Blessings be with you,

Kudos to the GE staff. I appreciate the intellectual growth I'm seeing and the creative flowering and the good sense and ---what can I say? A great issue!

Oh, I do love Jesse Wolf Hardin! His writing skills have improved incredibly (wish mine would) and I'm so pleased to read someone saying "all these qualities are MALE qualities"! without lots of floor-kissing mea-culpas. The thing is, we humans share more qualities than differentiate us. Individuals within a gender can differ more greatly than a composite of male beings would differ from a composit of female beings. There are differences and I'm always fascinated with the ways we humans choose to express them but the stereotypes are bullshit. When adults are still asking "am I a boy or am I a girl" and vice-versa then the wrong question is being asked.

Personally, I find astrological sun signs more useful in classifying people than gender. Not that they work a lot better, just that nobody's going to start checking out their body parts if the sun-signs are off.

The poem on the inside of the cover was hard for my eyes to read but I love it! I want to send it to men all over the country. Yes, guys are great!

Kevin Saari's "Gentlemen's Grimoire" is such a breath of fresh air. Ever since an incident some ten or so years ago with a budding child magician, I've been dying to write an article on manners as a form of organising ethical systems. I still would like to if only because of stories illustrating the concept -- however if I never do so, I can now recommend Kevin's article instead.

John Rowan's article is really interesting. Generally, my formulating the various non-consensus paradigm experiences doesn't organise things quite the way he does it. I have found the psychological "sciences" interesting but not totally convincing and so haven't been following them for a while. However, it is a provocative article and brings to the fore something it would be nice to get more thought sharing about. Where do we go when we step sideways into another space? When I followed up my youngest son's entry into the milieu of "firewalkers" (he was in his mid-thirties at the time, I believe) by going on a fire-walk myself, I learned something really interesting. Somehow, the type of trance which goes with a successful fire walk (for me, at least) must actually be removing me just a fraction from the reality-set in which the heaped-up glowing coals are doing their thing. I wasn't even singed! Now, I've had mystic experiences and magic experiences and trust me, this was close to the state I'm in when a worship circle is really on track and it's close to the sensation of "ki" I've experienced in martial arts exercizes or when I'm moving a too-heavy object using "ki" but --- not to the high-spirit-expanding state I'm in when I'm in contact with the frame I think of as "mystical experience". So, what is that place? Pre-trans? I know that doing magic is, for me, a bit of focused "reality-shifting" and while it isn't fear-based and, hopefully, isn't delusion-based, it certainly very seldom opens me up to the abandonment-to-joy that my best experiences with the forces of major manitouj will. I find worship circles can be a joy and a fine linking of human and Other spirit -- but I can't usually count ecstatic states as a factor. In fact, as I told some friends, "I Iove a parade, I love a circus, I love ritual, and I could have a spiritual experience at any of them but I don't count on it." So -- John's article is a good opener. If I were better at dogmatism I might come back with some great inclusive theory that trumps his but I doubt there is a theory that can really cover everyone's experiences. And I'm really curious about how those work! Being too definitive tends to shut off the real stuff people experience because they don't know how to fit it into your paradigm.

Personally, I believe that the Pagan Movement is in great spiritual danger from those dear lovely people who want to fit us all into a little consensus paradigm which makes our experiences and rainbows of beliefs neat and tidy. I'm not an Erisian because I enjoy whimsey (though I do). I'm deeply dedicated to wider ways of perceiving, and more open ways of defining reality. I believe it's the path of transformation and that only by willingly dancing in the freefall of a vision leading us out of the current depressed social paradigm will humans have our chance at metamorphosis.

Blessed Be,
Penny J. Novack

Greetings Green Egg Paganfolk

I am a student of the fairy faith, and a founding elder in the Elven-Elemental tradition. I have seen a lot of confusion about Celtic Fairy Faith being identified, quite erroneously with the now-out of print books Celtic Fairy Wicca books One and Two. Despite what some people are asserting on various websites, Celtic Fairy Wicca is not synonymous with the Faery Faith, nor is it the Fairy Tradition created by Victor Anderson. I stated in an earlier letter that the Farrars themselves e-mailed me and cleared the record that they did NOT leave Wicca and are not a part of the Celtic Fairy Wicca, they told me the Fairy tradition was created by Victor Anderson. That was what I wrote in an earlier letter.

I was referring to the ancient Fairy Faith, an underworld, shamanic tradition that honors the Faeries, in which the Tuatha da Danaan, the Gods of the Celtic peoples, survived as fairy spirits. The realm of faerie, the cthonic spirit realm of the nature spirits, Alfar (Elves) and the Dwarves, is the basis of the Fairy Faith teachings. They succeeded the time of the Druids, but did not pre-date it. As the Roman conquest of England threatened the Druid teachings, the Druids created the ogham tree script to preserve their teachings. Ireland, the fair Emerald land of Eire, survived the Roman armies, but succumbed to the Roman Catholic priests and began the conversion of Ireland to Christianity. However, the clerics faithfully wrote down the Irish Pagan legends and began to blend the native Celtic spirit with the Christian teachings.

Most Irish peoples had a strong belief in the fairy realm, which the Church could not define clearly. They considered the faerie realm as somewhere between the Angels and the fallen angels, neither good nor evil, but they began to fear their potent fairy magic. The old fairy folk came to be seen as haunting megalithic sites and pre-celtic menhirs, stone forts, and burial mounds. At Lughnasadh, Samonios, and at Medio-Saminos, or MidSummer, the fairy were said to appear at ancient sites. The fairy faith had a heavy influence on the Celtic Christian Church.

Indeed, the Celtic Cross incorporates the pagan idea of the Four Cities of the Underworld, Gorias, Finias, Murias, and Falias, with the Cross of the Risen Christ. The Goddess Brigid was seen as the Foster Mother of Christ, and Cerridwen was seen as stirring her cauldron before the throne of God. Jesus, Mary and Brigid were invoked by Celtic Christians, and the Brigid shrine of Kildare became a convent, tending her sacred fire in a Christianized worship of the Goddess Brigid.

Sacred wells, fairy mounds, and celebrations of the Celtic Fire Festivals remained. It is so naive of American Pagans to ignore the simple fact that the true heir of the ancient Druid and Celtic Pagan ways is the fairy faith, not Gardnerian Wicca. In fact, most Irish Pagans who are not Wiccan do not have any association with modern ecletic Wicca, and most Wiccans follow an English, not a Celtic form of Paganism. It is time that we began to peel away the mythos of the notion that Wicca is a thirty thousand year old pre-Christian religion, and realize it is a derivative of Italian Strega Witchraft, the writings of Leland and Aleister Crowley's Ceremonial Golden Dawn High Magick.

Traditional Druids do not use athames, call quarters with pentagram sigils, use swords, wear the symbols of the Wiccan liturgy, or derive their teachings from the British Wiccan traditions. We respect Wicca as a valid path to honor the Goddess and God, but Celtic Druidism is not Wiccan in any fashion. Most American Druids are derived from the Indo-European Neo-Paganism of Bonewitz and his Groves of the ADF. However, the Breton Druids and their toutas, or clans, have an influence in America and Canada also. The Druid clan of Dana, based in Ireland, a sister organization of the Fellowship of Isis, is another type of Druidism also.

Although Druidiactos failed to sweep America with a Celtic renaissance, the legacy of The Sacred Cauldron and Tadhg MacCrossan's work remains. The book The Apple Branch, a path to Celtic Ritual, has been revised and is being re-published as Celtic Ritual, and Alexei Kondratiev, it's author has presented us with authentic, non-Wiccan Celtic rituals for Druids and Celtic Pagans to follow.

I think Celtic Wicca is a nice, modern tradition, and meets the needs of those drawn to it. However, too many books with historical inaccuracies and poor scholarship are giving us an erroneous impression of Celtic Paganism. The works of RJ Stewart, such as the Living World of Fairy, Earth Light, and Celtic Gods, Celtic Goddesses give us a glimpse of Celtic Paganism. Another excellent book is The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries, by Evans-Wentz, which was republished in 1991. I recommend it.

I am hoping to network with more Celtic Pagans, and have completed my requisite ten years of study to become a traditional Celtic Druid. I have joined the Druid Clan of Dana, after being a longstanding priest in the Fellowship of Isis. I am gratified to see so many Druid groves on the internet, and Celtic Pagan groups springing up across America. I hope we can connect and learn from each other. In order to help preserve my own Celtic heritage, I am learning Scots Gaelic, no easy task. But I think it is worth the effort to be able to perform Celtic languages in a Celtic tongue, and to research traditional Celtic paganism for it's ancient roots.

To do any less would to miss the richness and diversity of the Celtic Pagan legacy of my Scottish, Welsh, and Irish ancestors. Blessed be all the Celtic Pagans of the world, and may we all be a new flowering on a very ancient tree, with roots in Celtic prehistory.

Rev Andrew Siliar Brooks Fellowship of Isis
ElvenStar Coven

'The Return of Pan' in Green Egg #135 was quite an eye-opening article! Males have plenty of pride and sometimes it's hard for certain men to understand the equality amongst the sexes. We now have women soldiers and decisions are being made if they should go into combat. Other countries have their women in combat and many times women do a better job in combat than men do. As you look around women are taking higher positions with private organizations and the government. My top boss is a woman and she exceeds well in her position. Male pride should become male awareness, that females can do the job just as good, if not better.

Sincerely yours,
Paul Dale Roberts, Mediator
Jazma Universe Online!
http://www.jazmaonline.com/
Elk Grove, CA

I would like a chance to respond to MM's reply to Amy Lynn Caplan's letter on vegan/vegetarian diets. I know I'm reopening a Pandoras Box, but...

I think one of the greatest teachings we get from life is that we appear to live in two worlds at once. One is a world where it is all spirit, absolutely seamless and without duality. The other world is the one where there is total imperfection, where we are faced with oftentimes painful choices, without the ability to really know all the effects of those choices.

One of the choices I have made is not to eat animal flesh. Maerian makes the cliche argument that questions whether it is more compassionate to only kill the lovely plants and veggies. I say with a resounding affirmative YES IT IS!!!! Yes, plants are spirit, plants are conscious, plants feel pain, this I feel. But I have to eat, so I choose the action that causes the least pain. It is obvious that plants are not as conscious as animals, from the dualistic world perspective I spoke of earlier. It is also obvious that in the absolute perspective they are just as much God as anything else. In the realm of the absolute whether I eat or not doesn't make a bit of difference, for Spirit is one, there is no one eating anyone else. But tell me truly, how often do you live in that realm? (Although in Truth you are never anywhere else, that argument could go on ad nauseum.)

I cannot bring myself to kill animals. It hurts my heart. Eating, living, walking, talking, all have to be done as compassionately as possible, none of us can be perfect in our actions, or control the ripples that go forth from those actions. But, we can do a lot, and choosing not to eat meat, is a foundational choice for living as compassionate a life as possible.

Why does our culture have such an obsession with individuality? A successful and responsible culture has to be able to acknowledge that certain actions are wrong. No individual has the RIGHT to take life. It is a very serious and sorrowful act. Sometimes it is a necessity. But it is a horrible necessity. If you are one of the drones that buys your meat wrapped up in plastic and styrofoam, I would suggest keeping you mouth shut regarding smugness or attitude on the part of people who go against the norm on behalf of animals. And likewise, if you are a hunter with some romantic notion of The Great Hunt, and how it's some sacred duty, please know you are full of shit.

I think a deeper investigation into one's personal motives is called for. It's easy and healthy to be a vegetarian, and it's a great evolutionary step foward for our culture.

Thank You,
Kevin Burgess

Tarostar speaks verbosely, scathingly, obfusticatingly, and yet still manages to say relatively little. I'm not quite sure what his diatribe is in Dividing Gall into Three Parts. All I can understand is that he agrees with Varro that religious discussion is more important than the direct action of dealing with people as politicians and priests must. But remember that Varro lived at a very different time, had several of his libraries burned and only one work of his survives intact, unlike today when most Pagans have access to religious repetitiveness that would make ancient writers tremble in envy. As for Tarostar's disregard for Gardner - wasn't he a Genus Mythicum turning "words into deeds and make thought a reality"? I'm not really surprised at Tarostar's diatribe. After all, dealing with theology is often much easier than dealing with other people; and telling people off is easier than formulating a helpful suggestion or two.

Having not read Angel Arvello (I missed an issue of GE! Gasp! Horror of horrors!), I can't say much regarding Tarostar's rebuttal except that it was rude and insulting. However, in answer to Tarostar's [rhetorical?] question of whatever happened to the art of courteous debate (Pagan or no), I will provide a possible solution. It was mortally wounded by the bombastic and superior attitudes of people like Tarostar and his 'zine road rage' write bits. Debate and dialogue require nurturing silence (listening) and respectful queries (interested questioning) rather than assumptive attacks ("That would explain why the experience of the Gods would evade you") and pompous pronouncements (However, that type of rendering prevents one from actual experiencing the Gods and goddesses as they are spiritually.")

Finally, in response to Which Other Cheek. There is a very simple reason to interact with Christians, it is hardly "irrelevent in our lives". As Tarostar points out, it is assumed we are Christian; at least until we defer the point or defiantly point out otherwise. We share the same world; like two rivaling sibs in the same house sharing a room.

Moot Point - both Jana Hollingworth and Tarostar, in decrying the degeneration of Paganism from high-minded initiates to the slovenly masses, lose an important distinction. Religion and spirituality are different. Religion is a cultural mechanism for group unity, for mutual identification as members of the same family, tribe, clan or group. As the group grows, a mechanism is needed to identify members of the same group that had grown too large to be immediately recognized as family. Religion is social and learned. Spirituality is a means of differentiation, of becoming unique, of recognizing the individual as separate and celebrating the singleness of the relationship of humanity in the individual to the experience of the divine. Spirituality is solitary and experienced.

However, being human we want all the good things that go with spirituality to be known, understood, and experienced by our fellow humans. Thus solitary becomes social and spirituality becomes identified with its more gregarious cousin, religion.

Reulte

In response to Tarostar (GE #134)

Let's see -- so there are two levels that the myths operate at? Literal (or low level) and Mystical? Could it be that the Hercules TV series and the Disney movie are at the low level and not the mystery level? Could it be that the low level is of little concern to some who just might have better things to do with their time than worry about what non believers think of our Gods? I think that the real test of our relationship with our Gods is does the relationship withstand the ridicule or debasement of others? The Gods I've experienced first hand are more concerned with my relationship with them and my fellow human than with whether Hollywood has portrayed them accurately or delved into their multi layered aspects.

As far as civility goes -- "we reap what we sow" - you will receive civility when you learn how to bestow it on others.

Angel Arvello
a.arvello@mindspring.com

Dear GE,

I was reading Oberon's Editorial, about meeting with various religious people in his home. (GE 135) I remember very well the look of horror on the person's face, when he said, "Then what's stopping you from killing me!" I also remember when we had a person in from a church whose headquarters is in Boston. Tim (as he was known then), Julie, Brian and I went to their church the following week. It was a very large imposing building. Upon entering we went down a long foyer with several couples on either side wearing corsages and "used car salesman smiles" to welcome us. We sat down in the middle of the church and heard the most boring talk ever. It seems that all of the literature comes from the Mother church and is read by the officials. At one point there were responsive readings, one from the Bible and a responding one from the founders book. The highlight of the service, for us, was when one of the readers called for a prayer. This also was written out for him and I guess that he forgot to put on his glasses since he droned, "O most Holy Father, O most impotent God." Tim, Julie and I just looked at each other and tried hard to keep from bursting out laughing.

I was also intrigued by Maerian Morris' editorial. I found it interesting that she used "deformed chromosome" when in the next article, Jesse Wolf Harden uses, "Y chromosome". It seems like many people, especially men, use the flawed picture of "Y" as opposed to deformed or incomplete chromosome. I think that this concept is important in that the chromosome is indeed deformed and thus is understood as a foreign body to the female during conception. From the time that the sperm enters the womb until several months after conception, the developing male entity is considered hostile to the female body and is in danger of being spontaneously aborted. I think that this is the reason that males are so aggressive, they had to be aggressive to survive. Now the question is what to do about it. How are we to deal with this aggression. I don't have any answers, but I would like to use this as fuel for discussion.

I think that using attributes to describe oneself shows the lack of unity within. When a person says , "I am man.," "I am an American," "I am white," "I am a warrior," they are using words of division and separation. It is part of the concept of us/them. Each of these parts cannot be separated if indeed they exist at all. Each of us is a whole and we exist within other wholes. This reminds me of the old, old article in Akwesasne Notes, saying that Indians were not ecologists. It was understood that we are not a part of nature, that we are nature and therefore we cannot be stewards since stewardship means "power over." Rather we should act in an ethical manner about ourselves which includes everything else. There is no separation.

While I am at my meandering, let me thank Tom Williams for his great insightful article, "Neo-Pagan Superstition." I really enjoyed it and it will be passed on to many others.

One thing that I like about the freedom of Neo-Paganism is that it is OK to change myths in the middle of a stream.

Thank you all, and keep up the good work,
T.A.G. you're it!
Don Wildgrube,
Tammuz@earthlink.net
P.O. Box 1005
Lake Junaluska, NC

Dear Oberon,

I read with great fascination your article Cosmological Paradoxes: Big Bang vs. Multiple Orgasms (GE 136). I believe I've spotted a few technical concerns regarding your answer to Mr. Gleason's question, however. I'd also like to express a Neopagan interpretation of standard cosmology.

As regards criticism of Big Bang Cosmology, he mentions the "age paradox", that certain globular clusters appear to be older than the universe. I'm happy to report that "error-sniffing" worked. Refined estimates of the ages of the universe and of globular clusters using the data from two satellites, the Hipparcos (1) and the Key Project (2), have resolved the paradox.

The evidence that favors Big Bang cosmology over others that have been proposed is the cosmic microwave background. This microwave radiation, that comes almost but not quite uniformly from all directions in space, is generally interpreted as remnant radiation from the Big Bang and was only tangentially mentioned in the article. Burbidge, Hoyle, and Narlikar explain the microwave background by proposing that intergalactic space is liberally sprinkled with long carbon threads. (3) Star light would heat the threads, and the threads would reradiate the energy in the form of the microwave background. These cosmologists are rather vague, however, on how these carbon threads were produced. Also the additional carbon would be at odds with the known carbon abundances in the universe (the calculation of which was, ironically, one of the great triumphs of Hoyle and Burbidge earlier in their careers.)

As regards the multiple orgasm cosmology (I'd like it to be true just for the name), this has as its main mechanism energy tunneling from the present and the future into the past through worm holes. Current theory, however, predicts that worm holes will collapse if matter tries to pass through them. (4) Negative energy might keep them stable, but the nature of negative energy makes it unlikely - very very unlikely - that enough of it could be produced in a natural (or artificial) setting to do the job of allowing enough energy to travel into the past to create a steady state or quasi-steady state universe. While none of the above considerations actually disprove your ideas, they do give good reason to be very skeptical of them.

The Big Bang is not as spiritually barren as you depict. It is not a confirmation of creationism, nor is it inconsistent with Goddess thealogy. First let's deal with the creationist question. The Big Bang sounds like the answer to a liberal creationist's dreams. The universe started with a bang. Who made the bang? Had to be God. The fact that it's not so simple is hinted at in Gleason's citing of Hawking's claim that asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking "what is one degree north of the North Pole?" I'll attempt to make my point with a different, if mathematically equivalent, analogy. Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is below the center of the Earth.

The law of causality says that every effect has a cause that precedes it in time. I would propose an analogous law that everything within or below (from here on I'll use 'within' to mean both) the Earth's atmosphere that is not falling ultimately has something below it to support it. A chandelier may be supported from above by a chain, but that chain is attached to a ceiling which rests on walls which rest on a foundation which is below the chandelier. Ultimately the chandelier is supported from below. I'll call this law the 'law of support'.

The Big Bang is like the center of the Earth. Just as all directions are up at the center of the Earth, all directions are toward the future at the Big Bang. The center of the Earth is the one place within the atmosphere that the law of support is violated. The law is violated because it requires that the concept of 'below' be valid, which requires the concept of 'down'. At the center of the Earth there is no down. There's only up, so the law can't be applied. The Big Bang is the one time when the law of causality is violated. This law is violated because it requires that the concept of 'before' be valid, which requires the concept of 'past'. At the Big Bang there is no past. There's only future, so the law of causality can't be applied. Saying that the law of causality requires the existence of Yahweh is the same as saying the law of support requires the existence of Atlas. Just as there is no place for Atlas to stand to support the Earth, there was no time in which Yahweh could have formed the intention that is required in an act of creation. The Earth needs no support. The universe is an effect without a cause.

Interestingly this is where Goddess thealogy comes in. The Goddess is the universe, but She also gave birth to it. She is both cause and effect. We see in our mythology a similar violation of causality at the beginning of the universe as is found in the Big Bang. That which is a problem for creationists fits paganism like a glove.

I'll close with a relevant bit of science news. Soon after the Big Bang matter throughout all of space was dense enough to support sound waves. Soon after that the universe went through a period of rapid expansion that froze the sound waves into place. They can now be detected as very minute fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background. Now, not only have we seen the light from the Goddess' birth, the microwave background, but we've heard Her birth cry.

Bright Blessings,
Mark Davidson

Hey all,

I am forwarding a copy of this to the Forum because that is where I originally intended it to go. I am also posting it to the Internest because, well, I want some discussion on it. So, on with the letter.

As I sit and look out onto a chilly Alabama autumn morning, I can't help but remember the places I have been. The mountains of Mexico, the beaches of Miami, the strange, wonderful coffeehouses of New Orleans and other places. All of these places and a thousand more are sacred manifestations of Gaia and all of them hold a sacred place in my heart.

These images are, I think, should be looked at in reference to Jesse Wolf Hardin's letter in GE 135. Before I go further, allow me to say that I believe strongly that Mr. Hardin performs a very significant and important service and that he is a priceless star in the sky that is Paganism today. However, I disagree with him in one thing and that is "Sense of Place".

According to Mr. Hardin, staying in one place, wedding yourself to one piece of Gaia is very important, that "the Earth likes the certainty of us as lovers". This may be true, but I ask you this. Can you love a person if you have only seen their feet? How about their eyes or their hair? If you only have seen one small aspect of our Mother, then it is like loving a person after seeing only one small aspect of them.

Also consider that wanderlust is as much a part of us as Americans (yes, patriotism!) as Mom and apple pie. The desire to see what's on the other end of the ridge, the chasing after a better life, these things are a big part of what made this country, well, this country. Therefore I say, yes, eventually we should become rooted in one spot, but not before we see as much of the beautiful face of the Mother as possible.

Wanderers Unite!
James T. Jones
CAW Member
Birmingham, Alabama

Gentlebeings;

Only recently have I had time to "catch up" on my correspondence, and among those, reading GE.

I am moved to observe in #131, LaSara's and Aurelea's articles, that they bring up some insight into the issues of contemporary Paganism and sexuality.

While there have always been "boundaries" (to use a term from Aurelea's article), even as there have been issues of communications problems between the genders, this would seem to have been exacerbated with what appears to be the "rediscovery" (by our younger generation) with a form of relationship which originated in Victorian England: the Flirtation. It should come as no surprise that a large portion of the population would have no knowledge of this behavior-set. It is not necessarily well known or discussed, even amongst people elder even to the elder amongst us (per my own "straw poll" on the older population in OKC, vicinity mid-80's).

Flirtation had strict rules. Among them: There is to be NO physical contact. Initial behaviors can involve brief, physical exposure (normally at a distance) of "taboo" areas of the physique, occasionally in crowds or public areas (when it's clear that no one but the targeted "flirtee" will be observing). Timing and distance of the exposure is calculated to shock or "catch off guard" the "flirtee" and provoke interest...but not sex. Overall, it seemed to be a desire to provoke an intermediate level of intimacy (somewhere between family/friend and lover) that, while bordering on sexual, never ever got there. All Flirtations ended (or were supposed to) in a rather deep and lasting friendship.

Perhaps this phenomenon manifested as a result of the certain knowledge, again in Victorian England, that sex could result in one of two potentially undesirable outcomes: death, or children (before one was ready to have children, that is).

This possibility, while plausible, doesn't necessarily fit with other cultural behaviors. To be more specific: the popularity of Beauty and the Beast. Here I'm writing of the odd popularity of the original French novel (first published on or about the Renaissance) and its reoccurrence with the original television series. Unfortunately, while there are insufficient demographics to allow for any models or definitive conclusions there is more than sufficient material for what the Juris Doctors refer to as "scintilla".

It would seem that both articles bring up the issue of fear, however. The human race (via the 60's generation) found itself getting what turned out to be a brief respite from a tragic truth of the Medieval period. It had antibiotics and free clinics. The "silver bullet" was all you needed to get rid of anything that you didn't want. Faced with HIV, the human race (via the current generation) is having to relearn that "love can kill you".

While this could explain some things it doesn't necessarily explain others. This writer has to wonder aloud if there is not some experiential confusion between the (more or less) "traditional" interpretations of Saturn and Uranus. Fear is Saturnian and is an obstacle or block. Shock, distinctly Uranian, at some levels APPEARS to be fear. Recall that Saturn was co-ruler of the 11th for quite a time, prior to Uranus' discovery.

I will use a story to illustrate:
Long ago, in a land far away, a young healthy male determined that he was "cursed with virginity" and betook it upon himself to be rid of it. Due to rigorous physical exercise, proper diet, martial arts practice, and the grace of his ancestors, he was blessed with an excellent physique (indeed, he well resembled Fabio, if with a beard), yet had one mis-adventure after another. Mainly due to his own fear, or that of the object(s) of his affection. Determined to be rid of that awful state (virginity), he eventually concluded that he should avail himself of the services of a professional. And so there he eventually stood, gentle reader, literally quivering like a leaf in a gale and barely able to articulate his request to the Proprietress of the Establishment to which he had come. And it came to pass that he was eventually ushered into the presence of that very professional whose presence he had sought. It was with no small amount of trepidation that he accepted her embrace, for he was terrified of injuring something so soft. And it took all the mental discipline of many years of training to maintain control whenever she grabbed him in that way that only a woman can grasp a man, without screaming "HEY LEGGO! GIVE IT BACK!" (for none had ever alluded to him that the females of our specie have muscles down there like that). It was as complete a surprise as complete could be. Upon becoming a man however, he discovered that he was more confused than ever. Deeply reflecting upon the events for days, he listened closely to himself. He listened to his biology. He eventually determined that he had done a Good Thing. And he wanted to do more.

As we can see from the above, there are some experiences that, while quite similar to Saturn, are really Uranian, and it's easy to confuse the two.

Insofar as the dilemma (?) poised by flirting (or reactions to same) it would seem that the human race may have to relearn yet another 'tried and true' behavior-set: Don't do it unless it's with someone you know.

Greywolf Hunting
zardoz@flash.net

Greenings to The Green Egg Forum,

I would like to comment on the Winter 2000 edition of Green Egg.

Although I am not a great fan of this magazine I do enjoy scanning it on occation, and I found the article "Is Your Religion Millenium Compliant?" by John Ross, to be of some interest. Sadly I feel that Mr. Ross did not take his premise far enough.

We need to understand, once and for all, that Wicca is a Modern Religion, not some musty survival from Ye Olde Pagany Times! As the movement currently stands, Wicca is a hodgepodge of Ceremonial Magic/Victorian romantic sentmentality/questionable anthropology and revisionist social history all wrapped up in a tidy and highly marketable New Age package. As long as we all insist on believing in the insulting fantasies of persecution in modern myths as "The Burning Times" and other such pseudo-histories, we are likely to not be taken at all seriously. This movement- for good or ill - may well be judged as just another highly marketable cultural fad, if we remain unwilling to be honest with ourselves and with the rest of the world.

Mr Ross makes some very valuable points about creating viable relevance for Wiccan/NeoPagan movement in the 21st century, yet I fear that his faith in the myth of an ancane mystical past, full of secrecy and persecution, rather damns his arguement. I do agree with a good deal in his essay, but I only wish that Mr. Ross could have been a bit more pragmatic, and less romantic, in his presentation.

Yours truly,
Joanna Hautin-Mayer
Denver, CO
j.b.mayer@worldnet.att.net

I couldn't decide if ILBear's comment was meant to be as tongue in cheek as my last email (GE #135) or if it should be taken seriously. After reading "But Seriously Folks ..." I couldn't resist in indulging myself in egotistical pomposity (as Tarostar might say) so...

The whole point of my last email was that all the apology stuff is really pointless in my opinion. First, the Romans did to any one and everyone exactly the same thing that EVERY group did to EACH other -- they all fought and killed each other. They all attempted to dominate other people to some extent. So when the apologies start when do they stop was really the question. I guess your response also brings up the topic of how far has the Pagan community come if there is still animosity between various factions? What an excellent way to mark the passing of Leo Martello (for those of you out there too dense -- this is sarcasm) My Druid husband has no need of an apology from his Dago (Roman many times removed) wife.

Next, if you really want to go on an apology bent - then why be satisfied with the vague wording of the Pope's "apology"? Not all Jews were satisfied with the "apology" for the Holocaust. I won't claim to have the whole thing memorized but didn't the Pope or someone in the hierarchy basically pass the buck? It wasn't the fault of the Christians it was that evil Pagan influence - Hitler & the Nazis being into the occult. Were Pagans upset about that --- I'll admit I don't always follow Pagan news so please tell me someone said something? Are we going to ask for an (Pagan) apology for the (Jewish) apology? Or did the blanket apology cover the backhanded Jewish apology?

Angel Arvello
a.arvello@mindspring.com

Today, after years of buying it off the bookshelf, I finally, finallysubscribed to Green Egg. These are my reasons.

1. You ran my article. And a plea for subscriptions. It seems only fair.

2. Sure, technically #1 entitles me to free issues, but since I've moved since I submitted the article, those are probably going to the wrong place--I certainly haven't gotten any. This isn't a complaint; my thought is more that I'm making up to you for the free copy that's vanishing into the ether. (Of course, maybe it isn't. Maybe someday soon, the hardworking Hispanic family that probably moved into my old apartment will be subscribing, in gratitude for the miraculous gift of Pagan literature that mysteriously appeared in their lives.)

3. I figure that a paid subscription gives me a vote in whether Green Egg goes on as a printed publication. I understand that like other Pagan mags, you have faced and are facing unbelievable distribution hassles, and largely as a result of that, money problems. As someone who only lasted three years running a mere ezine, I completely sympathize with your cutting back to quarterly issues again, and I will content myself with four Green Eggs a year instead of six if that will keep you going. Still, I am begging you to try to stay on paper, and stay on the shelves.

Why? My own experience again. (Look, look, all you Feris! I'm working for myself, and finding the Self everywhere!) If there were no Green Egg in print, I would not now have an article in print in a prestigious magazine. No credit of same to put on my cover letters as I start sending out my fantasy novel to publishers. If Green Egg were subscription only, I would not be able to urge my students, friends, and family to buy copies. My students might have subscribed just to see me in print, but it's hard to see my folks as Pagan mag subscribers.

Likewise, if those people had not been able to pick up the magazine to find me, some great dialogues would never have happened. My parents, wonderful people, are intellectuals and humanists. My dad sits Zen, my mom has no particular spiritual practice. In all the years I've been practicing, as a witch and then as a priestess, they have never really had a chance to see the "substance" side of Paganism. Oh, they could see that I knew a lot of folklore, but I think that ultimately Paganism remained, to them, a bit of nonsense that entertained their otherwise rational daughter.

Reading my article and the articles surrounding it, allowed them a glimpse of thinking Paganism at work. This introduction to Green Egg has revealed the existence of people who are not thinkers in spite of their Paganism, but within Paganism and because of Paganism. We are revealed as a path of some substance, with whom a reasoned conversation is possible. For years, my family avoided the subject of my religion for the most part; then we would talk around it, touching on Buddhism or my knowledge of folklore. Today, for the first time ever, my father told me that he would like to hear MORE about the foundations of my faith.

All because Green Egg was available as a "normal," printed magazine that he could buy at a normal bookstore, to see his kid in print.

Please, if it's humanly possible, don't deprive the next fresh-faced Pagan writer of that thrill.

Love, Julie Peavler-McCord