From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Date: 1 Jan 93 04:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec31.195852.19954@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin ) writes...
>In article <1hvf0nINNk8m@uwm.edu> hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>>From article <1ht8lsINNbej@shelley.u.washington.edu>, by grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer):
> 
>>> The mechanics of magic do not involve moral principles.  The application
>>> of magic, like any other human action, _necessarily_ involves moral
>>> principles.
> 
>The probelm I have with all this (which I _do_ agree with to a certain extent)
>is the concept of "morality." Because it is inherently subjective, it ceases
>to have any useful meaning other than that it has to its user. To the NAZIs
>the "fianl solution" was the moral thing to do in order to save humanity from
>inferior genetics. There is no way of "proving" their morality is inferior
>to ours other than brute force. Too many variables...

True, there is no way of *proving* their morality was inferior, 
but shoot I *know* it was (and I seldom claim to know anything).
This doesn't sound very sophisticated, but its a gut feeling, and 
worth paying attention to.

Interacting with other humans by definition involves a certain 
amount of "messing with them."  INFLUENCE IMO is neutral, cannot 
be avoided.  One can influence without even intending to do so.  
Manipulation and aggression are used to change someone mentally 
(manipulation) and physically (aggression).  Glamour and Love are 
similar to manipulation and aggression, except they're willed by 
the "victim" too, who participates willingly.

   aggression   manipulation   influence   glamour   love
   -2           -1                0        1         2

Its hard (impossible?) to prove its wrong to mess with someone 
against their will, but I don't care, I think its wrong anyway.  
Must be some reason why so many other people are squeamish about 
it.

>>But, is there any way to separate the mechanics of magick from its
>>application?  

Huh?  The mechanics are innocent, neutral, entirely separate from 
application.

>>I can't imagine how you can.  --and that being said
>>we're left with thelema.  Absolute and purely relative.

Not a thelema expert here, by a long shot, but in one of the 
recent "Orgone Committee" posts there was a quote of Crowley 
in which he said its WRONG to commit rape or child molestation 
because those were acts of aggression against someone else's 
will.  So I'm not sure that Thelema is really as amoral as people 
say. ?????

>>So let's just stop with all this "what if I put a hex on somebody" or
>>"can I weild power [ha] any way I want to" or .... 

Sure, you can do whatever you want, but any interaction with 
other beings, where there is an intention to do such and such, 
has an effect on the perpetrator as well.  Forging your own 
chains...  I'm not talking about Karma and what possibly might 
come around and bite you in the ass a few lifetimes from now 
(who cares).  I'm talking about the immediate affect it has on 
one's psyche.  IMO its better (better = makes you more free) to 
spend your energy trying to make yourself NOT feel a need to mess 
with someone else - than to spend your energy messing with 
someone against their will.  (Of course if someone committed 
atrocities to my family I'd be more inclined to shoot'em than try 
to get over it, but that's where I am right now - not one of the 
highly evolved models here, so shooting them would feel right.)

>>I suppose it can be nice to be nice, but only if you really need to
>>be.
>Actually, as I implied above, it is advantageous for one to "be nice" in
>most situations...

The biggest advantage is that being nice makes the perpetrator of 
niceness feel good too and that's worth something.

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick