BARBELITH underground
 

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


Magic and Free Will

 
 
Katherine
05:29 / 31.08.05
It's a question I have been thinking about for a long time, mainly since starting to read about chaos magic and in chao magic type forums.
There are a few techniques for using sigils and one of the techniques is to place your sigil on a website or postcards in public places..etc. This way people on their way to work will charge them for you.
How if you are doing this are you interfering with someone's free will? You haven't asked 'Would you mind if...?' and the people looking at your sigil may be very anti-magic.
Or do you consider this like advertising? For example you have no choice but to look at adverts on the tube and thereby this adverting could affect you(Which is it's aim to be honest).
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
06:32 / 31.08.05
Well, yes I'd say that having a strictly religious person accidentally charge a sigil would be a violation of that person's freedom. Atheists probably wouldn't be fussed and might find the whole thing amusing. This said, religious people formulated the 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' rule because they genuinely believed that by performing the sort of magicky stuff that was around at the time you were violating God's will, and that being able to remotely effect the outcome of events/the actions of others etc. is something that people aren't supposed to do without God's permission (odd that God built all these cheat-codes into His creation...) In this particular case it would be impossible to establish cause-and-effect between the religious believer viewing the item and the unnatural event taking place, if it takes place at all, so the morality of the whole thing is a bit hazy. In fact the whole issue of magickal morality (it is right to curse somebody? etc.) is furthered muddied by the lack of evidence for magickal phenomena in the first place; a sigil is definitely not as concrete as punching somebody in the face. To most people viewing a sigil in a public setting it will just be a funny little doodle.
 
 
illmatic
07:14 / 31.08.05
This way people on their way to work will charge them for you.

Yeah, but all this depends if you believe in the common explantions for magick working. I personally don't think the whole idea of something getting "charged" with a neutral energy, that is somehow "raised" by a casual glance, is how the whole thing works anyway, so it's a bit of a non-starter for me.
 
 
Katherine
07:28 / 31.08.05
but all this depends if you believe in the common explantions for magick working

I'm not sure if it would work but the forums I have read about it seem to believe it works so I'm asking from that stance.

It's mainly something I have been going in circles thinking about. On one hand it would (if it works) be a very easy way to charge something rather than me doing all the work but on the other hand it's like asking someone who has no experience to make a sword from a lump of metal.
 
 
A0S
07:48 / 31.08.05
Hmmm I'm not sure about it's effectivness for charging a personal sigil but it might work if you were trying to influnce a large group people as a sort of subliminal advertising. Somewhat too late for this years general election but that's the sort of area it might work in. Perhaps not as a direct vote for x sigil but as a 'have you thought about voting for x?' That way it is more of a suggestion than an order.
 
 
illmatic
08:06 / 31.08.05
Personally, I think the way sigils work is when you let go of them, the forgetting. I don't think there's any "energy" or "charging" involved. If this method lets you build up confidence so you stop worrying about it, then it might work. I think a lot of elaborate procedures of magic do just this, build up the practioners belief so he "lets go".
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:43 / 31.08.05
Stephen maces book stealing fire from heaven has great suggestions involving sigils, especially in realtion to others, he suggests createing sigils that effect you personally rather than trying to exchange externals, for example create a sigil so you become more attractive to employers, rather than say to get a job, its a subtle difference but worth noting.

As to charging recognition of the sigil can be used for further repressing of the sigil, they can be handy to have stuck to a wall at home, so the dynamic of tension between repression and recognition is maintained until a time comes where life has moved on, the mind wanders, the process has then slipped past the conscious censore.

I cant see this website stuff working as i will read completely subjective meaning into a sigil/abstraction of someone elses creation, if it were an advert in a more symbolistic realistic format this might be more effective, as i am so saturated with these i absorb them unconsciously.

Free will and will, intresting point, does crowley actually mean free will as presented via judeao christianity, or is will a far different context to free will, does one start by becoming ones will and then becoming free ? or are free will and will the same? id contend that you must become your will first and a natural by product will be freedom and suggest that that is very different to the notion of free will.
 
 
Ganesh
10:49 / 31.08.05
How if you are doing this are you interfering with someone's free will? You haven't asked 'Would you mind if...?' and the people looking at your sigil may be very anti-magic.

This seems, to me, a slightly bizarre interpretation of "free will". By the same token, one might argue that if I initiate pleasant smalltalk with a possibly-homophobic colleague without wearing my 'I AM TEH GAY' t-shirt, I am interfering with his free will by 'tricking' him into accidentally condoning Teh Homosexual Lifestyle. I may even have stolen some of his, erm, 'conversational energy'.
 
 
Katherine
10:55 / 31.08.05
This seems, to me, a slightly bizarre interpretation of "free will". By the same token, one might argue that if I initiate pleasant smalltalk with a possibly-homophobic colleague without wearing my 'I AM TEH GAY' t-shirt, I am interfering with his free will by 'tricking' him into accidentally condoning Teh Homosexual Lifestyle. I may even have stolen some of his, erm, 'conversational energy'.
Hmmm true but you aren't getting them to do something other than talk to you, I talk to people who are anti-magic but I don't get them to charge a sigil for me. There is a small difference there, if you tricked them to do something physical then you are interfering to my mind.
 
 
Ganesh
11:01 / 31.08.05
Hmmm true but you aren't getting them to do something other than talk to you, I talk to people who are anti-magic but I don't get them to charge a sigil for me. There is a small difference there, if you tricked them to do something physical then you are interfering to my mind.

It's an utterly subjective difference, isn't it? You believe you've leached energy off them in order to charge a sigil (as, in my example, I might conceivably convince myself I'd somehow leached 'conversational energy', psychic vampire style, for my own nefarious purposes). They might simply believe they've glanced at a momentarily diverting pattern on a lamp-post. The concept of having taken "something physical" is moot.
 
 
illmatic
12:08 / 31.08.05
Very much with Ganesh on this. I think it's all about the the beliefs that surround magickal acts as much as anything else, as I was saying upthread.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:28 / 31.08.05
Although it's good to be concerned about the impact that your workings have on others, I do find this kind of thinking a little overwrought. I mean... it's just a squiggle on the wall, right? Our visual space is pretty much infested with squiggles of one form or another, from taggers' scrawls to the Nike swoosh. Maybe if you were prank-calling strangers at 3am to whisper your latest mantra into their ears, then that would be an abusive act.

I kind of think that getting into a tizzy over sigils in public places attributes wayyy too much power to the Mighty Sigil. (I have grave doubts as to whether this sort of working ever actually does very much, which I admit may be influencing my judgement.)
 
 
macrophage
17:35 / 31.08.05
I think every one at one point has interfered with someone's free will. As for getting other people to "charge" your sigils, it depends on the set and setting. I have never physically got others to charge or fire my sigils, but I have made sigils for others.

I have perused other people's Alphabet of Desire's on other website's, just purely out of interest, I find how people prepare their graphical designs very interesting.

I have charged other people's sigils if I know what Intent goes behind it. You wouldn't want to become a Black Brother or a Black Sister would you?

To tell you the truth I wouldn't be the type to go upto somebody to get them to charge my sigils. That's me.

Some people only believe in NLP and think what the fuck is a sigil anyhow.
 
 
Quantum
17:07 / 01.09.05
This is like a watered down version of the perennial 'morality of love spells' debate innit? To broaden the issue away from sigils, what about magic that controls others? A spell to affect someone's behaviour?

The old adage 'Don't do anything with magic you wouldn't do with Rohypnol and a chainsaw' applies, but impinging on other's freedom more gently is a bit more complex I spose.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:40 / 02.09.05
To broaden the issue away from sigils, what about magic that controls others? A spell to affect someone's behaviour?

Mmm... personally I see those as being seperate issuses, really. A sigil placed on a wall to be "charged" by passersby is a lot different to, say, a love-spell or a binding spell. The first one is seeking to realise some unstated intent, using a method that might be seen by some as invasive, whereas in the latter cases the intent, whole point of the spell, is to effect some form of control over another.
 
 
Unconditional Love
22:36 / 02.09.05
what would be the difference between control and influence?, for example take the love spell, if i make someone love me i would call that control, but if i try to attract the loving attention of an individual that would be influence? you attract the form of attention but at no point do you compel them to act upon the state, so the intent becomes i make myself more attractive too watchamacallit, the focus becomes self control self influence, you still leave a conscious choice to the individual concerned, but you are colouring the interaction, but not directly the person, the mode of communication and interrelation becomes the focus.
 
 
delacroix
06:30 / 03.09.05
Is it so terrible to influence somebody, if we're really talking about love? And as for sex between adults (just over-verbalizing the "something physical" mentioned upthread) aren't there far worse spells somebody could find themselves the victims of?

Are haircuts and becomming clothing not love spells in an only somewhat diluted form? Should I wag a bony finger at anyone who carries themselves with enough style and confidence to make me attracted to them _despite myself_? Or should I just respect the power they've claimed, and be an adult myself, and make my own choice?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:29 / 03.09.05
Oh boy. This whole love-spell thing rears its ugly head once more...

Are haircuts and becomming clothing not love spells in an only somewhat diluted form?

No, they are methods of increasing one's overall attractiveness. A particular look will appeal to some people, who can then choose how they respond. If I see a good-looking individual I might think to myself "Oh, what a good-looking individual!" but I don't actually feel compelled to jump on hir.

Is it so terrible to influence somebody, if we're really talking about love?

Is it so terrible to restrict or to take away altogether
someone's choice of partener? Uhhh... well, it's not great, if you think about it.

And as for sex between adults ... aren't there far worse spells somebody could find themselves the victims of?

Well, yes. An unbreakable death curse would certainly suck worse than a sex-spell. But are we talking about a spell to make the magician more sexually attractive in general, or a spell cast by the magician on some other person to make that person desire sex with hir? I'd say that's a definate breach of someone's free will myself. Maybe it's not Rohypnol, but it's up there with sneaking vodka into hir lemonade IMO.
 
 
Unconditional Love
09:44 / 03.09.05
influence isnt really taking away control is it. commanding or dominating another is removing control, influence is to make suggestion in a subtle manner.

with suggestion and influence no bodies will is unfree, you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

basically your placing the bucket of water their for there consumption and relying on their own thirst so they drink.

theres no, you will drink, you must drink.

its just making the water seem so well flavoured and colourful that its hard to resist drinking.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:48 / 03.09.05
Point; I was a little unsure as to whether delacroix was talking about influence or control. Obviously, I was speaking more about control than about more subtle influences.
 
 
Quantum
09:56 / 03.09.05
Since the love spell debate has been done to death (e.g. A question of ethics and love magic, or LURVE SPELL or love spell, as I say it's perennial) I'd like to raise an issue.
Magic is imposing one's Will on the world. If it's wrong to influence another person, impinging on their freedom, is it wrong to unfluence the world, which is (arguably) conscious?

What I mean is, why is the monumental hubris of using magic on a person different to the monumental hubris of using magic on a spiritual entity or indeed the weather etc? Is it just we have more empathy for humans, so they have more rights? Or because spirits and angels don't have free will? Or something else?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:04 / 03.09.05
Well, I'd say that the weather is a physical system without sentience or intelligence, so it doesn't exactly have "rights."

As for work with spirits: depends how you're going about it. If I'm putting on my fancy robe and conjuring and abjuring and binding to my will, then yeah--I could be said to be violating that spirits' free will (assuming I've called up anything more substantial than my own fevered ego, that is).

If I set up an altar, decorate it in honour of a particular being, celebrate said being with chants and songs in honour of hir mysteries, make offerings ect, then I'm not pushing anyone around. I'm just opening the door and asking if ze wants to pop in for a cold one.
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:05 / 03.09.05
Helps if the bucket has the right costume for the part as well.
 
 
Quantum
12:02 / 03.09.05
the weather is a physical system without sentience or intelligence

What I mean is, if I bust some moves to avert a storm, might Thor not have something to say about it for instance? Any magic affects the world, if the world is inhabited by embodiments of things (Gods for example) they are being affected. Summoning an angel versus summoning a person, is one ethically okay and the other not?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:10 / 03.09.05
Any magic affects the world, if the world is inhabited by embodiments of things (Gods for example) they are being affected.

To an extent, I suppose you could say that--although I think we're in danger of getting into an overly literal approach here. There's a difference between saying "This God (or whatever) is associated with storms" and saying "This God is personally responsible every single storm and actively wants each storm to play out exactly as was planned; to interfer with that is to interfere with the expression of that God's will."
 
 
*
03:04 / 04.09.05
As an animist (at the moment) I think storms have just as much consciousness and will as humans, if vastly different from ours. But when I work magic on a storm, I'm not "forcing" it to do my will, I'm asking it, persuading it, inviting it, and possibly even bribing it. And in general I see magic working the same way on consciousnesses I could converse with more directly, only without the necessity of conversation. A sigil invites a person to participate at a level deeper than their surface thoughts. Work done in a public space invites nearby people, including humans, to throw their will behind it or not. Something like a live concert— people can throw their energy into the music or block it off, and this decision usually takes place without any concious decision to do so or even understanding of the process.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
03:51 / 04.09.05
I would disagree with your last point there. If one accepts that by looking at a sigil one imparts some nameless "energy" upon it (which is a pretty odd idea when you think about it) then people are not 'invited' when they look at it. If they were fully aware that an abstract squiggle on a wall was, in fact, a coded statement of magickal intent and not grafitti/art and that by looking at it they would help that intent to manifest, then sure they can give their informed consent to let out a little 'energy'. But in the case above virtually nobody will know what the funny lil' wall squiggle is so, if said squiggle can actually leech 'energy' from people, they cannot give their informed consent to give up their 'energy'. It's basically stolen from them in the same way that a fake ATM machine or Spyware steals money and information.
 
 
Seth
12:01 / 04.09.05
It depends what your religious dogma is like when it comes to sigils, doesn't it? Why not try to find as many explanations as possible for how they might work and refuse to fully believe any of them, just that they work.

If Illmatic's suggestion that it's the forgeting that makes the difference, then a publically placed sigil instantly has an ongoing property that one charged once does not. The sigil may not be charged in the slightest by other people, but there's an extra kick for the magician knowing that it is still out in the world and in a continual process of being noticed.

Or you could talk in terms of Jung's ideas of collective unconsious which seems to often work at a highly symbolic level. The deconstruction of meaning into the sigil makes it a doorway to the intent for everyone who sees it, because the unconsious of one is a drop in the unconsious of everyone.

Or you could contruct a belief system around breaking down the dualism of observer and observed, in that they are both part of the same system in which the context also plays a part. Each time the one changing component of the system is the observer - construct the system well enough and a similar effect can be had in a significantly higher proportion of cases.

Or take linear time out of the equation and every observer is part of the same organism seeing the sigil through a different set of eyes at different times.

Ad infinitum. There are loads of different frameworks in which you can choose to place your faith and belief, but to rigidly adhere to one at all time means that you have to accept that theology's ethical baggage at all times. Try and be honest with yourself concerning whether you believe you're getting results in accordance with that belief. Don't worry about the science of it too much, you can save that kind of thinking for other things in life - if a daft irrational or pseudo-scientific belief helps you get better results or explains your existing results in a better way then play with it until something better comes along.

So you find it helpful to impose upon yourself a belief that you're infringing on other people's will when you use certain technqiues? OK... and I can even see that being helpful in some contexts (respect-for-that-which-I-perceive-to-be-not-self, changing oneself through paying attention to ones own motives, understanding of ecology and one's place within a larger context - or the breaking of tabboos and going all out to control and manipulate to release extra charge). Have a play with different theories and see how they effect the working, bearing in mind that any working is an act of self-change and that this is just as important as what you might perceive to be your primary intent.
 
  
Add Your Reply