Paradigm Engineering [bard]

[ Editor's Note: This is not anything to do with the Five Lies thing. I put that down due to being rather ill, and then this came up, so I wrote it. Normal service will be resumed when my head stops leaking. ION, 1400 words, but does not easily break down into a series, so this is what it is.]

I spend quite a lot of time trying to explain other people to each other. Take economics; if I'm talking to someone over fifty and middle class, I'm trying to explain why their generation were more or less the luckiest ever. If I'm talking to someone under thirty, I'm trying to explain why it's not the Baby Boomers' fault that they were so lucky. When I'm talking to Internet-generation Eclectic Wiccans I'm trying to explain why intellectual rigour is a good thing, and cultural appropriation is bad; if I'm talking to a 1970s Alexandrian I'm trying to explain why High Church neoPaganism is inadequate for the Information Age.

I am loath to suggest that I've got hold of something no-one else understands. I'm probably not that interesting. But I'm starting to worry that the systemic, extremist polarisation that has been engineered into popular culture in the West since the Reagan/Thatcher Axis of Awful is not just a matter of bigots versus bigots. It's a failure of intellectual culture to match the recent failure of economic culture. It's as though we're living in the Great Depression of the mind. I've been forced to start examining why this kind of thing is happening, and why everybody gets so angry when I suggest that opponents need not be enemies. As with any question worth asking, there is no single root cause; it's an interaction of complex factors. This is an attempt to explore some of them.

Tribalism: You're Doing It Wrong

Anyone who has engaged with socio-politics in the last two decades will have confronted the doctrine of Othering. It's a useful political shorthand. It's also dangerous, because it is in itself an Othering process; it divides the world into the 'enlightened' (i.e. bloggers) and the 'tabloid readers' (i.e. anyone who disagrees with this particular blogger). It allows people who know the mantra to ignore people who are making a useful point, without ever examining why Othering works.

The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight does not come up as often as it should in such discussions. It is the root of this particular kind of intellectual Manicheanism. Even smart people (one might argue, especially smart people) are prone to thinking they have a better understanding of their opponent than their opponent does of them. Newsflash; this is very unlikely to be true. I'm not immune, but I do seem to have a knack for working out why someone disagrees with me.

Our (and when I say that, I'm talking about the Puritan/military/industrial West) culture is rigged to enforce artificial binaries. We are not allowed to embrace the power of and; we have to choose. With Us, OR Against Us. Feminine OR masculine. Mozart OR metal. Manchester United OR Manchester City. Daddy OR chips. X-Factor OR Strictly. Gay OR straight. Intelligent OR spiritual. Moral person OR scientist.

Wait, what?

I've observed every one of these in real life. Yes, there really are Christians out there who argue that all scientists are intrinsically immoral, because:

1. Asking inconvenient questions
2. ???
3. EVIL!

Equally, anyone who's spent any time on the internet or ever heard of Richard Dawkins is familiar with the view that intelligence precludes spiritual awareness. Neal Stephenson covered the flaw in that logic very well in Snow Crash; just because smart people are most likely to spot the problematic aspects of fundamentalist Christianity does not mean that atheism is synonymous with intelligence. The argument that because some religions are imperial and irrational, all spiritual people are stupid is not logical.

Cart/Horse Sequence Error: Redo From Start

In so far as there is an insight at the heart of this post, this is it. Paradigms are tools, not truths.

If your job is investigating the physical and reproducible, there is a paradigm which has out-performed all others as a tool for that job. We call it the scientific method. It relies on a set of ancillary tools; formal logic (deductive, inductive, etc.), empiricism, peer review, Occam's Razor, and so on. As a whole it is reductionist, and for good reason. It didn't spring fully-formed from the thigh of Benjamin Franklin; we forged this set of tools and used them to build this paradigm because a number of centuries of trial and error demonstrated that they work more effectively than any alternative we've ever found for this job. This is what some religions don't like about science.

What scientists don't like about the spiritual paradigms is that they are designed to do a different job, one some think is redundant. To think that one has to ignore the way people behave when that job is done by Hollywood and Rupert Murdoch for thirty years. Over the centuries, humans have developed a quite large range of paradigms, or tool-sets, for influencing human behaviour. All of them rely on pulling levers in the Narrative Ape which we have only come to understand recently (thanks, science!). Historically, most have been prone to becoming tools of political control, a problem I have discussed before. [1] Politics is a whole different technology from learning about the physical world or improving our make-a-human kits. Politics is about making new decisions in specific cases; science is about how things work, and religion is about how people work (and why).

What neither extreme position in this particular dumb binary can recognise is that their absolute rejection of the other paradigm as a useful tool-set derives from asymmetric insight. Because science is very bad at teaching people how to live, Fundies reject what it's good at; describing the physical. Because religion is really vulnerable to exploitation by the power-hungry, scientists reject it as a tool for what it's good at; making better humans. Ah, but what about philosophy? Well, philosophy pulls one lever; rational thought driving rational action. Anyone who has looked at the flaws in the Efficient Market Hypothesis (or raised children) knows that rationality is a pretty ineffective lever when it comes to influencing human behaviour. Emotions (for scientists: hormones) are what work. Rational thought reinforced by emotion is what works best.

Philosophy is a tool necessary to both science and religion. For science, it's how we refine our methods and reasons for doing it. For religion, it's how we regulate our use of power, and how we become consistent or remain coherent. It is not an end in itself.

And while I'm standing here; we all know religion has a long and bloody history of making people kill each other for stupid reasons. Science has eugenics. There is no moral high-ground here. Get over it.

The Interesting Is At The Edges

We learn best through interaction with the unknown. In the scientific paradigm, this can be seen whenever you bring in a chaos mathematician to study brain cancer, or when psychologists prove economists wrong. In religion, you have to look a little harder, but it's there. Spanish imperial Catholicism interacting with the modern realities of life in the Andes produced Liberation Theology. Hinduism + Daoism developed into Zen Buddhism. Hinduism + Sufi Islam + some genuinely original thinking produced the Sikhs. Post-modern philosophy + archaeology + rebellion against the industrial death of the soul evolved into neoPaganism. [2] This is why seeing disputants as enemies is terrifyingly bad. I will never learn as much from someone who agrees with me as I will from someone who disagrees with me intelligently.

Paradigms are not truths, they are tools. As an educated European with eclectic interests, I have access to a pretty remarkable range of paradigms. Science. Liberal Anglicanism. Tai Qi. Permaculture. Thelemic Magick. Neuro-Linguistic Programming. LSD. Open-Source Systems. Druidry. Consensus Politics. Post-modernism. Speculative Fiction. Democracy. These are all tool-sets I use, and trying to answer a gender-politics question with Tai Qi is as daft as trying to answer a physics question with Druidry or an ethical question with science.

Like the economic fortune of the Baby Boomers, as an Internet-enabled thinker I am spectacularly fortunate. By an accident of chronology and nationality I have a bigger intellectual laboratory than any previous generation. A Swiss Army Knife (or, in its modern incarnation, a Leatherman) is a useful thing to own, but a fully-stocked tool bag is better, and a thoroughly equipped workshop is better yet. What is so revolutionary about the idea of using the right tool for the job instead of fruitlessly seeking the Swiss Army Knife of thought? Embrace the power of and.

[1] By any objective measure, the most staggeringly successful implementation there has ever been of the manipulation technology usually associated with religion is mass-media brand marketing. It is has become scientific since the 1950s. It can create demand artificially (think De Beers). It can kill people (think eating disorders). It not only can, but does by design, steal elections. Think about that.
[2] Yes, I know it's not as simple as that.

January

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7 1
8 1	9 1	10 2	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Ooh, interesting. Need to re-read and unpack this more when I'm less tired, but generally, from what I can gather at this point - yay. :-)

Mostly what I'm taking away from it is: dualism = intrinsically problematic. Binary oppositions are nearly always inadequate as a means of understanding anything very much. Which ties to some extent in with a lot of the Sacred Materialism stuff that I desperately need to actually write about and get some more input from others on, as well as try out and explore myself, because I think it's a useful thing for my own toolkit. :-)

Some of the binary oppositions I particularly dislike at the moment include body/mind and teacher/learner. The latter especially I think can be a serious problem in all sorts of situations.

"Ain't the power of transcendence/the greatest one we can employ". (Ani DiFranco. :-) )

[link] [reply]

Do you mean dualism in its technical sense here? Your comment implies a much broader use of the word than neo-Plantonic spirit/matter dualism.

Each of the instances you high-light can be seen as a *valid* binary; neither *must* be seen that way. Body/mind is very complicated. It seems likely that what we perceive as mind/spirit is an emergent property of body; but that is like calling our ability to catch a flying ball 'instinct'. It provides a handle without actually explaining anything useful.

Teacher/learner is a binary only in a situational sense. To fully grok it is essential to also teach, which is why you can't get from brown belt to black belt without hours instructing juniour students, as well as hours under instruction from masters. However, and anyone who's practiced any martial art will testify to how important this is, you should always know which role you're playing right now. Confusion on that subject can seriously damage people. This is no less true of spiritual training methods than it is of physical ones. Mercedes Lackey covers this very well in a passage in which a teacher from sword-form A is instructing two experienced practicioners of form B. When they run into a form-B trick the teacher doesn't know but wants to learn, they swap roles. There is at no point any confusion over which is teaching; it's the person who knows the *current technique* better.

The dumb-binaries thing I was trying to get at is about artificial polarisation; intelligent or spiritual, daddy or chips. Each case is created with a clear agenda; another would be monotheist or atheist, a very popular dumb-binary in our current world. There are quite clearly a number of other options, but the public discourse reflected by both monotheists *and atheists* suggests that we all have to pick teams.

This isn't really about things that are actual binaries, or even things which might or might not be; this is about the polticised practice of inventing and enforcing binaries for the purpose of Othering.

I think, based on discussions with yourself and eithin earlier in the process, that your issue with the teacher/learner distinction is related to the general aversion from authority and its concomitant responsibilities that is endemic in modern liberalism (and Paganism!). That is an entirely valid reaction to the very real abuses of authority which are equally endemic in our culture, and which we (i.e. liberals and Pagans) are typically on the receiving end of. I'm not sure it can be used as an argument for suggesting that there is no difference between craft master and craft apprentice?

However, I'm also fairly sure that your point is not a counter to my argument here, nor a misunderstanding of it. If I'm reading you correctly, you're springboarding off what I've said to talk about something different, which is equally important?

I'm sufficiently cold-ridden that I have no idea how the tone of this reply comes across. Hopefully you can read it in the spirit I mean it in :)

[link] [parent] [reply]

concomitant responsibilities that is endemic in modern liberalism (and Paganism!)

Worth remembering that I am a Quaker as much as I am a Pagan. :-)

I believe that temporary tutor/learner roles are entirely valid! (At least, provided they are consensually engaged in - trying to force someone else into either role relative to oneself is highly problematic, to say the least.) But a craftmaster who is not open to learning at least a little from the apprentice - albeit in a different way - is not doing their job as well as they could, I think. (It was interesting how when I suggested this in a public setting, most of the people fervently agreeing with it were teachers themselves...)

Practical example: I have learned a huge amount about singing, and music generally from teaching Somhairle. Partly because the act of teaching is instructive, as you say. Partly because his own questions, observations and interpretations of what's going on are interesting and valid, and on occasion have made me see something from a new perspective that's been incredibly useful. And the fact that I've been open to that has been helpful to him in learning from me - it's empowered him, it's given him more confidence both in himself and in me as a teacher, and so on. Virtuous circles, and very high mutual respect; this is a thing I know more about than he does, it doesn't in any way make us unequal overall.

Similar things have arisen the other way around when he's been teaching me tool use and ink drawing. Fair enough that this way of doing things would not necessarily work for everybody, but for me, at least, teacher/learner are not opposite roles. :-)

(Cf. also Quaker structures generally. People will happily take leading/following responsibilities in individual projects, according to their knowledge, resources and just where they are Led to, but there's no *permanent* hierarchy. )

and its concomitant responsibilities

Not quite sure what you mean by that? I think it's possible you're confusing my Quaker egalitarianism with a more general and unfocused anti-authoritarianism? This isn't a reactive position I'm taking; it's what I have learned and am continuing to learn from a positive philosophy founded on 350 years of Quaker experimentation, thought, prayer, reflection and action. So, relatively recent as these things go, but it has real worth. And involving a vast amount of serious responsibility for everyone concerned in it. "Everyone attending the Meeting is responsible for the Meeting" is one of the first things you learn.

I was indeed using "dualism" fairly informally, I admit. Binary oppositions tend to be intrinsically suspicious to me, for all sorts of reasons.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're springboarding off what I've said to talk about something different, which is equally important?

Yes. :-) And yes, I do actually agree with all of your post!

The only point at which I might take a sort of issue is this:

why everybody gets so angry when I suggest that opponents need not be enemies

Not for what you say, I hasten to add, but for what I've seen others mean when they say things like that. Which is, sometimes, that marginalised people should be willing to make any sacrifice to get on with others and not rock the boat. To not just forgive unpleasant treatment, but excuse as well (even where excusing makes forgiveness harder), and often to keep on excusing. And above all, not speak up and challenge. I know that's not what you're saying, but it did make me twitch defensively for a moment when I read it, and I wonder if people who've also got burned with that in the past may be partly reacting to their previous experiences, rather than what you have actually been saying?

But in terms of what you actually said - totally agree. Fervently, in fact. Ultimately, we are all on this planet together, thank the Gods. Even where people are working virulently against the interests of the rest of the planet, the minute we lose compassion for them, or respect for their basic needs, the minute we stop seeing them as people, in fact, we've lost serious amounts of ground. And sometimes it's so damn hard (Gods know I fail at it all the time), but it still needs doing.

(This would of course be the big reason why I'm dreading Thatcher's death - between people trying to justify her or generally make out that she wasn't as appalling as she truly was, and other people dancing on her grave and making horrible misogynist comments about her, it's all going to be pretty nauseating. :-S )

Edited ((Cannot count. It's 350 years of Quakers, not 250. ;-) )) Date: 2012-01-08 01:33 am (UTC)

Worth remembering that I am a Quaker as much as I am a Pagan.

True; I do occasionally forget that.

But a craftmaster who is not open to learning at least a little from the apprentice

That I agree with; but I do refer back to the example I gave. There are damn good reasons, in some of the arenas I have learned in, why extremely high degrees of clarity about who's in charge is a good thing.

The authority/responsibility thing is one of mine; neoPaganism in general has a big problem with anyone who claims to know anything. It took me a while, but I eventually came to the conclusion that one reason for the ring-leaders with no ring problem is that most neoPagans are deathly afraid of ever having to take responsibility for anything. Not the only reason, mind. And not all Pagans.

Which is, sometimes, that marginalised people should be willing to make any sacrifice to get on with others and not rock the boat.

Heh, no. I'm talking about the idea that liberal and conservative politicians can respect each other; that an Imam and a Priest can engage helpfully. Our society has been conditioning itself to see this kind of engagement as not only counter-productive but suspicious for some time.

The people who react badly are typically the ones with totally entrenched, One-True-Way viewpoints who absolutely cannot accept the idea that the other person in a debate might have a valid viewpoint. To do so undermines their sense of identity at a deep level.

There are damn good reasons, in some of the arenas I have learned in, why extremely high degrees of clarity about who's in charge is a good thing.

*nods* This does make sense. I think that anything which involves potential actual damage (mental and/or physical) is a valid exception to an awful lot of rules I otherwise follow. I can definitely see (and have observed personally, albeit briefly) why martial arts tuition especially needs some more structured authority than music tuition does, just to preserve safety. I see this as quite similar the fact that, while I am increasingly adopting a "don't touch friends (let alone anyone I know less well) without their explicit consent" practise, and encouraging it in others, I wouldn't bother to check first before pushing any of you out of the way of a moving vehicle, or giving CPR etc! (Which reminds me - still need to look up local first aid courses...)

It took me a while, but I eventually came to the conclusion that one reason for the ring-leaders with no ring problem is that most neoPagans are deathly afraid of ever having to take responsibility for anything.

*laughs* Oh Gods, yes, I see what you mean. And yeah, haven't encountered it as much as you have, but I have on occasion gone, "huh?" a bit.

I think the world needs more Quaker Pagans, even if only to teach neoPagans that there is another, tried-and-tested way of doing an absence of long-term hierarchies without being disorganised and faffing about everywhere, and with strong methods and discipline of personal responsibility. However, if you're right about the motivations of some of them, the Quaker way of doing things would not necessarily appeal. ;-)

Druidry of course doesn't have quite the same set of problems as some other forms of neoPaganism, and that initially made me slightly suspicious. ;-) Philip Carr-Gomm's huge disclaimers (mostly on Druidcasts) on a number of related issues rather put my mind at rest. And I do utterly love the fact that everybody trains first as a Bard, then (if they want to) as an Ovate, then (if they want to) as a Druid. No skipping the steps. And you're encouraged to keep learning and keep learning throughout, forever. At least at OBOD, and I assume also with BDO? I'm not currently aware of any other aspiring Quaker Druids. I assume I can't actually be the only one, but the two are extraordinarily compatible in many ways, while of course very different in others. And of course both are entirely happy for you to belong to another tradition at the same time, which helps. It's pleasing. :-)

Our society has been conditioning itself to see this kind of engagement as not only counter-productive but suspicious for some time.

Ahhhh, yes. That thing. Yes, I completely agree with you. Yes, this is a very, very important thing to try to break down. Rah. :-)

The people who react badly are typically the ones with totally entrenched, One-True-Way viewpoints who absolutely cannot accept the idea that the other person in a debate might have a valid viewpoint. To do so undermines their sense of identity at a deep level.

*nods* This makes a sad kind of sense. :-/

BDO's view of the specialities is closer to mine, that is further from the hermetic ranked initiation model. Bard, Ovate, Druid are not seen as analogues to 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree; they are paths unto themselves, which interact. By their nature, however, they do lend themselves to an agumentary model. Bards focus on lore and awen, and thus makes the best grounding in Druidry-the-religion. Ovates (or Fferylts, depending) apply lore and use awen, and do herbalism, and grow things, and so on. Druids are the closest thing to clergy; the core of that path is evolving and developing what Druidry-the-religion means, theology hacking if you will. I'm paraphrasing and massively over-simplifying here. To be a useful Druid-the-path you have to continue practicing as a Bard and an Ovate as well.

I had already come the conclusion that Hearthrite would not see the paths as linear degrees; it was nice to see the BDO agreeing with me.

I think I at least see the OBOD paths as very interwoven rather than merely as degrees themselves - the more you do each, the better your understanding of the others, etc. But I can definitely see merit in both BDO and Hearthrite making that clearer, more explicit and less linear too. :-) I think OBOD will suit me best in the short-medium term - despite everything, I do find the linear structure quite helpful, especially given how lacking it my life often is.

Am definitely going to be interested in engaging at least to some extent with Hearthrite at some point. :-)

Things I do like about how Druidry has evolved include that both Philip Shallcrass and Emma Restal Orr were full OBOD druids while developing the BDO.

The thing with the two orders is that they're from different generations. OBOD is fundamentally a 2G order; Carr-Gomm puts it together in 1980s, systematising work that was originally formed in the hot-house of the late 1960s and the New Age movement. A very high percentage of early OBOD druids, including both Carr-Gomms, were also Trad Wiccans. The order reflects both its roots in the AOD and its influence from BTW pretty strongly.

This is just as true of Tim Sebastian (and Rollo Maughling, or Merlin as he now is). It's no surprise their orders follow the traditional hermetic sequential degree system. Greywolf and Bobcat forged their collective vision of Druidry on the cusp between 2G and 3G; the BDO became what it is now via the Caer Abiri gatherings in the early 1990s. The constituency they served was different, the level of academic knowledge available was different, and the political culture of neoPaganism was maturing very fast.

If I was 10 years older, or actually British by upbringing as well as inclination I'd probably be in OBOD, and be joining BDO as well. Because I'm a liminal between 3G & 4G, and because I'm more of a ditch druid than a library druid, BDO is a better place for me. But because I'm working to evolve a deliberate syncretism between Professor Bates' Saxon shamansim and Ross Nichols' modern Druidry, BDO will form a springhead for me in much the same way that OBOD did for Greywolf & Bobcat.

One thing you don't get much in (say) High Church Wicca is 'teachers' quoting their 'students'; one thing I love about the Druid orders is that Philip Carr-Gomm opens his chapter on Druidry in The Book of English Magic by quoting Philip Shallcrass.

Also...

The dumb-binaries thing I was trying to get at is about artificial polarisation; intelligent or spiritual, daddy or chips. Each case is created with a clear agenda; another would be monotheist or atheist, a very popular dumb-binary in our current world. There are quite clearly a number of other options, but the public discourse reflected by both monotheists *and atheists* suggests that we all have to pick teams.

*Totally* agreed. Have you had the thing where evangelical atheists *and* evangelical Christians* try to tell you you're just not really religious? And are just "fluffy"? It's highly irritating. Mind you, both groups seem to have just as much trouble with theologically liberal Christians as well. And the time when I referred to my father as a Christian atheist (which is indeed what he is) to an atheist who had been an evangelical in the past? Yeah, that nearly exploded his brain. Teehee. :-)

*Which is what it's been for me, though I suspect only because I've not had much contact with other fundamentalist monotheists.

Have you had the thing where evangelical atheists *and* evangelical Christians* try to tell you you're just not really religious?

One of the things that interests me about Dawkins is that he's rather like Simony in Small Gods; an atheist who spends all their time talking about God is probably not going to be a problem for most gods.

The term 'religious' is a bit like the term 'theology'. Arguably it ought to mean exactly what each says on the tin; follows a religion, or the study of deity. In the West, however, neither means that. Religious means 'follows an *Abrahmic* religion' and 'theology' means 'studies the god of *Abraham*'.

Something similar applies to atheists here. Most are people who can't cope with any more bullshit from the followers of the God of Abraham; and because their entire intellectual context is configured around that particular dumb-binary, the only way they can think about such things is in terms of monotheist/atheist.

Also: Neil Degrasse Tyson. There's a view on atheism I can have a lot of respect for. Now, tea!

Ooh! Not a reference I know. Expand? :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w

Carl Sagan in the 70s, only now. Lots of his stuff on youtube.

One of the things that interests me about Dawkins is that he's rather like Simony in Small Gods; an atheist who spends all their time talking about God is probably not going to be a problem for most gods.

Ha! Yes, the comparison has occurred to me before as well. :-)

In the West, however, neither means that. Religious means 'follows an *Abrahmic* religion' and 'theology' means 'studies the god of *Abraham*'.

*nods* Yes. :-/

I do enjoy self-describing as "religious" wherever possible, if only to help break that down a little. But it is a huge job of work.

Something similar applies to atheists here. Most are people who can't cope with any more bullshit from the followers of the God of Abraham; and because their entire intellectual context is configured around that particular dumb-binary, the only way they can think about such things is in terms of monotheist/atheist.

*nodnods* It is also interesting how much more invested in not just monotheism but a very specific *kind* of monotheism a lot of the most evangelical atheists are compared to actual theists. I seem to remember hearing about some radio debate where Dawkins was talking at some length about the God he doesn't believe in - and the Anglican priest they'd brought into argue with him said he didn't believe in that God either.

A nice deployment of the Straw Man idea, while also quite possibly being true. It's been a common Anglican satire for years that being for a vicar believing in God is an advantage whereas for a Bishop it's a positive liability.

hearing someone say they want to teach something, outside an accredited academic setting, is a heuristic for "self-important twit".

Ah, they're I'm not quite with you. I rather love learning different skills etc. from friends, and have met a few accredited self-important twits. ;-)

I like the view of sharing knowledge, expertise and skills with friends, with big emphasis on the "sharing", however. It's the, "I can do this thing! It's very interesting/enjoyable/fun/useful etc. Would anyone like me to teach them to do it?". Eg. Kat R likely to lead a class on swing dancing at Ardgour, and Kerry one as an introduction to the Talmud. This sort of thing makes me Very Happy, especially as a good purpose for community. I do like it best in an atmosphere of, "we all have things we're good at, let's find ways of sharing them amongst ourselves". Which is just super on so many levels.

Part of my issue with the teacher/learner thing, I think, is that all too often one meets people who really want to be teachers, only for the sake of their own self-image - to the point where for me hearing someone say they want to teach something, outside an accredited academic setting, is a heuristic for "self-important twit".

And this here is what I was talking about above. You presumeably think this of me? :)

In addition, I'd generally prefer to emphasize the active role of the learner

Oh god yes. Not a personal thing of yours at all; two kittens expeiment, the entire concept of quest paths, etc. This is part of the thinking which underlys my 'only when asked' philosophy.

Of course, this blog can be seen as overstepping that; on the other hand, there's a pretty accepted ethic for publishing ones ideas to find out whether anyone cares.

And this here is what I was talking about above. You presumeably think this of me? :)

Good heavens, no! You're far too interested in your own development to set off that particular alarm. Those people are the ones who go "OK, have learnt now - time to pass on my wisdom instead."

This is part of the thinking which underlys my 'only when asked' philosophy.

This is something I really value about you - cf the invaluable introduction you gave to me on Paganism generally, once I had asked. For which I don't feel I've thanked you nearly enough. It was exactly what I needed. Thank you. :-)

Of course, this blog can be seen as overstepping that; on the other hand, there's a pretty accepted ethic for publishing ones ideas to find out whether anyone cares.

Nah, blog doesn't overstep it at all, at least not as far as I can see. Neither would publishing an actual physical book, which I suspect (and hope!) you will do at some point. :-)

That's... that's planting a fruit tree, and then letting anyone who comes come and pick the fruit if they want it. It's very definitely not forcing the fruit on anyone. It's a benign and important thing to be doing.

cf the invaluable introduction you gave to me on Paganism generally

Thank you :) That was another of the instances where when it works, it feels like you didn't do anything. You were hunting a language to engage with a pre-existing soul-sense, to provide a starting point for turning experiment into craft. Language I can do :)

One could argue that such people don't want to be teachers at all, though. What they want is to be dominant, in charge; and our society has invested considerable opportunities for abuse of authority into the concept of teaching.

Anyone there for the teaching knows that trying to teach is not good for the self-image. If it's not working you feel like it's your fault and if it is you feel like it's entirely the student. You end up feeling frustrated or redundant a lot more than you end up feeling clever.

What can be good for someone's ego is the social trappings that are often put around teaching; but that's nothing to do with the actual teaching. In some cases they're necessary; for a Kung Fu student, bow to sifu, bow to senior is a discipline for stopping people getting unnecessarily damaged. In a classroom, shutting up when teacher says so is a discipline for not losing your entire work day to bloody twitter and gossip about the X-Factor.

When one adult is passing on a skill to one other adult? Things are very different. Peer teaching is simply not the same as non-peer teaching but our culture is not terribly good at recognising that, because to do so erodes the structured hierarchies on which our intensely militarised social order is based.

I think this is a very wise comment. :-)

There are particular non-peer trappings which still trouble me in the UK though, specifically around disciplines for children that *aren't* essential. Even at 11 I could recognise a power trip when I saw it, and inevitably it made me respect the teacher less*. But I'm not at present able to talk that rationally about power-over-children stuff, given am still in the processing stage of survival from having been abused myself at home.

*Not that this changed my outward behaviour in any way. I was fantastically well-behaved at school until I reached the Sixth Form, by which time the teachers I had then liked me well enough that I could get away with pretty much anything. ;-)

Teaching is an exercise in humility, or a failure. Discuss :)

Heh! Not sure my brain is up to detailed discussion, other than "yup, I think so". :-)

Actually another point on that: one of the most important thing a teacher needs to be able to do is acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge. (Especially, I would say, where safety is at stake.) If the pupil is doing their job properly, they'll be asking awkward questions at times. Teacher needs to be able to go, "actually, I don't know the answer to that. I will try to find out", without being unpleasant or defensive about it. And that's *hard* sometimes.

Also, there's always the possibility of teaching someone who blatantly has at least the potential to exceed your* own abilities. If you're not willing not merely to accept that gracefully but help them become better than you, that's a big fail. And yes, I freely admit I'd find that hard. I'm fairly confident I would do whatever praying, meditating, wibbling, finding the grit and then bloody well getting down to it was required for me to do my job properly, however. :-)

*General "your", I hasten to add!

Teacher needs to be able to go, "actually, I don't know the answer to that.

That, right there. One thing that'll lose me respect for more or less any 'authority' is temporising when presented with something new. As Pratchett once said, real science does not go "Eureka!" It goes, "Hmmmm, that's weird." And then it goes "I don't know what's going on here, let's find out."

Ha, yes, absolutely! :-)

I would also note that it's a good trait for GPs to have. I've been incredibly lucky that both my present GP and my previous GP are/were utterly, extraordinarily good. And they're both entirely willing to admit when they need to check up something, and will do it in front of me. Trust levels kind of soared after that. :-)

That is something that makes you and I different from some others, though. I think that as a culture a lot of people in the West (or at least, in the UK) expect teachers, scientists, doctors, economists, politicians etc. to be omniscient, and to never admit anything that could be construed as a weakness. Indeed, it's insisted upon. It's a system that traps *everybody*, and leads partly to the really destructive "never change your mind" thing that politicians do. Seriously lowers trust in everybody. And it seems to be a self-perpetuating spiral at the moment. :-/

The first politician to come out while in power and say, "you know, I was wrong about such-and-such. I've looked at what's actually happening, and I've listened to what knowledgeable and/or experienced people have been saying, and clearly I was mistaken. So yes, I *am* making a U-turn, because that's the responsible thing to do. Bite me" will immediately win my undying respect, even if I completely disagree with them about everything else. :-)

That is something that makes you and I different from some others, though. I think that as a culture a lot of people in the West (or at least, in the UK) expect teachers, scientists, doctors, economists, politicians etc. to be omniscient, and to never admit anything that could be construed as a weakness. Indeed, it's insisted upon.

Yes, yes exactly. This is an outgrowth of the main core of the article above, and a side-note to the ideology problem. No-one is allowed to be humanly good; they either have to be heroically over-blown, or ignored. One thing the Internet is doing pretty effectively is democratising that sense of public narrative, but becasue its culture was created by geeks, and geeks tend to be a) hard-core scientific materialists and b) egotistical as all hell, the debate culture of the internet tends toward rule 34.

Some scattered comments, because it's 3am and I'm four pints down. So with that disclaimer:

Learning how to use tools well is a delight and a joy in itself, and a real and genuine accomplishment. But if you don't use the tool on something, you're missing the point of it - and that's the only real way to demonstrate Mastery.

Even smart people (one might argue, especially smart people) are prone to thinking they have a better understanding of their opponent than their opponent does of them.

In a crudely reductionist sense: if you think you're surrounded by idiots, you're the idiot. Wikipedia editing is a really good training ground for productive discussions of this sort, if you survive it.

absolute rejection of the other paradigm as a useful tool-set derives from asymmetric insight

Rephrasing: of other paradigms. No binaries here either. In a specifically Christian context, the asymmetric insight problem is a lack of humility. More generally, I think it's partly down to over-narrativizing theirselves.

Postmodernism teaches us about other, equally valid paradigms, but the Romantic movement (which as you didn't say for lack of space is another important taproot of the neoPagan movement) teaches us about the amazingness of the unknown and imperfectly understood.

And since I appear to have taken delivery of a job lot of Questions from points unknown recently, for general distribution: how do you contextualise all that explaining? Who does the fact that you're doing it make you?

how do you contextualise all that explaining? Who does the fact that you're doing it make you?

In the context where I originally said it, a mediator. I come from outside; outside England, outside the black experience, outside the First World, outside the Third World, outside the industrial politics spectrum, outside more or less anything. It places me in a position to observe and analyse which is simultaneously ethnographic and partially independent.

Consider the first example I gave; I'm not suggesting that I'm typically in between two other disputants, though that has happened. I see socio-economics through the eyes of an historian who grew up in the 1960s *and the 1990s* due to the weird ways of the mission field before the Internet reduced cultural latency. If I'm talking to someone old enough to have benefited from the magic thirty years, they will almost certainly have some views of young people which are both insulting and flat wrong. If I'm talking to someone younger than me, they're in many cases going to be furiously angry about what has been 'done to' their generation, and blaming specific people for it who were infants or not yet born when the relevant historical trends were set in motion.

I inevitably end up speaking from the viewpoint my disputant does not hold; the world doesn't need more arrogant old people or angry young people. Sometimes I even manage to make a difference.

However, that's not what you meant, is it?

One of the things I am best at doing in all the world is taking stuff I know and communicating it to people who don't know it. This is mostly because I grew up in a world without television and arbitrary age stratification of children. I was raised in an oral tradition, and a craft tradition, learning both mental and physical skills from other people as a normal way of passing time. There was nowhere to buy Christmas presents so you made them. This was also true of roofs.

Since then I have been formally qualified to teach five sports, been a qualified fitness instructor, and communicated a number of skills to a number of people when they've asked me to. I've also learned huge numbers of things, frequently from the same people. Right now, while formulating my own version of Druidry, I am also formally a student of the BDO. I'm about to restart my Tai Qi / Kung Fu training, and one reason for that is that I want to be capable of passing it on to my children, which means I need to go much further along the student/teacher continuum in those arts than I have currently travelled.

I do not have a fear of either authority or responsibility. IME you can't have one without the other, though; if you are resposible for something, you have to have some method of influencing it, which is authority, be it collective, moderated or otherwise. I have a strong political doctrine that consensus is better than structured hierarchy. I have a strong experiential knowledge that in many circumstances, lack of clarity about who is in charge right now can get people killed. I have a powerful sense of honour code which teaches that if I can help, I should.

So who does all of that make me?

However, that's not what you meant, is it?

I'm fairly sure it was, though Somhairle will be able to confirm this or otherwise. :-) Which is not to say that he won't value the rest of what you said either.

Possibly. Given earlier comments about self-important twits and the context of several previous debates here or on JQP, I feel I can be forgiven for reading the question as a heffalump trap.

Ah. I think you have misunderstood his intentions and opinion of you generally, esp. wrt self-important twits. Though I certainly think you can be not merely forgiven but excused for that - I can entirely see where the confusion most understandably came, and if I'd been properly awake when he made the comments last night I'd have suggested he rewrite them to remove the unfortunate ambiguity.

Will leave him to come and clarify once he's woken up properly. :-)

Very much forgiven, though it wasn't meant that way, and I'm sorry that it seemed so. I am fully and interestingly answered, and I do indeed value it. (Shall return after another cup of tea or two.)

Thank you :)

But if you don't use the tool on something, you're missing the point of it

This, I think, approaches the core of what I was addressing from a different and interesting angle. The failure to recognise that paradigms are tools leads to people perceiving them as magic bullets, which are 'used on' something in a totally different way.

Thank you for posting this - clearly explained and interesting to read - has caught out a few of my bad-thinkings.

*grins* Thank you :) Good to see you over here, btw, I didn't know you read this.

I am a bit sporadic in the reading of the interwebs atm as cool job has completely eaten up available time and attention span, plus I primarily read lj as that still has a greater total number of things I want to read than DW, so read this on lj and came over here to comment as instructed! Suppose I am generally guilty of lurking in a socially anxious kind of way, but this was really cool and I wanted to actually say something.

Reinforcement is good :) Thank you, also very glad if it helped.

Re. DW: yeah, I'm increasingly realising that for all my good intentions, this blog probably doesn't belong on Dreamwidth either. It's not really a life-blog, of the LJ/DW type, though it was originally intended to be. It should probably become a grown-up blog and gets its own domain at some point.