NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/magick/6596

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!hiho
From: [e-mail] (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Date: 2 Jan 1993 21:46:57 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: [e-mail]

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Peggy Brown):


>>>But, is there any way to separate the mechanics of magick from its
>>>application?
>
> Huh?  The mechanics are innocent, neutral, entirely separate from
> application.
>
>>>I can't imagine how you can.  --and that being said
>>>we're left with thelema.  Absolute and purely relative.
>
> Not a thelema expert here, by a long shot, but in one of the
> recent "Orgone Committee" posts there was a quote of Crowley
> in which he said its WRONG to commit rape or child molestation
> because those were acts of aggression against someone else's
> will.  So I'm not sure that Thelema is really as amoral as people
> say. ?????

That's not the same as saying its wrong, or right.  Besides I didn't
say it was amoral.  I said it waas both ethically absolute and
ethically relative.


>>>So let's just stop with all this "what if I put a hex on somebody" or
>>>"can I weild power [ha] any way I want to" or ....
>
> Sure, you can do whatever you want, but any interaction with
> other beings, where there is an intention to do such and such,
> has an effect on the perpetrator as well.  Forging your own
> chains...

Of course.  So?

>  I'm not talking about Karma and what possibly might
> come around and bite you in the ass a few lifetimes from now
> (who cares).  I'm talking about the immediate affect it has on
> one's psyche.  IMO its better (better = makes you more free) to
> spend your energy trying to make yourself NOT feel a need to mess
> with someone else - than to spend your energy messing with
> someone against their will.  (Of course if someone committed

Carrying out your own True will generally prevents one from spending
energy or effort needlessly messing around with someone else's will.
Unless, of course, it's your true will to do that, in which case
crushing them underfoot and grinding their bones for toothpaste is
perfectly sensible.  More often than not I find my own will tends to
invite people over for dinner and prepare wonderful Chinese and cajun
recipes for them.  Go have a look at Aesop's Fable about the Two Pots.

And what in the dickens is this business about being 'free'???  Holy
Cow.  In the context of all this, what could that possibly mean?


>>>I suppose it can be nice to be nice, but only if you really need to
>>>be.
>>Actually, as I implied above, it is advantageous for one to "be nice" in
>>most situations...
>
> The biggest advantage is that being nice makes the perpetrator of
> niceness feel good too and that's worth something.


Naturally.  In most situations, gag, it's even my will to, gag, *be*
nice.  I don't always like it, but that's the breaks.  And what does
feeling good have to do with carrying out your will?


Hmm.  whew.  This is already way too much of my drivvel for what I
wanted to say.  Josh does this so much more trenchantly.



hiho

--
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | [e-mail]
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | [phone]

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.