NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/magick/6551

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!rjb
From: [e-mail] (LeGrand Cinq-Mars)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: My answers (was Re: ... Definitions of "evil")
Date: 29 Dec 1992 22:14:12 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

                  Magic:  White, Black, and

I'm going to tie a weaver's knot onto the frayed end of
this earlier thread, and try to extend it a little
farther through the alt.magick fabric.  Largely, I think,
because I'm intrigued by some of the possible designs.

I'd like to ruminate a bit on what "white magic" and
"black magic" might mean.  I'm going to be quite
shameless about ignoring certain possible discussions (or
example, what "magic" might mean, or why "white" and
"black") just to fumble around in the parts of the web
that look more interesting at the moment.

Let me take, for the sake of this train of thought, the
distinction between white and black to be the distinction
between good and evil, which in turn I want to reduce
(for the time being) to the distinction between two kinds
of actions -- in a dualistic, and even dichotomous, way.
Under "good" let's will group actions that one definitely
ought to do as well as actions that one may do or not do;
under "evil" let's put only those actions that one
definitely ought not do.

To do this of course we have to first assume that there
are actions (or actions-in-situations) to which "ought
to" and "ought not to" can be applied.  Will those who
aren't willing to allow for this possibility say that I
ought not entertain it?

Now if "black magic" is to mean :"magic that oughtn't be
done" (and "white magic" to mean all other sorts of
magic) it seems reasonable to suppose that this might
mean at least one of two things.

 (a) It might mean that it oughtn't be done because the
   purpose is one that oughtn't be pursued.
 (b) It might mean that it oughtn't be done because one
   or more of the methods used involves doing things
   that oughtn't be done.

For example, if we take it that one ought never have
anything to do with an internal combustion engine, a
magical operation aimed at successfully hitching a ride
on an interstate would be black magic.  Similarly, if we
take it that  one ought never speak with one's mouth
full, a magical operation that required one to chaunt
mighty and dreadful spells while one's mouth was crammed
full of chicken salad would be black magic.  (Those
readers who have ethical outlooks involving mightier and
more awesome sets of oughts and oughtn'ts will, I hope,
be able to make the appropriate substitutions.)  Any
magical operation characterized by either (a) or (b) or
both would be, in these terms, black magic.

But this treatment is, after all, rather ... well,
philistine.   I suppose one might even call it bourgeois.
Is the mighty name of black magic to be turned into a
matter of ethical accountancy?  Is it a matter for fussy
bureaucrats on the malpractice committee of the county
magical association, totting up peccadilloes?

Is it possible that one could have a non-a non-b black
magic, one that would not seek a forbidden end or use
forbidden means, but that might itself, in some eldritch
way, be .... That Which Ought Not Be?

--LeGrand