From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin )
Subject: Harish
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:48:38 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


In article <1992Dec29.170528.0204142@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>In article <3320.726.uupcb@factory.com> harish.reddy@factory.com (Harish Reddy)  writes:
>>TO:usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu
>>
>>
>>>I would love to learn more about 'Magick', partly for the power trip
>>BD.                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>and, well, I think that it calls to me. I say think because it just
>>>might be an extension of a desire for power ect.
>>  .                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>BD.Two good reasons *not* to respond to this person.
>>
>>BD.Harish, magic is not about power-tripping.  If you want real power over people,
>>  .go into politics.
>>
>>
>>Look, I'm not interested in having power over people.  I don't know
>>why you misinterpreted, but the message that I am trying to convey is
>>that 1) I don't know very much about Magick
>>     2) I think that I would like to learn more
>>     3) I am not sure why I am interested in Magick
>>
>>BTW Telling people not to respond to my message without finding out
>>the truth is simply rude.
>
>Harish, I read your statments the same way as friend BD.  If you intend
>to learn anything about magik, then the first thing to learn is to better
>manipulate symbolism.  "a desire for power ect." is generally about power
>over others.  If you had stated something like "a desire to gain power
^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. It could be, as you suggest, power over oneself, could be power over one's
physical enviornment etc. Perhaps (shudder) it could be power over others.
I personally wonder why you worry about this when you go about strutting your
"moral power" over this guy. 

>over myself" or perhaps "a desire to control my own inate power", you 
>would not have (IMHO) gotten BD's response.
>
>It is inhearent in a question, that the question sets the stage for the
>answer.  You set yourself up for the response you got.  BD was not being
>"simply rude", his statement "magic is not about power-tripping" was good
>solid information, and by it's phrasing (and symbolism) was a request
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, it was self-righteous "white-light" hypocricy.

>to others not to respond until you could work out a better question
>based in part on his response. 

This is gorp. The question was more than adequate. I sent him some 
recommendations that should give him a good start. The issue here is a certain
group trying to bend Harish to their particular system of morality.

>It seems that you have done that, and 
>I hope you get lots of responses that will help you in learning the
>theory and practice of magick.

(Between the lines) Now that you have been a good little newbie we will help 
you out.

>My statement (and there are others better qualified) is that
>"Magick is in large part a matter of symbolism and intent, and therefore
>you must master both symbolism and yourself first".  I myself have
>real problems with the latter.

"Intent"? You mean WILL! (I hope)
As far as mastering oneself, mental discipline is all that is required. 
Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And yes, it _is_ a moral question that you bring up. There is nothing implicit
in the mechanics of magick that involve some moral principle. Morality is
no more involved in magick than in any of the sciences. 

Sure, lots of "white light" new-agers mouth platitudes about "Karma". It is
not suprising that _they_ fall prey to their own karmic mantras; their 
subconcious fears defeat them.
Example: A native Korean woman I worked with was convinced that I had some sort
of "capricious spirits" >B}
She was a devotee of some taoist/animist cultus & believed that laboratory 
equipment has "spirits". Of course, every time I walked in a room, she would
drop glassware, drop samples down the sink-drain, push the wrong button on
the Z-650 sputtering device (destroying the $10000 target inside), and slip 
while assembling sensitive apparatus. Was it _my_ fault that she was prey to
her own silly superstitions? Nobody else I worked with had problems with my
"capricious spirits," & they have not bothered me since our association was 
terminated, BUT, after she recieved e-mail from me, one of her assistants
told me she had more trouble with the spirits...

-Scott