home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu!oispeggy
- From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
- Newsgroups: alt.magick
- Subject: Re: My answers (was Re: ... Definitions of "evil")
- Message-ID: <C04sr9.8vx@acsu.buffalo.edu>
- Date: 31 Dec 92 16:07:00 GMT
- References: <1992Dec28.091121.23813@sobeco.com> <1hqijkINNdgr@shelley.u.washington.edu>
- Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
- Organization: University at Buffalo
- Lines: 34
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu
-
- In article <1hqijkINNdgr@shelley.u.washington.edu>, rjb@carson.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars) writes...
- >
- > Magic: White, Black, and
- >
- >[stuff deleted...]
- >
- >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?
- >
-
- Your premise above I believe is true. However, IMO it
- varies from person to person what one "ought to" or "ought not
- to" do under the same circumstances. Everyone has a personal
- and unique internal guide, which may well conflict with dogmatic
- ideas about correct behavior.
-
- Discovering this guide is a great magickal adventure.
-
- >--LeGrand
-
- - Peggy -
-