Neoplatonism & My Objection to Cartweel

Cartweel’s objection to Neoplatonism is one with which I am essentially in agreement. I myself have had difficulty with thinking that Neoplatonic orientations are pagan. As I see it, there is a clear “anti-Earth” bias as Cartweel puts it. This gnostic/theosophical heritage is something in fact that contemporary paganism receives through Wicca. This last, formulated or transmitted by Gerald Gardner, perhaps in part through his relationship with Aleister Crowley, clearly suggests influence of the hermetic tradition as developed by Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the Ordo Templi Orientis. One clear instance of this legacy is the association of ‘earth’ with the direction of the north – one that derives from Masonic ritual and its implicit theology that rejects the fruit and bounty of the earth. A wider investigation into various paganisms – classical, indigenous, Indo-European, etc. – suggests that the more ‘universal’ understanding for the cultures of the northern hemisphere would place the earth in the south and fire as the rising sun in the east. This particular element-direction linking is one that comprises the practice of Prudence Jones or the tradition of Patrick McCollum among others. In the hermetic tradition, however, the barren north becomes the fitting association to make with the earth. Consequently, my own feeling is that Wicca functions historically in our times more as the ‘midwife’ of the contemporary pagan movement than as a pagan religion sui generis.

Without doubt, most if not all Wiccans will want to dispute that assertion. It has also bothered me to some extent that there are Neoplatonists who consider themselves pagan. However, all this being said, paganism is largely an orientation – or group of orientations – that stress(es) without remit the right of any individual to practice and celebrate paganism as she or he identifies. Unlike the Abrahamic faiths, paganism is non-dogmatic and non-creedal. There is no board of hierarchs who are constituted to pass judgment on who is and who is not pagan. It is the individual – and the individual alone – who makes that determination. So in that light, I have come to acknowledge and accept that there are bona fide ‘gnostic pagans’ as well as the more ubiquitous geo-centric practices that go more usually by the designation of ‘pagan’. In fact, as I put it in my Pomegranate idolatry article, “paganism is a plurality that includes its own opposites[;] there is no single paganism, and nor could there ever be.”

Cartweel maintains that “pagan theology and practice is [sic.] so nebulously (and often contradictorily) defined” and in reference to Cherry Hill Seminary that “Without clear boundaries as to what constitutes contemporary paganism, its theology, history, and practice, how is it possible to create meaningful syllabi for study?” And it is here where we part in agreement. I would like to see first where any religion is clearly defined. Even those that do have creeds and dogmas, the schismatic divisions that then arise preclude the possibility of any all-encompassing and clearly formulated definition. Even our word and understanding of ‘religion’ itself eludes conceptual precision. Instead, each and every religion – or at least those who are not constrained by ecclesiastical patriarchs and/or ‘charismatic leaders’ – is an ongoing process and discussion of theological debate. It is this open negotiation that is central to religion as alive, meaningful and valuable, and with regard to paganism, the Cherry Hill Seminary is at the forefront of this continuing ferment.

However, in the search “for what exactly makes up paganism,” it ought not be forgotten the unique position paganism occupies within the whole spectrum of religion. Paganism/paganisms is/are the root or ‘mother’ of all religions, the oldest spiritual practice from which – and often against which – subsequent religions have defined themselves. As an intrinsically natural and original perception of the sacredness of the earth and the aliveness of nature and co-nature, paganism is virtually by default not about theological definition. This becomes instead the dispatch of the subsequent religious developments and disagreements. It is their ‘business’ to define themselves as not-pagan.

True enough, our world as it has progressed to our own times is one in which a forum of sectarian distinction and distinguishing religious identities now prevails. This is not something necessarily to condemn. It is the very ongoing engagement of the human as human with one another and all that there is with which to converse.  Consequently, in my Pagan Theology, I suggested as a contribution to this global forum of engagement that, broadly speaking, paganism might be seen as “an affirmation of interactive and polymorphic sacred relationship by the individual or community with the tangible, sentient and/or nonempirical.” I devised this formulation precisely to make allowance for gnostic transcendentalism and non-supernatural earth religion alike. For what I would consider ‘deep’ paganism, that ‘and/or’ conjunction could be replaced by a simple ‘and’. Here we then have the stress on the humanistic, naturistic and nonempirical/supra-empirical in a more flexible and equal weighting.

My preference is, admittedly, for the ‘deep’ pagan over both gnostic paganisms and strictly nontheistic or atheistic nature religion. So I am with Cartweel in frustration or objection to “all the baggage that Neoplatonism entails,” though I also find the statement that “Cherry Hill is in the business of defining what makes up pagan theology” patronizing and insulting. The Cherry Hill Seminary is an incipient attempt to provide ministerial training in a religious orientation that has been long suppressed and ridiculed. It is a brave endeavour with its own learning curve  - one that has included mistakes and difficulties along the way. But rather than criticizing harshly or dismissively, it is an undertaking that I believe the pagan community would want to encourage and ultimately see flourish. In the very least, it becomes a forum in which the Neoplatonic and ‘Earth-centrism’ are both to be engaged, studied and debated. In short, there is a much wider scope of pagan studies than Cartweel either sees or allows.

For Cartweel's original posting, see: http://greattininess.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/neoplatonism-at-cherry-hill/