Sacrament of the real: midichlorians and rationality

A little rant…and a little sense (I hope).

In recent discussions on my Facebook page, in private emails and in a number of group settings I have stumbled once more into the truth recently and eloquently described in Common Cause: The Case for Working with our Cultural Values:

Often, if the facts don’t support a person’s values, the facts bounce off.

As human beings we more often than not reject facts that do not fit with our idea of reality, our self or our preferred behaviours rather than change them.

In a church group setting I can see this process easily when trying to point out to creationists that Biblical myths are not meant to describe how the physical universe came into being; that we can accept scientific evolutionary theory and still know Genesis as mythically true at the same time. Bounce. All the accumulated data, all the common sense, all the objections to trying to make a myth describe the material universe – it all falls off.

In a Neo-Pagan setting I can see this when discussing the origins of Neo-Pagan religion, outlining how it is a modern religious impulse that draws inspiration on the past but has precious little historical connection to traditional pagan religions; that we can have a modern religion that is every bit as valid as ancient religions. Bounce. All the accumulated modern historical, anthropological and literary research, all the common sense, all the unpacking of a need to have an ancient religion over a modern one – it all falls off.

In a political setting I can see this when explaining that even from an economic perspective it makes no sense to lock asylum seekers up in desert detention centres that cost a bomb; that we can redirect money to other social concerns and be compassionate at the same time. Bounce. All the bottom line dollars figures, all the international obligations, all the common sense, all the studies showing the damage detention does to refugees costs more in the long run – it all falls off.

The authors of Common Cause focus on values as the sticking point for acceptance of new facts: if new facts do not conform to our preexisting value set we are likely to bounce them right off us. From an esoteric perspective I think there is a little more to this. The problems lie, I believe in the locus of control over our thoughts being derived from outside the material plane. That’s a pretty opaque sentence, so let me try and be explain.

When dealing with the material world of mundane shared space-time, we really should be making decisions based on evidence from mundane shared-space time, that is physical reality. This is of course the realm of science in its broadest contexts and the western scientific method, despite its flaws, still stands as one of the gems of humanity. Without it I would not be writing and you could not be reading these words.

In the three examples above we see creationists, nostalgic Neo-Pagans and fear-filled covert racists all making decisions from a non-material place within them and then applying them to a material concern. Creationists have an emotional investment in Biblical inerrancy; they allow their emotional self to override and decide what exists on the physical. The ‘emotions’ I am concerned with here are the ‘lower’ more primal emotions bound up with sense of self and safety, tribal belonging and hierarchy-domination. They relate more to Yesod than Netzach on the Tree of Life.

So, from an esoteric perspective there is a confusion of the planes. The creationist confuses their emotional reality with the physical reality. Once confused, once emotional reality has infected the physical there is a problem as the laws that govern the physical reality of shared space-time do not accommodate emotional reality. So various complicated rationalisations are needed to try and bring the two realities into one. These can be seen by visiting any creationist website or speaking to any creationist with half a brain.

The same emotional-physical confusion occurs within  the nostalgic Neo-Pagan and the racist.

There are other levels of physical confusion also. We can confuse our mental level patterning with the material mundane universe.. A classic case here is the full blown racist who deeply “believes” her racism, where there is not just an emotional reaction. Her mental constructs are such that any person who has the label “Islamic” is a problem, is bad, is extremist etc. These mental constructs are then placed over the material reality and confused with it.

Confusion of the planes is one of the problems inherent in magic. We see its grossest manifestations in folk acting on inner plane information and wandering off to find the tomb of Christian Rosencrutz. Milder, though still worrying versions occur when people claim the Golden Dawn is X or was descended from Y group based on an inner vision. Or when historical, hard evidence manuscripts are dismissed as being wrong, forgeries, or incomplete as they do not concur with emotionally based or mentally held conceptions.

The only way to avoid these problems is to give due reverence to the sacrament of the real world of sunsets and sonatas, pain and piss that we all live in. Each and every time we make decisions or form opinions we need to ask ourselves to which plane does this refer? If it refers to the physical world, the world of the formation of the universe, finances, physical people doing physical things, we need to let the physical evidence decide. This does not mean the emotional, mental and spiritual worlds are invalid or lesser, only that they cannot be the judge of the material world.

When the Phantom Menace came out some Star Wars fans were dismayed over the explanation that a physical micro-organism, the Midichlorians were responsible for creating a person’s link to the Force. They felt it devalued the spiritual significance of the Force. Personally, however I was very happy as it showed the sacredness of the physical reality and how the physical is involved in all non-physical human matters as well (since incarnation is synonymous with humanity).

We can value the physical fully and judge physical matters from there and still be emotionally and spiritually adept. Genesis can still be true, just not as a description of how space, time, matter, galaxies, planets and life formed. Neo-Paganism can still be valid though only decades old and it is still truly an ancient religion, though not in terms of history. Knowing the broad outline of current scientific cosmology does not detract from believing God created the universe; one type of knowledge tells us how the universe formed and the other tells us about our relationships and place within it.

I would love to see more magicians, Christians and pagans using this approach. I really hate it when I realise I am obviously talking in a different sphere to a person I am debating. Really the subtext of their speech is  ‘this is true because I know it to be true emotionally or mentally’ even if they are talking about material concerns. I am only concerned about what we can know, discover, theorise and prove physically. No wonder we don’t get anywhere.

Of course, while it is sometimes easy for me to see this process occurring in others, my task remains to note it in myself. I welcome MOTO readers to point out when I do this. Thanks 🙂



  1. Terry · October 27, 2010

    I was part of a discussion recently along these lines where an apparently ardent creationist was “disproving” Richard Dawkins. The disproving mainly revolved around posting a youtube video widely known to be at best misleading, then repeatedly stating that Dawkins can’t prove his points (without actually providing any further argument). The notion of Genesis as analogy, accepted by the orthodox wing of Christianity, does not occur to creationists.

    As an agnostic theist, atheists like Dawkins are not even my natural allies, yet preferable company to anti-intellectual creationists. In short, you cannot teach a pig to sing, and I understand your frustration on the above areas, Peregrin

  2. Endovelicon · October 28, 2010

    An excellent post!
    Two comments:
    –some Neopagans, as the Reconstructionists, aim to create modern forms of NeoPaganism based on archaeological and documented sources, with a cautious acceptance of “inspired” revelations IF they don’t go against known sources, acknowledging myth as a poetic description of reality and not as a factual one
    –about the Midichlorians, we already have an example of microorganisms that connects all beings to an outside source of living energy: the mitocondria inside all live cells take the Sun energy hidden as chemical energy on food and release it in a form that we can use, connecting all beings to the Life-field, so I never could understand the objections of the pseudo-Jedi among us ;-)))

  3. Peregrin · October 28, 2010

    Hi Terry, thanks.

    I am always torn between not engaging folk like literal creationists and trying to enagage them. One the one hand, I tend to think like Bishop Spong (mention his name in these circles and see the response): we can’t really converse with these people, they are not open to hearing anything new and there is no point in addressing them. On the other hand, I think I can always learn from people and I could present something that someone could learn from. And I agree, as frustrated as I am with Dawkins’ at times limited understanding of religion, I would much rather have dinner with him than any ardent creationist apologist. I could learn more from Dawkins, i think 🙂

  4. Peregrin · October 28, 2010

    Hi Endovelicon,

    thanks for the comments. Yes, I applaud the pagan reconstructionists and think they are doing a wonderful job mostly. I think however we need to be clear, when we reconstruct in this way we are still producing a new religion. See the post Christianity – ’tis all around us where I discuss this a little more. We cannot approach archaelogical and literary remains from a neutral space: we are all influenced by our Christian based culture whether we like it or not. Our language, our thought, our ways of reading, our sense of religion is all tied into this. We need to deconstruct ourselves before reconstructing 🙂 Another thing, as you know, paganism comes out of the Land and a people’s relationship to the Land. So, even if we have deconstructed ourselves, even if we have all the data needed, even if we think, act and feel like an anicent pagan the religion we produce will be different. The religion produced by the Land in Anicent Argos will be different if we reproduce it from the Land in Scunthorpe (and many reconstructions are done in different lands to the original). Even if we are blessed to be in the same area of Land, there are very, very few places where thousands of years of human (and Christian) interaction with the Land will not have altered it on many levels.

    From the post mentioned above: “Sadly then, contemporary Neo-Pagan re-constructionists have their work cut out for them. Philip Carr-Gomm in a lecture once described this process as akin to trying to drink an especially rich thick-shake: we keep sucking on the straw trying to get little pieces of nurturance from the base of the drink. It is much better, he suggested, to jump over the counter, go into the kitchen and make our own drinks. His approach is shown in the Order of the Bards, Ovates and Druids who are collectively, eclectic, creative, scholarly and connected to the inner sources of their tradition.”

    Thanks for the info on the mitocondria – i did not know this 🙂 Yes, I am with you on this point. Thanks.

    So, while I applaud the reconstructionists, gee they have a lot of work to do 🙂 I am too lazy for that.

  5. Gordon · October 28, 2010

    Great post. Absolutely agree with everything but the liking of midichlorians. 🙂

    That made me smile because I don’t think I have previously heard anyone voice a positive impression of midichlorians. (Although I like your reasoning.)

    If anything, I have bounced -as you say- that whole expositionary scene out of my brain. (Along with great swathes of that movie, of course.)

    But definitely extra points for penning a post that includes star wars, history, racism, Richard Dawkins, thickshake metaphors and Jesus in a bar.

  6. J · November 5, 2010

    Hi there! I’ve been enjoying your posts. One point. While it is appropriate not to stereotype Muslims, I think it is also appropriate not to stereotype those who critique Islam. Many people have legitimate concerns with how women and homosexuals are treated in many Islamic countries for example. I have noticed that factual criticisms of the practices in some Islamic countries gets one labeled a racist and a bigot. Bounce.

  7. Peregrin · November 5, 2010

    Thanks for the comment J,

    A good point. I agree this does happen and is a problem. My example here was consciously constructed to show the conflation of race and religion – middle eastern origins and Islam – which are actually separate things. I was trying to highlight how some people have an uncritical conflation which where their unconscious racism is merged with the religion of Islam. Where of course you can be middle eastern and a Christian, or agnostic. And you can be a Muslim and caucasian.

    You point out another aspect where critiquing of harmful practices and ideology is also conflated with racism. We should be able to criticise and counter abuse regardless of which religion or culture it is found it, or which religion is used to justify it.

    We can and should oppose female genital mutilation, for example, without being labelled racist or anti-Islamic (and yes, I have been labelled this way for even my mild support of campaigns against FGM). The same with the general treatment of women and homosexuals as you describe. I would not consider anyone racist who worked for better treatment of women and homosexuals in Islamic countries (middle eastern and Asian) or in Islam as a whole. Equally though, I do know people who attack Islam on these points yet do not attack the strains of Christianity which are also misogynistic and homophobic, such as that in Uganda which may still pass a law with the death penalty for repeat homosexual ‘offenders’. This may be racism but I think is more often simply not seeing the mote in our own eyes as Jesus would say.

    Thanks for the great points 🙂

  8. David Griffin · November 8, 2010

    Strange that this never got approved. Here, let me try again.

    Please see my reply on the HOGD/AO blog at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s