Paganism and Magic – Higginbotham Style

What is this posting schedule nonsense? Hahaha, of course this is on time! Um, yeah. That happened. I’m just going to go ahead and completely disregard the posting schedule. Depression has been kicking my ass, one of my friends is going through a major depressive phase and asking me for help (as her only friend with experience in this area), I have a bunch of family demands, the monsoon has arrived and forced me to spend much more time on my garden, I’m trying to stay on top of things for church now that I’m attending again, I’m upping the amount of time I spend on my fiction writing in the hopes that I’ll finish editing this novel by November (HAHAHAHA that will never happen), I may be taking a class in the fall, and I’m thinking of starting the job search again.

What I’m basically saying is that I’m insane and this book is sucking out my soul. It gives me whiplash by bouncing between really good, insightful journal exercises and concepts, then going straight into the standard Llewellyn shoddily researched generalizations and bullshit. I’m going to stick with it because it does have some really good, fascinating stuff and I’m really getting a lot from it. I’m just coping with it by increasing the amount of profanity and witty sarcasm in my note-taking. It probably doesn’t help that I can spend up to seven hours working on this in a single day.

So yeah, there is no set posting schedule for the time being. It was nice while it was still possible, since it made me keep working consistently. I think I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t need that to keep going, and it’s just another added stress. For the next while, posts will arrive whenever I finish them.

Moving on, this chapter of Christopaganism: An Inclusive Path is titled “An Overview of Paganism”. I was kind of worried going into it, since paganism is such a broad topic with so much variation, and I was right. There’s a lot of generalization. Some of it is acknowledged, and some of it isn’t (for example, referring to the Wheel of the Year as “the pagan sacred year” and saying that “paganism… represents a way of living, worshipping, and connecting to nature and the divine.“). Because there are only so many ways I can say “NOT ALWAYS” before I start to sound like a broken record and am forced to resort to profanity, I’m just going to pass over a lot of that stuff. Suffice to say, it’s in the book and I don’t like it.

The Higginbothams start off with a little history behind the word ‘pagan’ and how it’s been used. While this is interesting, it’s not really information that’s hard to find, so I won’t go into it. They mention that it has historically been used to differentiate between “us” and “them”, with the connotation being that anything other than “us” is bad because it is different. They suggest that the use of the term by the modern pagan community is an attempt to reclaim the word and promote the idea that differences are okay and the acknowledgement and coexistence of these ideas strengthens us all. I’m not sure that it’s always such a conscious choice, but I do like this idea.

They give some examples of common traditions under the pagan umbrella, focusing on (Neo)Wiccans and eclectics, though they do acknowledge some others as well. Most of the ones that they mention are not historically-based, which I find interesting. They don’t seem to do much to acknowledge these as part of the modern pagan community. I’m not entirely sure why. It could be that they just don’t have much interaction with the historical side of the pagan community (possibly because, from what I’ve seen, those groups tend to be less open to blended paths), or they could have some bias against them (potentially for the same reason). It’s too early to tell.

After speaking to a number of practitioners from different traditions, the Higginbothams have assembled what they call the Seven Principles of Paganism. They acknowledge that these are not universal, but that they are just a set of common approaches to spirituality in paganism. They are as follows:

“1. You are responsible for the beliefs you choose to adopt.
2. You are responsible for your own actions and your spiritual and personal development.
3. You are responsible for deciding who or what the divine is for you and forming a relationship with it.
4. Everything contains the spark of consciousness or intelligence.
5. Everything is sacred.
6. Each part of the universe can communicate with each other part, and these parts often cooperate for specific ends.
7. Consciousness survives death.”

Like I said, this is one case where they admit to generalizing. I’ve noticed that some of these ideas are pretty common within the pagan community, such as the idea of personal responsibility for your beliefs and spiritual development. This isn’t universal, but I’ve seen plenty of pagans say that if you’re going to follow a tradition, you’d damn well better take the effort to learn what you’re getting into. #6 seems a little out of place for me, but it is an idea that I’ve seen. It just doesn’t appear as common to me as it does to them. Of course, I am still fairly new to the pagan community. #4 and #5 are also concepts that vary hugely from tradition to tradition, but seem very common in a lot of Neopagan circles.

I would say that I follow along with 1, 2, 3, and 7. 4 might be true, but I’m still on the fence. 5 depends on your definition of “sacred” (since everything is part of creation, which is a divine thing in a way, but not necessarily worthy of worship in my eyes), and 6 is kind of along the same line as 4. I might have to write a post on my ideas of sentience and how it connects with energy, magic, and creation. Of course, those are just my interpretations. Others will have other views, and I don’t expect anyone to match me exactly.

Working from this, they head into a discussion on magic. Their definition of magic relies on their seven principles, and they don’t really go into detail explaining it. By which I mean that they don’t explain it at all. They preface it with some vague comments on “some recent scientific findings” (without mentioning exactly what these findings are or citing them in any way), and assure the reader that you can read all about this in their other books. I do not like it when authors do this. They’re essentially saying, “We’ll tell you some vague, unsourced things. If you actually want to understand the concepts we’re talking about, even by doing the research on your own, you need to give us more money.” It is possible to provide enough information to have a base to work from, even if it’s not entirely fleshed out. Since this seems like a pretty crucial idea, I’d like to at least have a chance to understand what they’re talking about.

Their scientific vagueness says something about an enfolding and unfolding universe that somehow breaks spacetime and that allows communication with “consciousness”. What consciousness they are referring to is never explained. They also might refer to quantum entanglement at one point, which is awfully cool, but they don’t really explain how this ties in with everything. It obviously has to do with the idea of communication between different parts of the universe, but I could really do with more elaboration.

For example, their definition of magic is “the actions of many consciousnesses voluntarily working together in an aware and interconnected universe to bring about one or more desired results.” This is provided with no more commentary than I’ve given here. They don’t say what these consciousnesses are (Are they deities? Other entities? Other people who are helping consciously or unconsciously? Tools used in the workings? It’s plural, so obviously more than the caster is involved, but they don’t say who or what.) or what they mean by “an aware and interconnected universe” (Must the caster be aware of this interconnectedness? There are plenty of magic-users who don’t believe in this concept, but magic seems to work just fine for them. Does the universe itself need to be aware? Are there multiple universes, with only some being aware of this and, therefore, capable of magic? Since they mention “an interconnected universe”, does that mean that there are some that aren’t connected? If they’re not connected, how can a caster deal with them to use magic?). EXPLAIN SOMETHING! THIS DEFINITION IS USELESS WITHOUT EXPLANATION! They seem to want me to buy their other book if I want even a chance of understanding this, which irritates me more than I can explain. I suspect that I wouldn’t use their definition of magic even if I had some chance of understanding it, but I have no real way to know that for sure. As a result, I have no idea how much of their discussion of magic will apply to me and my paradigm. It’s frustrating.

They classify magic into four categories (with more assurances that their other books explain this further), which can be combined or used alone. First, there is communing, which is essentially just a person communicating with the divine (however the individual interprets it/them). I’m not sure I’d call this magic, but I cannot say for sure if it follows their definition because their definition is not explained. (Yes, I will keep harping on this. It bugs me that much.) They give examples like meditation and prayer. Next is energy work, which is exactly what it sounds like. It’s the sensing and direction of energy and intention to achieve a purpose. They give some example sources of energy, like electromagnetism or the divine. The third type of magic is divination. Their definition is rather broad (which I actually like), as the receipt of information from some source, such as the divine. There’s more dimensional ramblings that tie into their unsourced science ramblings, and remain unexplained. Of course. The final category of magic is termed “conscious creation”, which is the use of various methods (which seem to be mostly covered by other categories) to achieve something physical. They don’t provide examples, but I imagine this would include things like job spells, prosperity spells, and the like.

Overall, I like this method of categorizing. As I said, I wouldn’t necessarily consider them all to be magic (As weird as this is to say, I actually liked Cunningham’s definition of magic more than theirs. Largely because his was properly explained.), but they’re pretty good, otherwise.

Another major concept brought up in this chapter is something that a philosopher named Ken Wilber described, and they tie into everything from the elements to the four cardinal directions. Wilber categorized human experience into four quadrants. The first is the “Inner I,” which covers the subjective experiences of an individual. The second is the “Inner We,” or the inner aspects of a culture (shared values, etc.). The third is the “Outer Its”. These are a culture’s outward expressions, such as institutions and legal codes. The final quadrant is the “Outer It,” or exterior physical aspects that can be objectively studied. I’m not entirely certain on where the lines fall between all of these, and I suspect that I’d need to read Wilber’s actual work to fully understand it.

They assign each of these quadrants to a cardinal direction, element, and type of magic according to their method of categorization. This is interesting, but I’m not entirely sure why it’s here. I’m not sure how these quadrants affect a person’s practices or studies, and they don’t really explain. They do say why these are useful to acknowledge so they can coexist in our lives, but why do they need to be tied to forms of magic and cardinal directions?

The Higginbothams say that people have tried to have one quadrant take priority, so that all experiences are filtered through that lens. They provide examples such as Galileo’s trial, which they argue as an example of people trying to force all of human existence into one quadrant. I understand it to be more of a case of Galileo mocking the pope in his unwise, aggressive attempts to get everyone to follow his theory, and then getting smacked down for it (Does the name “Simplicio” ring any bells for anyone?), but whatever. Anyway, they argue that an integral approach to spirituality, or one that allows all four quadrants to coexist peacefully (even if they seem to clash), is more healthy for all involved. I can agree with that.

Beliefs

So this post is a week late. I was used to reading and writing about Cunningham, which was light enough that I could get through a chapter and write about it in a day. This is not the case with ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path. I hadn’t counted on this fact, so here we are. Because of that and other things happening right now, I’m going to go ahead and say that Thursday posts will be on an “as they come to me” basis, rather than trying to get one out every week. Hopefully I’ll get more into the groove of things and get to a steady posting schedule that includes the discussion posts, but we’ll see. Also, with my attempts to go to church, I have to push the Sunday study posts back a few hours to allow me to potentially work on them after church.

In any case, the first chapter of this book is largely about beliefs, the definition of them, and how they work. This is an important thing to understand before going into a discussion on interspirituality or blended paths, so I’m very glad they went here. They give the definition of a belief as “an idea that you hold to be true,” which I rather like. This is not just in relation to religious or spiritual beliefs, but all beliefs. They act as a filter for us, often causing us to reject anything that doesn’t match with our beliefs and latch onto things that do. Because our beliefs shape our interactions with the world, they shape the institutions and organizations that we create.

Beliefs often group together into interlocking systems, with each working together to support the system as a whole. The book provides the United States as an institution based upon a belief system, namely that outlined in the US Constitution. They have a diagram that shows how different beliefs and values as based upon the Constitution, leading towards other values and institutions (police departments, congress, etc.).

We interact with these sorts of systems on a regular basis, simply by going about our everyday lives. Examples that they give are those found in churches, at work, with family, and different friend groups. Sometimes these systems conflict, and yet we are usually able to manage them.

Note that this definition does not conflate beliefs with facts. A belief is something that we hold to be true. The belief has no power in and of itself, only the power that we give to it. Because of this, beliefs are constructions. They can be very solid ones, based upon repeated unbiased experiments and observations, but they are still constructions. When a person is aware of that fact, it allows them to have more control over their beliefs. Since our beliefs shape the choices we make and the changes we make in the world, we can choose ones that will lead to the world we want. The process of changing our beliefs can be difficult and painful, but may ultimately be worthwhile.

The book also adds that some belief systems discourage people from examining it too closely, from questioning. They hold some beliefs to be above question or the responsibility of others. However, the fact remains that the individual in question is still affected by this belief. Whether they claim responsibility or not, they are the ones carrying out actions in response to this belief. While I believe that there are plenty of cases where we can’t hold an individual fully responsible for the actions they took as a result of their beliefs, those are the exception, rather than the rule.

The book claims that in paganism, an individual is responsible for their own beliefs, and would not be expected to embrace a belief without fully examining it and coming to their own conclusions. They suggest that a pagan is more free to pick and choose their beliefs. This is a generalization, and I think is evidence of the general neopagan perspective in this book. There are some pagan religions that do require very specific beliefs from their adherents. If you don’t hold those beliefs, you simply cannot be a member of the religion.

Now that we have a better handle on what a belief is, we can focus more on interspirituality. Interspirituality has become much more common as of late. There have always been blended religions, though the Higginbothams claim that people are only just now becoming aware of this. They say that this is because an awareness like that requires a certain level of spiritual development and grounding. I disagree. Religious syncretism has been around for as long as multiple religions have been interacting, and I doubt that they were unaware of it. They suggest that somehow people have intrinsically changed. It’s an appealing idea in its way, that we are better and smarter than those who came before. I just don’t buy it. People are people, and I don’t think they’ve really changed at their core. Our cultural values might have changed, along with our technology, but I don’t think we’re more spiritually developed than our ancestors.

Interspirituality works, in part, because there are some things that we all share. The Higginbothams provide examples like the law of gravity and the day/night cycle. There are some things that are simply a part of living in this universe, and religions often try to address these shared aspects of life. They might do it in different ways, but they do connect us all.

The book also includes an extensive series of journal activities and questions. For this chapter, most of these are just a sort of spiritual inventory. There are basic questions on deities, important beliefs, etc. They are all geared towards taking stock of your current beliefs and the belief systems you encounter on a regular basis.

When answering the questions, I found a few themes that popped up repeatedly. First, I place a lot of emphasis on the individual. I acknowledge that everyone is different, with different needs and wants. Some people need a religion with strict emphasis on some rules, while others don’t need that to be addressed at all, and do better with more freedom in that area. A second major theme was respect, which actually ties in with the first. I put a lot of value in respect for the individual, deities, other belief systems, etc. My one caveat is that you don’t disrespect or harm anyone in your practice, and then we’re good.

As I said, most of the questions were fairly standard, but there was one that gave me a moment to pause, because it phrased things in a way that I’d never really thought of before. “What is the purpose of spirituality in your life, what do you want it to accomplish for you, and how do you order your life around it?” I often think about what I get from my spirituality, but only rarely do I think of what I want to get from it. I never thought about it having a purpose, but simply as a way to show respect to my deities. And really, that is a large part of it. It’s an interesting question, and one that I think is worth considering, no matter what form your spirituality takes.

There might be a new post on Thursday. Hard to say at this point.