Llewellyn Publications's Blog, page 99

Last weekend (January 26–27, 2013), I attended the 9th Annual Conference on Current Pagan Studies. This was not your typical Pagan festival or convention. The conference took place in a large room at the Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California. Although anyone could attend, the presenters from all over the country were primarily university professors and students. Some of them are popularly known. Some of them have academic books and a few had more popular books.

With only brief breaks, we listened to the papers being presented by their authors for two full days. There were a few major themes that ran through the conference ranging from who is a Pagan (there has been a lot about this in the blogosphere recently) to the fact that there are more Pagans in the U.S. than there are members of some important Christian denominations. Those Christian groups, however, have built and support schools and hospitals while we have not. We have the numbers. Certainly we should be able to do this. One organization, the Cherry Hill Seminary, is trying to achieve federal accreditation. They have fulfilled most of the actual requirements for this, but they have not yet obtained the money, $10,000, needed just to apply.

Why is this an issue? Because if Pagans want to have the respect and recognition of other scholars and official groups they need to have their education accredited. Working within the greater professional communities becomes far easier with accredited degrees. For example, most, if not all, Pagan ministers serving incarcerated Pagans do so as volunteers. With accreditation, they can ask for, and demand, the same respect, recognition, and salaries as ministers of other faiths.

Of course, this ignores the existential question of what sort of community should Pagans have, but that is another issue.

The professors and students will go back to their universities and colleges (accredited ones) and teach their classes or ask questions with what was presented at the conference in their minds. As a result, although the actual attendance was less than 100 people, the influence and impact of the conference will spread far beyond those people. Their 10th annual conference next year will be even bigger. Their web site is here and their FaceBook page is here.

Literally the day before I went to the conference I was contacted by one of the people who is attending and giving workshops at PantheaCon. “P-Con,” which I’ll be attending and giving two workshops, is nowhere near as formal as the conference (there’s a lot of entertainment, music, performances, rituals, and parties), and is intended for a much wider audience. There should be 2,000 people or more. It will literally take over a hotel for the weekend. The presenter (since we communicated via email I don’t have authorization to use her name) is a Pagan of color. I wrote to her saying, “Although most Pagans claim to be progressive (at least in certain areas, albeit there seems to be a growth in reactionary Pagans in parts of Europe and among some U.S. groups), I remain amazed at the distinct lack of Pagans of color. I think there needs to be a self-analysis of why people of color tend to avoid being identified as Pagan or want no part of it when, IMNSHO, they should find a welcome home among Pagans.”

On the second day of the conference, Amber Deneén Gray, gave a workshop titled, “On Racism, Misogyny, and Homophobia in Pagan Reconstructionist Communities.” I think much of what she had to say shocked a lot of people. She, a woman of color, had been told by the Pagan community she had joined that they were authentic, she should beware of  Neo-Pagans and Wiccans because they would hate her, and finally, that people of color and gays were not welcome in the Pagan tradition she was following!

I think the shock was due to the title of her paper which applied to “Pagan Reconstructionist Communities” in general rather than just her particular group. Also, it was shocking to see her justifiable anger, compounded by the fear she felt at coming to a conference where, according to leaders on the path she was following, she expected to be treated poorly. When it was eventually realized that the community she had been part of was an extremist fringe aspect of Paganism, the shock quickly wore off and several people expressed sympathy and compassion for her, assuring her that this was not the way most of us felt. She said she had no way of knowing this because she could only go by what she had seen on the websites associated with her tradition, and there was extreme racism and homophobia there.

In my experience, most Pagan traditions have no trouble welcoming people of color or of other than “heteronormative” sexualities. I personally have participated with numerous groups that have GLBTQ members. Nobody seems to care about what your sexual interests are as long as you’re devoted to the Goddess and God. However, the number of people of color involved in Western Neo-Paganism is surprisingly small. Why are more people of color not choosing Paganism? I certainly don’t have the answer. People of color have always been welcomed to events I’ve attended. I wouldn’t attend if it were not so. And yet relatively few participate. This is something, I predict, that will become an issue in months to come.

One of the keynote presenters, Peter Dybing, did mention one thing that I can see as a cause of the lack of integration in Pagan groups as well as what you and I can do to change this.

Peter is a real Pagan hero. His background includes experience as a firefighter, EMT, and mental health counselor. He has helped out with international humanitarian disasters including being hands-on in Haiti as well as the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. He is also a former National First Officer of Covenant of the Goddess. One of the points in his workshop was based on the concept of what happens if you choose to lead a Pagan group, especially if you have a presence on the internet. He summed it up by using an image designed by the late Isaac Bonewits (you can find more of his designs for sale HERE): That’s right, no matter how much good you’re doing, someone is going to attack you. Become a leader and you may as well paint a target on your shirt. Several of the more public Pagans in the audience agreed and shared their stories.

There is nothing wrong with having people disagree with you. People disagreeing with each other and presenting different opinions and approaches so that a consensus can be reached is a good thing. But too often, especially on the internet, that’s not what happens. Rather than disagree and present a coherent argument, a few people (commonly known as “internet trolls”) simply attack the person, often calling him or her names while presenting no position of their own. They hide behind a veil of anonymity and use frequent posts as a means of giving themselves legitimacy through frequency.

What Peter suggested, and I agree, is that it is up to each of us to stand up to such trolls. Tell them that such behavior is not acceptible. If they want to disagree with ideas, that’s fine. But let’s keep it to that level. He also pointed out that many people are only familiar with the internet practice of disagreeing through anonymous attack. It may be that part of what we need to do is educate a person out of their trollishness and become one of the voices presenting alternate views. But, we do need to stand up to the trolls.

I realize that we cannot do everything everywhere. But if you are on a website or forum where people are commenting by spreading hatred, racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc., you can stand up to them. You can tell them that their hatred is not accepted. You can remove the hatred from their position and look at their arguments, then show whether the argument has any validity. You can stand up for all good people. We can stand up for all good people. Toleration of hatred gives the false impression of acceptance.

Hatred and intolerance won’t fade away from our actions on this. But it will show that the majority of Pagans will not accept it. And perhaps it will make potential brothers and sisters of color and different sexualities, along with all they can share, a bit more welcome under our Pagan umbrella.

The Full Moon in Leo occurs tomorrow, Saturday, January 26 at 11:38 pm Eastern (4:38 am Sunday, January 27 GMT) at 7 degrees. Full Moons represent the culmination of those things that were begun with the New Moon (in this case the January 11 New Moon in Capricorn), which found us evaluating our careers, our ambitions, and our personal discipline.

The Leo Full Moon opposes the Sun in Aquarius; we are reminded to check ourselves in the progress we made towards our goals set during the Capricorn New Moon. Are we re-dedicating ourselves to our jobs and careers? Perhaps goals set pertained to our physical and emotional health; are we honoring these personal promises? Are we being too selfish (Leo) in our approach? Or are we putting friends and family before ourselves (Aquarius) in our lives, taking away time needed for ourselves and our goals? Leo urges us to find ourselves and our place within our families and the community at large, so that we can accomplish those things we set forth.

Since this deck won’t be available until May, it might be too early to start discussing it. But it is available for pre-order (HERE), and I am really excited about it.

Some of you may know my tendencies as a reader. I am a serial monogamist. Although I own and appreciate hundreds of decks, I usually only consider one (at most, two) decks my “primary reading deck” at a time. I stay faithful to that deck until…I don’t really know what happens. We grow apart. A new deck catches my soul. Sometimes my stint with a deck will be months; sometimes, years.

The Anna.K Tarot was self-published. I heard an interview of Anna on a radio show and was intrigued, so I ordered her deck. For several years (until I made the prototype of my Steampunk Tarot), this was my primary deck. And, in fact, this deck heavily influenced my ideas about what makes a good reading deck and consequently, the Steampunk Tarot.

What I love about the Anna.K Tarot:

1. Charming art

2. Simplicity of images

3. Traditional meanings

That’s it. That’s what I want in a good reading deck. I really do admire decks with more intricate art, but for me, my reading style, which is to have a lot of cards on the table and look for patterns, the simple images work best.

I’m so happy that Llewellyn is publishing an edition of this deck, including Anna’s book (expanded a little), so a larger audience can enjoy this wonderful deck!

There is a new article on Wired Magazine’s website that draws my attention to the difference between real science, scientific writing, and pseudo-science masquerading as science. The article is written by Nathanael Johnson, author of a new book entitled All Natural. I haven’t read it yet, but please don’t hold that against me—it’s not going to be released for another week.

The cover of the book identifies the author as a “skeptic.” Those of you who regularly read my blog know that I am very skeptical of self-identified skeptics. It turns out that many are not skeptics at all. Rather, they have in their minds a long-obsolete notion of what science includes and will do just about anything to denounce and mock anyone who dares disagree. Further, they will do so with all the energy and rage of the most angry religious fundamentalist, so much so that I refer to skeptics as followers of the religion of scientism, a belief in archaic scientific concepts that they feel they must defend.

In the publisher’s description of his book, they say it is “wry, and scrupulously reported.” First, why would a scientific report about anything need to be “wry,” which my dictionary defines as “using or expressing dry, esp. mocking, humor?” Since when is mocking and dry humor a part of scientific study? On the other hand, being wry is a tool in the skeptic’s tool chest, so the publisher’s comment seems to agree with the claim on the cover of the author being a skeptic .

However, the book is supposed to be “scrupulously reported.” Well, we don’t have the book so we can’t say. But we can look at the article and see if what he publishes with his name does qualify as being “scrupulously reported.”

His article begins: “Americans spend $34 billion a year on so-called alternative medicine — botanical pills, acupuncture, energy healing, and the like — despite the fact that few of these techniques are backed by any science.”

Here, Johnson lumps every form of alternative medicine into one group and denounces them all, claiming they are not “backed by any science.” That’s like saying if one fruit tastes bad all fruit tastes bad. This is pure guilt by association. That’s hardly an example of scrupulous reporting. Which ones are backed by science, Mr. Johnson? Which ones are not? Where is the research and experimentation that validates your “scrupulous reporting?”

He writes, “Study after study has rejected the ability of such treatments to cure.” Really? Where are all these studies? What were their protocols? Have they been replicated? There’s nothing indicated. No sources. No footnotes. Just unsubstantiated claims we’re supposed to accept because a skeptic wrote them.

He continues, “For example, a randomized, controlled trial of Chinese herbs on women with ovarian cancer found no effective difference between the herbs and a dummy pill — because there was some improvement with both. A double-blind trial of saw-palmetto pills for men with enlarged prostates produced similar results. What gives?”

Wow. That’s fascinating. Where can I read the original reports, Mr. Johnson? He provides nothing. This Materia Medica of Chinese herbs lists “more than 530 of the most commonly used herbs in the Chinese pharmacopoeia.” And those are just the most commonly used ones. So, Mr. Johnson, which herbs were used in the undocumented test you describe? Why were those herbs chosen? He doesn’t say. How many people were involved in the tests? Nothing is listed. We’re just supposed to accept what the skeptic says.

But let’s assume that this very uninformative article is actually accurate. He presents an interesting question. In two cases, supposedly real (we have no way of knowing) alternative healing methods and imitation alternative healing methods both saw improvement in patients. What does this mean?

Well, first you would need to have a control group where nothing was done. How many people in the control group improved, stayed the same, or didn’t improve? We don’t know. Johnson doesn’t report this. So from a scientific standpoint, his comments are meaningless.

His response to the meaning of these poorly-reported tests: “The obvious answer is the placebo effect.” Uh…no. Your obvious answer is the placebo effect. From your report it’s impossible to tell. What controls were put on the experiments? How long did the experiments take place? For how long after the experiments concluded were the subjects followed and evaluated? Where there any other changes in the subjects’ lives that could have accounted for this? How did the supposed improvement rates compare to a control group of people receiving no treatment?

So no, the obvious answer is not the placebo effect. The placebo effect is merely one possible explanation for superficially reported, undocumented stories (I can’t ethically call them “reports” or “studies” or “experiments” because there’s no evidence they occurred), but it is the one most approved of by people who have their minds made up in advance as to what is possible and what is not: defenders of scientism and pseudo-skeptics.

Moving beyond the pseudo-skeptical and definitely non-scientific approach made in the first part of the article by Johnson, let’s look at the point he is trying to make.

Johnson cites one research study (again, providing no way to find out exactly what was done, controls that were made, how many people were tested, etc.) where the method of giving care was supposedly tested. Specifically, he claims that if fake care is giving in a warm, friendly, and caring manner it was more effective than if the same fake treatment was given brusquely and without friendliness. How much more effective is it? Well, Johnson doesn’t say. All he reports is that benefits of the fake care “largely disappeared” (whatever that means) when given in that cold manner.

The assumption of the report that Johnson claims to be covering is that it’s not the placebo effect, but a “care effect,” which Johnson describes as, “the idea that the opportunity for patients to feel heard and cared for can improve their health.”

I think most mothers could have told you that!

I do want to add that I actually agree with some of Johnson’s conclusions, albeit not with what I would consider his very sloppy reporting. He writes, “mainstream medicine could stand to learn something important about caring from the alternative forms.” I agree. He continues, “Some $210 billion is wasted annually on overtreatment, according to the Institute of Medicine, while a Medicare study found that overly aggressive treatment kills some 30,000 people a year. As a result, the number of U.S. adults who die from too much medicine is now higher than the number who die for lack of it.” And this is a shocking statistic (if true).

Johnson then falls back into what seems to be a pseudo-skeptical, either-or mindset: “If we’re going to fix our broken health system, we’ll have to solve the problem of overtreatment.” I’d respectfully suggest that if we focus on the problem of undertreatment or overtreatment we’re taking a very narrow and unscientific approach. What we need is to move toward appropriate treatment for each individual. That means it will be less for some and more for others. Johnson just paints with the broad, simplistic solution brush of the pseudo-skeptic. I do hope his book is better than this.

But if it’s not the placebo effect or the care effect (which is described as a result but not analyzed as to the way it works), what other possibility is there?

We’ve all heard of love at first sight. But is it real? My father met my mother at a college party. On their first meeting he said he was going to marry her. She laughed it off. Six months later they were married. How did he know? How did she not know?

I have to admit that my mother was an absolutely gorgeous young woman, and that’s not just because she was my mom, so maybe he was just blown away by her looks:

You may not have experienced the love at first sight phenomenon, but most of you have experienced the immediate like or dislike of a person before you even meet that person. Perhaps you think it’s due to the person’s appearance, body language, vocal quality, friends, or something else. But maybe there’s something more?

Every person has an energy field about them. This has been shown with Kirlian photography which illuminates that field and makes it recordable on photographic film. It can be detected and measured with various devices and even can help you alter the field through biofeedback.

Now here’s the reason this is important. Energy, such as this energy field around us, is in motion. It has a frequency. If we examine frequency at audible levels, frequencies that work well together are called harmonious. Those that conflict sound grating and are generally unpleasing to hear. We’re attracted to the harmonious and repelled by the disharmonious.

Okay, bear with me. Things that are harmonious can actually amplify each other. For example, a violin note played near the strings of a piano will cause piano strings that are harmonious with the violin to begin to vibrate. Those in harmony and closest to the note of the violin will sound the loudest. This is known as the law of resonance.

Biofeedback shows that we can change the quantity and quality (i.e., frequency) of our energy fields. If we take the science of sound and the science of biofeedback, it becomes apparent that if we have a strong (i.e., healthy) energetic field it can influence the energy fields of those around us, and by modifying our energy field we will have an effect on the fields of other persons. One way to modify that energy field is through our feelings and attitude.

If you put too much electrical energy through a circuit, it will in some way damage that circuit. It might blow a fuse or circuit breaker or melt a wire. Energy and the physical sources of that energy are intimately linked. Change your physical body and your energy will change. Change your energy and your body will change.

This is a simple formula: care giver’s energy, both in amount and frequency, affects a patient’s energy according to the physical laws of resonance. The change in the patient’s energy affects his or her body. The patient heals.

This goes far beyond the “care effect.” This proposes what could be a testable theory for a viable healing modality.

Unfortunately, such tests will never happen. Drug companies who support medical testing won’t pay for tests. They have no reason to do so as the results have no chance of bringing them money. Governments that support medical testing are composed of politicians who get large amounts of money for their election and re-election campaigns from drug companies. This energetic theory of healing, a theory which is every bit as valid as the placebo effect or care effect, will only be mocked with wry humor by pseudo-skeptics.

Besides, using energy for healing? That sounds like magick. And that’s something a pseudo-skeptics will never accept.

If you’d like to know more about the concepts and techniques of energy healing, here are some books that will interest you:

Energy SourceBook by Jill Henry

Healing Body, Mind & Spirit by Howard F. Batie

Aura Energy for Health, Healing & Balance by Joe H. Slate

A Chakra & Kundalini Workbook by Jonn Mumford

Chi Gung by L.V. Carnie