Good or Evil
-
@TheSilent1 said
"Any situation where something harmful is done, by definition is NOT Magick. There is a misconception that works of Thaumaturgy (wonder working) is Magick, but this is not necessarily so, it is merely another means of causing an effect. To cast a spell, so to speak to kill somebody out of jealousy or some other petty reason, is as far from Magick as shooting a person with a gun for the same petty reason."
I agreed with everything you said in your post up to this point. Remember that Crowley stated (I'm doing this from memory, so forgive any mistakes): "Let us not forget the simplest Magical act: that of a man blowing his nose." He also said something to the effect of "Let us not exclude banking from our definition."
If Magick is causing change in conformity with Will, then wouldn't shooting someone, performing Thaumaturgy, attempting to hex someone, and charging into a brick wall count as Magical acts, so long as they were attempted intentionally? (They probably wouldn't be acts of "non-black Magick" [I'm not sure if Crowley ever used the term "white Magick"], but they would be Magick nonetheless.)
I still agree with you though about "good" and "evil" issuing from the same source.
-
@Ash said
"
If Magick is causing change in conformity with Will, then wouldn't shooting someone, performing Thaumaturgy, attempting to hex someone, and charging into a brick wall count as Magical acts, so long as they were attempted intentionally? (They probably wouldn't be acts of "non-black Magick" [I'm not sure if Crowley ever used the term "white Magick"], but they would be Magick nonetheless.)
I still agree with you though about "good" and "evil" issuing from the same source."
I must politely reassert the definition of Magick: to cause Change in conformity to Will. The Will, as I have come to understand is always for Life. Although sometimes we must burn ourselves to learn that: "fire is hot," we really are not performing Magick until we have aligned ourselves with our True Will. THEN, when we chose to go against that Will, we are going against the universe.
-
@TheSilent1 said
"I must politely reassert the definition of Magick: to cause Change in conformity to Will. The Will, as I have come to understand is always for Life. Although sometimes we must burn ourselves to learn that: "fire is hot," we really are not performing Magick until we have aligned ourselves with our True Will. THEN, when we chose to go against that Will, we are going against the universe."
I think I understand your point better now, and it seems valid to me. Thank you for the clarification.
(I am still ambivalent about it but I don't really know enough to argue it one way or the other from this point.)
[Edited to fix misquote - man, I am really, really bad at editing quotes within quotes, it seems
] -
Unfortunately, it is a difficult topic to "argue" about as in no where (so far as I can find) does Crowley give a simple explanation for the word: Will. The word Will has many layers to it. One could assert that the act of breathing is an act of Will for it sustains life, ergo, pranayama strengthens that layer of Will. Using that example it would be "black" to hold one's breathe to spite existence, or to suffocate another person to spite their existence (unless they are going to get you first
).I do have a question though in this theory:
Can a person take the lives of others without the reflux of the Will of the Universe?
-
@TheSilent1 said
"Can a person take the lives of others without the reflux of the Will of the Universe?"
Good question and I'm not sure if there's a politically correct answer to that. If Adolph Hitler didn't rise to power, resulting in the deaths of numbers unknown, would he still have been living his "Will"? I don't know. Everyone's acorn has a destiny or calling to grow to something and uninhibited it may be great to others or terrible.
-
Yes, but being pathological is not a part of True Will. They are mutually exclusive.
We get a Hitler and a holocaust as a necessary result of our not being able to resolve our issues as a species. That doesn't mean that the holocaust is some sort of necessary outcropping of our species' True Will.
The path to the destination, and the destination, are not the same. Just because we choose a path that involves some crazy messed up aspects, doesn't make them a necessary part of reaching the destination either. At best, it's messed up stuff we do until we're ready to really move towards the destination.
-
I found your first line rather at odds with the rest of what you say. You label Hitler's actions (which I am not condoning) as pathological which is mutually exclusive from True Will. Then, you proceed to explain how "...they are a necessary result of our not being able to resolve our issues as a species." The HGA is there to kick us when we're down as much as it is to pick us up afterwards. There is no good or evil in the HGA (whose role is to guide us towards our True Will - whatever it may be). I think we're beginning to step into a larger picture here, the True Will of the human race, but the microcosm of a man reflects the macrocosm of the people. There may be greater forces at play and Hitler's True Will was to be apart of that speedbump for the human race on its path towards its True Will.
-
@kuniggety said
"I found your first line rather at odds with the rest of what you say. You label Hitler's actions (which I am not condoning) as pathological which is mutually exclusive from True Will. Then, you proceed to explain how "...they are a necessary result of our not being able to resolve our issues as a species." The HGA is there to kick us when we're down as much as it is to pick us up afterwards. There is no good or evil in the HGA (whose role is to guide us towards our True Will - whatever it may be). I think we're beginning to step into a larger picture here, the True Will of the human race, but the microcosm of a man reflects the macrocosm of the people. There may be greater forces at play and Hitler's True Will was to be apart of that speedbump for the human race on its path towards its True Will."
It's just cause and effect.
For example, you abuse a child horribly, and the result is the child becomes pathological. Then, let's say the child gets over it, becomes healthy, and finds and accomplishes his or her True Will. The abuse may have been the result of karma. It may be the inevitable result of the chain of causation that led to that point. But it doesn't exist for the sake of leading to True Will, it exists as a result of someone along the chain not following their True Wills.
Residual pathology existing on a path to True Will doesn't make pathology a necessary ingredient in all paths to True Will. It is possible to act out of harmony with one's True Will.
We don't need to create an all-encompassing tautology to transcend the notions of good and evil. Besides, Binah is well above my grade.
-
I never said that pathology was a necessary ingredient but rather it's not something that I (also having not attained Binah) can rule out. It is not my call if someone is or is not expressing their True Will, hence my argument that Hitler may have very well been expressing his True Will.
" It may be the inevitable result of the chain of causation that led to that point. But it doesn't exist for the sake of leading to True Will, it exists as a result of someone along the chain not following their True Wills."
We will have to agree to disagree. Even despite the fact that I was an abused child, I still feel that when we incarnate, we have some choice in it. There is something to be learned and something gained, something to help guide us on our way, in the many paths out there - no matter how ugly/horrific it may appear.
-
@TheSilent1 said
" If an individual is performing Magick then they must be in conformity with their Will, and cannot cause harm to anything not even their own self.
Any situation where something harmful is done, by definition is NOT Magick. There is a misconception that works of Thaumaturgy (wonder working) is Magick, but this is not necessarily so, it is merely another means of causing an effect. To cast a spell, so to speak to kill somebody out of jealousy or some other petty reason, is as far from Magick as shooting a person with a gun for the same petty reason."
it guess it depends on what you consider majik. sacrificing...humans...or animals....and getting a result...that to me, would still be majik. using bones of the dead to bring up that individual to talk with them...that to me, is majik ...
you stated it is not "magick".....so give it a name...what do you call it?
-
@TheSilent1 said
"I must politely reassert the definition of Magick: to cause Change in conformity to Will. The Will, as I have come to understand is always for Life. Although sometimes we must burn ourselves to learn that: "fire is hot," we really are not performing Magick until we have aligned ourselves with our True Will. THEN, when we chose to go against that Will, we are going against the universe."
to you confirming to your will is Life
but life...and death...are 2 sides of the same coin. Tenth Sefirot of the tree of life would not exist if there waz not 2 sides of the coin.
do you not know there iz a reverse side to the tree of life?
-
@TheSilent1 said
"Can a person take the lives of others without the reflux of the Will of the Universe?"
yes
of course they can. if that persons Will is against the Will of the universe/YHWH. iz it evil to kill a mass murder? iz it evil to kill even a child thatz destiny will to be one day like Hitler?
thiz subject brang up about hitler earlier. 2 be bunt, if he did not exist and confirm to who he was suppose to be, the earth as we know it, would not be the same today. so was he in his True Will? i believe so.
-
@Qemuel said
"
@TheSilent1 said
" If an individual is performing Magick then they must be in conformity with their Will, and cannot cause harm to anything not even their own self.Any situation where something harmful is done, by definition is NOT Magick. There is a misconception that works of Thaumaturgy (wonder working) is Magick, but this is not necessarily so, it is merely another means of causing an effect. To cast a spell, so to speak to kill somebody out of jealousy or some other petty reason, is as far from Magick as shooting a person with a gun for the same petty reason."
it guess it depends on what you consider majik. sacrificing...humans...or animals....and getting a result...that to me, would still be majik. using bones of the dead to bring up that individual to talk with them...that to me, is majik ...
you stated it is not "magick".....so give it a name...what do you call it?"
First of all, I am coming from Crowley's definition of Magick, which I don't care to define again.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C Clarke.
Perhaps, you are the one in need of a name, and indeed I provided a name: thaumaturgy. Unfortunately, there is a great misconception that certain acts are by CROWLEY"S DEFINITION, Magick. We simply do not fully understand how the mind works yet. Are those that successfully use techniques from the piece of trash called "The Secret" performing magick? Superficially it may seem to be so, however, they are merely training their minds to "tune in" to the fulfillment of their desires. Still others use ceremony to accomplish their goals, but really the are not changing the macrocosm they are merely playing with themselves. One could also say that they are creating sigils or thought-form or astral talismans, it doesn't really matter what you call it.
If you choose to call such things Magick that is fine. However, I think you a greatly lowering the standards of the Art and Science of attaining True Wisdom and Understanding by doing so. By holding the term Magick to a higher standard such as Crowley did you do yourself a great service in your aspirations. The ceremonies become meaningful, and you develop a relationship between yourself and the Universe. But if you wish to drag the idea through the mud then all you will see is mud and all you will do will be mud.
-
"Can a person take the lives of others without the reflux of the Will of the Universe?"
Liber Oz rather clearly states that man has the right to kill those who thwart the rights listed there.
However, I notice it doesn't say anything one way or the other about the psychological and spiritual consequences. It merely lists it as a right.
Elsewhere, we are also told that we "have no right but to do [our] Will."
In one of Crowley's fiction works, there is (I'm gonna need some help with this one) a character who - at the end of Moonchild, perhaps? - who must go off to war. When another asks him about his level of inner conflict about it, he responds something like, "If my body needs to sneeze, should I not sneeze?" (confirmation/correction appreciated)
I think Liber Oz was written to ensure that there would be no question about whether or not a person has the right to emancipate themselves. But I think there is also much more to learn than the rights of Liber Oz.
Theres' not a simple answer for me. Thoughts?
-
@Iaomai said
"Liber Oz rather clearly states that man has the right to kill those who thwart the rights listed there."
Yes, and Liber OZ is just an opinion piece. It's a Class E document. It warrants all the respect of an opinion piece from Crowley - no more and no less.
It was a clever writing exercise for him - an effort to state a political philosophy in English words of one syllable. (The quotes from Liber L. don't count in this regard - Liber OZ itself has only one-syllable words.) One huge flaw is that this leaves it sexist and divisive, employing unisexual language that is unacceptable today. (And there is no way to fix that except by breaking the original monosyllabic basis of the document.)
All that aside, however, Liber OZ presents a certain ethical problem to be solved. I don't think the ethical problem is in the document so much as in ourselves. That is, I've found most people reflexively relate to it as rights they can claim for themselves. However, claiming such rights only works in a context where everyone has those rights. After a period of thinking this through, I found that the only psychologically safe way to approach it is to see Liber OZ as a catalogue of all the rights we are each willing to give everybody else - without ever worrying about whether we have them ourselves. (The consequence is, of course, a context in which we all have the same rights.)
Sorry... that's possible a bit of a digression from the main topic, and I don't mean to derail... but thought it worth remarking.
-
Good or Evil, as applied to anyone (other than yourself), will always be a social construct. Any "objective morality" is a precursor to a mental slavery.
-
@kuniggety said
"We will have to agree to disagree. Even despite the fact that I was an abused child, I still feel that when we incarnate, we have some choice in it. There is something to be learned and something gained, something to help guide us on our way, in the many paths out there - no matter how ugly/horrific it may appear."
It is my understanding (although I cannot remember if it is one source or a mixture of sources) that have the choice to be born into this life or this path as some may call it. Before we are born we are show what our whole life will be like and some possible points of changing paths and what may happen if we change paths. This is why some people may think that they have lived this same life. No matter which choice you take you already have seen the outcome of that choice.
In essence there may be only will. True will as I understand it is will that is universal will and for the good of mankind. Then there is personal will where you may not do much good or bad. Then there is what I call anti true will which goes against human existence. End the end there still is will which can be shaped in so many ways that I cannot name them.
I am sure that someone understands this better or may have an explanation that may not agree but still may be better.
-
@Qemuel said
"thiz subject brang up about hitler earlier. 2 be bunt, if he did not exist and confirm to who he was suppose to be, the earth as we know it, would not be the same today. so was he in his True Will? i believe so."
So if you rape someone, she may (and in the end will) become alot stronger because of that. So, go and rape people! This is the logic of the dark ones -
@Vlad said
"
@Qemuel said
"thiz subject brang up about hitler earlier. 2 be bunt, if he did not exist and confirm to who he was suppose to be, the earth as we know it, would not be the same today. so was he in his True Will? i believe so."
So if you rape someone, she may (and in the end will) become a lot stronger because of that. So, go and rape people! This is the logic of the dark ones"I agree with Vlad. If you can prove that the true will of Hitler helped improve the world then he would have been doing true will which is true to that what is considered good for the earth. Hitler was only allowed to do what he did because there were other people that had something to gain from his idea. Like me getting friends to help rob a bank (not that I would). We all would have something to gain from it. This thing that they were going to gain was worldly. The true will does not seek that which is worldly but that which is spiritual.
-
@Vlad said
"
@Qemuel said
"thiz subject brang up about hitler earlier. 2 be bunt, if he did not exist and confirm to who he was suppose to be, the earth as we know it, would not be the same today. so was he in his True Will? i believe so."
So if you rape someone, she may (and in the end will) become alot stronger because of that. So, go and rape people! This is the logic of the dark ones"This is a grossly un-Thelemic point of view (even more so because this is one kind of violation that rarely makes the victim stronger).
Start with the idea of respecting others' wills foremost, and you'll start understanding Thelema a great deal more.