NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/magick/6567

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi
From: [e-mail] (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Ethics and Classifications
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:21:03 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
References: <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 120

9212.30 e.v.


LeGrand writes:

[much removed for your time savings ;>]

The technical (magical) question is this:  what is the precedence
relationship between these two realms for a practitioner?  (This
question can be read descriptively or prescriptively!)  Does (or can
or should) one take (on some or all occasions) precedence over the other?
Or are they independent (disjunct)?


Response:

While I have not reproduced LeGrand's explanation of the two
(moral and aesthetic), I think that my mention of them here is
clear enough for me to address.  If not, go back and read
LeGrand's entire post, please.

I only wish to comment that the choice is a common one and that who MAKES
the choice determines whether or not we are approaching this from a
'Thelemic' perspective.  I.e. If the individual MAGE makes the choice
then the situation is 'Thelemic'.  If it is forced or coerced upon hir,
then it is decidedly NOT 'Thelemic'.


LeGrand:

[Classical: Morality justifies the ends and means]

Thus one might say that ethical considerations are primary:  that although
unethical activities might lead effectively to magical or mystical states,
ethical considerations should take precedence.


[Romantic: Ends justify the means]

Or, one might say that
esthetic or experiential considerations are primary:  that even a great
crime is holy if it leads to God, and that the magical or spiritual
context takes precedence.


[Modern: Ends and means justify themselves(?)]

Or one might say that they are disjunct, that
the mystical or magical attainment should be recognized, and the crime
dealt with by the secular arm.  We might, for convenience, give these
attitudes the names Classical, Romantic, and Modern, respectively.

...

[Question:]

Does it seem that the Classical and Modern fall into one group, and the
Romantic into another?  Would  a Thelemic perspective be totally
different, or would it be a subset of the Romantic?  Or could a Thelemic
perspective be either [Romantic] or Modern?


Response:

First, here's my vote against the phrase 'a Thelemic perspective'.  Neither
do I think that any one perspective can be assessed accurately as
'Thelemic' nor do I think that it is profitable to speak as if this
assessment could be made.  I'll continue nonetheless (I'm often a
'nonprofit sort'. ;>).


1) It seems to me that the Classical relies upon social morals (assuming
that an absolute standard of ethics exist), while the Modern accepts the
social morals for what they are: perhaps a relative system by which
a society conducts itself.

2) As I understand what you've written about the Romantic, the ends
may indeed need justification (via morality), while to me Thelema seems
to prescribe that actions either need NO justification aside from that
an individual believed that it was hir will to perform them, or that
actions are justified BY their performance.  In a way, this is the 'if it
was done then it is perfect' school of ethics which society seems not to
be able to accept at present.

3) Can the Romantic be Thelemic?  That there were means which in some
way needed social justification I don't think can easily be encompassed by
Thelema.  If the justification is personal, then it fits rather nicely.
I.e. if the entirety of judgement rests with the individual, then
the entirety is Thelemic.

Can the Modern be Thelemic?  As long as society (secular or no) is
given the power to judge the MORALITY of a given action, then it is
NOT Thelemic.  This says nothing about what a society will allow within
its confines.

To make this clearer:  Morality (judging 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in
ANOTHER's action) is sin, an error which results in suffering.  Personal
ethics (determining the value and 'rightness' of one's OWN actions)
may still be sin, but it is Thelemic in that it preserves the personal
power of the mage.

If a society has come together and created laws to preserve itself, and
the mage has been discovered and proven guilty of a transgression,
then while the action is not 'wrong' in an absolute sense, it may have
been 'wrong' in a social sense.  When that society begins to assert
that its 'wrong' is an ABSOLUTE, then it becomes UNThelemic, in my view.

Whether or not the mage receives accolades for hir magical or mystical
ability is rather beside the point in terms of the ethics of magical
action.

I think that Thelema is about self-determination.  Ideally, judgement
about a person's actions must be reserved FOR the individual if the
society is preserve its Thelemic content.  While hir actions may be
counter-cultural or even sociopathic, the absolute morality of hir
activity is better assessed by hirself and perhaps best never assessed
at all.


Thyagi