From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Date: Sat,  2 Jan 93 13:19:22 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec31.195852.19954@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
  <1hvneaINN7k0@shelley.u.washington.edu>

93!01.02 e.v.


John Greer quotes Scott Locklin and writes, I respond:

Scott:

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 "prooving" their morality is inferior
to ours other than brute force. Too many variables...


John:

I ain't arguing.  The point is that an approach to action based on moral
principles -- personally chosen and, yes, subjective -- has certain 
advantages over, say, pure whim, or simple moment-by-moment selfishness.   
Similarly, there's a certain value in having an agreed-upon moral
standard within a group, however arbitrary, if only to provide some 
kind of basis for cooperation in the face of an often hostile world.    


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
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.

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.

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.
 

Scott:

There _is_ a sort of objective morality, or moral absolute. I adressed this 
question before on alt.satanism. It can be described using game theory & a 
crude form of cybernetics. I will attempt to find this article.


John:

I'd like to see that.


Response:

As would I.  It sounds like it might tie in directly with my research in
MUDs, Psychology, Magick and Communications (Bateson et al).



Thyagi

-----------------------------------------

"Where there is a whim, there is a Way."

Thyagi tzu