Getting into the wicked naughty witch mood

[MysticWitch]

So a close friend of mine tells me that she is going to be dabbling in some magick to help her out for a change to protect her self from stupid people and to send some things their way. She insists that I should try one or two because I my self have delt with some negative souls and I can't help but get this wicked naughty witch mood come over me which makes me want to run and get the candles, borrow a book of hers and do a little magick :heybaby:

[Xirian]

So a close friend of mine tells me that she is going to be dabbling in some magick to help her out for a change to protect her self from stupid people and to send some things their way. She insists that I should try one or two because I my self have delt with some negative souls and I can't help but get this wicked naughty witch mood come over me which makes me want to run and get the candles, borrow a book of hers and do a little magick :heybaby:

I'd just say, know that there are consequences to your actions. But I can understand the temptation. When I want to rid myself of stupid or gossipy people, I just do a spell on myself that either reflects their actions or that makes them not notice me or me not notice them. It seems to work for the most part.

I don't know that I've ever really needed to do magick that was intended to prove a point to someone else. But that isn't to say that I wouldn't if the circumstances presented themselves and I was prepared for reprecussions. I chose other because I believe that all circumstances are different and require different methods to fit them to a person's particular needs at the time.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I'll go and get the fillet of a fenny snake and slips of yew slivered in the moon's eclipse.
Who's got the nose of Turk and Tartar's lips?
That liver of blaspheming Jew is too old and has cirrhosis! Get a fresh one, on the spot!

[MysticWitch]

I'll go and get the fillet of a fenny snake and slips of yew slivered in the moon's eclipse.
Who's got the nose of Turk and Tartar's lips?
That liver of blaspheming Jew is too old and has cirrhosis! Get a fresh one, on the spot!

:deviltail

[Amythyst]

It doesn't take much to get me in a "wicked naughty witch mood". It scares the dickens out of my husband though because his family is a royal pain and they have turned being mean and nasty into an art form.

It's a hoot to dabble with the black arts and see what I can come up with-- especially when I consider it a form of self defense.

(There are other "wicked naughty witch moods" that my husband prefers much more, but I can't go into that here.) :drool:

[GEBS]

My wicked naughty witch moods have served me well in the past. I don't think I'll ever abandon them. That's where I feel most at home.

[Aidron]

I'm always wicked and naughty. Furthermore, I do what I think to be most right and most true every step of the way... or I aim to. If that entails being a little nasty to someone once in awhile, or worse, so be it.

I'm not out to maim anyone (shhh, tell no one, I have to maintain my rep) or make the world a worse place, but I bite back, and I bite back hard, draw blood, and aim to leave a scar whenever circumstances warrant it. In fact, I pray you'll die of blood loss from the bite if it comes to that.

[infantkittensyringe]

:broomride I tend to consider a little "naughty witchery" to be a public service. Magical people need to stand up to bullies and energy suckers, and bring humor and insight to intolerence and ignorance. I don't like to meddle in other peoples' evolution or try to foist my views on them (it never works - all you get is headache and a reputation for pomposity), but sometimes karma needs a kickstart - a little wish that one's adversaries get exactly what they deserve.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Can't learn to defend yourself against the dark arts unless you got yourself some dark arts ^^ Otherwise, how will you know they're dark?

[Carla O'Harris]

Can't learn to defend yourself against the dark arts unless you got yourself some dark arts ^^ Otherwise, how will you know they're dark?

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?

[~Elise~]

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?

Because there wouldn't be anyone left. :T

Elise

[Cassie]

Can't learn to defend yourself against the dark arts unless you got yourself some dark arts ^^ Otherwise, how will you know they're dark?


How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?


Because there wouldn't be anyone left. :T

Elise
All good points!
I can't see many magical communities completely outlawing dark arts. Anyway, who would define what is dark and what isn't? Doesn't a lot depend on the context and situation?

[~Elise~]

All good points!
I can't see many magical communities completely outlawing dark arts. Anyway, who would define what is dark and what isn't? Doesn't a lot depend on the context and situation?

now ya gone and did it. Guess you haven't seen Carla's posts on this subject in other threads? According to her-it should be a self policing organization and people who practice 'dark arts' should be proscecuted. This is obviously a subject near and dear to her heart.

But then she also thinks that there should be no losers and no winners in sports. It's all a conspiracy to make people feel bad. Never mind human nature or even nature itself... did ya also know that according to Carla the Universe doesn't need chaos... guess the Universe forgot to ask her opinion on things all those billions of years ago.

Elise

[Sage Rainsong]

It's fairly rare that I have had to use "naughty" magic simply because most people that I have come across aren't really worth it and I take it very seriously. To me annoying, gossiping people aren't worth it unless it is affecting one's life in a serious way. Even then a binding or a return to sender would probably suffice. Then again there are thoes who consider mirror spells and bindings naughty. I have done a spell to make someone who was slandering me (and stole my mothers' money) look stupid to her latest "friends" and trip on their own lies before. I don't know if that counts but I felt pretty wicked. I have also cursed a couple of child molesters.


How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?


How do you expect that to be enforced? Most people who do curse aren't very loud about it, unless they are the posers who want to get a rise out of people. Also there are many magical traditions who do not agree that cursing is always a bad thing ( The Feri tradition and some feminist Dianic groups for example.) I doubt that they are going to change their minds any time soon.

[Rudas Starblaze]

well, i guess im the first one to vote for always being naughty eh!

i do good too ya know. i not bias in using the craft! :)

[Rudas Starblaze]

now ya gone and did it. Guess you haven't seen Carla's posts on this subject in other threads? According to her-it should be a self policing organization and people who practice 'dark arts' should be proscecuted. This is obviously a subject near and dear to her heart.

But then she also thinks that there should be no losers and no winners in sports. It's all a conspiracy to make people feel bad. Never mind human nature or even nature itself... did ya also know that according to Carla the Universe doesn't need chaos... guess the Universe forgot to ask her opinion on things all those billions of years ago.

Elise


ROTFLMFAO!

especially,

"people who practice 'dark arts' should be prosecuted."

all i have to say about that is... BRING IT ON!

[Meadhbh]

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?

Because then no one would have any fun at all. I confess I can be a little devilish. Only when I need to be though. Its always for a good reason.

[Penthesilea]

In magick as in real life, I consider the possible consequences of my actions. If I consider those possible consequences acceptable when balanced against the action I want to take and its intended outcome, I go ahead. This stance has offended some people to which I say, "too bad." I haven't considered myself a "Wiccan" witch for a very long time and I don't consider myself bound by their ethics.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Ah, and I consider myself a Wiccan who does not believe in the law of three OR the Rede, preferring instead to do that which I believe to be right. Merely believing myself capable of cursing does not mean I'll do it left and right; in fact, I don't believe I ever have. I prefer to work things out mundanely first.
Very well, Carla, you can be the first Wiccan Auror, then. You just stay there by the phone and wait for us to tell you when we see the Dark Mark.

...
and I'm *still* waiting on that liver of blaspheming Jew.

[Nitefalle]

Oooh, we could make people wear a black D on their chest!! :T And THEN can come the shaming and ostracization! And then we can all stop using birth control and start the hangings :abanana:

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Oooh, we could make people wear a black D on their chest!! :T And THEN can come the shaming and ostracization! And then we can all stop using birth control and start the hangings :abanana:

And the hangings will be great, because some men will definitely be hanged, and the resulting creation of semen will cause mandrakes to grow, which can be used in curses, thus causing more hangings!
Hooray for vicious cycles!

[Aidron]

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?

Feel free to outlaw it for yourself, attempt to shame, ostracise, and discourage me... but I will not change my ways simply because they are looked upon as immoral by the majority.

[Vigdisdotter]

Just make sure you know what you're getting into and what you're about. in some ways, think of a spell as a legal document; close any holes so that it does come back and bite you in the butt.

Most of the time though I find that "negative" people aren't really with the energy of a spell.

[Philosophia]

Theres nothing wrong with being a little "naughty" especially if it means protecting yourself and your loved ones from other nasties. I won't hesitate in defending them and I will deal with whatever backlash I get.

[Carla O'Harris]

Feel free to outlaw it for yourself, attempt to shame, ostracise, and discourage me... but I will not change my ways simply because they are looked upon as immoral by the majority.

Society has the right to guard against people who are so sociopathic that they have no conscience and do not care what others think of their ethics.

What you do in your own time and own space, that affects no one else, is completely your business and your freedom.

Paganism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.

[Tahroh]

Paganism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.
not to sound like a bitch,but who's ethics? surely not mine or ours(referring to everyone but you) for that matter... how can one truely protect themselves from dark magick w/o knowing and being able to effectively work it? how can you fight what you don't understand? as i said before, dark magick can also be used for benevolent purposes such as protection, destroying sickness, and other such problems, i personally think it would be in the best interest of the magickal community to learn at least a little bit before brushing it off.
~~Tahroh

[~Elise~]

Society has the right to guard against people who are so sociopathic that they have no conscience and do not care what others think of their ethics.

What you do in your own time and own space, that affects no one else, is completely your business and your freedom.

Paganism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.

ya know, I find this highly disrespectful. Who are you to say who does and does not have ethics?

They may not have YOUR ethics, but they have their own--as they should. And just because they don't follow YOUR code does NOT mean they are a sociopath.

Elise

[WitchJezebel]

I'm very in touch with my "dark" side. :deviltail :crazylaug

[Cassie]

I see magic as a life skill as well as being part of a spiritual path. So far I have never cursed anybody or done anything really naughty and I probably wouldn't... However it would seem stupid to rule out using some of what I know in case a situation arrises where it would be useful and appropriate.

In the same way, being trained in the military does not give you a licence to use your skills in weaponary in every situation you get into, but it would be foolish not to use those skills if your life depended on it.

I haven't read enough of Carla's posts to be critical but I get a bit uncomfortable when people try to inflict their moral values on others or to claim that their personal viewpoint represents what an entire religious community is supposed to believe.

[MankyCat]

Paganism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.


Dang it... well... at least there's free food. What? There's no free food? Oh well.

I don't see how anyone could use paganism to throw off their own ethics. I mean, either you do something or not. It's either within your ethics (even if only a little) or it's not. You might feel more comfortable following your own ethics in one of these systems of belief, but that doesn't equal throwing them off. Maybe just being more true to oneself.

And I really don't see why everything seems to equal such extremes. "You caste curses, you must be a psychotic murdering deviant!" Sounds a little over the top to me.

:smileroll

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Congratulations, Carla, you just went and called everyone in this thread an amoral sociopath!
How's the weather up there on that high horse?

[Nitefalle]

Society has the right to guard against people who are so sociopathic that they have no conscience and do not care what others think of their ethics.

What you do in your own time and own space, that affects no one else, is completely your business and your freedom.

Peopleism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.

Hm...I think there is a definite difference between having no conscious and not caring what others think of one's ethics. Certainly one fits the other, but not vice versa. I have my own personal code of ethics - for the most part it falls in line with society's general laws and moral standards. However, I don't really care what others think of it one way or the other - I recognize that it is my own personal opinion and viewpoint. But I do have a conscience.

Society has a right to guard against people who break the laws and cause others to be physicall injured and incapacitated or who damage property and the like. Society has no precedent against people who give others warts and cast hexes and curses. Do we have the right to defend against that? This is America, we have the right to do whatever we dang well please and I would personally think one an idiot for not defending oneself, but it's on a person to person basis. We can't make blanket statements about what should be allowed in terms of energy and magic just as we can't make blanket statements about what is considered "dark" magic. It will always be a moot point because it's something that is left to each person to decide for themselves, going back to those ugly personal ethics.

[Amythyst]

Hm...I think there is a definite difference between having no conscious and not caring what others think of one's ethics. Certainly one fits the other, but not vice versa. I have my own personal code of ethics - for the most part it falls in line with society's general laws and moral standards. However, I don't really care what others think of it one way or the other - I recognize that it is my own personal opinion and viewpoint. But I do have a conscience.

Society has a right to guard against people who break the laws and cause others to be physicall injured and incapacitated or who damage property and the like. Society has no precedent against people who give others warts and cast hexes and curses. Do we have the right to defend against that? This is America, we have the right to do whatever we dang well please and I would personally think one an idiot for not defending oneself, but it's on a person to person basis. We can't make blanket statements about what should be allowed in terms of energy and magic just as we can't make blanket statements about what is considered "dark" magic. It will always be a moot point because it's something that is left to each person to decide for themselves, going back to those ugly personal ethics.

Apparently I can no longer give Karma or it's just not working...so I'll say it here: Bravo!!!! Well said!...

karma karma karma karma karma karma!!!

[Arion]

So a close friend of mine tells me that she is going to be dabbling in some magick to help her out for a change to protect her self from stupid people and to send some things their way. She insists that I should try one or two because I my self have delt with some negative souls and I can't help but get this wicked naughty witch mood come over me which makes me want to run and get the candles, borrow a book of hers and do a little magick :heybaby:

There's nothing wrong with protecting yourselves.. by all means, get a little naughty ;) :devil:

[Garm]

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?

What if you don't belong to any magical community?

I certainly would not want to be part of any MC that would be depraved enough to accept me as a member

[Aidron]

Society has the right to guard against people who are so sociopathic that they have no conscience and do not care what others think of their ethics.

What you do in your own time and own space, that affects no one else, is completely your business and your freedom.

Paganism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.

It certainly did, so when society begins to believe that magic is real, then they can take any action they wish. Even if by some miracle that does happen, I still won't worry.

What I do period is my own business and within my own freedom. Paganism has nothing to do with ethics, ethics are based upon a group; Paganism has no unifying ethics, nor does any society if you ask me. Morals are individual, and my morals do not match your morals obviously, and why should they, and better yet why should I care?

[David19]

It certainly did, so when society begins to believe that magic is real, then they can take any action they wish. Even if by some miracle that does happen, I still won't worry.

What I do period is my own business and within my own freedom. Paganism has nothing to do with ethics, ethics are based upon a group; Paganism has no unifying ethics, nor does any society if you ask me. Morals are individual, and my morals do not match your morals obviously, and why should they, and better yet why should I care?

Exactly, i was going to say something similar but you said it a lot better than me :).

'Paganism' doesn't have any unifying ethics, it's not even a 'unifying' belief system (e.g. Asatru, Wicca, Hellenic reconstructionism, Sumerian reconstructionism, Feri Tradition, etc are all different, and they will have different ethics).

I agree with what Aidron said, about, if someone pisses you off or goes after you, magically or whatever, then you should retaliate and curse them or something.

I don't see magical communities 'self-policing' people, what are they going to get police cars and chase people who are cursing (and there are a lot of people to police then, who's going to pay for this, people don't work for free?).

I'd curse someone if they tried to hurt me, or ruin me, or hurt my family or friends or if i ever had a boyfriend, or whoever.

Or if a friends little brother or sister or kid was abused by a pediphile, i'd curse them or maybe worse.

[mtpathy]

now ya gone and did it. Guess you haven't seen Carla's posts on this subject in other threads? According to her-it should be a self policing organization and people who practice 'dark arts' should be proscecuted. This is obviously a subject near and dear to her heart.

But then she also thinks that there should be no losers and no winners in sports. It's all a conspiracy to make people feel bad. Never mind human nature or even nature itself... did ya also know that according to Carla the Universe doesn't need chaos... guess the Universe forgot to ask her opinion on things all those billions of years ago.

Elise


wow its a good thing you spoke for Carla,otherwise she might have had to
speak for herself..

[mtpathy]

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?

please do, honestly thats the book ive been thumping on for years, give
magick and the occult back to the ones who actually practice it by osracising
it in public.
im tired of walking into a bookstore and seeing "how to make a boy fall in love
with you",or "magick for beginners" books, heres a little secret EVERY book in
the bookstore is beginners books,theres so many books for beginners that
there stopped being books for anything or anybody else.
also while im at it, who asked you to make paganism and wicca public, what
makes you think that we wanted to be?
i don't care about there being a damn pagan church on my street corner,and
i don't care about people being "pagan friendly",im a person and would like to
be recognized as one, not a pagan.
paganism has become a novelty for adolscent children who want to "be
different", for people who want to attract attention to themselves by wearing
all black,and acting all anti-social within social situations cause they like the
attention.
thats it!! im going to go to kinkos tomorrow print up several hundred anti-
pagan stickers, with little pentagrams with x's through them,and start distri-
buting them throughout the area.. who's with me!!! :fpartyfav :abanana: :boquet: :weirdsmil

[Suzette]

Tis' good to be wicked and naughty. It's what I live by. Add witch into the mix, and beware...

Hail.

[Aidron]

Exactly, i was going to say something similar but you said it a lot better than me :).

'Paganism' doesn't have any unifying ethics, it's not even a 'unifying' belief system (e.g. Asatru, Wicca, Hellenic reconstructionism, Sumerian reconstructionism, Feri Tradition, etc are all different, and they will have different ethics).

I agree with what Aidron said, about, if someone pisses you off or goes after you, magically or whatever, then you should retaliate and curse them or something.

I don't see magical communities 'self-policing' people, what are they going to get police cars and chase people who are cursing (and there are a lot of people to police then, who's going to pay for this, people don't work for free?).

I'd curse someone if they tried to hurt me, or ruin me, or hurt my family or friends or if i ever had a boyfriend, or whoever.

Or if a friends little brother or sister or kid was abused by a pediphile, i'd curse them or maybe worse.


I'm going to step it up a bit. You better believe I'll take action if I feel it is warranted should someone attempt to directly impact my life in a manner I would prefer them not to, or someone's life that I care about.

Furthermore, I would be pro-active rather than reactive in some cases as well. Nasty girl at school who has said one too many snotty things to me? Pft. She transferred to nights and apparently is sick now with pneumonia. You won't get any tears from me over this.

[~Elise~]

wow its a good thing you spoke for Carla,otherwise she might have had to
speak for herself..

All I did was paraphrase things that Carla had said when she spoke for herself. so absolutely NO words were attributed to her that she had not already said.

So before you jump all over me.... ya might want to read the NUMEROUS posts in a wide variety of threads where she espouses just this view.

Elise

[~Elise~]

please do, honestly thats the book ive been thumping on for years, give
magick and the occult back to the ones who actually practice it by osracising
it in public.
im tired of walking into a bookstore and seeing "how to make a boy fall in love
with you",or "magick for beginners" books, heres a little secret EVERY book in
the bookstore is beginners books,theres so many books for beginners that
there stopped being books for anything or anybody else.
also while im at it, who asked you to make paganism and wicca public, what
makes you think that we wanted to be?
i don't care about there being a damn pagan church on my street corner,and
i don't care about people being "pagan friendly",im a person and would like to
be recognized as one, not a pagan.
paganism has become a novelty for adolscent children who want to "be
different", for people who want to attract attention to themselves by wearing
all black,and acting all anti-social within social situations cause they like the
attention.
thats it!! im going to go to kinkos tomorrow print up several hundred anti-
pagan stickers, with little pentagrams with x's through them,and start distri-
buting them throughout the area.. who's with me!!! :fpartyfav :abanana: :boquet: :weirdsmil

the words to Mrs Robinson are floating through my brain right now. I prefer not to keep my spirituality locked away in the cupboard with my cupcakes.
So--some teeny-boppers rebeling against...whatever it is they rebel against take it and turn it into a freak show...that's been happening for years with all religions.

I prefer to have the knowledge out there for those who need it to be able to find it.

JMO and obviously YMMV

Elise

[Penthesilea]

I'm going to step it up a bit. You better believe I'll take action if I feel it is warranted should someone attempt to directly impact my life in a manner I would prefer them not to, or someone's life that I care about.

Furthermore, I would be pro-active rather than reactive in some cases as well. Nasty girl at school who has said one too many snotty things to me? Pft. She transferred to nights and apparently is sick now with pneumonia. You won't get any tears from me over this.I really can't say that I find anything in this post to disagree with. I don't target innocents but if someone messes with my life, I mess back. Hard. I take care of my own. You mess with them, you mess with me and the only rule I follow is that I finish the fight. I don't pull my punches and I don't take prisoners. Anyone that has a problem with that is advised to stay on my good side.

[Aidron]

I really can't say that I find anything in this post to disagree with. I don't target innocents but if someone messes with my life, I mess back. Hard. I take care of my own. You mess with them, you mess with me and the only rule I follow is that I finish the fight. I don't pull my punches and I don't take prisoners. Anyone that has a problem with that is advised to stay on my good side.

No one in my eyes is innocent. Furthermore, you're going to have to rub me the wrong way for me to have a problem with you generally speaking, and as such I'll do as I please when someone does.

[Penthesilea]

No one in my eyes is innocent. Furthermore, you're going to have to rub me the wrong way for me to have a problem with you generally speaking, and as such I'll do as I please when someone does.I consider young children to be innocent until they prove themselves otherwise. The rest of the world should know how to behave in a civilized manner. If they do, we have no problems. If they don't, well. That's life.

[Carla O'Harris]

ya know, I find this highly disrespectful. Who are you to say who does and does not have ethics?

They may not have YOUR ethics, but they have their own--as they should. And just because they don't follow YOUR code does NOT mean they are a sociopath.

Elise

Oh, do they now? And how thoughtful is that ethical system? Not very thoughtful if the mere act of my calling into question various aspects of it is taken as insulting. I would think the call to ethics would be taken with rigour by all who took it seriously, and really, I am only interested in dealing with those who take ethics seriously, because people who have complexes whereby they are simply trying to avoid ethics because of some guilt they are trying to avoid, or because they are knee-jerk rebelling against some ethical system they were raised on, or who are simply sloppy and easily give reign to loopholes and exceptions which are often egoically driven, don't interest me, and frankly, I don't think they're very interested in a spiritual path if they're so thoughtless. Spirituality is about discipline, and growing, and improving, and becoming more conscious. Now I know that there will be objections from many about my asserting this, but I'm sorry, spirituality is a little more than a dinner party or a D&D get together. It requires work, and thought. Taking an adolescent attitude of "don't tell me what to do" is all fine and good, but it really doesn't develop character, now does it?

And if the person doesn't care at all what other people think when it comes to behavior which can affect others in negative, impactful ways, then yes, they do border on sociopathic.

Being ecumenical does not mean that one has to rubberstamp an "anything goes" attitude where everyone's opinion is correct, and where all ethical stances, no matter how thoughtless, careless, or self-centered get equal weight. Everyone's opinion is not equal. Such things must be weighed and evaluated carefully. It's flippant to simply take the attitude of that it's simply ok for people to cause harm as they will. I understand that in many cases this is about retaliation. So what? Every kid cries out, "He hit me first!" Oh, so what --- go join the dark side? That's Anakin-thinking. People will find a way to justify anything and everything. Justification is not the same thing as ethics. Someone did you harm, so now it's free reign? It's anything goes? It's get-mafia-on-their-ass time? Why would we want these kinds of people around us? (It's not as if we can simply will away such attitudes, but we can certainly create social environments that discourage them, rather than saying, 'sure, just go ahead and do whatever the hell you want regardless of its consequences, and we'll consider that approach as good as any other.')

[Carla O'Harris]

I see magic as a life skill as well as being part of a spiritual path. So far I have never cursed anybody or done anything really naughty and I probably wouldn't... However it would seem stupid to rule out using some of what I know in case a situation arrises where it would be useful and appropriate.

In the same way, being trained in the military does not give you a licence to use your skills in weaponary in every situation you get into, but it would be foolish not to use those skills if your life depended on it.

I haven't read enough of Carla's posts to be critical but I get a bit uncomfortable when people try to inflict their moral values on others or to claim that their personal viewpoint represents what an entire religious community is supposed to believe.


Inflicting my moral values on others? Seems like some are a little sensitive if the mere expression of my ethical viewpoint, even if passionately expressed, is taken as some kind of "infliction". As far as expressing what an entire religious community is "supposed" to believe, it makes sense to evaluate the social effects of actions, their ramifications, and the implications of simply giving the go-ahead to certain kinds of effects, especially if the idea is to be on a spiritual path. We understand that out in the world people may behave in all kinds of random ways, but on a spiritual path there should be a little more attention and consciousness, and an effort to grow.

In what kinds of situations would one's life depend upon creating or invoking malevolent forces? If someone was really threatening your life, why could you not resort to legal or physical self-defense --- and wouldn't those be much more effective?


However it would seem stupid to rule out using some of what I know in case a situation arrises where it would be useful and appropriate.

What criteria would you use to assess such usefulness and appropriateness?

[Carla O'Harris]

Dang it... well... at least there's free food. What? There's no free food? Oh well.

I don't see how anyone could use paganism to throw off their own ethics. I mean, either you do something or not. It's either within your ethics (even if only a little) or it's not. You might feel more comfortable following your own ethics in one of these systems of belief, but that doesn't equal throwing them off. Maybe just being more true to oneself.

And I really don't see why everything seems to equal such extremes. "You caste curses, you must be a psychotic murdering deviant!" Sounds a little over the top to me.

:smileroll



Oh, I don't know. I think choosing one's friends and associates based on the quality of their behavior makes a great deal of sense. It might be that casting curses might not make one equivalent to a "psychotic murdering deviant" as you put it (but consider that if you are referring to my invocation of sociopathy that that diagnosis does not only apply to murderers, but all kinds of people who have no conscience and act with disregard for the rights of others, to their own advantage), but if I found out that someone habitually beat up other people, or was just randomly vengeful, like slashing people's tires because they didn't like how they behaved, etc., I would not want that person for a friend, because what someone can do to someone else they can do to you, and eventually may. I am interested in what people are capable of doing to others, even if those others are identified as "enemies". Personally, in bad situations, I just want to get out of the bad situation, and use my energy to create a better situation if possible, or at least extricate myself and my loved ones from the bad situation. That seems like a much more efficient and creative use of energy. And if someone is really threatening you to the point where you feel endangered, again, there are legal recourses, and even physical recourses of self-defense.

[Carla O'Harris]

What if you don't belong to any magical community?

I certainly would not want to be part of any MC that would be depraved enough to accept me as a member

You certainly participate in discussions. Anyone who participates in a discussion may be confronted if they discuss unethical behavior.

[Carla O'Harris]

Society has a right to guard against people who break the laws and cause others to be physicall injured and incapacitated or who damage property and the like. Society has no precedent against people who give others warts and cast hexes and curses. Do we have the right to defend against that? This is America, we have the right to do whatever we dang well please and I would personally think one an idiot for not defending oneself, but it's on a person to person basis. We can't make blanket statements about what should be allowed in terms of energy and magic just as we can't make blanket statements about what is considered "dark" magic. It will always be a moot point because it's something that is left to each person to decide for themselves, going back to those ugly personal ethics.


I'll again point out that societies that do believe in magic do indeed have laws against maleficia, and it makes a lot of sense to have such laws in place, if magical actions are considered to be effective actions that actually affect others. Roman and Germanic societies, for example, had laws against maleficia. While American society as a whole may not accept psi phenomena, within a community that accepts magic as effective, it makes sense to form limitations or laws that protect individual freedom while limiting infringement on others' rights.


because it's something that is left to each person to decide for themselves

Well, it's also something for each person to decide whether they are going to assault another, or to injure them, or just to be an asshole. That doesn't mean there aren't social consequences.

[Carla O'Harris]

It certainly did, so when society begins to believe that magic is real, then they can take any action they wish. Even if by some miracle that does happen, I still won't worry.

What I do period is my own business and within my own freedom. Paganism has nothing to do with ethics, ethics are based upon a group; Paganism has no unifying ethics, nor does any society if you ask me. Morals are individual, and my morals do not match your morals obviously, and why should they, and better yet why should I care?

Well, this just demonstrates that some are attracted to "Paganism" precisely because they feel it places no ethical demands on them, which makes me wonder whether it has a tendency to attract ethical cripples who want some kind of easy way out where they will never be called on the consequences of their actions.

What you do that does not injure others nor infringe upon their rights is entirely your business. That can include BDSM rituals, ritual theatre where you enact all kinds of rage and the portrayal of heinous actions, shooting horror films where there is the theatrical portrayal of all kinds of "darkness", going to goth clubs, holding temper tantrums in your own space, thinking the most sinister thoughts you want, writing sadistic novels, etc. (I'm not saying you are into any of these things. I'm merely trying to illustrate that you are welcome to be as "gothic" or "dark" as you wish, and to entertain whatever theatre or thoughts you like, and it doesn't concern me one bit until you step over the line and infringe on someone else.) Your right to swing your magical arm ends at my nose.

And the whole idea that ethics is "individual" is just absurd. Maybe people are confusing "morals", which often amounts to judgements backed by guilt, with "ethics", which concerns the social effects of individual actions. Because of their social effects, ethics is social and not solely individual by definition. As far as moralistic judgements go, hey, feel free to throw them off as you wish, but that does not then indemnify you against the need to consider your actions and how they may injure others. Such consideration is part of living in a community under the rule of law ; those who do not wish to live by such rules can live in the wastelands as wolves and outlaws. It's one thing to say you're throwing off the morality of, say, some preacher who tells you that sex is evil, or polygamy is evil, or BDSM is evil, for example. Hey, do what floats your boat, but one is still then obligated to do it in a way that does not infringe on others. If someone who only wanted to have one sexual partner came and judged you for wanting more than one sexual partner, I would defend your right to have different "morals" in this situation, so long as you conducted your polyamory in an open, honest, ethical manner, for example.

People saying, "Hey, you can't take retaliatory-magic away from us because we need to retain at least one barbaric private-vengeance system" doesn't seem to me like anything progressive. It's not even being regressive in an honest or open way, but wanting to secure "back channels" to be able to enact little blood feuds behind the eyes of the law during this particular historical period where such activities take place beneath the attention of the law (unlike ancient Rome and Germania, for example).


when society begins to believe that magic is real, then they can take any action they wish.

I would not support society taking "any action they wish", but only taking those steps necessary to secure against injury. I want society neither infringing upon important, wide freedoms, nor having no limitation to punishment. Here a principle of proportional justice would have to apply as well.

[Carla O'Harris]

Exactly, i was going to say something similar but you said it a lot better than me :).

'Paganism' doesn't have any unifying ethics, it's not even a 'unifying' belief system (e.g. Asatru, Wicca, Hellenic reconstructionism, Sumerian reconstructionism, Feri Tradition, etc are all different, and they will have different ethics).

I agree with what Aidron said, about, if someone pisses you off or goes after you, magically or whatever, then you should retaliate and curse them or something.


I'd curse someone if they tried to hurt me, or ruin me, or hurt my family or friends or if i ever had a boyfriend, or whoever.

Or if a friends little brother or sister or kid was abused by a pediphile, i'd curse them or maybe worse.


Wait --- so it's ok to curse someone simply because they piss you off?? What is this --- Columbine meets Hogwarts??


'Paganism' doesn't have any unifying ethics

But human beings do, and pagans are human beings. Also, to suggest that pagan religions had no ethical systems is to sell them a bit short, and to suggest that we should simply accept hook, line, and sinker any human system from the past (or present), no matter how attractive, romantic, or alluring it is, without evaluating its ethical implications, is completely illogical.



I don't see magical communities 'self-policing' people, what are they going to get police cars and chase people who are cursing (and there are a lot of people to police then, who's going to pay for this, people don't work for free?).

Au contraire, all it takes is speaking up to begin with, and that is completely free. If more people created a strong atmosphere discouraging retaliatory magic (as for example classical Gardnerian Wicca does), bolstered by strong arguments against it, and didn't simply jump on some bandwagon that considers it cool or ok, and furthermore backed this up by making it clear that they would not associate in any significant life-fashion with people willing to act unethically, this could have a strong effect. When it's just Carla in a room, however, and everyone else is treating her like a fuddy-dud who is uncool for not jumping on the bandwagon, it's going to have a much more reduced effect. So building social solidarity around the issue can be a powerful and quite free way to begin addressing such policing. Call people out when they're willing to curse at the drop of a hat. Call them out when they're willing to curse at all, and see whether they can handle the heat. If they can't handle the heat of being confronted, then they aren't being responsible by definition because they are not ready to respond, nor to answer for their actions.

[Carla O'Harris]

There's nothing wrong with protecting yourselves.. by all means, get a little naughty ;) :devil:


Why does protecting oneself automatically involve retaliation? That seems to me to betray a fairly impoverished imagination about one's capacities to defend. Someone with thick enough soles on their shoes doesn't really care about the thorns on the ground.

I think it makes much more sense to shore up one's strength than to get involved in retaliation-politics.

[Carla O'Harris]

now ya gone and did it. Guess you haven't seen Carla's posts on this subject in other threads? According to her-it should be a self policing organization and people who practice 'dark arts' should be proscecuted. This is obviously a subject near and dear to her heart.

But then she also thinks that there should be no losers and no winners in sports. It's all a conspiracy to make people feel bad. Never mind human nature or even nature itself... did ya also know that according to Carla the Universe doesn't need chaos... guess the Universe forgot to ask her opinion on things all those billions of years ago.

Elise

Ummm ... and the purpose of this besides trying to mock me was ---? If you want to respond to the thread about competition, why don't you do so there? It's true that I have a critique of competition, but I hardly see the relevance to this thread. Or was your tactic --- 'wait, I think I'll bring up another opinion of Carla's which I'm sure others will disagree with so as to bias their reception of the point she's presently making'? That ignores the fact that people can agree on some points and disagree on other points. Someone might have a different perspective on the competition debate and still agree with me about wanting to question the encouragement of retaliatory mindsets. I have to say I'm not certain whether you're trying to lampoon me or succeeding in lampooning yourself, considering that I never stated that it was a "conspiracy" to make people feel bad. There are cultures where noncompetitive games are encouraged, and cooperation more encouraged, and it is possible --without conspiracy-- for cultures to fall into patterns that are counterproductive. Not every culture that has rampant spousal abuse "set out" to have a high level of spousal abuse, but it still might be something to think about reconsidering and changing. When it comes to "nature", human or otherwise, perhaps you are about to treat me with some delightfully dull social darwinism as some kind of bolstering of your views? The fact of the matter is that nature is incredibly diverse. All kinds of things happen. It makes sense to rationally consider which of those things make for good models for human behavior. Vultures eat rotting meat. Does that mean we should?


According to her-it should be a self policing organization and people who practice 'dark arts' should be proscecuted.

Actually, I suggested first and foremost social methods of discouraging unethical actions, and then above that also suggested laying down legal principles which could be used to assess and critique injurious actions, and lay the groundwork for the outlawing of individuals not willing to agree to avoid injury.

[Carla O'Harris]

I really can't say that I find anything in this post to disagree with. I don't target innocents but if someone messes with my life, I mess back. Hard. I take care of my own. You mess with them, you mess with me and the only rule I follow is that I finish the fight. I don't pull my punches and I don't take prisoners. Anyone that has a problem with that is advised to stay on my good side.


So ... in a discipline that is supposedly about developing imagination, the best kind of social attitude you can imagine is mafia ethics?

Don't get me wrong -- it is natural to an extent to want to "mess back" when one is "messed with" (although the definition of what "messing" is is far too vague) -- but a mere study of history should caution against elevating the ethics of the blood feud to any kind of organizing principle.

I'm not saying you shouldn't stand up for yourself, nor that you should ignore injuries and not seek redress. But the idea that the only effective way to do this is through retaliation reflects an impoverished imagination.

And why does your messing have to be magical? What is the point of learning magic in the first place --- merely to have another technology to enforce one's will-to-power, without any need of considering the collective effects of technology or power used in such a way? Given all the flippant comments I've seen expressed about magic, it makes total
sense to me now why many traditional systems considered training or oaths in ethics to be prerequisite to training. Again, I wonder whether people are attracted to magic merely because it provides a channel of Unaccountable power. Some apparently want it to be so unaccountable that even the invocation of karma they consider to be outdated, uncool, and an imposition. No, apparently complete impunity is desired. But what are the larger implications of encouraging such an adolescent and barbaric approach?

As Tevye says,


Villager: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.

[~Elise~]

Ummm ... and the purpose of this besides trying to mock me was ---?

No trying involved, honey.



If you want to respond to the thread about competition, why don't you do so there? It's true that I have a critique of competition, but I hardly see the relevance to this thread. Or was your tactic --- 'wait, I think I'll bring up another opinion of Carla's which I'm sure others will disagree with so as to bias their reception of the point she's presently making'? That ignores the fact that people can agree on some points and disagree on other points. Someone might have a different perspective on the competition debate and still agree with me about wanting to question the encouragement of retaliatory mindsets.

If I'm reading this thread correctly--there is only ONE who agrees with you, babe. And all who disagree - you implied were sociopaths.

AND BTW, I did reply in that thread as you should well aware. You chose to ignore the points made


I have to say I'm not certain whether you're trying to lampoon me or succeeding in lampooning yourself, considering that I never stated that it was a "conspiracy" to make people feel bad. There are cultures where noncompetitive games are encouraged, and cooperation more encouraged, and it is possible --without conspiracy-- for cultures to fall into patterns that are counterproductive. Not every culture that has rampant spousal abuse "set out" to have a high level of spousal abuse, but it still might be something to think about reconsidering and changing. When it comes to "nature", human or otherwise, perhaps you are about to treat me with some delightfully dull social darwinism as some kind of bolstering of your views? The fact of the matter is that nature is incredibly diverse. All kinds of things happen. It makes sense to rationally consider which of those things make for good models for human behavior. Vultures eat rotting meat. Does that mean we should?


my goal is not to delight you at all.... far from it.

Where is the culture that non competitve games are encouraged? I've asked that before with NO answer, I might add.

I don't have to treat you with dull social darwinism, honey. Nature--human and otherwise speaks for itself. Ignoring it however, doesn't change it or make it go away. Was here long before us and will be here long after.



Actually, I suggested first and foremost social methods of discouraging unethical actions, and then above that also suggested laying down legal principles which could be used to assess and critique injurious actions, and lay the groundwork for the outlawing of individuals not willing to agree to avoid injury.

I am a highly moral and ethical person--and I teach others to hopefully be the same and I have for years. But I'm also a realist... I've worked on larger magical Community--organizing it, trying to set the self policing into effect...it don't work--no matter how much it should work--it doesn't. Politics and human nature do NOT change no matter how much we THINK they should. I resigned from that Board of Directors because of just that... nothing changes. I got tired of beating my head against the wall.

I work within the political system now trying to make changes on local, state and national level now. I put MY money where my mouth is. How about you--what organizations do YOU belong to? What changes are you trying to effect in your community? If you aren't working actively in your own backyard to institute the changes you want to see...you aren't walking your talk. I walk mine everyday.

Elise

[Carla O'Harris]

No trying involved



If I'm reading this thread correctly--there is only ONE who agrees with you, babe. And all who disagree - you implied were sociopaths.

AND BTW, I did reply in that thread as you should well aware. You chose to ignore the points made



my goal is not to delight you at all.... far from it.

Where is the culture that non competitve games are encouraged? I've asked that before with NO answer, I might add.

I don't have to treat you with dull social darwinism, honey. Nature--human and otherwise speaks for itself. Ignoring it however, doesn't change it or make it go away. Was here long before us and will be here long after.




I am a highly moral and ethical person--and I teach others to hopefully be the same and I have for years. But I'm also a realist... I've worked on larger magical Community--organizing it, trying to set the self policing into effect...it don't work--no matter how much it should work--it doesn't. Politics and human nature do NOT change no matter how much we THINK they should. I resigned from that Board of Directors because of just that... nothing changes. I got tired of beating my head against the wall.

I work within the political system now trying to make changes on local, state and national level now. I put MY money where my mouth is. How about you--what organizations do YOU belong to? What changes are you trying to effect in your community? If you aren't working actively in your own backyard to institute the changes you want to see...you aren't walking your talk. I walk mine everyday.

Elise


Well, I'm glad you're proud of your contributions.

I implied that people who have no conscience, and do not care about the effects of their actions on others regardless of injury they may cause, are sociopathic. That's different than saying anyone who disagrees with me is sociopathic. Get it right.

As far as discouraging competition goes, you might begin with the ethnography of various Southwestern tribes.

And you are treating me with social darwinism by assuming a particular stance on nature that you expect me and others to take as natural, when it is a particular cultural stance on what is natural. Sorry, not biting.

Self-policing certainly can work if there is enough social momentum, but flippancy and bandwagon-thinking certainly isn't going to help (not that you are guilty of either of these).

[~Elise~]

Well, I'm glad you're proud of your contributions.

I implied that people who have no conscience, and do not care about the effects of their actions on others regardless of injury they may cause, are sociopathic. That's different than saying anyone who disagrees with me is sociopathic. Get it right.

As far as discouraging competition goes, you might begin with the ethnography of various Southwestern tribes.

And you are treating me with social darwinism by assuming a particular stance on nature that you expect me and others to take as natural, when it is a particular cultural stance on what is natural. Sorry, not biting.

Self-policing certainly can work if there is enough social momentum, but flippancy and bandwagon-thinking certainly isn't going to help (not that you are guilty of either of these).

Which Southwestern tribes? Ones that aren't even in existance anymore? Just wondering. I'm am curious and would love specifics.

In my experience self-policing doesn't work--the momentum isn't there now or anytime in the foreseeable future-again the human nature thing. Now within the group I lead--I can have some major influence due to my role as HPs-but even there--human nature being what it is...it doesn't always hold true.

My ethics are mine--I can share with others (and do) but I can't make mine, theirs... and to be honest--I wouldn't want it any other way.

I do try to make sure that our rights as Americans aren't trampled on or ignored. I stand up for what I believe. I put myself on the line. I've been to court to defend my rights as a Pagan, (and won, I might add). I've had someone's ethics tried to be imposed on me...can't and won't happen. I just don't talk about it on message boards.

Are you doing the same in your community? Are you trying to implement your vision? if not, why not?
Until you do go out and work that vision in the real world...you shouldn't be taking others to task for what you think the community should be.

JMO

Elise

[Carla O'Harris]

Discussion is a part of community. I am very glad that you are involved in your community and care to share aspects of that involvement. I do not discuss my personal life with those who are not my direct allies or associates, and it's irrelevant to the debate, although in all honesty, kudos to you.

[~Elise~]

Discussion is a part of community. I am very glad that you are involved in your community and care to share aspects of that involvement. I do not discuss my personal life with those who are not my direct allies or associates, and it's irrelevant to the debate, although in all honesty, kudos to you.

Discussion on a message board is just that...discussion. But I do more than just talk about it.

I don't harangue others with what MY view of what society should be like--I'm out there trying to make it so. If you aren't doing the same--then it's like voting--you don't vote-you don't have a right to gripe.

Ghandi said-Become the change you wish to see...or something close to that. I say- If you ain't out walking what you talk--then quit talking.

JMO

Elise

[Carla O'Harris]

One has the right to critique regardless of whether one participates in electoral systems. Freedom of speech applies whether one votes or not.

And the idea that talk is not a form of action is ridiculous. Discussion for the sake of clarifying ideas sets the field in which action takes place.

Again, congratulations on your community work. I am not going to discuss my work.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Now, see, we've gone and fed the troll.
Remember, folks, arguing with Carla is pointless, because she ignores the questions you really wants her to answer and hopes you'll forget them by bogging you down in superfluous junk.
I love the maturity comments! She's still going on with that one! I especially love the comparison with the teenage whiny Goth paganlet! I'll just go and put on my CD-sized Sigil of Baphomet and wear it to class. Obviously that's all I can do, given my attitude towards magic.

[MankyCat]

Now, see, we've gone and fed the troll.
Remember, folks, arguing with Carla is pointless, because she ignores the questions you really wants her to answer and hopes you'll forget them by bogging you down in superfluous junk.
I love the maturity comments! She's still going on with that one! I especially love the comparison with the teenage whiny Goth paganlet! I'll just go and put on my CD-sized Sigil of Baphomet and wear it to class. Obviously that's all I can do, given my attitude towards magic.


Oh... but sometimes it's fun to play. :abanana:


Though I don't think trolls would like the comparison. Kidding, kidding.

Honestly though, I think there's several reasons some of us feel the need to make points when she posts. I know I do.

[MankyCat]

Oh, I don't know. I think choosing one's friends and associates based on the quality of their behavior makes a great deal of sense. It might be that casting curses might not make one equivalent to a "psychotic murdering deviant" as you put it (but consider that if you are referring to my invocation of sociopathy that that diagnosis does not only apply to murderers, but all kinds of people who have no conscience and act with disregard for the rights of others, to their own advantage), but if I found out that someone habitually beat up other people, or was just randomly vengeful, like slashing people's tires because they didn't like how they behaved, etc., I would not want that person for a friend, because what someone can do to someone else they can do to you, and eventually may. I am interested in what people are capable of doing to others, even if those others are identified as "enemies". Personally, in bad situations, I just want to get out of the bad situation, and use my energy to create a better situation if possible, or at least extricate myself and my loved ones from the bad situation. That seems like a much more efficient and creative use of energy. And if someone is really threatening you to the point where you feel endangered, again, there are legal recourses, and even physical recourses of self-defense.


Okay.... so where did all this about "choosing one's friends" come from? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we weren't talking about that or anything of the sort. We were talking about people who choose to curse or do anything you deem as "no so nice" as shirking their personal ethics when casting.

And my point was that either they will do it or not. Either it's within your ethics to do that sort of thing or not. It's kinda like pron. Either you feel it's alright to look at or it's not. You might not broadcast your feelings to the world about it, but all because you view it when you are alone doesn't mean you are shirking your true ethics.

And when did we really start talking about vandals and such? Someone else causing trouble and damaging things? I believe your statement was about the individuals not people they might know. As for the comment about legal and physical recourse... do you feel that's better? You aren't as likely to get a just result from the legal system (too often their hands are tied), and if you do something physical, aren't you causing harm? Or putting yourself in further danger?

Causing harm is causing harm is causing harm. Doesn't matter what label you put to it. And even when you are trying to do something good that doesn't affect anyone else, it will affect somebody in a negative way. Guess what? You just did someone harm. Could even be life threatening. Who knows?

But not everyone that does something naughty once or twice are suddenly sociopaths. And many of those who cast dark magic on occasion or often aren't as likely going to come at you and start slashing your tires or try to eat the neighborhood cat. Just because you choose the flight method doesn't mean everyone else will. It's natural to choose to fight back on occasion. I'm glad you were never put into a situation that would force you to question your heavy handed ethics.

[Carla O'Harris]

Now, see, we've gone and fed the troll.
Remember, folks, arguing with Carla is pointless, because she ignores the questions you really wants her to answer and hopes you'll forget them by bogging you down in superfluous junk.
I love the maturity comments! She's still going on with that one! I especially love the comparison with the teenage whiny Goth paganlet! I'll just go and put on my CD-sized Sigil of Baphomet and wear it to class. Obviously that's all I can do, given my attitude towards magic.


Is calling me a "troll" within Mystic Wicks respect ethics?

The reason you feel that arguing with me is pointless, Mr. Darkmoon, is that you are notoriously bad at it, and thus have essentially given up engaging in any kind of reasoned debate with me. You have reduced yourself to tactics of ridicule rather than reason. Good day.

[Tahroh]

Okay.... so where did all this about "choosing one's friends" come from? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we weren't talking about that or anything of the sort. We were talking about people who choose to curse or do anything you deem as "no so nice" as shirking their personal ethics when casting.
It all started when Carla decided that HER view of ethics in the magickal community is what everyone should follow.


And my point was that either they will do it or not. Either it's within your ethics to do that sort of thing or not. It's kinda like pron. Either you feel it's alright to look at or it's not. You might not broadcast your feelings to the world about it, but all because you view it when you are alone doesn't mean you are shirking your true ethics.
Say it like it is..



And when did we really start talking about vandals and such? Someone else causing trouble and damaging things? I believe your statement was about the individuals not people they might know. As for the comment about legal and physical recourse... do you feel that's better? You aren't as likely to get a just result from the legal system (too often their hands are tied), and if you do something physical, aren't you causing harm? Or putting yourself in further danger?
i agree, magickal transgressions should be dealt with by people with apt knowlege of what has truely transpired. today's legal system has no place in this discussion for most do not truly understand what is actually goin on.



Causing harm is causing harm is causing harm. Doesn't matter what label you put to it. And even when you are trying to do something good that doesn't affect anyone else, it will affect somebody in a negative way. Guess what? You just did someone harm. Could even be life threatening. Who knows?
It is true that everything Good or bad has consequences, and the victim and the higher power can truly realize what consequences those may be.



But not everyone that does something naughty once or twice are suddenly sociopaths. And many of those who cast dark magic on occasion or often aren't as likely going to come at you and start slashing your tires or try to eat the neighborhood cat. Just because you choose the flight method doesn't mean everyone else will. It's natural to choose to fight back on occasion. I'm glad you were never put into a situation that would force you to question your heavy handed ethics.
Perhaps one day this may come to pass (the questioning of the Ethical Choices). But until then we are always in for a good debate...:fpartyfav


i don't think my post had any real relevance to the situation, but im bored.
~~~~Tahroh

[Nitefalle]

It all started when Carla decided that HER view of ethics in the magickal community is what everyone should follow.
Tahroh

Now, I read back over the posts and I have to defend Carla. She did not, at any point, say that her opinion was better than anyone else's or that we should all follow her way of thinking, etc. She simply threw in an opposing opinion, but she didn't tell anyone they had to agree with it.

I do agree with many points she made and feel she elaborates her points well. Society does have the right to guard itself against people who act without "conscience" (the meaning of that to be determined later) in a physical manner - that's why we have laws. However, my previous post was assuming we were talking about modern American society, not previous cultures and societies that did recognize malefacia or other intangible means of harm. I also disagree with her statement that "humans" do have an ethical system in place....even today, there are some cultures and societies that condone violence and killing as part of normal interaction, so to say that humans, across the board as a species, have similar ethics is incorrect.....BUT, to use examples of other societies to justify your own actions is wrong, especially if it's not relevant to where you live.

I agree that physical and legal options are not something that should be discounted - I don't reach for my gun when someone cuts me off in traffic. However, as a magic practicioner, it IS a tool that I have at my disposal. Why *shouldn't* I consider it, along with legal and/or physical action? I don't think it should be discounted either, I think they should be considered all together. Yes, people should have thicker soles on their shoes, but when you can see the person laying down the thorns purposefully or out of malice, shouldn't something be done, whether physical, legal or magical?

Furthermore, some of the positions on here do sound quite extreme. Curse people just because they piss you off?? Hm, I don't know about that. I think it's a little extreme....would you get rid of a mosquito with an elephant gun? Would you grab your gun for the guy that cut you off in traffic? Sometimes force is just not needed. I'm not saying that self defense is bad, but I think the punishment should fit the crime and I think that is all Carla was trying to say (if I understood the gist of her posts).

[skilly-nilly]

How about simply outlawing such dark arts within magical communities and enforcing them with such time-honored methods such as shaming, ostracism, and discouragement?



What you do that does not injure others nor infringe upon their rights is entirely your business. Your right to swing your magical arm ends at my nose.

On the one hand, Carla seems to be making a presumption that I believe is incorrect and then is drawing an unwarranted conclusion from it. If, as seems to be the case, she is equating "magical communities" with Paganism as if there is some consensus there then that is just silly.

Paganism is an umbrella term for a huge unconnected group of divergent belief systems---there is no consensus about Who is Deity/ies, what the fundamentals of belief are, how to express belief, what the definition of 'Magic' and 'Pagan' are.......

To imply that "magical communities" could reach a consensus on what "dark arts" are and then to further agree on a punishment for infractions of the "outlawed" practices is, as I said, silly. Unless the enforcers have some societal backing for enforcement then it's just a question of whether the 'dark practitioner' or the enforcers have the bigger whup-a**; pointless in the extreme.

To use an example from real-life:
If someone in my community decides that they deserve to take my wallet with threat of violence, I don't have to have a bigger threat to defend myself. My society has empowered the police to defend me. This works because we (me and the perp) live in the same society.

If I'm all wrought up because the police in Los Angeles engage in racial profiling, I don't get to send my police to show your police a better way because we don't live in the same society.

So no, Carla, you don't get to decide who's being bad and punishing them until you're elected Supreme Dictator of Magickness by a society who has chosen to support your efforts at brightening up the world.

You only get to defend your own noze and that with only your own whup-a**. Just like everybody else.



On the other hand, I personally believe that coercion is evil and try to avoid it. So, actually, I'm on the non-cursing side of the debate. Reflection of what's sent, intimidating defensive perimeter, righteous debate against the unwanted action, display of possible whup-a** retaliation-----I would bring all of these to bear before I actually acted on someone. Because I believe that acting Magically on someone links you to that person, and who wants to be linked to some violent a**hat?

It's my common answer to inquiry, since I am fairly out as a spell-worker:

Nöb- "You do spells!"
Me- "Right."
Nöb- "OOOOoooOOOOO, can you put a curse on my ex?"
Me- "No, I don't have a problem with your ex. You could put a curse on your ex, but then you would be tied to hir forever. Is that what you wanted??"
Nöb- "oh Never mind."

On the gripping hand, the whole debate is beyond silly if one is actually a believer in some one of the many Pagan Magical belief systems. If someone acts on you, on others, on the living world in a way that is indefensibly 'bad' or 'dark' then surely the God/s/dess/desses that your belief system refers to will come down on that malefactor with a bigger and better whup-a** than any of ours, however much we agree or dis.

When something happens that I don't like, I give it to the Pantheon that I believe in and stop poking at it myself.

[MankyCat]

Nitefalle,

The reason some of us are reacting as we have is due to discussions we had with Carla in other threads. Mind you, I know I would not have reacted as I had if I did not read her say the same thing and iterate on them in detail. Being that I read her explanations and view in the other threads, I can conclude what she means here as her points have been the similar, if not the same.

Also, keep in mind, that we were not originally discussing some of the points she is bringing up, and some seem out of line with the current topics. Protection against physical assault was not an issue here. I am more than willing to send you some of the threads where the debates had ensued.

When other cultures are brought up, she says she's not concerned with them. I know this, because I was discussing on the opposite side of her. She is arguing on what she feels is her personal "perfect society" and not any that has any true historical basis. Of course, she may say that such-and-such existed, but will completely ignore the not so pretty parts of that culture. No one stated that doing bad in their own culture is okay just because another culture deems it so. That was never intended at least on my part. More, that we shouldn't discredit other societies simply because we don't agree with one part or another.

I think some of the extremes you are seeing are in retaliation, but I could be wrong. I'll have to reread as to when they were posted.

As for Carla's views on punishments, I shudder to think on them given what I've read. She seems to falter often when it comes to which crimes are worthy of retaliation and which ones aren't. Fact is, if a mosquito bites you and you catch it, don't you still smack it? If so, it's gonna likely be killed. It died, because of it's need. If someone hurts me and I catch them, would I do something equivalent to a smack? Don't know. Depends on the situation. But in Carla's arguments, I would have been wrong for even considering it.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Okay, obviosuly I need to clearly articulate my ideas and views on this subject.
I am a Wiccan. I consider myself a moral person. I do not look to the Wiccan Rede or the Law of Three for moral guidance, because I find those concepts too anomalous, ill-defined, and impractical for most situations I come across. Instead I do what I believe to be right. What I believe to be right is a mixture of how I was raised, the ethical, societal, and cultural mores of where I was brought up, and a good amount of rather eligious soul-searching. Usually I will do what I believe to be best, most usually, what is best for me, because I'm myself and as such I'll worry about my own needs first. To an extent I believe in the law "Do what thou Will shall be the whole of the Law. The Law is Love, Love under Will."
Now, all this means that pretty much all of the time, any magic, ritual, and spellwork I do is aimed at myself. There have been very few exceptions from this. In general, my magic is what most would consider ethical and just.
However, a few times in the past there have been situations where the only way I could act on a situation that I percieved to affect me, my country, and the world as a whole was through magical means, and I did so. What I did at that time is something that some would consider negative or unethical magic, regardless of the circumstances. I do not regret the actions I took, because they were what I truly did (and still do) believe to be for the best.
On the subject of some sort of 'ethics police', I think that is a bad idea for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, what kind of action would the ethics police (for want of a better term) take if someone transgressed their laws? WHo would decide what laws apply? From a practical standpoint, there are FAR too many different kinds of magical practice for these kinds of strictures to take place. Her ein Hamilton we have a sizeable pagan population. We have Asatru, we have Wiccans, there's a Sumerian group somewhere, there is a decent community of Afro-Carribean magical practitioners somewhere in town. Apparently there is a Fellowship of Isis temple around here somewhere. Doubtless there are ceremonial magicians. This wonderful, nay, beautiful diversity means that no two groups - or, indeed, two people - would have the same precise definition of magic, those two people may have extremely different ethical views, and those two people may have wildly different ideas as to what constitutes a curse or negative magic. When you add in the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and other religious groups to this mixture, well, it simply isn't feasible. I've seen the kind of squabbling that happens among two groups of Wiccans, and I sincerely doubt that getting them to agree that such-and-such kind of working is 'bad' would be difficult. To get a bunch of practitioners of Santeria to agree with them would be even harder.
Some Wiccan groups, for example, on hearing that so-and-so was expelled from a coven for 'bad' workings would accept that person with open arms. Some Christians would condemn all the other religions and magical communities in town. It would just be too difficult.
And while we're at it, I'm taking huge offense at the sociopath comment. Merely because I myself would not put a curse on someone's wild-oats-sowing husband does not mean that the Hoodoo worker who *would* is a sociopath. If someone asks me to do a spell for them, I'll tell them to do it themselves. But that is my way, and not the way of all others. Is the zealotous Muslim who prays for conversion of others a sociopath? Surely not, and yet, they pray for something that many would consider a negative thing.
So, having had my say and fully explained my convictions on this matter, I will allow anyone who desires to nitpick over it and draw such conclusions as they will.

[Cassie]

In what kinds of situations would one's life depend upon creating or invoking malevolent forces? If someone was really threatening your life, why could you not resort to legal or physical self-defense --- and wouldn't those be much more effective?

What criteria would you use to assess such usefulness and appropriateness?
My survival instinct and my sence of right and wrong would be enough criteria for me.

In most situations I can think of, I would indeed use legal, physical self defence.

However, a situation could arrise in which a profficient magical practicioner decided to use so called 'dark magic' against me. In such a situation don't you think it would at least be wise to understand exactly what was happening (which would involve some understanding of the malevonent forces being employed)? And if all else has failed surely using the same powers against an attacker is no worse than hitting a mugger harder than he hits you?

[Carla O'Harris]

Thank you for your more reasoned and thoughtful response.

Consider the wide range of comments and possible implications from the original thread. Consider that there were in fact elicited comments such as cursing someone because they pissed one off. One thing you have to think of when you formulate principles is how the most unthoughtful and immature of people may carry those out, because not everyone is going to approach things with wisdom. This is why I think an ethical approach is so critical when approaching these things. Perhaps the people you associate with may be ethical enough to trust their judgement (but even then one needs to be careful ; it is easy enough to be fooled), but there are many who will not be.

The idea that due to diversity alone we cannot formulate law seems overly pessimistic to me. Common law forms can organically grow out of discussions. International law can form between nations with diverse views. I recognize that there is a wide range of views. Much of this width can be accomodated within law. That still does not mean that "everything goes", simply because some culture says it does. That is elevating cultural relativism to a point of idolatry. Every culture is subject to critique. Handling professional cursers could be debated in the context of the desirability of having unregulated mercenaries and assassins in our society, as I have indicated before.

As far as ethical policing goes, I did not propose a model of creating an institutionalized magical police, but rather a more organic community policing. Obviously one doesn't have to rush-to-condemn in a knee-jerk fashion, but one can listen with a critical ear, and challenge associates and friends when they rush-to-curse, and suggest alternatives.

Remember that the entire point of "binding" is to render harmless an attacker, so I'm certainly not suggesting not defending oneself. I've made that clear. In actual application, both positive spells and binding allow for great leeway of action without having to delve into actual attack- or retaliation-spells.

I understand that people are reacting to me, but I think the reaction is disproportionate to what I have said, and maybe more reactions to their own stuff. What I am saying may not be popular, but there is nothing wrong with trying to be thoughtful about the ethical impact of our actions. So I'm challenging people? So what? Again, how can one be said to be responsible if even having to respond for one's actions is seen as unreasonable?

[Carla O'Harris]

My survival instinct and my sence of right and wrong would be enough criteria for me.

In most situations I can think of, I would indeed use legal, physical self defence.

However, a situation could arrise in which a profficient magical practicioner decided to use so called 'dark magic' against me. In such a situation don't you think it would at least be wise to understand exactly what was happening (which would involve some understanding of the malevonent forces being employed)? And if all else has failed surely using the same powers against an attacker is no worse than hitting a mugger harder than he hits you?


I hear your hypothetical. What I question is the imagination of "all else failing", and the assumption that dark magic is therefore the most powerful. Who is to say it is the more powerful? That's unfairly weighing your imagination from the get-go.

[Cassie]

I hear your hypothetical. What I question is the imagination of "all else failing", and the assumption that dark magic is therefore the most powerful. Who is to say it is the more powerful? That's unfairly weighing your imagination from the get-go.
Fair point, but I took that line because so called naughty or dark magic is the theme of this thread.
In most situations I think positive magic confounds an enemy much more than something dark.
But again...Who is to define which is which? It isn't always clear. Any and all magic can have unpredictable negetive effects.

[Carla O'Harris]

I suppose greater clarity on just what constitutes "naughty" or "wicked" magic might be in order. My concern is that such words are loaded and can mean vastly different things to different people. I think it is important to guard against sociopaths in our midst. There are already far too many of them (in society at large, and therefore one would expect also in the magic communities).

I think perhaps because of their own experiences with some sort of stereotype, people are projecting that stereotype onto me, of someone who is all "positive thinking" and can think of nothing but the "light" and is repressive. Far from it. I believe in balance. I simply distinguish between the need for psychic (soul) balance between darkness and light, good and evil, and one's actual actions in the real world. Sometimes being critical of violence and nastiness is not an effect of being sheltered, but of seeing far too much go down in that department, and therefore being wary of it. I have seen many ideas that between you and me and someone else we trust might be ok, but once let loose for interpretation can get pretty damn nasty.

I want to encourage people to overcome knee-jerk, authoritarian, guilt-ridden superego moralisms, certainly, but I also think there are stages beyond this rebellion that involve confronting oneself and doing some serious ethical thinking.

I understand that the context of this discussion is in large part retaliation against perceived-injury, which seems to excuse the action, because "they did it first". It's very human, and very tempting. But for that very reason it behooves us to be even more critical. Through people's thoughtless ethical loopholes the worst nastiness can travel, even in people usually thoughtful. If all it takes is for someone to be positioned as an "enemy" in order for all ethical limitations to be lifted, in many people it can be surprising how often the shadow-side will end up positioning people into enemy positions.

And again, I suppose some of this depends on how you define a "curse". I know an Asatruar who cast a curse on someone who was behaving dishonestly in the community that : 1) the truth of their actions would come out, 2) they would fully realize how scummy they were being, and their soul would feel the full dishonor. Personally that seems like an entirely appropriate "curse", although I don't consider it a curse at all. In a sense, that's merely wishing for natural consequences to their action.

On the other hand, one can compile a list of things "one wouldn't wish on one's worst enemy", as the colloquial saying goes, and work from there. If one is a well-developed person with a strong ego structure (and if one is not, I would say that all of one's magic and efforts really ought to go into developing this, and not into any kind of cursing in the first place), this list should be fairly ample.

I know that it is easy to construe my arguments as being overly legalistic, and given the often libertarian attitude of pagans, it can be easy for people to bristle at that. What I am trying to point out in part is that by deciding to curse, one is already taking a legal stance, and it may be worthwhile to consider the criminological theories that are motivating one's behavior. Proportionality needs to be considered in all things. A curse for getting pissed off violates even the spirit of "eye for an eye" of Hammurabi's code, which itself is these days seen as somewhat barbaric, although it intended in part to establish proportionality of justice. Obviously proportionality is a judgement-call, but that does not make it entirely an individual affair. Common law can develop out of discussions which might at first seem absurd, but over time can become meaningful for juries, formal or informal, such as : for a given infraction, what kind of response would be disproportionate? And what rights do the accused have? What rights do the guilty have? (And yes, that depends on precisely what they're guilty of.)

Remember, when you make unqualified statements in public about it being ok to be "nasty" and "wicked", while this could be liberating to someone who is usually far too passive and defenseless, there are always going to be some people who are going to take that as support and encouragement for their own twisted ideas about what that represents.

Just as frightening as the sociopath is the idea of empowering those with Borderline Personality Disorder, whose egos are so fragile that just about anything they take as an insult worthy of retaliation, and their narcissistic rage is so intense it shouldn't be wished upon anybody. If you've had the good fortune of avoiding such people in your life, count yourself lucky, but keep in mind there are far too many people with various personality disorders who need no encouragement to enact their nastiness on the world.

And ever since Freud, even those of us who consider ourselves to be fairly "decent" and "normal" people really ought to consider what kind of behavior gets through the loopholes. Ourspensky defined "conscience" as a capacity which collects and synthesizes everything one has felt about a particular issue. I think this is a really salient approach. It forces one to confront one's exceptions, times one thought it was ok to lay aside an important ethical precept, and really examine it to see if it was legitimate. This can be a quite embarassing process exposing one's ethical inconsistencies. Part of the mayhem of everyday life that Freud exposed (let's remember that Freud was not just about "sexual liberation", but rather exposing the nasty side of life whereby there was incest, brothers sleeping with each other's wives, dishonest adultery, as well as antisocial aggression) stems from lack of integration. From a Crowleyian perspective, one could argue that any magical action that is not aimed at such integration (which allows the True Will to come forth) is "black magic", certainly a far more rigorous approach than the mere avoiding-harm approach I'm suggesting.

As far as approaching communities where people hire professional cursers, even this can be approached both respectfully and critically at the same time. The fairness of the system as a whole can be assessed. It can be assessed whether the "cursing" in fact is a form of "binding" or whether it is out-and-out malevolent. In some traditional communities, retaliatory-magic is more binding in nature, and represents a kind of "lien on one's luck" that is a culturally motivating force to reconcile. In other words, "woah, things aren't going so well lately, I wonder why, maybe someone's placed a lien on my luck. Well, why would anyone do that?" This then inspires a kind of soul-searching until one discovers ... "Oh, yahhhh. I did that to that person. Oooh maybe I better do something to correct that." (Sometimes the really dense require a professional to sort that out for them.) Once the injury has been corrected/compensated, the "lien" so to speak is lifted. There are examples of cunning folk in Europe using said process to bring about reconciliation between folk. Obviously this must be looked at with attention to cultural nuance, and how the system works without at the same time simply bowing down in a knee-jerk fashion to a cultural habit simply because it is part of one's "culture". Better to say, and this is an excellent way to counter knee-jerk multiculturalism, that cultural habits are part of "history", a history that can be reassessed and critiqued. Some cunning-folk used such a method to reconcile people, and there are African precedents for such an approach, which amounts to a kind of folk- supernatural conflict-resolution approach at best. But some cunning-folk were just plain nasty, and hiring their antisocial impulses and powers on retainer...

[~Elise~]

One has the right to critique regardless of whether one participates in electoral systems. Freedom of speech applies whether one votes or not.

And the idea that talk is not a form of action is ridiculous. Discussion for the sake of clarifying ideas sets the field in which action takes place.

Again, congratulations on your community work. I am not going to discuss my work.

Talk is just that....talk. It is not a form of action--getting out and casting your vote is action. Getting involved in your local communities is action. Talk is not.

If a person didn't cast a vote--they have no right to gripe about the results of the elections. The apathy of the American populace never ceases to amaze me. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, BTW.

We have gone through wars to be able to have the right to vote and the populace does not appreciate that fact. What women went through to be able to get the right to vote is absolutely appalling. (I'll see if I can find the article on that and post it)

Speak all you want--it won't change a thing... changing the leadership is what makes the change. Yes, you can talk and talk and talk... but what good does it do? And, BTW, that freedom of speech is being taken away bit by bit by the government. Wanna do something about it? Get out and vote! See my So Vote It Be thread in announcements. There are links to register, folks AND a link to see how your current people are representing (or not) you.
http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=138768

Thanks for the kudos--I'm just doing what I feel I HAVE to do. I just can't sit around and talk about it...I have to be in there helping to create the change.

JMO

Elise

ETA: Have the article posted in thread posted above. Go check it out.

[Cassie]

Remember, when you make unqualified statements in public about it being ok to be "nasty" and "wicked", while this could be liberating to someone who is usually far too passive and defenseless, there are always going to be some people who are going to take that as support and encouragement for their own twisted ideas about what that represents..
There are some people who are going to take absolutly anything they see or hear as justification for their own wrong doing. I think this discussion exists within a particular community and we can't really be expected to censor ourselves beyond the rules of the site just in case some crazy person is looking in and takes our views in the wrong way. Some of the most basic magical or supernatural discussion could be equally misleading or dangerous to people with some conditions.


Just as frightening as the sociopath is the idea of empowering those with Borderline Personality Disorder, whose egos are so fragile that just about anything they take as an insult worthy of retaliation, and their narcissistic rage is so intense it shouldn't be wished upon anybody. If you've had the good fortune of avoiding such people in your life, count yourself lucky, but keep in mind there are far too many people with various personality disorders who need no encouragement to enact their nastiness on the world.
This is a highly misleading description of Boarderline PD. One of my closest friends suffers from that disorder and while her condition is sometimes frightening to witness, it bares little relation to your description. BPD can vary from very severe to hardly noticable and the symptoms and charectoristics of the condition can vary considerably.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm not going to speak of your friend, whom I don't know. But narcissistic wounding and rage are characteristic of BPD.

[RainInanna]

From a Crowleyian perspective, one could argue that any magical action that is not aimed at such integration (which allows the True Will to come forth) is "black magic", certainly a far more rigorous approach than the mere avoiding-harm approach I'm suggesting.

I wondered when Crowley's ideas of True Will would enter the conversation. This indeed was my first thought as well when I read your posts. One should consider whether such negative magic is really conducive to one's True Will, and when it will take them even further from the same by playing into their emotional "want at the moment". Your "new approach to black magic" as mentioned above is quite thought-provoking. That really gets me thinking about my own Work.

As you point out, Paganism is not an excuse to throw all thoughts of ethics away, even if there aren't ethics that are specific to all Pagans. There is still a need for weighing one's own ethics and living by them; ie. being personally responsible and thoughtful in regards to one's own actions. Whether one subscribes to Kemetic ma'at, the Wiccan rede, the Thelemic will, the idea that we are all manifestations of the sacred, etc., I think most Pagans could identify some sort of ethical framework in their beliefs.

Also, I appreciate your clarification that you were suggesting a "more organic community policing". I agree wholeheartedly with you that we should feel free, if not obligated, to consider actions and speak up to discuss the ethics behind them. After all, that is one reason we have an open forum here.

[Tahroh]

i apologize Carla if i offended you in anyway (most, if not all, was unintentional)....
if i am not mistaken we seem to have strayed from the original Dilemma.
just an observation.
~~~Tahroh

[Aidron]

Well, this just demonstrates that some are attracted to "Paganism" precisely because they feel it places no ethical demands on them, which makes me wonder whether it has a tendency to attract ethical cripples who want some kind of easy way out where they will never be called on the consequences of their actions.

Be careful about assuming why I am Pagan. I wouldn't want you to look like a fool... or at least anymore foolish than you already do.

My morals (because again, ethics are rooted in groups, not individuals) are precisely that; my own. Whether I was Pagan or not, and long before I was, I judged things as I saw fit. I am my own moral compass, and I do not need to look to you, this board, or Paganism for such. In essence, I don't need religion, faith, or spirituality to keep a sense of decency. If you do, I pity you.

And I would be careful about who you are calling an ethical cripple. I find that rather insulting and won't hesitate to make a report on your behalf over it.


What you do that does not injure others nor infringe upon their rights is entirely your business. That can include BDSM rituals, ritual theatre where you enact all kinds of rage and the portrayal of heinous actions, shooting horror films where there is the theatrical portrayal of all kinds of "darkness", going to goth clubs, holding temper tantrums in your own space, thinking the most sinister thoughts you want, writing sadistic novels, etc. (I'm not saying you are into any of these things. I'm merely trying to illustrate that you are welcome to be as "gothic" or "dark" as you wish, and to entertain whatever theatre or thoughts you like, and it doesn't concern me one bit until you step over the line and infringe on someone else.) Your right to swing your magical arm ends at my nose.


My right to swing this magical arm of mine, as you call it, ends where I want it. You may believe it ends at your nose, but I do not take my moral guidance from you and I will not be bound by your rules. If that bothers you, perhaps you should create a petition to unite Paganism under the banner of your morals. It will of course never happen and you will waste your life, but at least you won't have time to go around calling people ethical cripples and furthering your own hypocrisy by infringing on other people's personal freedoms with snotty insults.


And the whole idea that ethics is "individual" is just absurd. Maybe people are confusing "morals", which often amounts to judgements backed by guilt, with "ethics", which concerns the social effects of individual actions. Because of their social effects, ethics is social and not solely individual by definition. As far as moralistic judgements go, hey, feel free to throw them off as you wish, but that does not then indemnify you against the need to consider your actions and how they may injure others. Such consideration is part of living in a community under the rule of law ; those who do not wish to live by such rules can live in the wastelands as wolves and outlaws. It's one thing to say you're throwing off the morality of, say, some preacher who tells you that sex is evil, or polygamy is evil, or BDSM is evil, for example. Hey, do what floats your boat, but one is still then obligated to do it in a way that does not infringe on others. If someone who only wanted to have one sexual partner came and judged you for wanting more than one sexual partner, I would defend your right to have different "morals" in this situation, so long as you conducted your polyamory in an open, honest, ethical manner, for example.


I never said ethics were individual. Try reading my posts, ethics belong to a group. I have no ethics, I only have morals. I will not be bound to the moral compass of any society; I will judge and act in a manner that I believe to be most right, true, and appropriate with each step I take.

I do not need you to defend my freedoms, nor would I want to you too since you would only do so if I conducted in an honest, open and ethical manner in accordance with your own morals. Keep your morals to yourself, and I'll keep mine, we'll get along just fine.

As for living on the fringe of society; I already do. I do not go out of my way to rebel against this country's laws, and I have yet to go out of my way to ignore any that disagree with my own moral compass, but should it be a matter of importance I would.




People saying, "Hey, you can't take retaliatory-magic away from us because we need to retain at least one barbaric private-vengeance system" doesn't seem to me like anything progressive. It's not even being regressive in an honest or open way, but wanting to secure "back channels" to be able to enact little blood feuds behind the eyes of the law during this particular historical period where such activities take place beneath the attention of the law (unlike ancient Rome and Germania, for example).


I'm not moaning about anyone taking magic from me in any form. I shall practice as I always have for as long as those practices still hold true to who I am. No one will take that away from me, and I have no interest in being either progress or regressive in reflection with some universal mindset. Society can evolve as it wishes at its own pace, and I am content to ignore such asn evolve at my own pace.



I would not support society taking "any action they wish", but only taking those steps necessary to secure against injury. I want society neither infringing upon important, wide freedoms, nor having no limitation to punishment. Here a principle of proportional justice would have to apply as well.

I'm afraid society has no rights to punishment when it comes to magic. Since the society I live in does not acknowledge magic as an actuality, they cannot therefore punish that which they refuse to observe and accept. So, I shall continue on as I always have.

[Aidron]

I implied that people who have no conscience, and do not care about the effects of their actions on others regardless of injury they may cause, are sociopathic. That's different than saying anyone who disagrees with me is sociopathic. Get it right.


A conscience is born of society. It is not innate, but rather it is developed in regards to what morals and ethics we are raised with. As such, it can be said that no one has a conscience, not without society anyway, and who said society is always correct? I certainly did not hesitate to cast off many of the social taboos and indecencies this society has attempted to force feed me, for they made no sense.

Furthermore, I see no point in caring about anyone who has not earned my concern. I do not give my care freely, just as I do not give my trust or my heart freely. Each must be earned, and every person must prove themselves worry.

If that makes me a sociopath, so be it, and if it doesn't, so be it. I could not honestly care whether you choose to label me as one or not since your opinion in this matter is irrelevant to me, just as anyone else's would be.

[Nitefalle]

Be careful about assuming why I am Pagan. I wouldn't want you to look like a fool... or at least anymore foolish than you already do. My morals (because again, ethics are rooted in groups, not individuals) are precisely that; my own. Whether I was Pagan or not, and long before I was, I judged things as I saw fit. I am my own moral compass, and I do not need to look to you, this board, or Paganism for such. In essence, I don't need religion, faith, or spirituality to keep a sense of decency. If you do, I pity you. And I would be careful about who you are calling an ethical cripple. I find that rather insulting and won't hesitate to make a report on your behalf over it.
My right to swing this magical arm of mine, as you call it, ends where I want it. You may believe it ends at your nose, but I do not take my moral guidance from you and I will not be bound by your rules. If that bothers you, perhaps you should create a petition to unite Paganism under the banner of your morals. It will of course never happen and you will waste your life, but at least you won't have time to go around calling people ethical cripples and furthering your own hypocrisy by infringing on other people's personal freedoms with snotty insults.

Dude....get over it and move on. Her point was actually valid.

[Aidron]

Dude....get over it and move on. Her point was actually valid.

Are you implying that by responding and discussing this topic I am thereby at fault and should just get over it? :eyebrow:

And all points are valid, to those who agree with them. That is hardly relevant.

[Nitefalle]

No, or else that comment would have been directed at myself as well since I have responded, too. I'm implying that she's not making personal jabs at you, she's making general "you = everybody, not you personally" statements. She said that some people are attracted to Paganism for the reason she listed, not Aidron was attracted to Paganism for the reason she listed. She hypothesized about whether Paganism might attract what she called ethical cripples, she didn't say Aidron is an ethical cripple. Personal insults are not lurking around every corner. That is what I'm suggesting you get over.

[MankyCat]

No, or else that comment would have been directed at myself as well since I have responded, too. I'm implying that she's not making personal jabs at you, she's making general "you = everybody, not you personally" statements. She said that some people are attracted to Paganism for the reason she listed, not Aidron was attracted to Paganism for the reason she listed. She hypothesized about whether Paganism might attract what she called ethical cripples, she didn't say Aidron is an ethical cripple. Personal insults are not lurking around every corner. That is what I'm suggesting you get over.


Good points regarding the "you" personal vs. "you" generalized.


And granted, paganism might draw some ethical cripples. But no more so than most other groups. LARPers, SCA, Renfest, many religious groups (both main stream and not), many subcultures, and even many organizations will draw "ethical cripples".

Now the question of morals vs. ethics came into question. There are several definitions of ethics.


From Dictionary.com

1.the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group: the Christian ethic; the tribal ethic of the Zuni.

2.a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.



Now, when the statement about people shirking their ethics was made, I took the stance of definition 2. Personal ethics. It was not said that they were shirking the ethics of their culture. Please reread the original statement.


Society has the right to guard against people who are so sociopathic that they have no conscience and do not care what others think of their ethics.

What you do in your own time and own space, that affects no one else, is completely your business and your freedom.

Paganism is not an excuse to throw off ethics.

In line with definition 2, I would say that people who are performing the naughty or wicked workings are not shirking their personal ethics (which is what seems to be implied above). The structure of their morals allow them to do this sort of thing, whether it is accepted by their culture or the group they align themselves to or not. Does that excuse the behavior? No. But my argument is merely to point out that they are not shirking anything just because they call themselves "pagan". If not Paganism, then they would turn to some other group that would allow them to do as they feel. Do we have a right to protect ourselves? Of course. But that was not what was in question. I don't blame people for reacting to the blanket statements of paganism and sociopaths.

However, the discussion went the way of culture shortly there after, which was not in line with the original question/post. The question was not if it should be socially acceptable for people to be "wicked". The question was if we, as individuals, get into that mood or do things in line with what might be considered as "naughty/wicked".

[Aidron]

No, or else that comment would have been directed at myself as well since I have responded, too. I'm implying that she's not making personal jabs at you, she's making general "you = everybody, not you personally" statements. She said that some people are attracted to Paganism for the reason she listed, not Aidron was attracted to Paganism for the reason she listed. She hypothesized about whether Paganism might attract what she called ethical cripples, she didn't say Aidron is an ethical cripple. Personal insults are not lurking around every corner. That is what I'm suggesting you get over.

When you imply you as a general statement, and direct it at people in a thread who disagree with you, that is a personal insult.

And for the record, try not to over-dramatize things by implying a belief that personal insults lurk around every corner. The only thing that lurks around every corner are asinine assumptions. :rolleyes:

[David19]

Be careful about assuming why I am Pagan. I wouldn't want you to look like a fool... or at least anymore foolish than you already do.

My morals (because again, ethics are rooted in groups, not individuals) are precisely that; my own. Whether I was Pagan or not, and long before I was, I judged things as I saw fit. I am my own moral compass, and I do not need to look to you, this board, or Paganism for such. In essence, I don't need religion, faith, or spirituality to keep a sense of decency. If you do, I pity you.

I'm afraid society has no rights to punishment when it comes to magic. Since the society I live in does not acknowledge magic as an actuality, they cannot therefore punish that which they refuse to observe and accept. So, I shall continue on as I always have.

I agree with you, 'cause my morals are my own, i have my own view of right and wrong (which may overlap with others e.g. i, like others, do believe Hitler was evil, and pediphiles, etc), but there mine, and i also would use magic if i was threatened or someone threatened my friends or a boyfriend, whatever, etc.

I don't think the U.S. (or the UK, etc) will ever have 'laws against magic' 'cause magic isn't acknowledged as anything harmful, people who practice it are usually thought of as loons.

Like i could walk down the street and tell everyone i was the most powerful magical adapt ever and say i was going to curse everyone, people probably wouldn't 'run away in terror', they probably ignore me, think i was mad, maybe some might beat the sh*t out of me, etc and i may be cautioned or arrested by the police, if i was psychologically intimidating someone, but they wouldn't care about me saying i practiced magic (BTW, just in case anyone is wondering, i was being sarcastic about the example, i wouldn't ever walk down the street and do that ;)).

[Sundragon]

I haven't posted much in the past, but intend on doing more in the future because I find that I want to be more plugged into the internet pagan community.

Having said that, I must say that no matter what one thinks of Carla's personal ethical system.....at least she has one and it is grounded in a solid epitomology. In other words she knows why she thinks what she thinks on this subject. I have great respect for that because I see far, far too little of this in the pagan community overall.

All too often I see that people rally around the mantra, "My ethics are my own, its all relative so who are you to tell me that I am wrong." I see it in pagans all the time that I have interacted with personally both in person and online. This is ethical relativism at its worst and if followed to its logical conclusion means that no action or inaction can be condemned because it is all a matter of opinion. If mafia ethics (you mess with me I mess with you) is ok, if brutality is ok because nature is brutal (which I have seen as rationalization for all manner of shitty behavior), if we can be as dark and twisted as we want to be within this umbrella spiritual system that is paganism without any sense of the real impact of this then our spirituality is nothing more than a way of giving massively dysfunctional individuals, borderline and anti-social personalities, those acting out of repressed rage, hurt and the need for vengeance power to have even greater impact based upon these things than upon a higher ethic. I know of what I speak because I work with the mentally ill and deeply dysfunctional in a counseling capacity. The only thing that differentiates these people from many I see in the world going about their daily buisness is that they know they have a problem. There are plenty of "normal" people who are IMO too psychically damaged to use magick ethically. These folks need therapy first.

This in my estimation is deeply dangrous to any modern spiritual system not merely because it casts those involved in it into the middle/dark ages in regards to ethical thought, but because it lends credence to the criticism that paganism is merely an escape valve for those who seek spiritual justification to be as petty, cruel, vidictive and unevolved as they like under the umbrella of a lack of an overarching spiritual ethic to the community as a whole.

Pagans, for the most part, love nature but we as human beings have something that seperates us from dumb beasts who act out of instinct. We have the ability to elevate ourselves to something more than reactive animals and embrace higher moral/ethical principles. The reason the animals of nature are savage to each other is because they are instinctive beings who, unlike us, do not have to ability to cognate mercy, compassion, etc. Our ability to think has taken us from the natural balance of the natural world and our ability to think has given us the ability to elevate ourselves from the world of bloody tooth and claw.

I love nature and see the divine in nature but I also see the beauty,power and divinity of our ability to choose to transcend our smallness and become the paragons of the animal world which is indeed what we are. We have stewardship over nature and though we are certainly natural creatures we have in many ways transcended the purely natural way of things through our use of medicines to stop disease, vitamins in stop malnutrition, fertilizers to prevent famine, etc. We can also transcend nature in the same manner ethically to become manifestations of a higher ethic than darwinism.

We are no longer slaves to nature but now have dominion over it to a large extent and with that comes another set of ethical questions for another time.


)o( Blessed Be,

Chris

[MankyCat]

There are examples in nature where compassion, mercy and so forth have been exhibited by animals. The savagery is usually to fullfill a need, but many times only seen when that need must be fullfilled.

I do agree one some of what you said regarding certain viewpoints on the whole "I'll do what I want when I want". But that doesn't mean that everyone who says "My ethics are just as valid as your" are slipshod or that they are doing things without true rhyme or reason. Some of us can have complex belief systems that regulate what we do, how we do it, and why. All because they might not be in line with another person's doesn't make them any less valid or any lower than that other person's. I doesn't lower us to the level that animals are stated to preside.

I know I have a complex view of things and know exactly why I view them that way. And usually, I try not to go into all the details, because I don't feel they are necessary and I don't want to push my beliefs on others (or to be viewed like that's what I'm trying to do). I accept that we all have different views on things, even if the base seems similar.

I'm sure most of the people that seem to be saying "I do what I want" might be over simplifying things a little and have their own rules and such to live by. I know I do, which is why, even though I know I can do much and have the ability, I rarely take that step. I have to weigh the reasons, the possible outcomes, my own part in it (or if I'm somehow guilty in some way or of similar), and if I'm willing to deal with the consequences (even the ones I can't imagine). I operated within a very set structure of my own. And typically, it's never as harsh (or sociopathic) as some here might feel it is when judging by their own viewpoints.

[Sundragon]

There are examples in nature where compassion, mercy and so forth have been exhibited by animals. The savagery is usually to fullfill a need, but many times only seen when that need must be fullfilled.

Of course you are right, I should have noted that in my post but due to time constraints at the office I couldn't be as complete in my argument as I would have liked.

Your observation is excellent, the savagery in the animal kingdom is based on a need, and more completely an instinctive response to fill a need that compels the creature to act as it does. There is no rumination, no consideration and no thought to what comes after the need is met. Animals are very elemental in the sense that most of them exist vicerally in the moment. There is no regret, no remorse, no morality save protection of one's self, one's children and if the animal is a social creature there is protection of other packmates. I am painting with a broad brush here and of course there are animals that have shown remorse, that express gratitude, that even note their own mortality and that of their kin as is the case with elephants.

The "higher" the animal, the greater the qualities of sentience and with sentience comes a greater capacity for what we would unstand as moral/ethical behavior.

What I find disturbing among pagans is the idea of moral balance that balances not merely sensible polarities of light/dark (as in the qualities of night and day), expanding/contracting, fiery/watery, yin/yang, masculine/feminine, etc. but good and evil. I have seen posts here and on other message boards that seem to indicate that the writer believes that pagan morality (Wicca, Astatru, Thelema, Santeria, Voodoun, etc.) revolves around the idea that we as pagans should strive to blance the good and evil within us, as if there is an inherent cosmic validity to ignorance, pettiness, vengeance, cruelty, hurtfulness, callousness, etc. Where pagans (particularly of the Wiccan pursuasion in my experience) got this simplistic and unconsidered spiritual ethic is beyond me but it seems rooted in a butchered Christian morality ie. YHWH and his opposite Satan (a tremendous misunderstanding) or gleaned unconsciously from an obsession with, and misunderstanding of, the concept of polarity as it exists within the Western Esoteric traditions.

There is no valid duality of good and evil because the concepts are relative in many cases. However there are valid dualities as seen in the universe between mercy and justice, expansion and contraction, stasis and change, creation and destruction, order and chaos, etc. Generally speaking legitimate spiritual systems cultivate the qualities that ultimately improve the psychological health and integration of the individual while at the same time allowing one to accept and love (but not revel in) the worst aspects of one's self. One does not accept these qualities because they are in and of themselves healthy or beneficial but because it is only through acceptance that these things are integrated into the psyche and ultimately diminish or largely dissappear as personality traits. It is true psychologically that what one resists persists.

All legitimate spiritual systems support the cultivation of the "good", for lack of a better term, such as mercy, creation, expansion, love, etc. because these traits serve both the individual and the society in which the individual lives best. Even spiritual systems sophisticated enough to see the validity in the polarity of creation and destruction, for example, notes the nuance within a concept like destruction and teaches individuals to use this energy in a positive and life-affirming way. For example, an energy of destruction/dissolution can be used powerfully to end an emotional entanglement without causing harm to others. Proper recognition of an energy of contraction will help one to realize that one has to have healthy boundaries. Cultivating the "positive" doesn't ignore the negative, but it allows one to use the "negative" (like destruction/dissolution) energies in a positive manner.

Legitimate spirituality is about growth no matter what tradition one chooses. I won't apologize for prefacing the word spiritual with the word legitimate because I believe that systems that do not support the overall growth and psychospiritual development of the individual are IMO invalid systems. Such systems are nothing more than vehicles for ethical license and ego-gratification within a sugary coating of religious/spiritual nonsense used to give it weight and legitimacy.

One can be as free as one wishes to revel in whatever amoral behaviors one wishes, that is between that indidual and the gods or that individual and whomever they are hexing, manipulating, cursing, etc. at the moment. However, there must be a recognition that such things are unethical broadly within the pagan community as a whole. Admittedly, I am not of the camp that says that one should roll over metaphysically if one is being attacked, but that one needs to look at one's magickal actions within a well thought out psycho-spiritual system. And though, because I am not writing a book here, I cannot get into a discussion of context. It is important to note, in regards to this issue, that context counts and can mitigate the moral/ethical impact of an act whether it is magickal or mundane.


)o( Blessed Be,

Chris

[Sundragon]

I do find it interesting how Christian habits die so very hard in pagans born in a Christian culture even if they themselves were never practicing Christians. It would be important to note that often due to Christian conditioning we find anything enjoyable such as sex, using some recreational drugs, listening to music other than Barry Manilo, flirtatiousness, strongly standing up for one's self, being powerfully assertive and confident, wanting to meet our own needs and not sacrificing ourselves completely on the altar of service to others (though service is wonderful) is somehow naughty.

Ever wonder why chocolate is considered sinfully good or why women who are being sexual are being a bit devilish? It is the Christian meme that is to blame and we buy into it without thinking because the influence in our culture is all pervasive.

The fact is that if we were to remove Christian corruption of the idea of what is good and included instead just a little bit of of heroic morality (such as the superman morality if Neitchze or of the greek myths) we would find that sometimes what we consider naughty is really very natural and life-affirming and what is considered good is twisted and life-denying.

It is because of the Christian worldview and its mewling saints and martyrs that we see can see good as weak, soft, fluffy, effiminate, impractical, sexless, joyless, self-abrogating or pollyanna. Shake off that crap and that which is within the ethical boundaries of what is considered good is far, far broader than our conditioning would have us believe.

Just something to think about. :)


)o( Blessed Be,

Chris

[MankyCat]

I think, when using the term naughty here, we are talking about things that the pagan culture considers naughty. Not what Christians would necessarily consider such (though I also see many parallels between Christianity and the modern traditions of paganism in various forms, especially Wicca). In this case, the use of magic is considered all around bad by most Christian sects. Tarot reading, scrying, and divination equally so. But here, we are discussing forms of magic and such that would be considered by various Pagan sects as wrong. I do see what you are trying to say.

As for legitimate and illegitimate religions... I try not use such broad terms. Then again, I'm using a broad sense in myself, including smaller tribes in Africa, the rainforest, and even the Inuits. I don't feel I have the right to judge as such, regardless of whether I agree with the beliefs/practices or not. I know I'm biased due to my background, upbringing, and my own beliefs. Everyone is, whether they want to see that or not.

Now about balancing light and dark in one's self. All because you find a balance doesn't mean that you are acting as a "true neutral" or "chaotic neutral" from the D&D alignment system. It's more of what you explained. An understanding and acceptance of the darkness. Does that mean that you are going to do horrible things to balance the good stuff? No. Does it mean that you will do that horrible stuff without regard or thought or even the possibility of remorse or guilt? Not necessarily. Does it mean that you acknowledge that you have that trait in yourself? Yes. Does it mean you'll actually follow through with the thoughts? No.

I know I have a stark yet hopeful view of the world. All because I would love there to be peace and happy-good things for everyone, I also understand that what is good for one group might be horrid for another. Which groups do you caiter to and which ones do you oppress to bring this happy-goodness about?

It reminds me of a story in one of my anthropology classes. A group of anthropologists went to a tribe to learn and possibily help said tribe's development. They brought various items and tools to give to the members of this tribe. No big deal, except one of the tools was an ax. Just a normal woodchopping small hand ax. The problem is, this messed with the tribe's structure. The anthropologists couldn't understand until later, when they learned that the tribe only hand one or two axes, which were held by the tribe's leader/head elder. Any who needed to use it were to ask for this special tool. It was a symbol above anything else. But when more axes where available and these new axes were so much better in quality and such, this culture had a major shift and much of what held it together fell apart.

This, along with a number of other examples of similar, were a harsh lesson for that group of anthropologists, as well as the anthropological community.

What we feel is best for everyone is oft times far from it. But it is part of the Western mentality that "we are right, they are wrong" and we know wha's best. As least some of the other cultures don't feel that they are doing a favor for the cultures that they ultimately aid in the demise of. Now... of course... if the members of that culture do truly want to end their own culture's old ways in favor of another culture's way, that's their business. In that case, I don't mind the other culture's aid. (This of course depends on it is just an individual desire to leave said culture or if it's the majority that wishes so... in which case the level of aid is solely dependant on the number of people seeking aid/refuge.)

The beauty of the world is that we are not one flavor but many. We are varied.

I would like to think I'm farely balanced in various ways, but balance comes from the understanding of one's self. Not to repress what is within us, but to look at it fully and understand it's place in the various facets of ourselves and our lives. I know my darkness just as I know my light. They live in harmony because I understand and accept both. They are not two sides of the same coin, but threaded together in a tapestry that makes me what I am. I can no more disregard one side than I could the other, and I can place no more emphasis on one than the other. How do you view one thread of cloth as any more important than another? But does that mean I work on a base level? I'd like to think not. How can it be viewed as base when there's so much taken into consideration.

Liked your points thought. Plenty of food for thought. :)

[Carla O'Harris]

I haven't posted much in the past, but intend on doing more in the future because I find that I want to be more plugged into the internet pagan community.

Having said that, I must say that no matter what one thinks of Carla's personal ethical system.....at least she has one and it is grounded in a solid epitomology. In other words she knows why she thinks what she thinks on this subject. I have great respect for that because I see far, far too little of this in the pagan community overall.

All too often I see that people rally around the mantra, "My ethics are my own, its all relative so who are you to tell me that I am wrong." I see it in pagans all the time that I have interacted with personally both in person and online. This is ethical relativism at its worst and if followed to its logical conclusion means that no action or inaction can be condemned because it is all a matter of opinion. If mafia ethics (you mess with me I mess with you) is ok, if brutality is ok because nature is brutal (which I have seen as rationalization for all manner of pooperiffic behavior), if we can be as dark and twisted as we want to be within this umbrella spiritual system that is paganism without any sense of the real impact of this then our spirituality is nothing more than a way of giving massively dysfunctional individuals, borderline and anti-social personalities, those acting out of repressed rage, hurt and the need for vengeance power to have even greater impact based upon these things than upon a higher ethic. I know of what I speak because I work with the mentally ill and deeply dysfunctional in a counseling capacity. The only thing that differentiates these people from many I see in the world going about their daily buisness is that they know they have a problem. There are plenty of "normal" people who are IMO too psychically damaged to use magick ethically. These folks need therapy first.

This in my estimation is deeply dangrous to any modern spiritual system not merely because it casts those involved in it into the middle/dark ages in regards to ethical thought, but because it lends credence to the criticism that paganism is merely an escape valve for those who seek spiritual justification to be as petty, cruel, vidictive and unevolved as they like under the umbrella of a lack of an overarching spiritual ethic to the community as a whole.

Pagans, for the most part, love nature but we as human beings have something that seperates us from dumb beasts who act out of instinct. We have the ability to elevate ourselves to something more than reactive animals and embrace higher moral/ethical principles. The reason the animals of nature are savage to each other is because they are instinctive beings who, unlike us, do not have to ability to cognate mercy, compassion, etc. Our ability to think has taken us from the natural balance of the natural world and our ability to think has given us the ability to elevate ourselves from the world of bloody tooth and claw.

I love nature and see the divine in nature but I also see the beauty,power and divinity of our ability to choose to transcend our smallness and become the paragons of the animal world which is indeed what we are. We have stewardship over nature and though we are certainly natural creatures we have in many ways transcended the purely natural way of things through our use of medicines to stop disease, vitamins in stop malnutrition, fertilizers to prevent famine, etc. We can also transcend nature in the same manner ethically to become manifestations of a higher ethic than darwinism.

We are no longer slaves to nature but now have dominion over it to a large extent and with that comes another set of ethical questions for another time.


)o( Blessed Be,

Chris



Hallelujah!! You say many wise things herein. Thank you for saying them!!

[Carla O'Harris]

Interesting discussion about nonhuman animals and their relevance to humanity!! Perhaps that would be worthy of another thread!

Another question to gauge is how long animals hold onto grudges, and the amount of effort they are willing to engage in to avenge those grudges. While an animal might be quite "savage" in the moment of defending self, tribe, or turf against others, or in the process of securing food, the next series of moments they may be relaxing. In fact, most animals seem to have a quite relaxed activity-schedule most of the time. Even as they go about securing their livelihood, they have a leisurely and sometimes playful attitude towards things.

The question of how long a grudge is held and the effort expended to avenge a grudge seems relevant, because while an animal might be savage to a competing conspecific in the moment of conflict, or savage to prey in the moment of hunting, beyond that moment it is difficult to imagine almost any animal taking the time to do a spell that would cast a curse, even assuming we posit that they are capable of doing so. Only an animal with a large capacity for resentment would even bother.

Aggression in the animal kingdom is often a response to inappropriate demographic spacing. As human beings we have the knowledge and the power to regulate this, not the least with birth control, but also with other social planning methods. Whether we do or not is a matter of choice.

It is true that some of the time some animals do things that we find cruel or senseless, and that from a species-standpoint it would make sense we would find cruel or senseless. Paganism after all, as my friend Ziggy likes to say, is not a mindless repetition or blind worship of Nature, but a dialectical response to our conflicted feelings about our complex relationship with Nature. To worship something is already to admit that one either has a problem with it, is different from it, or both. Religion might be considered an attempt to find higher-order harmonizations of lower-order contradictions.

[Carla O'Harris]

revolves around the idea that we as pagans should strive to blance the good and evil within us, as if there is an inherent cosmic validity to ignorance, pettiness, vengeance, cruelty, hurtfulness, callousness, etc.

Again, excellent point. We humans have a vast imagination that can encompass the entire cosmos, thus all of the hermetic adages about "as above, so below". We can reach out into the infinite void and grasp all kinds of things, and then expand upon these in our imaginations. The question is whether the graspings and our expandings are distortions or accurate reflections of the whole. This is another point hermetic texts often make. Crowley himself speaks to the dangers of an imbalanced microcosm, and suggests creative invocations as ways of balancing out the microcosm, so a synthesis can take place. The point here is that we humans can imagine and create concepts for all kinds of things, and then we can arrange these in opposites. That does not mean that Nature's balance requires a balance of human-constructed opposites. In other words, Nature has no need to "balance" out what amount to human conceptions.


Any value to
ignorance, pettiness, vengeance, cruelty, hurtfulness, callousness in my opinion would have to be dialectical : in other words, that it calls forth a rebellious response from us that inspires us to overcome such things.

Another thing to consider vis-a-vis this idea that the universe needs both "good" and "evil" is that if we pagans are dedicated towards this balance, then it would make sense for several millenia or so to do nothing but devote ourselves to the good, since given all the Hitlers, Genghis Khans, and Stalins, let alone all of the pettier tyrants and homocidal and ecocidal villains, it will take some damn saintly activity to balance all that out! In terms of "balance", one might argue that the universe is replete with pain and suffering (one of Buddha's main points), and therefore if balance is required, an attention to healing, enlightenment, and pleasure would dialectically follow as logical human responses.



Generally speaking legitimate spiritual systems cultivate the qualities that ultimately improve the psychological health and integration of the individual while at the same time allowing one to accept and love (but not revel in) the worst aspects of one's self. One does not accept these qualities because they are in and of themselves healthy or beneficial but because it is only through acceptance that these things are integrated into the psyche and ultimately diminish or largely dissappear as personality traits.

This is really, really well put, and puts the discussion into an appropriate larger context into which it fits.


Cultivating the "positive" doesn't ignore the negative, but it allows one to use the "negative" (like destruction/dissolution) energies in a positive manner.


Again, really nice. And the picture you are painting is in my opinion critical as a framework to properly situate a spiritual response, as opposed to a response which is amenable to the psychological distortions of maladjusted marginals and psychopaths.



because I believe that systems that do not support the overall growth and psychospiritual development of the individual are IMO invalid systems.

It's amazing that we live in such an age of anomie that such a statement would have to be defended at all. Who ever got the idea that "anything goes"? Who ever put forth the extreme-nihilistic statement that all opinions and methodologies are equivalent and cannot be differentially valued? I understand that cultural (and ethical) relativism were intended as medicines to compensate for missionary and political imperialism, but any medicine is also in other doses a poison. Cultural relativism is ironically a cultural absolutism that declares individual cultures to be exclusive of all other human commonality. While earlier universalists may have been overly hasty and not as cross-comparative in their sample base as they should have been, that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ethical relativism is again, ironically, a form of ethical absolutism, because it reduces to an ethics of extreme individualism that is incongruent with a social, interactive world.



Such systems are nothing more than vehicles for ethical license and ego-gratification within a sugary coating of religious/spiritual nonsense used to give it weight and legitimacy.


Yep. Human beings are the rationalizing-animal, and often seek ideology to justify their behaviors and avoid responsibility. Spirituality is just as subject to this misuse as any other idea-system.

[MankyCat]

Animals can hold grudges. I've known cats and dogs that have, especially to other cats/dogs or to particular humans. I've also known rodents to do similarly. That's not meant to limit that other creatures do or have, but that I've personally seen this in these particular creaturesfrom my own dealings with them.

I do agree though, that when said other creature is not around, the animal in question seems to have a more "out of sight/out of mind" demeanor or behaviour. This is a reason that I don't like discussing the thought process of animals. We don't know what's going on inside their heads. We can guess. Heck we guess about what other people are thinking about or why people act a certain way, and many times we are wrong about both... either over-estimating or under-estimating them. Do animals think about their past and such? Do they hold grudges and dwell on them on occasion? We don't know.

But if they really are more relaxed and don't hold grudges, then also think that they also don't typically strive to make the world a better place for their species. They live. They do what they must or want and don't look to the long term affects on themselves or others of their species. (Also, aggression isn't limitted to just demographic spacing.)

You can't just take the pieces of them you like and disregard the rest.

But think on this, if it is to be argued that humans are separate from animals because we have a higher understanding of things (and I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking), then it could be said that the fact that we can hold grudges and do sometimes seek retribution is another sign of our "higher understanding" and elevated status in the animal world.

Again though, I don't like assuming how animals think or why they do what they do. Either we give them too much credit or too little... though I prefer to end up giving them too much credit. It seems more respectful for some reason.

Then again, I don't "worship" nature (or deities, or anything of the sort). So, I guess I'm saying I don't "have a problem with it (Nature), am different from it" or anything of the sort.

But you did bring up some points that were nice to think over.

[Carla O'Harris]

I do find it interesting how Christian habits die so very hard in pagans born in a Christian culture even if they themselves were never practicing Christians. It would be important to note that often due to Christian conditioning we find anything enjoyable such as sex, using some recreational drugs, listening to music other than Barry Manilo, flirtatiousness, strongly standing up for one's self, being powerfully assertive and confident, wanting to meet our own needs and not sacrificing ourselves completely on the altar of service to others (though service is wonderful) is somehow naughty.

Well, so much of that morality stems out of repression, a repression in service to authoritarian and enslaving values. When such things are repressed, knee-jerk reactions to the morality are also to be expected, but generally do not succeed in throwing off the repression, ironic as that may seem. For example, asserting that ALL sex, ALL drugs, ALL self-assertion engaged to excess is good would be just as absurd as its opposite. Sex that violates oaths or hurts others should be treated differently than freely consensual sex. Some drugs are stronger than others, and some individuals more or less able to handle them, and addiction is a recurrent human problem, and thus intoxication must also be handled differentially.

[Carla O'Harris]

I think, when using the term naughty here, we are talking about things that the pagan culture considers naughty. Not what Christians would necessarily consider such (though I also see many parallels between Christianity and the modern traditions of paganism in various forms, especially Wicca). In this case, the use of magic is considered all around bad by most Christian sects. Tarot reading, scrying, and divination equally so. But here, we are discussing forms of magic and such that would be considered by various Pagan sects as wrong. I do see what you are trying to say.

As for legitimate and illegitimate religions... I try not use such broad terms. Then again, I'm using a broad sense in myself, including smaller tribes in Africa, the rainforest, and even the Inuits. I don't feel I have the right to judge as such, regardless of whether I agree with the beliefs/practices or not. I know I'm biased due to my background, upbringing, and my own beliefs. Everyone is, whether they want to see that or not.

Now about balancing light and dark in one's self. All because you find a balance doesn't mean that you are acting as a "true neutral" or "chaotic neutral" from the D&D alignment system. It's more of what you explained. An understanding and acceptance of the darkness. Does that mean that you are going to do horrible things to balance the good stuff? No. Does it mean that you will do that horrible stuff without regard or thought or even the possibility of remorse or guilt? Not necessarily. Does it mean that you acknowledge that you have that trait in yourself? Yes. Does it mean you'll actually follow through with the thoughts? No.

I know I have a stark yet hopeful view of the world. All because I would love there to be peace and happy-good things for everyone, I also understand that what is good for one group might be horrid for another. Which groups do you caiter to and which ones do you oppress to bring this happy-goodness about?

It reminds me of a story in one of my anthropology classes. A group of anthropologists went to a tribe to learn and possibily help said tribe's development. They brought various items and tools to give to the members of this tribe. No big deal, except one of the tools was an ax. Just a normal woodchopping small hand ax. The problem is, this messed with the tribe's structure. The anthropologists couldn't understand until later, when they learned that the tribe only hand one or two axes, which were held by the tribe's leader/head elder. Any who needed to use it were to ask for this special tool. It was a symbol above anything else. But when more axes where available and these new axes were so much better in quality and such, this culture had a major shift and much of what held it together fell apart.

This, along with a number of other examples of similar, were a harsh lesson for that group of anthropologists, as well as the anthropological community.

What we feel is best for everyone is oft times far from it. But it is part of the Western mentality that "we are right, they are wrong" and we know wha's best. As least some of the other cultures don't feel that they are doing a favor for the cultures that they ultimately aid in the demise of. Now... of course... if the members of that culture do truly want to end their own culture's old ways in favor of another culture's way, that's their business. In that case, I don't mind the other culture's aid. (This of course depends on it is just an individual desire to leave said culture or if it's the majority that wishes so... in which case the level of aid is solely dependant on the number of people seeking aid/refuge.)

The beauty of the world is that we are not one flavor but many. We are varied.

I would like to think I'm farely balanced in various ways, but balance comes from the understanding of one's self. Not to repress what is within us, but to look at it fully and understand it's place in the various facets of ourselves and our lives. I know my darkness just as I know my light. They live in harmony because I understand and accept both. They are not two sides of the same coin, but threaded together in a tapestry that makes me what I am. I can no more disregard one side than I could the other, and I can place no more emphasis on one than the other. How do you view one thread of cloth as any more important than another? But does that mean I work on a base level? I'd like to think not. How can it be viewed as base when there's so much taken into consideration.

Liked your points thought. Plenty of food for thought. :)


Your post equally contains such yummy food. I especially like,


An understanding and acceptance of the darkness. Does that mean that you are going to do horrible things to balance the good stuff? No. Does it mean that you will do that horrible stuff without regard or thought or even the possibility of remorse or guilt? Not necessarily. Does it mean that you acknowledge that you have that trait in yourself? Yes. Does it mean you'll actually follow through with the thoughts? No.


which is the call of sanity, so far as I am concerned.

I do also think it is important to value diversity, and the value of human beings experimenting with different ways of living. This does not necessitate, however, reifying cultures as necessary human agents whom we need to quarantine with some kind of "prime directive" or cultural relativism that does not allow critique to pass between human beings. No culture is an absolute, and therefore cannot be taken absolutely and entirely on its own terms. That does not mean it should have to submit to another, but it does imply the opening for dialogue, even critical dialogue. The obvious entry point for such dialogue is individuals within said culture who disagree with aspects of their culture. No culture functions entirely on the basis of consensus and absolute agreement. All cultures have contradictions and struggles built into them. And while we may value diversity, we can also understand that historical processes allow cruelties at times to become incorporated into social groups, but such distortions are not and do not need to be considered essential, and therefore can be challenged.

[Carla O'Harris]

Animals can hold grudges. I've known cats and dogs that have, especially to other cats/dogs or to particular humans. I've also known rodents to do similarly. That's not meant to limit that other creatures do or have, but that I've personally seen this in these particular creaturesfrom my own dealings with them.

I do agree though, that when said other creature is not around, the animal in question seems to have a more "out of sight/out of mind" demeanor or behaviour. This is a reason that I don't like discussing the thought process of animals. We don't know what's going on inside their heads. We can guess. Heck we guess about what other people are thinking about or why people act a certain way, and many times we are wrong about both... either over-estimating or under-estimating them. Do animals think about their past and such? Do they hold grudges and dwell on them on occasion? We don't know.

But if they really are more relaxed and don't hold grudges, then also think that they also don't typically strive to make the world a better place for their species. They live. They do what they must or want and don't look to the long term affects on themselves or others of their species. (Also, aggression isn't limitted to just demographic spacing.)

You can't just take the pieces of them you like and disregard the rest.

But think on this, if it is to be argued that humans are separate from animals because we have a higher understanding of things (and I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking), then it could be said that the fact that we can hold grudges and do sometimes seek retribution is another sign of our "higher understanding" and elevated status in the animal world.

Again though, I don't like assuming how animals think or why they do what they do. Either we give them too much credit or too little... though I prefer to end up giving them too much credit. It seems more respectful for some reason.

Then again, I don't "worship" nature (or deities, or anything of the sort). So, I guess I'm saying I don't "have a problem with it (Nature), am different from it" or anything of the sort.

But you did bring up some points that were nice to think over.

I do indeed think there is some evidence that some animals under some conditions hold something we might find akin to grudges. I think close attention would show in most of those cases important differences from human grudge-holding.

Our memory and conceptualization are indeed what allow this kind of grudge-holding (as well as repression), and it is our memory and conceptualization that allow us to revision the world as a better place. We might be careful that the latter not be overshadowed by the side effects of the former.

[MankyCat]

but such distortions are not and do not need to be considered essential, and therefore can be challenged.


Here's the pinch... It can be challenged by members within it's own culture/society, but I disagree with people outside the culture challenging it if the majority of the people don't. The ones that do disagree with their own culture have a choice. To stay or to leave. Leaving may be hard, but it's not impossible (typically) which can be seen in many tribes and societies. If the majority doesn't agree, they will force a change (whether they seek outside help or not).

Vietnam war jumps to mind. The US jumped in to impose their beliefs (mostly anti-communism) on the vietnamese people. The majority of the vietnamese people did NOT was a change in their political structure. Hence why we had so much more trouble in that war... as even the common folk (farmers, prostitutes, and so forth) joined in the effort against the changes that were being forced onto them. Heck, the US was being torn apart by this, as so many didn't agree with our reasons for going to war there. Damn, now I want to brush up on my knowledge of this war again. *grumbles*

[Carla O'Harris]

Here's the pinch... It can be challenged by members within it's own culture/society, but I disagree with people outside the culture challenging it if the majority of the people don't. The ones that do disagree with their own culture have a choice. To stay or to leave. Leaving may be hard, but it's not impossible (typically) which can be seen in many tribes and societies. If the majority doesn't agree, they will force a change (whether they seek outside help or not).

Vietnam war jumps to mind. The US jumped in to impose their beliefs (mostly anti-communism) on the vietnamese people. The majority of the vietnamese people did NOT was a change in their political structure. Hence why we had so much more trouble in that war... as even the common folk (farmers, prostitutes, and so forth) joined in the effort against the changes that were being forced onto them. Heck, the US was being torn apart by this, as so many didn't agree with our reasons for going to war there. Damn, now I want to brush up on my knowledge of this war again. *grumbles*


Ok, but the US wasn't "challenging" Vietnam through open critical dialogue in which their faults were called out, but engaged in military attacks. There is a big difference. It is always possible to say, "Wow, you have such an interesting culture. If I were a member of your culture, I would like the following : ........... But I would also have a problem with the following ......... What do you think? Have you ever had a problem with those things as well?"

And I disagree that the minority only has the option of loving or leaving it. The minority has the option to initiate social change processes. Every single human being on the planet is a potential agent of social change.

[MankyCat]

Ok, but the US wasn't "challenging" Vietnam through open critical dialogue in which their faults were called out, but engaged in military attacks. There is a big difference. It is always possible to say, "Wow, you have such an interesting culture. If I were a member of your culture, I would like the following : ........... But I would also have a problem with the following ......... What do you think? Have you ever had a problem with those things as well?"


And when that culture says, "No... we like things just as they are." What happens then? In this case, what happened was military action. Doesn't mean we have to agree with it, but that's what happened. Typically, either that is what will happen or the one asking for change will simply leave (which is far less likely to happen).



And I disagree that the minority only has the option of loving or leaving it. The minority has the option to initiate social change processes. Every single human being on the planet is a potential agent of social change.


If the majority doesn't want the social changes, then they society won't change. That being my point. And in this instance, I was focusing on tribes and smaller cultures (like the ones found in Africa or South America). I'm not talking about larger societies where a minority can equal hundreds of thousands of people. But even in those cultures, a certain percentage has to exist in order for any changes to be made internally, and more often then not, those changes aren't going to happen unless the ruling class (or heads of the government) is on the side of the minority.

Really, it comes down to the beliefs of those in power. If I decide that I don't agree with something in America and there's not many people that agree, the chances of me making any social changes are nil to none. I'd have to either deal with it or leave. Think about covens, in reference to this (and no, I don't work in covens, but have known people who have). If a person doesn't agree with the way a coven operates, they can try to change things. If most of the other members (and the heads of the coven) seem steadfast in keeping things the same, the members that disagree have two options, stay or leave. It can be seen in many places and in many circumstances. Sometimes, the only change you can really bring about is by not being there anymore and moving on to another. Much like the mothers who send their daughters to the cities so their daughters don't end up circumsized and become everything that symbolic ritual will make them. The mothers are a minority. They cannot make changes within their society. Heck, in most cases, they aren't able to leave. But their daughters can. And so they send their daughters to be schooled and thereby break the cycle and give their daughters a chance outside the culture the mother's don't agree with. The daughters are incorporated into the new culture. (And the mothers can be killed for doing this.)

So... when change isn't possible, it does come down to stay or leave. Stark as that might be. You can't change a system if you are the only one (or one of the only ones) wanting to change it.

Of course, again, it comes down to power. The heads of that culture has power, unless the majority of people want a change in which case a revolution of sorts can occur (usually violently) to impose those changes. However, if there aren't enough people to gain enough power to do this, then things will inevitably remain the same. A minority, without enough power to back it up, has little power to exact a change in that society.

I don't know if I swayed too much to keep that clear. Hm.

[David19]

And I disagree that the minority only has the option of loving or leaving it. The minority has the option to initiate social change processes. Every single human being on the planet is a potential agent of social change.

Actually, people may have the potential to do it, but even if they act on that potential, they still, probably, get ignored, usually, the powerful control everything, e.g. take teh G8, for example, millions of people supported Make Poverty History and still do (like me) but the G8, who are 8 most powerful people in the world can still ignore millions, or the Iraq war, etc).

Power is the only force in the world that can make a difference, you either have it or you don't, you can be stepped on or can be the one doing the stepping on (ok, i'm kind of quoting Angel here, but it works, i think anyway ;)).

[Carla O'Harris]

Power is the only force in the world that can make a difference? Well, then we must conclude that people have more power than they are given credit, because ordinary people have brought about tremendous changes in culture.

[MankyCat]

Power is the only force in the world that can make a difference? Well, then we must conclude that people have more power than they are given credit, because ordinary people have brought about tremendous changes in culture.

Give me some examples. I'd like to see how much power had a role in these changes. (Either power by being a government official or ruling class with military to back you up, or power by having enough people back you up which would make you a decent threat. Ordinary people can make a change, if they have enough power from one option or the other.)

[Shield_Wolf]

I havn't had a chance to read all the post(in hury, mom want to go eat...lol).

now I'm not the type that would use "Dark" magick right away and what not, but I think that there might be a time and a place to use such a thing, and that is up to every to make for themself. I might not agree with it but I respect what that.
And one of my fav. sayings is Fight fire with fire(I feel to help fight aginst "Black" magick it one must know about it, and how to works).
Now this might just be me but I like this saying(though it is from a Star Wars book). There is NO Light Side or Dark Side, there is only the Force. What makes it Light or Dark is the way the person uses it.

[Carla O'Harris]

But if a person is motivated from fear, anger, hatred, then they are walking down the dark path, according to Yoda.

[Kendrah]

But if a person is motivated from fear, anger, hatred, then they are walking down the dark path, according to Yoda.

Unfortunetly, we are all motivated by fear, at the least. Anger and hatred come easily at times, though not frequent. Sometimes I think enlightenment is not being motivated by fear.

[MankyCat]

But if a person is motivated from fear, anger, hatred, then they are walking down the dark path, according to Yoda.

Anger and fear? Wouldn't fear of things staying the same or anger at how things are be steps to overcoming these things or conditions? That's what usually motivates a change, whether is lesser amounts or greater.

But you still didn't answer my question/request. Please give me some examples of an ordinary person who was able to make social change, by themselves, without any aid (in either government/military/etc or in enough of a backing to be a threat) to give him power.

I believe enlightenment comes from overcoming fear and anger. Realizing what purpose they hold and how to harness them but not be controlled by them. By harness them, I mean to see them as they are, why they are there, and allow them to drive you to do what you must, like leave an abusive relationship or force a change in the government. Doesn't mean you are going to hurt anyone or intend to. But without a true driving force, nothing will change. (I can name a number of very helpful laws that were passed because enough people were afraid and/or angry. I can name a few successful movements too that were started because of the same two emotions.)

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Er.......what the hell does Yoda have to do with anything? All he ever did was spew out a bunch of half-baked quasi-Zen aphorisms so Luke could help Princess Leia get her crown back.

[Carla O'Harris]

Yoda is directly relevant to allusions to Star Wars, which I did not bring up. I'm sure there are others who have much loftier opinions of the Master than you do.

[MankyCat]

Yoda is directly relevant to allusions to Star Wars, which I did not bring up. I'm sure there are others who have much loftier opinions of the Master than you do.


Uhm... I'm still waiting for your answer. Seems like you are avoiding it. Why?

[Shield_Wolf]

Yoda is directly relevant to allusions to Star Wars, which I did not bring up. I'm sure there are others who have much loftier opinions of the Master than you do.

You know, if I know this was going to turn into a God damn Star Wars thing I would have never of quote the book. And on that note, Yoda was like all other Jedi, they beleive in ONLY the Light/Dark side part of what the where. To them if you use say Force Choke(Just like putting a curse on some one to choke), it was evil now matter what. Not true, what I was trying to say with that quote is that it's not the energy/magick that light or dark, but how one uses it. Curse is such a dirty word made up by humen to try and make themself feel better and other feel bad because of something they do.

[MankyCat]

You know, if I know this was going to turn into a mol damn Star Wars thing I would have never of quote the book. And on that note, Yoda was like all other Jedi, they beleive in ONLY the Light/Dark side part of what the where. To them if you use say Force Choke(Just like putting a curse on some one to choke), it was evil now matter what. Not true, what I was trying to say with that quote is that it's not the energy/magick that light or dark, but how one uses it. Curse is such a dirty word made up by humen to try and make themself feel better and other feel bad because of something they do.


There's a similar quote in "The Craft". Who says that movie was all bad.

me <-- who actually owns a copy on DVD.:weirdsmil

[Shield_Wolf]

There's a similar quote in "The Craft". Who says that movie was all bad.

me <-- who actually owns a copy on DVD.:weirdsmil

There where some okay part in that movie. If there nothing else on I'll watch it on TV.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Pah, he's a filthy Jedi sorceror responsible for the fall of a stable galactic government! :P And that wasn't aimed directly at you, Carla, that was more of a 'why is Star Wars being brought up?' question.

[Shield_Wolf]

Pah, he's a filthy Jedi sorceror responsible for the fall of a stable galactic government! :P And that wasn't aimed directly at you, Carla, that was more of a 'why is Star Wars being brought up?' question.

It might of been from my quote from a Star War book that gave a good exsample of what I ment to say.
What I should have then was:
There is no White magik or Black magick just the energy that make up what magick is.

[Carla O'Harris]

You know, if I know this was going to turn into a mol damn Star Wars thing I would have never of quote the book. And on that note, Yoda was like all other Jedi, they beleive in ONLY the Light/Dark side part of what the where. To them if you use say Force Choke(Just like putting a curse on some one to choke), it was evil now matter what. Not true, what I was trying to say with that quote is that it's not the energy/magick that light or dark, but how one uses it. Curse is such a dirty word made up by humen to try and make themself feel better and other feel bad because of something they do.

Well, now Star Wars has been brought into things, and I think it is directly relevant, very, very relevant to the discussion.

There was a reason for caution against what they called "The Dark Side" (I wouldn't call it that ; I value darkness, but what they meant was something akin to evil, which has nothing to do with darkness in my value system) --- it wasn't just namby-pamby fluffy moralism. It was based on long observation that once one started walking down that path, it began to consume one, and became more difficult to resist.

Some of this argument is based upon what I consider to be the false assertion that technology is neutral. While some technologies might be demonstrably more neutral than others, there are some where their usage and intention is plainly to harm. I understand that you can stab someone with a pen, but you can't write a novel with a gun. Land-mines aimed at people's genitals are not a neutral technology. And the same thing with negative magic.

WTF is wrong with modern pagans that people are so up in arms about their "right to curse"??? It baffles the mind!!!

"How dare you judge us for cursing?" Excuse me??? The fact that this can even be asserted without being laughed out of court is just astounding.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

....there's a court now? Oh! oh! Can I be the guy who's called to order and then shouts "YOU'RE out of order! The whole damn SYSTEM'S out of order!"?
The difference here, Carla, is that I don't see people getting their leg blown off from hexing someone. I do, however, see it happening to people who step on landmines.

[MankyCat]

There where some okay part in that movie. If there nothing else on I'll watch it on TV.


Yeah, it's one of those hokey movies that are almost a guilty pleasure. I haven't watched it in ages, but really liked it back in college. B-movies need love too. :weirdsmil

[MankyCat]

It might of been from my quote from a Star War book that gave a good exsample of what I ment to say.
What I should have then was:
There is no White magik or Black magick just the energy that make up what magick is.


Well, I personally thought that was pretty clear.

[MankyCat]

But the Jedi (the good guys) killed a good number of people too. Oh... it was okay because they were killing the bad guys. And never mind the fact that they also had fear and anger and hate. It was just disguised better.


I understand that you can stab someone with a pen, but you can't write a novel with a gun.

A gun could be used for hunting though. Hunting for food for your family. A bow and arrow or spear would suffice, but those can also kill people too. And knives. Let's not forget knives.

I guess if people stayed out of eachother's territories, then landmines wouldn't have been a necessity. But that's part of the fantasy land that never has nor likely ever will exist. (I guess it could happen... but then that goes back to the whole wiping out cultures and such... and we've already been there.)

If you step on a landmine, it's too late usually. You are gonna be blown up. If someone curses you, it's rarely too late. You have the option to protect yourself and even send it back. What? Send it back? How horrible is that?!?


Carla, I'm still waiting for your answer to my previous question/request. The longer you hold out, the more I think you really have no back up to your statements. You lose credibility by doing this. I really would like to see your response or answer.

[covenofkeys]

''hell im a bad -ass mother lover who wont take crap offa nobody!''
nuh-uh. lol

[CheshireEyes]

"If you stare into the Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back at you."
~~ Friedrich Nietzsche

[Carla O'Harris]

But the Jedi (the good guys) killed a good number of people too. Oh... it was okay because they were killing the bad guys. And never mind the fact that they also had fear and anger and hate. It was just disguised better.

No offense, but that sounds like Palpatine talking.





Carla, I'm still waiting for your answer to my previous question/request. The longer you hold out, the more I think you really have no back up to your statements. You lose credibility by doing this. I really would like to see your response or answer.

You mean the social change issue vis-a-vis individuals versus power structures? It's not really drawing me right now, so consider my statement to be an assertion rather than an argument. Sometimes we assert, sometimes we argue. It's not really interesting me to defend that assertion right now. But if it does, I'll let you know. ;)

[MankyCat]

No offense, but that sounds like Palpatine talking.

He's my hero.

Okay, he's not. But if stating things that are plain and clear makes me sound evil, then that's fine. Some would say that even the Devil (or whoever) can quote the Bible if he needs to.

Fact is, I see what I see. Watch the movies, at the very least. (Key words, "at the very least".) The good guys aided in bringing the darkness into being, due to emotions like anger, fear, etc. It's very clear.



You mean the social change issue vis-a-vis individuals versus power structures? It's not really drawing me right now, so consider my statement to be an assertion rather than an argument. Sometimes we assert, sometimes we argue. It's not really interesting me to defend that assertion right now. But if it does, I'll let you know. ;)

Yes and no. I wanted a discussion on the matter. You chose to ignore a request to give examples on a claim you made. That only leaves a person to think that you don't back up your "assertion" because you have nothing to make it valid. I was truly curious. At this point, I take this as a reflection of most of the arguments/assertions you have made. Instead of backing things up with information (and not just from one obviously biased source), you simply disregard. Don't worry about letting me know. At this point, your validity in your previous statement regarding that individuals can make social changes without some form of power to back them up are here by null and void to me. This will further reflect on other arguments you try to bring up in other posts. That is, until you feel ready to continue the discussion.

Enjoy. :hahugh:

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

No offense, but that sounds like Palpatine talking.


As a staunch supporter of the order, structure, and good for all that the Empire stood for, I highly resent that :P Palpatine was a dork, we all know it :P Thrawn or Daala, however.... heh heh heh.
But I digress.
</offtopic>

[Bethra]

I think this calls for a brake out of the Discordian alteration for Uncle Al's law on my behalf


"Do what the hell you like, just remember no one likes and arsehole"

[Infinite Grey]

I'm always naughty... part of my charm... but I ain't a witch, so I don't do witchie type witchings... but I'm naughty anyways

[Kailen]

So a close friend of mine tells me that she is going to be dabbling in some magick to help her out for a change to protect her self from stupid people and to send some things their way. She insists that I should try one or two because I my self have delt with some negative souls and I can't help but get this wicked naughty witch mood come over me which makes me want to run and get the candles, borrow a book of hers and do a little magick :heybaby:


Knowledge is power and power requires responsibility. What knowledge we are granted for use is held in sacred trust. We can keep that trust or abuse it. Such knowledge should not be used selfishly, for selfish reasons are an abuse. Knowledge we are granted can be used to protect ourself and others against those who would cause harm without abusing that trust. However extreme caution should be taken in such.

Has this person used knowledge of the ways to strike at you and yours? Or is it simple stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and the like? Has this person attacked you and yours in a way that calls for a response using such knowledge? If this person has not abused knowledge they have, then to do such with the knowledge you have would be an abuse of sacred trust.

The only justification for using such knowledge to strike another, is if they have used knowledge to strike at you, to strike at those whose protection is your dominion, or to strike at those who are helpless.

[covenofkeys]

yes.well put.

[Prophecy]

Knowledge is power and power requires responsibility. What knowledge we are granted for use is held in sacred trust. We can keep that trust or abuse it. Such knowledge should not be used selfishly, for selfish reasons are an abuse. Knowledge we are granted can be used to protect ourself and others against those who would cause harm without abusing that trust. However extreme caution should be taken in such.

Has this person used knowledge of the ways to strike at you and yours? Or is it simple stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and the like? Has this person attacked you and yours in a way that calls for a response using such knowledge? If this person has not abused knowledge they have, then to do such with the knowledge you have would be an abuse of sacred trust.

The only justification for using such knowledge to strike another, is if they have used knowledge to strike at you, to strike at those whose protection is your dominion, or to strike at those who are helpless.

I agree. I would never go out and "go after someone" just for the hell of it. For me it would be for Justice. Which reminds me of a past post I had. After reading others posts in this thread it came to me, I was ridiculed by some when I posted the Goddess Atonement Spell, being told that it is revenge majick blah blah blah. When in fact is was for justice. I think we all should ask ourselves before doing such majick.........Is this revenge or justice for a wrong? Am I doing the right thing? But most of all when one does this majick place the dagger above your own head as well. Noone is beyond recourse. If it is the right thing to do then nothing will come back on you. Make sense?

"Edited to add" We ALL Hex and Curse, it's no secret. Think about it. How many times did someone piss you off and the thoughts in your mind were of a negative conotation? Remember thoughts do become things.

[Cyzarine]

I have had times where I'm quite naughty. Although I usually think things through and wind up not actually doing it but the thought is still there. I'm just thinking back and how many times I've thought of doing wicked spells on people. It's kind of funny thinking about it now. I'm glad I didn't though because karma has it out for me bad and I don't need anymore bad juju. I'm just starting to put everything back together and bad karma wouldn't allow me to do so.

[Ancient Wisdom]

I can be naughty......When the ocassion calls....:devil:

[Prophecy]

Well I am in the mood now. Won't take much to push me over the edge either. Need to calm myself now.

[covenofkeys]

YEAH...:rant: I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

[TheWomanMonster]

I'm always naughty,
everything you do (magically and otherwise) effects others anyways.
So what if I happen to target those that (in my mind) deserve it?
Or pull the strings to make good things happen for myself?

*adds herself to the black list*

[Prophecy]

YEAH...:rant: I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.
I want into YOUR Coven. Can I be an "HONORARY" member from a faraway land?

[Prophecy]

I'm always naughty,
everything you do (magically and otherwise) effects others anyways.
So what if I happen to target those that (in my mind) deserve it?
Or pull the strings to make good things happen for myself?

*adds herself to the black list*

So you are joining my club of the black listed? Welcome hon. :hugz:

[covenofkeys]

I want into YOUR Coven. Can I be an "HONORARY" member from a faraway land?


is that a joke? :lol:

[Prophecy]

is that a joke? :lol:

Nope

[covenofkeys]

~chokes on coffee~

um..um..{ok if you were trying to shut me up, it has worked!!} um...um...LOL

{Has absolutely no idea what to say in regard to this right now...~ ~sits thinking on what the frell to say...um..um...feck!}:lol:

~must have something stronger-anyone fancy a g'n't? LOL

talk about public!! ~giggles~

[Prophecy]

~chokes on coffee~

um..um..{ok if you were trying to shut me up, it has worked!!} um...um...LOL

{Has absolutely no idea what to say in regard to this right now...~ ~sits thinking on what the frell to say...um..um...feck!}:lol:

~must have something stronger-anyone fancy a g'n't? LOL

talk about public!! ~giggles~

ok let's take this to PM land so as not to tie up the thread. :fpraise:

[Shadow Angel]

~chuckles at this thread~

[~Belladonna~]

For Gods sake, why can't people have their own opinion when asked a question??? I can't stand that BS of "my way is the only way", huh, go tell it to someone who cares.

A question was asked, people answered, accept other peoples answers and views, stop moaning and move on... and no, this isn't aimed at any one person.

[Restless Willow]

umm not yet but maybe someday haha

[hikarilove]

I'm sorry... I was busy buying large pins for my Voodoo dolls. I missed the question.

;)

[SweetIsTheTruth]

For Gods sake, why can't people have their own opinion when asked a question???

Because many were raised with religious certitude in their Abrahamic upbringing. Switching religions doesn't mean they have ever seriously looked at, dealt with, faced or given up this certitude of rightness.



I can't stand that BS of "my way is the only way"

How strange that those who deny their own dark sides end up projecting the very part of themselves they deny onto others. At least we have psychology to show us exactly what is occurring in these situations.

[hikarilove]

How strange that those who deny their own dark sides end up projecting the very part of themselves they deny onto others. At least we have psychology to show us exactly what is occurring in these situations.

Truf, girl whaaaaat.

Anyway, yes, I agree. Throwing away the "rule of three" and similar ethical stumbling blocks was part of my personal spiritual development which had a lot to do with reclaiming my own agency and no longer thinking I was a helpless ant in this universe. I realized that magick, at its core, is about getting what you want and need out of life and, sometimes, that isn't what someone else will enjoy. :)

As for Abrahamic issues... I am killing off the last of mine, I think. I was discussing it with my therapist the other day and have decided to write a ritual based on a blasphemy. Pretty much, I'm going to perform every witchy type thing forbidden in the Bible, call God some names, deny the existence of deity, etc. until I no longer fear that there is some huge Grandfather in the Sky that is going to give me horrible diseases, poverty, and unhappiness if I step out of his all-knowing, all-sparkly Will.

Vengence is mine, saith the Daniel! ;)

[SweetIsTheTruth]

Throwing away the "rule of three" and similar ethical stumbling blocks was part of my personal spiritual development which had a lot to do with reclaiming my own agency and no longer thinking I was a helpless ant in this universe.

And that's one of the main points of any path, is insuring that it fits you and what you need. It's been often said that the Rede & law of three are actually extensions of Christian memes & morality.



I was discussing it with my therapist the other day and have decided to write a ritual based on a blasphemy.

If you sniff around a little on the net, there is a VERY good rite of blasphemy titled "The Exorcism of Jehovah." Although it was penned by a satanist, it is one of the best such rituals I have ever seen. Diane Vera's site on theistic satanism also has a section on such rites, which might also work as a springboard for your ideas in this.

Here's my basic issue with those who wish to slam the Rede and rule of three down our throats. IF the Rede and rule of three are true, then every time someone worked so-called 'black' magick, they would in effect be hitting themselves in the head, since such rites would rebound on the sender. In other words, there would be no need at all to attempt to force the Rede & rule of three on anyone, because the consequences of disobeying those rules would be self-evident on the rebound to the caster. So those who wish to force others to live by the Rede and law of three, prove nothing to me except their own doubt such laws exist. Because if they did exist and were true, they would be self correcting AND self evident, which means there would be no reason at all to attempt to force others to accept them as 'true.'

[Nitefalle]

Here's my basic issue with those who wish to slam the Rede and rule of three down our throats. IF the Rede and rule of three are true, then every time someone worked so-called 'black' magick, they would in effect be hitting themselves in the head, since such rites would rebound on the sender. In other words, there would be no need at all to attempt to force the Rede & rule of three on anyone, because the consequences of disobeying those rules would be self-evident on the rebound to the caster. So those who wish to force others to live by the Rede and law of three, prove nothing to me except their own doubt such laws exist. Because if they did exist and were true, they would be self correcting AND self evident, which means there would be no reason at all to attempt to force others to accept them as 'true.'


TOUCHE!!!!

[Astara Seague]

Im always naughty!!! but I usually dont be that way during spell work

[teishabee]

I learnt a very good lesson for the reasons not to do the naughty magic.

Even if I do crave to do exactly the same thing again. I just like quick fixes.