Taught class last night. It's becoming clear that Ja and I equally grumpy about the public playgan pagan community, but that he's more okay about continuing while grumpy.

"A lot of neo-pagans are uncomfortable with the idea of sacrifice, for a couple of reasons, like..."

"They're wimps."

(student grins)

"Well, yes, but other than that..."


Added later:

On the one hand, we have both seen a lot of frivolous, overly squeamish, and narrow POVs. On the other hand, dismissing a set of views we've heard expressed often in our local community by dismissing them all as wimps indicates a certain impatience. Of course, Ja does have some sort of sinus infection going on, and he's been working all the overtime he can get while continuing in clergy training, teaching, and generally taking care of business, so he's just generally entitled to be grumpy if he wants to be. But I don't have so many excuses, except that I was generally tired when I quit the training program.

Yesterday was the last day of the Maxfield Parrish exhibition, and I did finally make it, with my parents, to see it. It was lovely, of course, although there were technical difficulties.

There were some surprises: I didn't know that Parrish used photography and projection for his base images, and distinctly remember being shocked by the idea when some paintings based on projected photos were exhibited in the 1970s or 1980s. I always suspected that "Parrish Blue" was pure cobalt blue, but I had that confirmed... I think the film said Winston Cobalt Blue; there ws also another color of blue he used a lot-- the film gave the color numbers, which I promptly forgot. The secret to those dreamily vivid colors was not color mixing, but the application of layered glazes with pure pigment.

I adore Parrish's work, particularly the "girls on rocks" that he denounced after making so many. I'm also charmed by many of his landscapes, mostly done later. I could identify with the Heinlein character Maureen when she rhapsodized about Tertius as a planet that was like a Parrish painting. I think I'd like to live in a Parrish painting, even with its cliches'-- at least the pretty girls get to play instruments and climb mountains.

I found out from my parents that my sister may be moving. ( family stuff followsCollapse )

Inspired by primalfire's post, "Magic is What Mind Does:"

We manifest in tandem not only with conditioning, but with every other consciousness in the universe, to put it mystically-- to put it more practically, our thoughts influence a lot in our own being, but often have little effect on the rest of the world.

Many, many things happen without any discernible influence from any human mind... we have some influence over whether we will be conscious at sunrise, but not on whether the sun rises.

Some things *do* happen over which we, as individuals, have no control-- except that we can have a lot of control over our reactions.

I have seen many cheerful, optimistic people who have terrible things happen to them-- often that's how people allow themselves to become complaining types. Refusal to think of loss, pain, etc., is in many cases irresponsible and pathological.

I have known people who were successful in almost every way *except* that they had a serious attitude problem.

It isn't any sort of science (or common sense) to suggest that one has complete control over one's environment. And actually, that's a very good thing-- because people aren't able to handle controlling everything.

We shape our lives, but we do not control them utterly.

I believe in the reality and holiness of the physical world. Although there are certainly levels of reality other than the physical, I don't think they matter more.

I have known deeply religious and/or spiritual people who radiate peace and joy. Often they radiate that peace and joy as a beacon in surroundings that are incredibly awful-- poverty, squalor, racism, disease, ignorance, and neglect in their old age. The ones I respect, as opposed to the ones I see as simply those who've found a drug in Jesus (or Krishna, or Whom/Whatever), are ones who are a beacon through their actions to make the horribleness better.

*Do* we actually choose to be happy? I doubt it. A happy disposition may be gained, but the feeling that "everything will be all right" is as much a result of an advantageous body chemistry as enlightenment. Happiness, pleasure, and the heights and depths of joy are all gifts to be savored and shared, something that can be refused but not something that's always available to choose.

"so, real happiness and joy is a deep seated sensation, a gut feeling where everything is OK, no matter what"

IMX people who believe everything is okay aren't as much help as people who accept that many things are rotten but it's possible to make things better. There's a little resentment there that I need to work on, but I think that I define happiness and joy as both more "realistic" (meaning, in touch with the material world and its limitations) and relational. If I reach perfect bliss through disengagement, what is the difference between that bliss and delusion? If I am happy while a child (or my friend) cries, what of the deep joy of love?

"It is true we shape our life, but do not control them utterly. We cannot control the external events, yet we can guide our own internal world to remain calm, even when the external is in chaotic flux."

That makes more sense to me, because it is not an absolute. I do think in absolutes at times, but I actually am pretty sure absolutes don't describe the real universe.