when he was still in his early 20's).

And here is my point: people view mental illness and/or suicide as some kind of failure. Steve Millen was an idealist and an activist, but his idealism and activism "failed" to alleviate his manic-depression. JW Harrington and Louis Nordstrom practiced Zen Buddhism for decades, and all that meditation "failed" to make them better.

I think Deshimaru Roshi was absolutely right, "the Zendo is not a mental hospital". That doesn't mean, fortunately for me, that maladjusted people are not welcome. It just means that everyone is expected to "sit down and shut up" as Brad Warner said in the title of one of his books. And that applies to everyone equally: there is no discrimination for or against anyone on the basis of their supposed mental health or lack thereof. In fact, precisely because the Zendo is not a place to come to "get better" it is the place to come "as you are".

I'll even go one better than Deshimaru Roshi: this world is not a mental hospital, and our lives are not "therapy". How we live our lives is of great importance. But going through life trying to get better can be a lousy way to live - if it means constantly trying to be or wanting to be what you are not. But it's also not as if we don't need to get better - a lot better. BUT in trying to get better we cannot afford to disregard the assistance of our loving friends and teachers - just because they happen to be basket cases just like we are.

*[Note added later: The incident is described in Deshimaru Roshi's book "Sit: Zen teachings of Master Taisen Deshimaru", on pages 22-26. I wrote the above post from memory without consulting the book, which I hadn't read for quite a while. Deshimaru actually did not say "The Zendo is not a mental hospital" - he said "The Dojo is a holy place, not a hospital." But I think "The Zendo is not a mental hospital" has a much better ring to it. It's what he should have said. Besides, why can't a hospital be a "holy place"??]

Amma is coming to DC

Sri Karunamayi, revered in India as an embodiment of divine love, is currently touring the United States. Sri Karunamayi will be in the Washington DC area for three days in May: Wednesday May 20 - Friday May 22.

Amma, as her devotees call her, is an extremely accessible teacher, although she is at the same time also a very traditional "Hindu Guru". She emanates pure joy everywhere she goes, and she is also a great scholar of the ancient Sanatana Dharma ("Hinduism"). At the age of 21 Amma traveled on foot to the sacred Penusila Forest and spent the next 10 years meditating in seclusion. Her parents are both devout Hindus, and she had always been deeply spiritual even as a young girl, so her intense period of practice from the age of 21 to 31 was a continuation of a path she had already been on her entire life. Even while her mother had been pregnant both of her parents had dreams and visions predicting that their child would dedicate her life to serving humanity as a spiritual teacher.

Wherever she goes, Sri Karunamayi teaches people how to make use of powerful Sanskrit mantras such as the Saraswati mantra, Gayatri mantra, and Mrutyunjaya mantra, as well as longer traditional chants such as the Samputita Sri Suktam and the Sri Lalita Sahasranama Stotram. But she also places great emphasis on the practice of silent meditation, and she will be leading a day-long meditation retreat as part of her DC visit.

A brief biography of Sri Karunamayi is here:
http://www.karunamayi.org/Biography.html

More information on the DC part of her tour is here:
http://www.karunamayi.org/tour/2009WashingtonDC.html

The following is taken from her website:

Amma’s Mission

In this modern world, countless indigenous peoples have lost their cultural bearings and their connection to the Earth due to the forces of modernization and commercialization. This has nearly always been disastrous for their health, happiness and well-being. For the sake of preserving India’s spiritual culture and safeguarding it against these forces, and of restrictive interpretations, Amma has dedicated her life to giving discourses, holding sacred ceremonies, and creating numerous audio and video recordings so that future generations will not have to mourn the loss of the unique and precious culture based in Sanatana Dharma.

Keeping the Flame Alive

In Sanatana Dharma, all the elements within Nature are held to be sacred and inherently pure. However, it is believed that physical pollution as well as the subtle pollution of humanity’s violence and selfishness creates stress within the natural environment. For the purification and release of all forms of negativity, India’s ancient sages recommended the holy yajna, or homa ceremony, above all others.

A homa is a fire ceremony that seeks to honor all forms of the Divine through the sacred medium of the element of fire. In this ceremony, many items are offered to God, along with prayers for universal peace. It is believed that one’s prayers and positive thoughts rise with the homa smoke into the atmosphere, where they then spread through the entire world to promote universal peace and happiness.

To preserve and elucidate the ancient culture of India and highlight the need for peace, purification and positive thoughts, Amma arranges for fire ceremonies to be conducted during many of her programs and tours. In this way, people come together to acknowledge the goal of world peace in an atmosphere rendered sacred by the combination of ancient peace prayers and the purifying element of fire.

Empowering Women

In the tradition of Sanatana Dharma, sound itself is considered to contain powerful divine energy. There are countless mantras, verses, and divine poems containing mystical insights, yogic advice, and spiritual precepts. Due to some unfortunate cultural developments, some have come to believe that common people cannot understand or use mantras properly. In some cases, women have been barred from reciting certain mantras, like the famous and holy Gayatri Mantra. As a result, many sincere and devout people have been prevented from accessing India’s profound mystical traditions.

To correct this unfortunate development, Amma has made special recordings of sacred Sanskrit chants, with the specific intention that all sincere seekers be able to learn and benefit from these priceless practices. So that all may understand the spiritual value of these ancient chants, Amma has also published a number of books elucidating the inner spiritual meaning of these mantras and hymns. In this way, countless people have gained new respect for the spiritual and cultural traditions of ancient India.

The varieties of sceptical thought, Part One: Sceptical Scepticism

"We are not the type of philosophers who think that nothing is true."
The first thing you need to know about philosophical scepticism is that Plato and Pyrrho were the fathers of all of the ancient schools of scepticism. Plato wrote a book, titled the Timaeus, in which he explained that the entire universe is a single, living, intelligent, immortal, ensouled, blessedly happy, and divine being. Pyrrho, on the other hand, learned everything he knew about scepticism by traveling to India and studying with mystical philosophers there, and also traveling to Persia and studying with the Magi, the very people who gave us the word "magic".

The second thing you need to know about philosophical scepticism is that it was revived during the Renaissance by, among others, folks like Girolamo Savonarola and Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. The first was a fanatical, book-burning, Christian fundamentalist; while the second was one of the greatest occultists of all time.

What do these two things tell us? Only that we must apply scepticism to scepticism itself. That is, scepticism is not necessarily what you have been led to believe it is. In particular, scepticism has nothing whatsoever to do with the crude philistinism and hamfisted debunkery of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and that lot. The so-called "New Atheists" have nothing to offer other than a slightly updated (and significantly dumbed-down) version of iconoclastic Calvinism deprived of it's (always thin an unconvincing) religious veneer.

Among our most important primary sources for ancient scepticism is Cicero's Academica. Cicero was an adherent of the school of so-called "Academic" sceptics, who traced their intellectual lineage back to Plato. During the same year that he wrote his Academica, Cicero also produced his De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) in which he informs us:

As for those who express surprise that I have adopted the Academic system in preference to all others, I think that the four books of my 'Academica' offer them a clear enough answer.... I stress, however, that it cannot be the case that those who follow this line of philosophy have no guiding principles. Mark you, I have discussed this matter more rigorously elsewhere [Ac. II], but certain people are such slow learners that they clearly need to be instructed more than once. We Academics are not the type of philosophers who think that nothing is true. Our claim is that certain falsehoods impinge on all true statements, and that these bear so close a resemblance to the truth that they contain no criterion by which to judge them or to lend assent to them. The outcome of this is our view that many things are probable, and that though these are not demonstrably true [that is, not provable with absolute certainty] they guide the life of the wise man, because they are so significant and clear cut.
[Cicero De Natura Deorum I.11-12, P.G. Walsh translation]

What did Socrates know, and how did he know it?
Socrates, the teacher of Plato, believed that all wrongdoing results only from ignorance, that is, that no one ever does wrong knowingly. This Socratic teaching was echoed by the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who was born over 450 years after Socrates was executed:

"They are free who live as they will; who are not subject to compulsion, to restraint, or to violence; whose pursuits are unhindered, their desires successful, their aversions unincurred. Who, then, would wish to lead a wrong course of life? No one. Who would live deceived, erring, unjust, dissolute, discontented, dejected? No one. Wicked persons, then, do not live according to their own wills; therefore no such person is free."
[Discourse IV.1]

Ignorance leads to true slavery, the slavery of the soul/psyche. Through our own ignorance our pursuits are hindered, but through knowledge we can attain true freedom. Epictetus had himself been born a slave, and he reveled in taunting his aristocratic students that they were the real slaves because they were not true masters of themselves.

Epictetus was a Stoic, not a Platonist. But he was a true-blue Socratic. Socrates and Epictetus were agreed that ignorance enslaves us, while knowledge leads to true freedom. Socrates never claimed that knowledge was impossible or unattainable, nor did he ever claim that he himself lacked all knowlede whatsoever. But he did emphasize that there was one thing above all others that he did understand: his own ignorance.

In Plato's famous Apology, which recounts Socrates' defense speech before a jury of 500 (or perhaps 510) of his fellow Athenian citizens, we read of how it was that Socrates came to have so many enemies, including enemies who wished to see him tried, convicted, and executed. (But the number of Socrates' enemies should not be exaggerated. When the jury finally voted, almost, but not quite, half of them voted to acquit.) Socrates himself acknowledges that he would not be on trial for his life unless he had been "doing something rather different from most folk." [20c, R.E. Allen translation]

Socrates tells the jury that his present situation came about "through nothing but a kind of wisdom. What kind? The kind which is perhaps peculiarly human."[20d-e] Although Socrates was at pains to insist that whatever wisdom he possessed was of a decidedly human variety, he nevertheless insisted that he had divine backing for his claim to possess this human wisdom. In one of the more incredible passages ever written down in any human language, Socrates, according to Plato, tells the jury the following (and he tells this as if the story were perhaps already known at least to some of them):

For as witness to you of my own wisdom--whether it is wisdom of a kind, and what kind of wisdom it is--I shall call the God at Delphi.

You surely knew Chaerephon, I fancy. He was my friend from youth and a friend of your democratic majority. He went into exile with you and with you he returned. And you know what kind of man he was, how eager and impetuous in whatever he rushed into. Well, once he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle--as I say gentlemen, please do not make a disturbance--he asked whether anyone is wiser than I [that is, wiser than Socrates]. Now the Pythia replied that no one is wiser. And to this his brother here will bear you witness, since Chaerephon is dead.

Why do I mention this? I mention it because I intend to inform you whence the slander against me has arisen. For when I heard it, I reflected: "What does the God mean? What is the sense of this riddling utterance? I know that I am not wise at all: what then does the God mean, by saying I am wisest. Surely he does not speak falsehood; it is not permitted him." So I puzzled for a long time over what he meant, and then, with great reluctance, I turned to inquire into the matter in some such way as this.... [20e-21b]

And with that preamble, Socrates then proceeds to describe how he went about Athens "examining" his fellow citizens. He started off with leading Athenians who were widely regarded as exceedingly wise, and who also believed themselves to be wise. For each such leader of Athenian society that he examined, Socrates found that "though he seemed wise to many other men, and most especially to himself, he was not."

Socrates' told the jury that, as a result, he found himself

thinking to myself, '"I am wiser than that man. Probably neither of us knows anything worthwhile; but he thinks he does and does not, and I do not and do not think I do. So it seems at any rate that I am wiser in this one small respect: I do not think I know what I do not." [21d]

After dealing like this with Athens' political elites, Socrates then started in on the poets, but:

presently I came to realize that the poets, too, do not make what they make by wisdom, but by a kind of native disposition or divine inspiration, exactly like seers and prophets. For the latter also utter many fine things, but know nothing of the things they speak. That is how the poets appeared to me, while at the same time I realized that because of their poetry they thought themselves the wisest of men in other matters--and were not. Once again I left thinking myself superior to them in just the way I was to the politicians. [22c]

And from the poets Socrates went to the artisans and all those who worked with their hands, and there Socrates found people who "knew many fine things", but, alas,

it seemed to me that the poets and our capable craftsmen had exactly the same failing: because they practiced their own arts well, each deemed himself wise in other things, things of great importance. This mistake quite obscured their wisdom. [22d]

Socrates' general procedure was quite simple: he would elucit from people claims as to what they believed they knew. Socrates would then proceed to question them closely about the knowledge they claimed to have. He found that once confronted with a clear demonstration that they did not know what they claimed to know, rather than accepting this knowledge (that is, knowledge of their own ignorance) many (although not all) people continued cling to their previous claims to knowledge, and, in the process, came to hate Socrates for exposing this ignorance (which they nevertheless denied).

Many Athenians, especially among the young, became admirers of Socrates during this process. And this only added to Socrates' troubles, as his admirers emulated, or attempted to emulate, Socrates and began going around challenging people about their knowledge. It turned out that even these youthful "amateur" Socrates wannabes could easily (and publicly) expose many prominent citizens as frauds and hypocrites, for claiming to know what they did not.

Throughout his speech, Socrates minimizes his own wisdom, but he never claims to know nothing. While avoiding explicit claims of his own knowledge, Socrates nevertheless clearly believes that he does possess superior judgement with respect to distinguishing truth from falsehood. Without making positive knowledge claims, therefore, he does make a de facto claim to possess an ability (what we might today call "critical thinking") which certainly gives the impression of having the potential to lead us to knowledge.

And not only that, but there is (and this is almost too obvious to point out, but it is perhaps so obvious as to be easily overlooked) an air of supreme confidence in Socrates as he stands before those who hold the power of life and death over him. There is nothing to suggest that Socrates wishes to die, or that he misunderstands the gravity of the situation. It might be tempting to simply attribute Socrates' bearing to courage and leave it at that, but in one of his many conversations with his fellow Athenians (recounted in Plato's Laches) Socrates has already objected to defining courage merely as "perseverance", for, Socrates insisted, there are many times in battle where prudence dictates withdrawal, and since prudence and courage are both virtues they cannot be in conflict with each other. Therefore, Socrates' performance before the jury, even if we attribute it to courage, must also be consistent with prudence.

And here we come to clear evidence of Socrates' knowledge (whether he claims this knowledge openly or not - and there is nothing new in suspecting that Socrates may have known more than he claimed to know). Socrates goes so far as to give advice to the jury (which will be discussed in a future post), advice that strongly implies some certain (or very close to certain) knowledge on Socrates' part, even though he continues to couch his language carefully. It would be tempting to focus on Socrates' attitude toward death. But that would be jumping over the crucial issue on which his whole case rests: that it is never right to do wrong, and that one who acts correctly, that is, justly, will always benefit from acting so, whereas all those who act wrongly, that is unjustly, will always suffer as a consequence.

Nothing could be further removed from the colloquial usage of the word "sceptical" than Socrates' attitude toward ethics. And yet despite (or, rather, if you think about it, precisely because of) Socrates' certainty with regards to ethics, he eagerly welcomes a thorough investigation of his own ethical principles in Plato's Gorgias and also in the monumental Republic. But in the Apology there is no investigation of ethics, rather, what was merely investigated in the Gorgias and the Republic is put into action in the Apology. Socrates demonstrates, with every word, how a just human being acts.

[to be continued.....]

The Varieties of Sceptical Thought:
[1] Sceptical Scepticism
[2] Socrates on Death
[3] Socrates' Advice to the Jury
[4] Richard Popkin
[5] Overview of the Trial of Socrates
[6] "Socrates of all mortals is the wisest"  

Reason to Believe

Today's Lesson: It's all in the delivery!

If I listened long enough to you
I'd find a way to believe
that it's all true
knowing that you lied straight faced
while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe

Someone like you makes it hard to live without
Somebody else
Someone like you makes it easy to give
Never think about myself

If the above link to the Carpenters singing "Reason to Believe" doesnt work try: this

Here's a Rod Stewart impersonator:


Then here's a guy named Malvasio doing it right:


Glen Campbell actually does a decent job:


Jerry Vale's version is not quite weird enough for my tastes:



...................................................
But **T H I S** is amazing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK_Mm-ynoWU

That last one is by Kira Hil pictured to the right. I had never heard of her before I started checking out different versions of "Reason to Believe" - what a voice!

The song was originally written by Tim Hardin in 1965.

Keeping up the pace

Last weekend was just too freaking beautiful to bother with blogging. On Saturday we had Zen practice at my house in the morning, then my Coven had a ritual in Elkton (where our High Priestess lives) in the early afternoon. While driving up to Elkton I listened to the Mahishasura Mardini Stotram, which I am working on memorizing. On the way back from Elkton I got a call from a wonderful friend who, sadly (to me), moved to Texas recently. When I got back home I read some of Julia Annas' commentary on Plato's Republic, and then schmoopie and I went out for ice cream - Gods what a beautiful evening it was! Then we came back home and watched Suspicion, which was very complementary to the movie we had watched on Friday night: Doubt. And then on Sunday I hooked the pump up to the pond and checked out all the plants - almost all of which had once again survived the winter! In fact there was only one plant that wasn't already growing, which was very exciting. There were two of the big grass plants that had just gotten completely rootbound - I'm not sure what to do with them.

Anyway, as far as this blog goes, mostly I am still going through stuff that I have lying around scattered in many different places, and consolidating them all here - often with very little or no editing (but, I assure you, Dear Reader, with a great deal of separating the wheat from the chaff!). Some posts need to have links and/or references added to them, which maybe some day I'll get around to.

Prayer to the Holy Goddess, Tellus, Mother of All Nature

Precatio Terrae

DEA sancta Tellus, rerum naturae parens,
quae cuncta generas et regeneras indidem,
quae sola praestas tuam tutelam gentibus,
caeli ac maris diua arbitra rerumque omnium,
per quam silet natura et somnos concipit,
itemque lucem reparas et noctem fugas:
tu Ditis umbras tegis et inmensum chaos
uentosque et imbris tempestatesque cohibes
et, cum libet, dimittis et misces freta
fugasque solis et procellas concitas,
itemque, cum uis, hilarem promittis diem.
tu alimenta uitae tribuis perpetua fide,
et, cum recesserit anima, in tete refugimus:
ita, quidquid tribuis, in te cuncta recidunt.
merito uocaris Magna tu Mater deum,
pietate quia uicisti diuum numina;
tu es illa uere gentium et diuum parens:
sine qua nec moritur quicquam nec nasci potest:
tu es Magna tuque diuum regina es, dea.
te, diua, adoro tuumque ego numen inuoco,
facilisque praestes hoc mihi quod te rogo;
referamque, diua, gratias merito tibi.
fidem quaeso, exaudi, et faue coeptis meis;
hoc quod peto a te, diua, mihi praesta uolens.
herbas, quascumque generat maiestas tua,
salutis causa tribuis cunctis gentibus:
hanc nunc mihi permittas medicinam tuam.
ueniat medicina cum tuis uirtutibus:
quidque ex his fecero, habeat euentum bonum,
cuique easdem dedero quique easdem a me acceperint,
sanos eosdem praestes. nunc, diua, hoc mihi
maiestas praestet tua quod supplex postulo.

Translation by Moravius Piscinus
(taken from here)

Holy Goddess, Tellus, Mother of all Nature, engendering all things and regenerating them each day, as You alone bring forth from Your womb all things into life.

Heavenly Goddess, overseeing all things on earth and throughout the seas, in whatever by silent nature is restored in sleep and in death, in the same way that You put to flight the Night with the Light You restore each day.

Earth, Enricher of Life, You dispel the dark shadow of death and the disorder of vast endless Chaos. You hold back the winds and storms, the rain showers and tempests. You alone regulate the weather cycles, either bestirring or putting to flight the storm, interspersing them with cheerful days.

You give the Food of Life unfailingly, in fidelity, and when the soul by necessity departs, in You alone do we find refuge. Thus, whatever You give, in You all will be returned. Deservedly are You called Great Mother of the Gods. Piously then are all the celestial powers distilled in You. The One and True parent of all living things, human and divine. Without You nothing could be born, nothing could grow, and nothing mature.

You are the Great Goddess, the Queen of Heaven, You, Goddess, I adore. I call upon Your power, come. Make what I ask to be readily and easily accomplished, and draw my thanks, Mother Earth, that, in fidelity, You do rightly merit.

Hear me, please, and favor me. This I ask of You, Holy Mother, and may You willingly give answer to me: May whatever herbs grow by Your providence bring health to all humankind. May You now send these forth to me as Your medicines. May they be filled with Your healing virtues. May everything that I prepare from these herbs have good result, each and every one in the same way. As I shall receive these herbs from You, so too shall I willingly give them out to others, so that their health too may be ensured through Your good graces. Finally, Mother Earth, ensure Your healing powers for me as well. This I humbly ask.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Pagan Monotheism

1. The raison d'etre for "Pagan Monotheism", in their own words

1999 saw the publication of the book Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede, and with contributions by M.L. West, John Dillon, Stephen Mitchell, and Wolf Liebeschuetz. The book, in turn, was the result of a conference on "Pagan forms of monotheism in late antiquity" that had taken place in 1996 at Oxford.

Athanassiadi and Frede state in their Introduction:

A.

"The seminar [and subsequently the book] arose out of our dissatisfaction with what we take to be a misconception ... that in the Graeco-Roman world ... Christianity, in the tradition of Jewish monotheism, succeeded in replacing invariably polytheistic systems of religious belief with a monotheistic creed. By contrast it is our view that monotheism ... was increasingly widespread by the time of late antiquity, certainly among the educated and in particular in the Greek east. And we are inclined to attribute much of the success of Christianity in that world to its advocacy of a way of seeing things, of thinking and acting, which it shared with a growing number of pagans ...." [p. 1]

And then they add this:

B.

"Another even more important cause of our dissatisfaction is a general attitude associated with the above, reflecting the simple unqualified belief that, in being converted to Christianity, pagans were induced to reject their polytheism in favor of a monotheistic religion. This approach, which ultimately derives from the Christian Apologists of late antiquity, emphasizes the difference between Christianity and paganism in a stark and simplistic way which makes one overlook substantial similarities between the two ...." [pp. 1-2]

Stephen Mitchell, in his contribution to the book states that:

C.

" ... the monotheistic conceptions of a widespread and popular religious culture were the seed-bed into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them the transformation of ancient patterns of belief from pagan polytheism to the predominantly monotheistic systems of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would not only have been far less tidy and unidirectional than it was, it might not have occurred at all." [p. 128]

2. Baiting, switching, moving the goal-posts, etc.

Eleven years after the initial conference, another conference was organized on the theme of "Pagan Monotheism in the Roman World". The following is taken from the website advertising that conference, under the heading "Terminology and Concepts":

D.

The term monotheism is a modern one (16th century) and is traditionally used for strictly monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. It is certainly wrong to understand pagan monotheism in the same terms as these religions. For that reason terms like henotheism, monolatry and cosmotheism have been coined in the past. This raises the question of terminology. It seems we have the choice either to reserve the term ‘monotheism’ for a very limited kind of religious phenomena like Christianity and to use neologisms for slightly different religious forms; or to use monotheism as a heuristical tool in a more diffuse sense, in order to include also phenomena like the veneration of a highest god or religious exclusivism in a polytheistic context.

Having first claimed that "pagan monotheism" helps to explain "substantial similarities" between Paganism and Christianity, the story abruptly and fundamentally changes with the admission that whatever "pagan monotheism" might be, it is "certainly wrong to understand pagan monotheism in the same terms" as the monotheism of Christianity! The choice of words here could not be more surreal. The proponents of "pagan monotheism" have themselves chosen to use, literally, "the same term", that is, "monotheism", to describe the theological positions of both Pagans and Christians. But then ten years later they proceed to place an asterisk next to this claim of commonality, admitting that "monotheism" cannot be understood "in the same terms" when it is attached to Paganism as opposed to Christianity!

Instead of "reserving" the term monotheism for people who only believe in one God (that is, "reserving" the term for ... well, for the meaning that it has always had), Athanassiadi, Frede, Mitchell, et al, wish to redefine monotheism to fit their theory (now that they realize that without such a radical and arbitrary change in the meaning of the word "monotheism" their theory is utterly incoherent). According to their proposed new approach to "monotheism", the word should be used with no very specific meaning at all, but only as a "heuristic tool with a more diffuse sense". And just how diffuse? Well, diffuse enough to include anyone who shows "veneration for a highest God." Well, wouldn't that include, for example, Homer and Hesiod!? But then who in hell's bells is left as a polytheist?!?!?!?

One gets the strong impression that the meaning of monotheism doesn't really matter, so long as it can be used to prop up a certain narrative of the process of Christianization in late antiquity. According to that narrative there was no spiritual break with the past involved in conversion to Christianity, since, it is supposed, many Greeks and Romans (especially the smart ones, we are led to believe) had already realized the error of "primitive" polytheism and embraced the more "advanced" ideology of monotheism.* Because of this the transition from Paganism to Christianity was "tidy" and "unidirectional" (see quote C. above from Mitchell).

Tidy? Unidirectional? Really? A passage from Peter Brown's biography of Augustine, in which he describes the tense religious situation in North Africa in the year 410, gives a rather different picture:

E.

"For over a decade, the Bishops in Africa had provoked the destruction of the old ways. Public Paganism had been suppressed: the great temples were closed; the statues broken up, often by Christian mobs; the proud inscriptions ... used to pave public highways." [p. 185]

Brown also insists that at the time (the early 5th century) the "unidirectionality" of Christianization was very far from certain. And this was especially (although not at all exclusively) true, according to Brown, among the educated elites. In the excerpt below, Brown paints a vivid picture of the mental universe of the deeply religious and just as deeply rational Pagan intellectuals of the early fifth century:

F.

"The great Platonists of their age, Plotinus and Porphyry, could provide them with a profoundly religious view of the world that grew naturally out of an immemorial tradition. The claims of the Christians, by contrast, lacked intellectual foundation .... to accept the Incarnation [of Jesus] would be like a modern European denying the evolution of the species; he would have had to abandon not only the most advanced rationally based knowledge available to him, but, by implication, the whole culture permeated by such achievements." [p. 300]

Note how different this is from the impression given by the proponents of "pagan monotheism", who repeatedly claim that it was precisely the educated elites, and even more precisely, those influenced by the philosophical writings of Plotinus and Porphyry, who helped to make the process of Christianization not only "tidy" and "unidirectional", but even possible "at all".

This last point bears emphasizing. The Pagan philosophical tradition of late antiquity, far from providing some kind of missing link between Paganism and Christianity, was a source of stubbornly determined resistance to the process of Christianization. And far from blurring the differences between polytheism and monotheism, late antique Pagans of a philosophical bent emphasized the great theological chasm, from their perspective, that separated their "ancestral traditions coeval with time" from the new religion with only one God.

*[P.S. Of course, Mitchell, Athanassiadi, Frede, et al are (just barely, I am beginning to think) smart enough to avoid actually using words like "primitive" to refer to polytheism and "advanced" to refer to monotheism, but they manage to make their bias abundantly clear without quite spelling it out so crudely.]

P.P.S. Slight edits were made on Wed. April 22 at 6:08 PM.

See also (links NOT automatically generated):
Constantine (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Three)
Moses (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Two)
Akhenaten (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part One)
Monotheistic Robots of Doom, Part Deux
Monotheistic Robots of Doom
Hic Sunt Dracones