From: grimoire@carson.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:09:01 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <72797@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>93!01.02 e.v.
>
>Response:
>
>I agree with Scott here and find John's comments potentially simplistic,
>depending upon their meaning. 
>
>Many people seem to enjoy 'ethical dualism'.  This ranges from the
>fundamentalist who posits a universal absolute (from which they derive
>a 'good' and 'evil' and measure out their intolerance) to the modern
>'Thelemite' who posits one (probably making a distinction between 'whim'
>and 'will', or 'will' and 'Will').
>
>John's point above about moral principles for oneself makes sense from
>an 'objective' perspective (from which I'm inclined to shy these days).
>Seen from the outside, approaching life with some sort of principled
>system of action is certainly easier and, in some circumstances, more
>advantageous. 
>
>However, seen from the perspective of the youth, one who has not the
>experience from which to derive these principles, living by ANY system
>such as this might not only be futile but NONThelemic.  The only choice
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
Oooh, how awful!!!

>left is to act from 'whim' and 'moment to moment selfishness'.  This is
>quite possibly the BEST means of action available to those who are both
>unwilling to accept the morals of society and struggling to distinguish
>their own will from that of their parents.

A means of action?  Certainly.  The best means of action?  Well, your
mileage may vary; it seems to me that another, and perhaps a more useful,
approach might begin with learning, of the old-fashioned book-related
sort:  finding out what other people who have faced the same dilemmas
have come up with, and using their experience as a supplement to (not,
please note, a replacement for) one's own.

The assumption that I seem to be hearing is that the only morality
that our hypothetical youth has available to think about is that of
his/her parents and society.  Hmm... How old were you when you first
ran into Crowley, Thyagi? 

>Given that an individual discovers this subjective ethical set, it may
>be used fruitfully until it becomes limiting.  At some point, perhaps
>when 'crossing the Abyss', such rigid structures simply become useless
>and overly restrictive.  The Master abandons them for the Tao or Way.
>It is at this time, I think, that 'whim' and 'moment to moment
>selfishness' merge and become identical to the 'whim' of universal
>flux; the 'moment to moment selfishness' of the monad, the god, the
>selfless Buddha or bodhisattva.

No argument here at all.  But I ain't on the far side of the Abyss yet...

>Therefore, while I agree with John's words inasmuch as they describe
>AN advantageous approach to ethical living, I don't think that such
>an approach can be used by everyone, and it is quite possible that
>it is advantageous at certain times NOT to use it.

Of course your mileage may vary.  I suspect a good deal depends on the
background in which you were raised; people coming out of a setting in
which moralizing was used as a means of exerting power can probably 
benefit quite a bit from acting on whim for a while.  

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.magick