The Wiccan Rede, Part 2

So my last post dealt with the first part of the Wiccan Rede; If it harms none.  This second post will deal with the second part of the Rede:  do what you will.

It seems to me that "do what you will" here is taken as a statement of permission, but is also a challenge.  Because "will" can mean to 'Desire, [or] wish for', but it can also mean (According to the OED) 'Denoting expression (usually authoritative) of a wish or intention: Determine, decree, ordain, enjoin, give order (that something be done).  Imagine how different the Rede would sound if it said "do as you determine".  Determining something requires judgment and consideration.  You have to think critically, consider options, and decide what is best in any given situation.  That is a lot more complicated than "do what you want to do".

The Wiccan Rede, Part 1

I have found that author John Coughlin best sums up the Wiccan Rede, when he says, "Today's Wiccan ethics largely center on the Wiccan Rede: If it harms none, do what you will. Longer versions are in circulation adding poetry or personal views (or both), but these eight words are the basis of these variants and best sum up the nature of Wiccan ethics".

It seems important here to separate this Rede from one modern interpretation of it that I have seen -- the one that says "Do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone".  The Rede I am using here says that it is ok to do something that won't cause harm but it does not say anything about things which do cause harm.  It sets an ethical guideline of harmlessness.  This is consistent with the definition of  'rede', which according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "Counsel or advice given by one person to another. Also: a piece of advice".

The other Rede actually says that all actions that cause harm are forbidden.  I think that this is impractical and almost impossible to follow.  After all, sometimes all we have to choose from is a lesser and a greater harm.  And what about self-defense?  No, this isn't workable.  Moreover, it is a newer, and less accurate reconstruction of the older phraseology. The older phraseology is reflected in the Rede I am using here.

If it harms none, do what you will.  This seems so simple to follow on its face, but it really isn't -- at least if, like me, you believe in an interconnected web of relationships and responsibilities toward, well, toward everything, really.  What does it mean to truly harm "none" in this context? Is it even possible to know when an action will cause harm?  After all, tiny differences in starting conditions can yield widely varying outcomes in chaotic systems -- and this is a chaotic system if I ever knew one!

No, I think that in order to work at all, the Rede must be taken with a dose of practicality -- that harm to another cannot be the intent or foreseeable collateral damage of an action, and that this is an ethical guide.  And based on this guide, a practice of harm minimization is acceptable -- to "hurt none" where possible, and do the least amount of hurt in all other situations.

Introduction

As the title says, this blog is my attempt to chronicle my fumblings toward religion. I have always felt something missing, spiritually, in my life, but none of the religions I investigated (and I investigated an awful lot of them) really resonated with me particularly well.

The one that came closest was Wicca. So what was wrong with Wicca?  Well, let me start off with what was right (for me) about Wicca.  I love that it is a nature religion.  Growing up in rural areas as I did, I feel a lot of communion and identification with nature.  So right off the bat, I was sympathetic to Wicca when I started reading about it.  I like that it is experiential. I like that it is non-dualistic.  I like that it is pantheistic.  I don't mind that it is a new (or new-old) religion -- I think all religions must stay new if they are to be relevant.  I like that it focuses on this life, not the afterlife. In short, I like a lot about Wicca, and I think I naturally fall somewhere in the Neo-Pagan spectrum of beliefs.  I may even be some sort of Eclectic Wiccan.  I don't know just yet.  This blog is intended at least in part as a tool to help me find out.  One of the series of posts I have planned is an analysis of what I believe about the Wiccan Rede and other creeds and guidelines.

So why am I not (or at least not sure I am) a Wiccan?  Well, the magic trips me up.  It strikes me that if magic is real, it requires some kind of belief in order to see it, and I don't have the right kind of belief.  My kind of magic manifests in things like the color of the clouds at sunset, and the miracle in the spiral of an ammonite.  It doesn't require ritual implements.  In fact, I think I'd feel silly holding a ritual implement.  If you don't, that is wonderful  - for you.  But for me it is an act of basic respect, both to myself and to the religion, not to engage in important things with my tongue in my cheek.  To put it in the language of the new atheists, there is just too much woo in Wicca for me.  Granted, I wouldn't go so far as that blog.  I know that every religion cloaks itself in metaphor, and I am prepared to accept Wicca's mythos on its own terms.  And I believe mythos is important -- it provides a metaphorical way to grasp things that would otherwise be hard to hold onto.

What I'm looking to create is a framework for expressing and nurturing my spirituality in a way that seems both accurate and honest to me. I have a few ideas, but I don't know what shape that is going to take.  This blog was conceived as a place for me to chronicle my thoughts and to (hopefully) get feedback from any generous others who are willing to share what they think with me.