| |
|
IMO magick as a lifestyle choice is not subversive, for the reasons given above, if "lifestyle choice means taking on the label of "magickal practitioner". To me, the subversive element arises in two areas. Firstly the aforementioned viewpoint of the combination of individualism and collectivism. Magickal practice defies conformity, and thus has a subversive element. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly,(with the assumption, of course,that magick actually works), magick is subversive because it trumps law. An individual practicing magick can accomplish things that the power structure can do nothing about. Save passing a law that the practice of magick is outright illegal and that all who practice it should be detained, (been there, done that), acts of magick cannot be successfully prosecuted. There have been several attempts to do so, and it is an uphill battle, as there is plenty of reasonable doubt that the "occurrence" would have happened anyway without the working.
Governments have huge levels of power to regulate behavior. Magick enables one to usurp that authority, therefor it is highly subversive. This is, in my opinion, the reasoning behind beliefs in Karmic Law. It is terrifying to some that authority can be usurped, and there is a psychological need to believe in a "cosmic cop" that will punish offenders, thus the "Lords of Karma". Anything that usurps authority can be said to be subversive, because it defies the will of the government. An example might be doing protective magick against gaybashers. Law, at least in the United States, says that you need to wait until the beating has actually been administered in order for the law to do anything. Proactive action against an attacker is illegal, and indeed, if one even defends oneself with more "capacity" than one's attacker, one can be imprisoned. Granted, there is a legal concept of fear for life, but that applies to a weaponized assault, not to simply "being convinced that one will be hurt or killed". Thus, if an individual casts a working against said would be attackers, causing them damage of some sort, they have gotten around the law.
Of course the argument could be made that the real determinant as to whether any magickal act is subversive is whether it supports the government's power or not. In a previous thread it was speculated that George W. may have his own mages. Still, even if he does, his mages would be acting subversively, as they would be making attacks without due process. As magick cannot at this time be "proved" in a court of law, it is impossible for GW's people to go to a judge and say, "I want a curse warrant against these people, we have 'evidence' that they have practiced magick against us." Evidence is based upon correlation, and as we all know, magick cannot be proved as yet in that way. In the above instance, it's also important to note that when governmental "misconduct" comes to light, (and not until), it is considered to be subversive. As government is a regulatory body that depends on law for that regulation, that which undermines law and it's capacity to control the populace, is by nature subversive. |
|
|
