Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

For the Good of All?

13:53 / 05.08.03

Please, can this be explained?

Can it be that the good of one is for the good of all, or is this selfishness? Is devoting oneself to others without concern for one's own needs an act of love or stupidity? Is finding a "healthy balance" between one's needs and the needs of all sentient beings enough?

But what does it mean anyway - the good of all? How can there be an action, or decision universally that invokes the good for all? If there is, what is it?, because I am begining to believe this is strictly a myth to prevent utter and total chaos.

Can there be a "good of all" executed if that means destroying one thing over another?...or this constant interplay what the "good of all" is? What is good for the yin is also good for the yang, even if it is the destruction of one or the other, thus ultimately, destroying the other one...or nuturing, I suppose.

14:18 / 05.08.03

Really, it means 'For the good of all of us' or 'For the good of all involved'. The only thing that's good for all is when you save the world from destruction (and that's usually not good for some evil supervillain or alien nasty...)

15:54 / 05.08.03

mightent this be head shoppery?

To try and look at things from a Magickal perspective, the good of all is something like the Ultimate perfect purity. A concept of that nature it what many religions grope for and end up turning into all kinds of divine characterizations.

Maybe the good of all is zen. Or maybe zen is the good of none. ~shrugs~ zen's an elusive bastard.

I'm of the personal opinion that the good of all doesn't exist. It's my beliefs that there are some things that just have no pure form, and good is one of them.

16:06 / 05.08.03

Wouldn't the only representation of "the good of all" be that there is no good of all?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

17:38 / 05.08.03

Context, please. Why do you ask the question? Is it 'the Good of All [People]'? Or 'the Good of All [the Universe]'? Or just 'the Good of All [present]'?

Details, and context, or the question means nothing.

18:45 / 05.08.03

Magic

I've come to believe fairly recently that morals are real, rather than, say, commands or desires, so I'm not sure how well this will come off, but...

Love and compassion are good for the individual who owns them, and they are not, in themselves good for anyone else. Expressions of love and compassion are good for those who receive them, and can be good for those who show them if it helps to create additional love and compassion within their hearts.

Concerning this interaction, we are told two contradictory things:
1. Bad fruit does not come from good trees
2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

While (2) may well be true and worthwhile to keep in mind, it is hardly provides useful tenet. If it were the case that people working together in love must necessarily bring about our destruction, or worse, if the good of society were produced by hatred and spitefulness, then we would surely all be damned. The union suggested in (1), that from the goodness we give to ourselves (loving others and all that stuff) will then become goodness given to all solves a conflict between the worldly and the spiritual that I think cannot be won by siding with either the worldly or the spiritual by itself.

Philosophy...maybe later.

07:31 / 06.08.03

Bit of an odd spin on this one. What came to mind for me when reading this was this quote from the "Questioning Desire" thread:

Isn't magic something about wending our way to finding each of our unique roles in the bigger whole - whose trajectory is to find conscious expression of itself through those parts of it which are us?

This by a mate of mine so I hope he won't mind me ripping off his words

He seems to be saying that as we are part of a totality, interlinked and interdependent, perhaps we can use magick or anything else at our disposal, to find out where we best fit, what our role is, how we are placed to work with and serve this totality. Such an idea doesn't seem a million miles away from the Thelemic idea of "True will" - and it goes against the normal egocentric way we often talk about magick. Is it about a greater role? Beyond what you "want"?

I think such an approach might be characterised as being "For the Good of All" - maybe?

13:36 / 07.08.03

I asked this question because it is one of those phrases we throw around as magicians to describe a "proper ethical practice". It seems people tend to agree that if something is done for the good of all, then it is in fact alright. However, the more I meditate and/or contemplate this idea, it seems to me that it is not as simple as it appears to be.

Just the implication of "all" is just that....ALL, so I cannot agree with Quantum's definition here...unless of course, I am misunderstanding.

Really, it means 'For the good of all of us' or 'For the good of all involved'. The only thing that's good for all is when you save the world from destruction (and that's usually not good for some evil supervillain or alien nasty...)

Mainly, because I have been pondering this from a Buddhist perspective (as that is where - in part - my question arose from), when applying a wish or blessing to ALL, it indeed means ALL and does not have exclusivity of being for us or for any particular group. Somehow though, even when casting for the "good of all", something invariably seems to lose out. Am I wrong...am I missing the balance point here?

Also, there is the question of practicing to liberate oneself or practicing to liberate others, particularly in Buddhism. These are two of the three vehicles to liberation in Buddhism.The third recognizes there is no difference between the two vehicles so, is it really selfish to concentrate on one's own liberation? Can we really achieve that universal good by just liberating one being - our self?

It also brings to mind the LHP and RHP thing. (UGH!) Don't despair, I don't expect to work that out!. Still, the right seems to be in agreement with mahayana (practicing for the liberation of all) and the left with hinayana (practicing for the liberation of self), while vajrayana - the third vehicle - seems to be MP, as it recognizes there is no difference between the two. Just something I found noteworthy that made me question "the good of all" once again.

Maybe I am missing that elusive zen point, but if you are all in my head then perhaps I should cut it off! - you know, for the good of all. Apparently, you have all been very naughty! :P

Oh, and please pardon me for not responding earlier. Thanx!

14:11 / 07.08.03

For the good of all...

It is pretty complex... How about a dissection of the concept of "good" since we've done "all"?

If you take good as a broad "working towards enlightenment" then it seems to me that it should (in general) be relatively easy to make the "all" pretty universal. But, the more focused the working is, the more concrete the "good" is, the more likely it is that the "all" is going to be much smaller and less inclusive. This just is, like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - each individual needs different things to point them towards liberation.

For me, the theory is relatively simple but the practice is really messy. I'm of the opinion that the entire Cosmos is alive and conscious and striving to know Its Self, so each little baby step I take towards enlightenment is a contribution towards that Self-knowing. And I've seen that the best teachers are those who teach by example, so if I live openly in that search for enlightenment, I'm teaching those around me. However, I seem to lose motivation pretty rapidly if the focus is just on me, and I find it's much easier to keep my own shit in order if my focus is on doing good for others.

Does that help??

21:05 / 07.08.03

Izabelle:
"How about a dissection of the concept of "good"..."

THAT, is a good point! Heh...no pun intended

Good is very relative and maybe that is where the problem arises of sorting out what is actually "good for all". Sometimes destroying is a good thing (pardon the M.Stewart expression), but that would mean something is not good for the thing being destroyed - or is it? This is a large part of my dilemma.

So, here are some more of questions for my ill-thought out topic here.
Thanx for the patience with this sleepy-head.

-Can destruction be a useful tool for the good of all? Can vanquishing anything be justifiable, even to that being vanquished?

-Is simply concentrating on one's own enlightenment/liberation an act of selfishness or true will, and is it ultimately of benefit to the ALL?

-Is the "good of all" simply a matter of universal balance?

-How can one be absolutely assured of the intent of any working or doctrine that claims to have the "good of all" at heart, even one's own working?

Do people think I am mincing this rather undefined phrase a little too fine? I don't usually like to look at stuff under microscopes too often, but I think that this phrase gets thrown about a bit in many doctrines, religious groups, with magickal types and even in politics. Perhaps, looking at it more closely can help out when we do pan back to cast our magickal good will into the universe.

21:44 / 10.08.03

I think that good is a fucked up concept. It's used to justify too fucking much.

It's just a word that makes a purity of positiveness, and that's just... well... so damn bastard bloody subjective.

I think deciding whether things are good or not is evil. HA!

I don't know. Positive fits me better. For the positive of all concerned just doesn't clip the tongue properly, however.

And is good a matter of universal balance? Um...
Ug...
Er...

sure.
Better than anything I can come up with.

14:45 / 13.08.03

You know Vadrice, I cannot stand the "good" label either.

How about... for the greater cool of all

"Cool" cannot be so easily opposed as in good/bad. "Hot" is not even an opposite really, and the nerdy cannot get upset because it is "cool" to be a nerd.

Yeah, I think I am going to start dedicating my practice to..."the greater cool of All", from now on.

15:43 / 25.08.03

From my own observations (personal experience only, in a mainly neo-pagan context), "for the good of all" gets used a lot as a pseudo-diplomatic or political gesture - trying to put some positive P.R. on a working or ritual, especially one attended by non-/semi-/different-believers: "Look, we're really very nice, very Positive Witches here." It also helps keep uppity initiates in line by dogmatically stressing the need to "harm none." In fact, it seems that it is used as a poorly-thought-out (with respect to "what is the True Meaning of Good?"-type philosophizing) way of "positively" rephrasing "Harming None." (Though I think many of us here would agree that "harming none" and "for the good of all" are very different statements.)

Lastly, even for those who really intend to use For The Good Of All as the moral basis for their work, we have to give a nod to simple human egocentricity: generally speaking, "All" = "What I know and value, or believe that I value." There are exceptions, of course.

That's my $.02. Will you be needing a reciept?

~Lepidopteran