NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/magick/6599

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 8.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!sifon!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!sobeco!ladislas
From: [e-mail] (Ladislas A.)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: My answers (was Re: ... Definitions of "evil")
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:39:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young
Lines: 213

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

>9212.30 e.v.

>Ladislas:

>                                                         Since everything is
>of and in this big soup, it makes sense that everything has influence over
>everything else.


>Response:

>I'm not sure I understand this completely.  Is there a difference between
>'influence over' and 'influence with'?  In other words, are you saying
>that everything exists in some form of interhierarchy?  That Yin has
>influence (power) over Yang and, in turn, Yang has influence over Yin?
>This does makes sense to me, if so, but I'm not sure if I prefer the
>hierarchy model over interfusion.

The Yin-Yang symbolic is very appropriate in explaining what the influences
are in this 'soup'.  It takes both to form the circle and to fill it.  Both
use the same amount of surface.  There is no hierarchy involved.  As Hermes
Trismegistus said: "What is up is as what is down".  Everything influences
everything else.  Saying 'over' or 'with' is the same.

>Ladislas:

>Thus I conclude that a mage, as in one who has learned to "decide" upon his
>influence, has real power and doesn't need to be content with just being
>in the soup.


>Response:

>This seems rather awkwardly worded.  I think I'll challenge you here.

>Substituting for your previous definitions I arrive at:

>...a mage, one who acts according to the Will, one who has learned to
>Decide upon hir influence, having the ability to affect the physical
>world through nonphysical means (indirectly), gains the skills of
>self-direction and self-propulsion (i.e. surpassing the
>'passenger complex' of simply residing in the soup of universal flux).

>[Ok, I added a little of my own interpretation also. ;>]

Most 'passengers' are sleeping in the 'cosmic bus'.  They weigh the bus
down, occupy a seat, etc.  The mage can look at the rolling landscape,
nudge the passenger beside him/her.  One extreme would be that she can
talk to the driver and decide where she's getting out.

>What is the nature of 'a mage' that she may hold 'real power'?

>You say that a mage is one who has learned to 'decide' upon his influence,
>one who has learned to act according to the Will.  I am asking something
>more than this.  What is the nature of the being who acts?  If a mage and
>everything else is part of a 'soup', then where does the mage end and the
>'soup' begin?

It is not that the mage 'ends'.  It is his knowledge/conscience/awareness
that ends.

>What is 'free will'?  How does this differ from 'Will'?

>It would seem that 'free will' is an ability to decide one's actions.
>'Will' seems to imply that there is a larger 'Flow', 'Tao' of
>Universe, with which we may grapple, opposing it with our 'free will'
>or joining, infusing our 'free will' within it.  If you agree with this,
>then does the mage really 'do' anything, especially when the force or power
>(the 'influence') which she joins was there all along and irresistable?

Freedom is a concept.  But I should have written 'his Will' instead of 'the
Will' which might imply a 'Flow'.

>Is it that the mage 'holds real power' or that the mage finally joins
>the Way of Power?  Does the sailor move the boat when she turns the
>sail into the wind and lets the boat become propelled?  Does she not
>exert hir authority, hir will, more strongly when AGAINST the wind,
>tacking, using the wind to overcome it?

This is my best shot:  the sailor does not 'move' the boat.  SHe uses the
wind/engine to move the boat.  SHe exerts his will on what can influence
the boat's motion.  With or against the wind, the sailor uses the wind, the
sail, the rudder and all else she needs to make the boat move.  SHe holds
'real power' because she has the knowledge of the influences.

>Response:

>I'm not sure that I understand exactly what is 'continuing' or 'continuous'.
>Life?  The Universe?  Everything? :>

42! ;-)

>I get the feeling that you are implying we can somehow work 'against nature'.
>I don't think that this concept is reasonable, yet understand its
>effectiveness at getting people to both relax and conform.  The former
>goal seems more important to me, while the latter may be worse for
>our environment.  Let me illustrate it this way:

[illustrations removed]

My use of the word 'nature' is in the sense of the environment of this planet.
I admit that it's sometimes confusing to others since I will sometimes say
'nature' to mean the universe as well.  But I'm not refering to the 'nature'
of someone/thing.

>My REAL challenge here, however is regarding your use of the word 'Will'
>and how the mage 'decides' to follow it.  Who chooses this 'Will'?
>Does the mage REALLY have a choice to follow the Will when it is so
>painful and unsatisfying NOT to do so?  Aren't the 'laws of nature'
>(so called) really a system of requirement with perilous penalties
>for those who attempt to oppose them?  Aren't we trapped like rats
>in cages, straining desperately to save our faces by 'choosing' to
>act according to this Will which punishes us for attempting not to
>do so?

>(evil grin)

Let me answer your challenge with a few questions:  have you ever asked
yourself why you're alive, why you were born?  Wouldn't you say that you
were born because you Willed it or do you think you had no choice in the
matter?  Do you always keep away from that which you know might harm you?

>Ladislas also elaborates on the possible implications of this question:

>a) A mage 'deals' with anything.

>I must admit that I don't understand what you mean by "deals with anything".


>Response:

>'How does X deal with Y?' implies that X DOES deal with Y.

>I only ask, is your question reasonable?  Does it make sense to ask it in
>the way that you did?  MUST a mage face the responsibility which comes
>with power?  MUST a mage 'face' anything?  Need a mage concern hirself
>with ANYTHING at all?  Aren't all pastures alike (divine) to the mage?

Yes.  Yes.  Yes, a mage must deal with the responsibility.  Not for others
but for him/herself.  Responsibility is also accepting the possibility that
she made a mistake.  This way she learns.

>Ladislas:

>b) A mage may acquire power.

>As described previously.  But it might not be acquiring as much as learning
>to use what is there.


>Response:

>My goodness, this sounds very harsh.  'Using the power that is there'
>sounds so very much like 'using the natural resources that are there'.
>Is there an 'ecology of magick' which wise mages use?  I remember
>old Ogion in _A Wizard of Earthsea_ (Ursula K. LeGuin).  He was what
>I'd call a mage (ok, a wizard too!).  He didn't like to make a show
>of 'using what is there' because there was a cosmic balance to be
>maintained.  Do you think that there is such a 'cosmic balance' which
>might be overturned with 'acquisition' and/or 'use' of available power?

I didn't think it sounded harsh.  And yes it's 'using natural resources'.
As to a 'cosmic balance', the concept is valid.  But overturning it is
extreme.

>Ladislas:

>c) Responsibility comes with power.

[My part erased]

>Response:

>Oh?  What is the purpose of 'feeling responsible for inaction'?

Learning.

>(i.e. GUILT)  Is guilt important to the activity of a mage?   Is guilt
>important to ANYBODY besides those who would enslave us to them by
>using it?  Yes, we can learn from our 'mistakes'/'errors'; really
>from the PAST (since I don't believe in 'errors').  What is the role
>of guilt in this process of learning?  Does it serve any purpose for
>us that we might wish to hold onto it?  And more importantly:

>Is responsibility the same as guilt?

No.  I'm responsible for my "morning-after" headaches.  I certainly don't
feel guilty.


>Ladislas concludes:

>Hoping that my answers/explanations are clear enough and not too far-fetched.
>Also hoping that I haven't made the discussion boring.


>Response:

>Clear enough for me.  Far-fetched?  Naw, only if incomprehensible.  Those
>who say things are 'impossible' or 'ridiculous because improbable' are not
>true philosophers or mages.  Beware.

>Boring?  My brother's english teacher used to say that there are no
>boring books, only boring people. I think that applies to posts also. ;>

Then I should've asked if I was boring.  But since you took time pursuing
the discussion, I guess this means I'm not hopeless. :-)

>Thyagi

Ladislas.