BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Temple >

Where are all the EVIL MAGICIANS ?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Lothar Tuppan
13:48 / 28.03.02
I think, along with 'sin', that the word 'evil' is unhelpful in a discussion among people of a variety of magico-religious beliefs and practices. It pushes buttons, and is majorly incendiary. The theoretical nature of evil is usually debated from the standpoint of one's religious (or sometimes philosophical) stance and it comes down to my belief vs. your belief - all of which are based on a person's religious choices. Or people are arguing it from an experiential viewpoint with people who haven't had those experiences. Where 'evil' is involved, theory really doesn't communicate well with experience.

Not unless people really go out of their way to communicate clearly.

Modthree's argument that "Ah point! But I would suggest that thought and action and desire are intimatley related. The eight fold path of Buddhism suggests that appropriate thoughts (and desires) contribute to appropriate aciton. It is my opinion that objective evil and subjective evil are the same damn thing."

Sounds really good on paper. It's very philosophical and psuedo-profound. But does anyone really think that if I considered disembowling someone I was angry at and then decided against taking that action (in other words: *resisted* the temptation to do evil) that it would be the 'same damn thing' as actually bathing in the bile that poured over me as I raised my victim's large intestine in triumph?

I do think thoughts have power and can do harm but it's not the same thing as following through with that action. Thinking bad thoughts is also not the same as fullfilling those thoughts through magical ritual If it was, there wouldn't be much need for the ritual and we would all be manifesting all our wants and desires with our whims.

What would anyone rather have happen? Someone think about killing you or actually going through with it. Neither one is wonderful but one makes me quite a bit more uneasy than the other.
 
 
Rev. Wright
14:01 / 28.03.02
'The will to' vs 'the act of' in regards 'Evil'

I understand how ones internal dialogue of 'I'd like to kill that fucker, who....', can be seen to be 'less' than 'How did you like that knife in your belly, fucker'. Indeed as shaved monkeys we must have rather violent or unhealthy thoughts about many individuals every day. But........

Can we agree that Magick is the act of influencing reality with our will or intent? If so then surely the act of thinking does project itself into the Ether, whether we act physically or directly upon it?

If you think ill of someone, cannot your ill thoughts influence the events around said person? This is what I understand Modthree to be coming from.

Are not our thoughts and actions indivisible in esoteric terms?
 
 
Ierne
14:13 / 28.03.02
Sounds really good on paper. It's very philosophical and psuedo-profound. – Lothar Tuppan

It only "sounds good on paper" if one doesn't read too closely, or otherwise isn't paying attention. Otherwise it's seen for what it is: a desperate ploy for attention.

I think, along with 'sin', that the word 'evil' is unhelpful in a discussion among people of a variety of magico-religious beliefs and practices. It pushes buttons, and is majorly incendiary. – Lothar

To continue to make things difficult (and now that I'm fully out of my troll closet)... – modthree in "Tattoos And Their Effects"

Precisely.

If you think ill of someone, cannot your ill thoughts influence the events around said person...Are not our thoughts and actions indivisible in esoteric terms? – will it work wright?

Jack Fear's post above may be helpful here. Here's an excerpt:

First, since magick is about directing the flow of energy, it's fundamentally easier to work with the will of the universe than against it. Think of a river: you can easily redirect it, or dam it so that it pools up in one place... but it's a damn sight harder to make that river flow uphill or backwards.

In other words: magick is more effective as a catalyst for influencing probability when other factors are at play. You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket. As such, it's beneficial to a magician to work with the good orderly flow, rather than to place hirself in opposition to it. Magick is more likely to fail if the action offends Nature.
 
 
Rev. Wright
14:59 / 28.03.02
In that case (Jack fear quote) are not the 'evil' thoughts one has about others, of their own making.
If this is the case about 'going with the flow' then can there actually be Evil intent?
If greater forces at play then can ther be 'Evil' at all?
Or are we talking about malicious intent or selfish behaviour?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:04 / 28.03.02
I guess I ought to respond...sorry, didn't know anyone had replied since I posted...

Modthree: Don't worry, I don't think you're attacking me. No offense of any kind taken.

It is curious to me (in a "perversity of desire" kind of way, as I said before, by which I am refering to an Edgar Allen Poe story wherein a man finds himself succumbing to his "evil" desires and tries to figure out why. The Black Cat, I believe it's called. Give it a read, as I'm not expressive enough to properly get across this particular "kind of way" I refer to), I think, because it's something I've never done before, or seen happen, or heard much about yet. And it's an ability I have (apparently).

It's much different than wondering what would happen if I shot someone in the head. I know pretty well what would happen, as I've fired various firearms before. I also know how a gun works. And I know how a person would react. With magick, I know none of these, and seeing it happen or doing it myself could yield valuable insights on how the universe is affected by will. It would be an experience I haven't tried yet, which I'm always looking for. It may even give me new ideas, which I always enjoy.

But, as I've also noted above, I do not like deliberately hurting people. So I don't do it. I'm not going to argue about whether or this curiousity I have is "evil" or not, because I couldn't care less. That word has little to no value to me.
 
 
grant
17:09 / 28.03.02
will it work wright: If this is the case about 'going with the flow' then can there actually be Evil intent?
If greater forces at play then can ther be 'Evil' at all?
Or are we talking about malicious intent or selfish behaviour?

if you're part of the flow, and you're trying to redirect the flow towards/away from yourself rather than just bobbing along, then that would be evil.

I'm not sure "evil" (as being used in this thread) is that indistinguishable from "sin" as used in Catholicism, since we're talking about acts and intentions rather than some state of being or "dark side of the Force" or whatever. I was shorthanding intentionally, but I don't think the map was too far from the territory in this case.
(Definition of sin, for clarity's sake: a shortcoming in the execution of Divine Will; a defiance of the way things should be.)

It may or may not be profitable to discuss evil or sin, but it's certainly what this thread is about.

Lothar: But does anyone really think that if I considered disembowling someone I was angry at and then decided against taking that action (in other words: *resisted* the temptation to do evil) that it would be the 'same damn thing' as actually bathing in the bile that poured over me as I raised my victim's large intestine in triumph?


See, I think this depends on how much of a materialist you are, how much of a solipsist you are, and how tied down you are to the idea of the progression of time.

IF what you perceive about you is merely a projection of Mara, dangerous illusion, and IF you're very vividly imagining something ugly happening to someone around you (who is, in turn, a persistent construct of imagination - a component of the illusion of which "reality" is made), THEN there is an equivalence between "imagined" action and "real" action.
Especially if you're willing to accept morality as an imaginary rulebook - something that is essentially of the imaginal realm, applying at least equally if not more to actions performed on the intentional/imaginal plane.
In other words, the disembowling might be virtual, but a virtual evil is equivalent to a literal evil (if the literal world is simply an expression of a virtual process).

That's why in Hinduism and Buddhism, there's an emphasis on action without intention. As cited here:
As the story of the Gita progresses, it begins to seem stranger, as Arjuna moves toward enlightenment, where he will become totally disinterested in all actions, that Krishna once urged his pupil to "not act like a eunuch" (73), but instead continue to fight.

and here:
The subtle message of Gita is to point out that the world is an
infinite dimensional matrix with a row of actors and a column of actions and every actor interacts with every action and vice-versa. The human perception is not equipped to understand and judge the results of such interactions and identify the contributors and their contributions. Consequently, everyone erroneously perceives the roles and their importance and their consequences. These impressions are the cause for the plurality and the illusory likes and dislikes, good and bad, pain and pleasure and right and wrong.


and in the Gita itself:

"'Therefore without being attached
always perform the action to be done.
Practicing action without being attached,
a person attains the supreme.

and
"'What is action? What is inaction?
Even the poets were confused about this.
I shall explain to you this action,
which knowing you will be liberated from evil.
Being enlightened about action and also wrong action,
and being enlightened about inaction,
the way of action is profound.
Whoever perceives inaction in action and action in inaction
is enlightened among people;
this one does all action united.
The one whose every undertaking
is without desirous intention
has consumed actions in the fire of knowledge;
this one the enlightened call learned.
 
 
grant
17:12 / 28.03.02
Johnny: it sounds like you're describing one of my favorite Poe concepts, "the Imp of the Perverse."

It's sort of a fictional prefiguration of Freud's Id, this internal demon who urges you to do wrong things, just to see what happens.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:18 / 28.03.02
Yeah, I remember that. That's probably a better discription of my second post. The "perversity of desire" thing is desiring to do something you think is so completely awful and vicious simply because you know it is completely awful and vicious, which I will admit there's a little bit of thrown in. Probably comes from this sense of having all sorts of neat tricks that no one knows about. Childish, but hey. I don't act on it.
 
 
—| x |—
17:46 / 28.03.02
I'd like to start by saying, since my massive life alterations, I have much less time to spend with you fine folks. So I can't read as carefully as I used to everytime I come here.

Grant: might be outta' Nietzsche, but I am only vaguely familiar with some of his work. I was thinking more about questions regarding the status of Siddhartha's humanity. It often colludes into the same thing, ya?

Lothar: I agree that actually acting on negative urges is certainly different than entertaining those urges, but then letting them go. But I think I'm getting at the idea, like I think you are saying, that it appears even better if we can make these urges less and less a factor in our thoughts, and thus, contribute less to the suffering of our fellow humans.

Ierne: please leave me alone! Quit trying to force YOUR views about me onto the whole of this community. If you haven't anything appropriate to say about my IDEAS, then SHUT THE FUCK UP. Stop your arguments against the person (me) because obviously you haven't a clue regarding my intent nor my agenda. Thank you.

{0, 1, 2}
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
18:16 / 28.03.02
Will wrote

Can we agree that Magick is the act of influencing reality with our will or intent? If so then surely the act of thinking does project itself into the Ether, whether we act physically or directly upon it?

If you think ill of someone, cannot your ill thoughts influence the events around said person? This is what I understand Modthree to be coming from.

I understand that, as well as what Modthree clarified above. But the only point I'm making (that I stated above) is that, even in Magick, thought alone does not *equal* action. If you wish to magically act on your thoughts, a ritual, sigil, invocation, evocation, etc. is necessary (except for maybe in the most extremely emotionally charged cases) to take it to the next level. As I said, 'bad' thoughts can effect the world around you but not to the same level as finding a way to consciously manifest those thoughts.



grant wrote

See, I think this depends on how much of a materialist you are, how much of a solipsist you are, and how tied down you are to the idea of the progression of time.

IF what you perceive about you is merely a projection of Mara, dangerous illusion, and IF you're very vividly imagining something ugly happening to someone around you (who is, in turn, a persistent construct of imagination - a component of the illusion of which "reality" is made), THEN there is an equivalence between "imagined" action and "real" action.


I disagree only because of the 'rules' of Mara as well as the subsequent wheels of Dharma and Karma and their subsequent 'rules' within the illusion. Rules in which actions (specifically those which support or betray ones Dharma or entwine you with another person's Karma) are essential parts of this 'virtual' drama of existence.

But again, we're trying to nail down 'evil' based upon religious doctrine (in this case Buddhist and Hindu). How is this any different than saying "It's evil 'cause it says so in the Bible."

Whatever my personal religious beliefs, I'm just not egocentric enough to think that other people are just persistant constructs of imagination, subject to my every thought. At least they are no more illusory than myself (or more specifically, divine souls that are trapped in illusion). And as I know that the way people *act* towards me has a more profound effect to my life than their thoughts do (which also effect me but to a lesser degree) then I think it's also safe to operate under the impression that my *actions* will impact their lives more so than my thoughts.

Take the opposite side of it. When was the last time, someone really came through for you when you needed it? Wasn't someone actually stepping up and standing by you better than just a 'good thought'.

Talk is cheap, thought is cheap. Actions take a lot more.
 
 
Re-Set
20:53 / 28.03.02
"The Holocaust, by your definition, would be a sin of commission. I mean, having a pure race of transcendent humans... that's a good thing, right?"

Not really. The Holocaust was an event or series of events, not a sin, but a long long series of them. Sins of Commission for the ones acting, Sins of Ommission for those failing to act against.

A few thoughts though...

Karma is the law of divine returns. In other words, what you send out, you get back.

An "evil" magician would not feel regret, doubt, etc., for negative energy they sent out.

The energy an "evil" magician sends out, to them, is not negative. The energy they get back in return, to them would also not be negative.

Could one then say that magic, "done right", cannot be evil? Without the impurity of doubt, regret or fear, the energy sent out, regardless of it's intent or effect, could not come back as negativity to the magician.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
21:22 / 28.03.02
This thread
http://www.barbelith.com/underground/topic.php?id=1810
dealt with the never ending debate of which version of Karma is 'right'.

My point in that thread which is also my stance in this thread is that, especially from a Hindu perspective, Karma is not about "what you send out you get back". Check out that thread if anyone wants to ressurect the Karma wars.


Could one then say that magic, "done right", cannot be evil? Without the impurity of doubt, regret or fear, the energy sent out, regardless of it's intent or effect, could not come back as negativity to the magician.

I think you may be on to something here.
 
 
—| x |—
21:32 / 28.03.02
Re-set says:

“In any situation where a decision must be made, there are an unknown number of possible paths, and as many potential outcomes as there are paths. A prepared person will hypothetically explore different options before making a decision and acting upon it. In the exploration of all possible actions, one will necessarily come up with ideas that violate the person's moral constructs (aka: evil thoughts).”

I am very sympathetic to this. However, if we want to be more “scientifically” precise, every event branches the world (many worlds interpretation of QM), and I think if we want to get into modal logic, then every decision we make causes a fork from a node (the NOW) to at least two more nodes below (think of a decision tree) and that those nodes themselves fork out towards infinity. I don’t think I’ve expressed that very well, let me try again. I tend to think that for any decision, there are an infinite number of worlds which are generated from that decision. Thus, no human can be prepared to hypothetically explore ALL the possibilities, but rather is only able to see some finite set of possibilities.

This feeds into what I’ve put out there previously: the “enlightened” being doesn’t sift through possibilities but instead sees the only reality. In other words, this being doesn’t think “good” or “bad” choice—in fact s/he doesn’t think choice at all! S/he merely does. And the doing is the whole of the choice.

Lothar sez:

“...it comes down to my belief vs. your belief - all of which are based on a person's religious choices.”

I think this is right, but only for us mere ignorant and fallible mortals. By what I’ve said above, I think that the driving force isn’t to be good or evil (because {good} = {evil}); rather, the drive is to act as (to *borrow*) the Tao. Once {you} = {Tao} no talk of good or evil can push any buttons: there are no buttons to push!

also:

“...there wouldn't be much need for the ritual and we would all be manifesting all our wants and desires with our whims.”

(wrt the above) BINGO! Drink from the GRAIL.

Will contributes:

“If you think ill of someone, cannot your ill thoughts influence the events around said person? This is what I understand Modthree to be coming from.”

And, as is often the case, Will and I seem to read from the same book; thus, when Will rhetorically asks:

“Are not our thoughts and actions indivisible in esoteric terms?”

My “vote” is with a “HELL YARR!”

Zenarchist:

“It's much different than wondering what would happen if I shot someone in the head. I know pretty well what would happen, as I've fired various firearms before. I also know how a gun works. And I know how a person would react. With magick, I know none of these, and seeing it happen or doing it myself could yield valuable insights on how the universe is affected by will. It would be an experience I haven't tried yet, which I'm always looking for. It may even give me new ideas, which I always enjoy.”

Ahha! I see what you are saying. So, why don’t you experiment with magick in ways that is like loading a gun, shooting at a target, and then cleaning the gun. Put differently, {play} with magick, and use you will to manifest benevolent results, and then you can understand its power without having to actually “shoot someone in the head!”

Lothar again:

“...thought alone does not *equal* action. If you wish to magically act on your thoughts, a ritual, sigil, invocation, evocation, etc. is necessary (except for maybe in the most extremely emotionally charged cases) to take it to the next level.”

And, echoing grant’s second to last contribution (the Gita stuff, etc.), I strongly disagree with your use of the word ‘necessary’ here. If we have a rule, then that *rule* is:

Nothing is true, everything is possible.

In other words, I see no reason why thought alone cannot be a magickal act, and I see no reason why ritual cannot be carried out entirely in a constructed head space. Too much emphasis, IMHO, is being placed on the physical as somehow more substantive than the mental. I will repeat myself (again and again): (mind, body) = s!!!! Or, put differently, (physical, mental) = s. Lothar, you may avoid the high/low booby trap, but you seem to be ensnared by physical > mental.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of that terrifying word ‘solipsism.’ I am entirely a solipsist; however, (big shock I’m sure) I am a figment of your imagination in the same way that you are a figment of mine. I’m a pan-personal solipsist! Again (and again and again): (self, other) = s!

m3
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
23:43 / 28.03.02

In other words, I see no reason why thought alone cannot be a magickal act, and I see no reason why ritual cannot be carried out entirely in a constructed head space. Too much emphasis, IMHO, is being placed on the physical as somehow more substantive than the mental. I will repeat myself (again and again): (mind, body) = s!!!! Or, put differently, (physical, mental) = s. Lothar, you may avoid the high/low booby trap, but you seem to be ensnared by physical > mental.


Actually, I've never said that thoughts cannot have magical effects. Just the opposite. My point is that they aren't the same as when those same thoughts are backed up and powered by skilled magical technique. Some of those magical techniques can be mental and have no more physical correspondance than thought does (such as enacting ritual within an astral temple or doing dreamwork). I'm not hung up on physical vs. mental. I'm talking about focused vs. unfocused intent.

Maybe our disagreement comes from how we define the term 'thought'. I'm arguing that focused, ritualized 'thought' is a more potent agent of change than unfocused or idle 'thought' or fantasy (unless the emotional energy behind that fantasy was strong enough to kick the 'victim' in the magickal nuts).

But this argument wasn't about that emotional charge. It was about a "Gee I wonder what would happen if" kind of thought.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
15:31 / 29.03.02
When Modthree misunderstood my stance as physical>mental it made me think about how magic best works for me. Again, YMMV.

For me, thoughts alone, in the same way that just physically going through the motions of ritual while being absent from that process mentally, emotionally, spiritually (whether it be a traditional ritual or a spontaneous one created in the moment) aren't very effective.

Magick for me happens when my mental, physical, emotional, spiritual (and maybe other aspects I don't have names for) come together and work together in harmony.

When that happens, I can get out of the way of my ego, feel a sense 'gnosis', 'altered state', etc. and magickal change can occur. Sometimes almost effortlessly. Sometimes I feel the energy but it still doesn't take. But the quality of the experience is always greater than when just one of my aspects is in control.

THAT'S kind of where I'm going with my 'thoughts alone aren't EQUAL to actions' stance in magick.

I think Modthree and I agree with my stance of 'evil thoughts aren't equal to evil actions' considering that he wrote.

Lothar: I agree that actually acting on negative urges is certainly different than entertaining those urges, but then letting them go. But I think I'm getting at the idea, like I think you are saying, that it appears even better if we can make these urges less and less a factor in our thoughts, and thus, contribute less to the suffering of our fellow humans.

To which I completely agree.

Maybe we can move on now?

Another thing I was thinking about was that most evil people don't consider what they do evil.

I don't consider most magickal traditions to be evil but a lot of people still have fear about ANY magick.

I think most of the people on this board work with spirits/deities/etc. that a lot of non-magicians would consider evil. Such as Lucifer, Kali, Loki, Morrigan, Yama, Baron Samedi, etc.

To most practitioners that don't operate from a place of fear, these beings are no more evil than the necessary process of death itself or whatever.

I guess my vague question/point is "how many people have been labelled as 'evil' by people who just disagree with your religious/magical practice? Have you ever been subtly or blatantly persecuted against?
 
 
Seth
16:18 / 29.03.02
When it comes to thinking destructive thoughts about other people, I'm much more concerned by the effect it would have on me than on someone else. I don't think the average person is able to project their thoughts onto the world - you need a lot of experience with visualisation a hell of a lot focus in order to do that most of the time. However, the effect of hatred, bitterness and unforgiveness on a persons mind can be devastating. I want to deal with my negative shit for my own sake!
 
 
Rev. Wright
16:49 / 29.03.02
I had an experience, several in fact, where i have been 'psychicly attacked'. Negativity has been projected into my being, and I have had to enegage in a defense or grounding of this energy. The strangest and most immediate case was on the tube. A man got on, long trenchcaot, pseudo alternative type, pagan pendant etc. I thought little of it, until I had the strangest inner dialogue. Waves of negativity, which took me some time to understand. Without engaging him I was able to sense that they were coming from him. I dealt with the situation, unfurling my Dragon wings and got off at my stop, slightly shaken.

From my experience and also from my own deeds, I have sent negativity to others with just thoughts, I feel that it is very possible for thought forms to be activated and abilised without teh need for ritual or props. I fact I have met several people who do this without any esoteric knowledge.

If I have negative thoughts, I will acknowledge them, work out where, when, how and then ground them, befor they are thrown out and cause harm.
 
 
Re-Set
17:45 / 29.03.02
Lothar said:

I guess my vague question/point is "how many people have been labelled as 'evil' by people who just disagree with your religious/magical practice? Have you ever been subtly or blatantly persecuted against?

I say:
Oh yes. Not just because of known differences in religous/magical practice. I suspect it's a vibe thing. My personal energy has been subject to some strange resonances, largely due to my practice. According to Bonewits' Law of Contagion, I fairly reek of strange, unusual and sometimes downright scary-ness.

People who either don't like to learn, and/or are afraid of what they do not understand, immediately make me a nemisis. I've also been antagonized, verbally and "psychically" by other practitioners, from christian to "wiccan" to satanic to new-age, because my beleifs and practices were not theirs. Defense becomes fun if you treat it as a game.

I think I can only explain my basic perception here in loose metaphor. Both the black and the white are frightened of the grey.
 
 
grant
17:55 / 29.03.02
Lothar: I guess my vague question/point is "how many people have been labelled as 'evil' by people who just disagree with your religious/magical practice? Have you ever been subtly or blatantly persecuted against?

I think that's really the point: that evil and good are subjectively defined categories. It's an odd thing, for me, actually. I think it's a hybrid of the existential "I make of this what I will" and religious "this is good, this is evil." A personal application of an exterior code (whether it's Hindu, Catholic, or some less ornate sense of social mores - the Golden Rule).
I think part of what I was getting at was so many words saying the same dumb thing: whatever code we follow, we all fall short on some level. We've all got the potential for evil in us (as well as in our friends and enemies alike), and it's worth watching for.

Just to clarify one point: When that happens, I can get out of the way of my ego, feel a sense 'gnosis', 'altered state', etc. and magickal change can occur. Sometimes almost effortlessly. Sometimes I feel the energy but it still doesn't take. But the quality of the experience is always greater than when just one of my aspects is in control.

THAT'S kind of where I'm going with my 'thoughts alone aren't EQUAL to actions' stance in magick.

By "equivalent", I meant morally the same, not practically the same. There evil and there's more evil, as far as effects go, yeah.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
21:45 / 29.03.02

From my experience and also from my own deeds, I have sent negativity to others with just thoughts, I feel that it is very possible for thought forms to be activated and abilised without teh need for ritual or props. I fact I have met several people who do this without any esoteric knowledge.

Agreed. Most shamanic clients in western culture are the victims of conscious or subconscious 'attack' from thoughts.

My point. Which I've tried to spell out over and over in my past posts is that those thoughts become even MORE powerful when backed up with esoteric knowledge.

In south american cultures there are alleged reports of practitioners that can kill with their thoughts because they know how to focus them beyond what the average person can.

I've also been the recipient of some pretty nasty negative thought energy in the form of intrusions. But because the person doing it was unskilled, just working from a basis of anger and jealousy, the attack was nothing more than a nuisance and flesh wound.

If the person was experienced in visualizing and projecting that energy, along with other traditional magickal warfare means, my life could have been seriously at risk.


I dealt with the situation, unfurling my Dragon wings and got off at my stop, slightly shaken.

This is a good example of a minor mental ritual you did. Maybe ritual is a misleading term as it usually means some stuffy thing that is always done the same way and has lots of acutrements etc. etc. But you used a preestablished technique once you realized what was happening and had the expertise to know what to do and how to defend yourself.

Imagine how hard it would have been to feel strong in that situation if all you had to defend yourself with was loose thoughts of "I don't feel good, I wish this would stop." Most likely you wouldn't have even realized what was happening. Only that you didn't feel right.

In the same way, the scary guy with the pendant was probably visualizing something nasty flying at you or visualizing Thurisaz or whatever. Some form of preestablished technique or ritual.

Even if he wasn't, the guy attacking you would have had an easier time of it attacking someone without a ritual/technique/method/visualization of defense like you did.


From my experience and also from my own deeds, I have sent negativity to others with just thoughts, I feel that it is very possible for thought forms to be activated and abilised without teh need for ritual or props. I fact I have met several people who do this without any esoteric knowledge.

Again, this is a form of focused intent. Not just the disempassioned wondering that Johnny spoke of in the post that sparked this whole "your thoughts are as evil as if you did it" argument.

Consciously focusing your 'evil' intent with the conscious hope that it comes true IS a magickal act.

Wondering "what would happen if I did try to hurt someone with magik. What would happen? How strong would it be? Would the intended victim have any kind of defenses?" isn't the same thing.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
21:55 / 29.03.02
Re-Set said:
I've also been antagonized, verbally and "psychically" by other practitioners, from christian to "wiccan" to satanic to new-age, because my beleifs and practices were not theirs. Defense becomes fun if you treat it as a game.

[pop-psychology mode]
There are a lot of people who do like to 'spar' aren't there. These people should stop playing their games and deal with their self-esteem issues.
[/pop-psychology mode]

I think I can only explain my basic perception here in loose metaphor. Both the black and the white are frightened of the grey.

Or any other shade in the spectrum for that matter.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
22:08 / 29.03.02
expressionless said:

When it comes to thinking destructive thoughts about other people, I'm much more concerned by the effect it would have on me than on someone else. I don't think the average person is able to project their thoughts onto the world - you need a lot of experience with visualisation a hell of a lot focus in order to do that most of the time. However, the effect of hatred, bitterness and unforgiveness on a persons mind can be devastating. I want to deal with my negative shit for my own sake!

I agree. I don't think most people have the experience to manifest their thoughts in the way they wish. If they did there would be a lot more lottery winners out there .

To clarify my statement above of shamanic clients: there's not a whole lot of them. No shamanic practitioner I know of can fill their 40 hour work week with people who have been psychically attacked. In almost every nasty relationship breakup, there are 'evil' thoughts being thrown about. Very few people on the receiving end of these become victims of 'psychic attack'.

The manifestation of non-focused, unskilled thoughts is rare.

People usually have to force it, will it into manifestation. And that I consider magickal action.

Grant said:

By "equivalent", I meant morally the same, not practically the same. There evil and there's more evil, as far as effects go, yeah.

Gotcha. Even then different belief systems will label these differently. I still think that actually killing someone would be morally worse than thinking about it.

Even in Catholocism. I would guess that there would be a few more 'Hail Marys' necessary after confession for actually doing the act.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:16 / 30.03.02
From Lothar:

"how many people have been labelled as 'evil' by people who just disagree with your religious/magical practice? Have you ever been subtly or blatantly persecuted against?"

(Heaves sigh of weary recognition.)
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
13:53 / 30.03.02
It seems that at least a few of us have been on the receiving end of the label 'evil'. And that type of prejudice can get more than just annoying.

Here's some info about religious persecution according to religioustolerance.org. It's specifically about Wicca but my belief is that since Wicca is a recognized organized religion it is a bit easier to get statistics on that other 'alternative' religions:

"Wicca is one of the largest of the minority religions in the United States. There are no reliable estimates of the number of Wiccans in this country. Our best estimate is on the order of 750,000. That would make Wicca about the 5th largest organized religion in the United States, behind Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism. However it is virtually unknown by the general public. This is because almost all Wiccans hide their religious beliefs and practices. Those who allow their faith to be known publicly are very heavily persecuted in North America; on a per-capita basis, they are believed to be victimized more often than members of any other religious group. Many assaults, arson, economic attacks are reported yearly. There have even been shootings, one public mass stoning and one lynching in recent years! Reports circulate frequently of misinformed child protection officers seizing children from the homes of Wiccans because they feared that they would be killed or abused in some Satanic ritual. The perpetrators of this religious hatred are usually very devout, very concerned but terribly misinformed people. They believe the misinformation that has been spread about Witches continuously since the Middle Ages. It is only in Eastern Massachusetts, Southern California and in a few cities elsewhere in North America that most Wiccans feel secure enough to come out of the (broom) closet in large numbers. In other areas, they tend to avoid persecution by keeping their religious faith secret. Unfortunately, this policy can have negative results; some people speculate that because Wiccans remain underground, they must have something to hide. This is a "no-win" situation with no obvious solution."


My own practice has also caused some problems recently. Both my partner and I don't hide what we do. Partly because if people don't know where to find us then we aren't serving our community very well. For the most part people respect us even if they might be a bit afraid of what we do. The bottom line though is that we have to live our truth.

A consequence of this was that my partner's son was expelled from his private junior high school. Technically, they were within their rights as he lied twice to teachers/administrators. (they place lies in the same category as vandalism, violence, and drug-use in their rules). Off the record they made it quite clear that the Board of Supervisors disapproved of my partner's and my shamanic practice and thought we were a bad influence in their school and that we weren't the right 'material' for their 'school family'.

We fought it by making it as tough as possible for them, went to all the 'appeals' and even brought in some educational professionals from the county schools that we had done work with as character witnesses but the bottom line is that it's a privately owned school and they can do what they want. Especially when he DID break their 'laws'. The most important thing though is that her son saw us go to the wall for him and fight it to the end. He knows through experience that we will put our money where our mouths are.

The 'happy ending' is: he loves his new public school more than his old private one, is becoming interested in their journalism activities and his grades have improved since changing environments. The girls are cuter too he says .

But it still sucked.

On a personal note, my mother thinks I'm damned to hell and she doesn't even know 10% of what I believe/do.
 
 
Ierne
19:00 / 30.03.02
The sort of persecution and prejudice that Lothar mentions above is all too familiar.

I've been fired from jobs because I identified publicly as a Neo-Pagan. Misunderstandings concerning how sexuality is dealt with in Neo-Paganism has placed me in some very threatening and scary situations. I've lost touch with friends and family members because they consider my spiritual beliefs wrong or inappropriate. The family members I do keep in touch with (hello Mom!)have made it clear that they do not wish me to discuss or express my beliefs in their presence.

I completely agree with Lothar in that "we have to live our truth." We also have to survive in a hostile environment, however. Sometimes freedom of expression needs to be balanced with personal safety and self-preservation. Depending on the situation, sometimes compromises need to be made.

I don't hide my Paganism - I wear my pentagram openly and if people ask me general questions about Neo-Paganism or Witchcraft I always do my best to answer them. But due to past experiences, I do not discuss my spiritual path at work or with people I've just met/don't know very well.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
00:55 / 31.03.02
Ierne wrote:
We also have to survive in a hostile environment, however. Sometimes freedom of expression needs to be balanced with personal safety and self-preservation

Absolutely. When I said 'we' I just meant that my partner and I have made choices that feel right to us. We are more 'out of the closet' than some and take some lumps accordingly. This isn't necessarily the right choice for everyone.

I also have the benefit of living in a part of California that is extremely accepting of many different alternative lifestyle choices. There are some parts of California that are very conservative and that I would not feel comfortable announcing my beliefs in.

Part of 'living my truth' is living in an area where I can exert my constitutional right to 'freedom of religion' to the greatest extent I can.
 
 
Lurid Archive
04:38 / 31.03.02
Excellent thread. I had no idea of the number of Wiccans in the US and it is disheartening, if sadly predictable, that the US constitution gets used so selectively. Shame really, because its not a bad document.

Anyway, questions. There is an implication by some posters that the use of magick is inherently "good", if I may use inadequate terminology. The feeling I get is that although magick can be used in harmful ways - Will's experience on the tube, for example - the grain of magick tends toward the other direction. Do I have that right?

Intuitively, and with my pitiful but growing knowledge of magick, that feels wrong. Human endeavours tend to be morally neutral and strongly dependent on the specific individuals involved. Religion, for instance, though concerned with matters moral is no guarantee of morality. This is tricky as perhaps I'm not qualified to judge since my views on morality don't match that of any religion I can think of at the moment. Still, I think the case can still be made that even by internally devised yardsticks, religions don't guarantee morality. The same is true of politics, science etc.

Is magick different in some fundamental sense?

BTW: will. I found your tube anecdote very interesting as I often use visualisation techniques. I don't use dragons, I wouldn't call them psychic attacks and it doesn't usually feel as if its directed from a specific source, but...it sounds pretty similar nonetheless. In my case, I've always thought of it as purely psychological.
 
 
Rev. Wright
12:48 / 31.03.02
Lurid, it is interesting you mention that, about psychology. I find that I have become comfortable with the metanarrative that has developed in my mind. It is from this place that I refer and respond from when discussing such events.
May I suggest that you investigate the symbol systems that you use in such situations, the underlying metanarrative you use to place yourself in context with life. You may be suprised, as I was, to the repetitive outcomes.

Back to the thread at hand. Intent, pure and simple.

Which side are you on?

I feel that magick is not necessarily the props and rituals that are used, but the implication of intent. I intune that we are multidimensional creatures that are constantly divining and creating our realities. As Lurid mentions, in hir metanarrative it is psychological, possibly neurotic, whilst in mine spiritual.
Whats your flavour?

Neutral neutral Rangers need not apply.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:47 / 31.03.02
"On a personal note, my mother thinks I'm damned to hell and she doesn't even know 10% of what I believe/do."

Lord, I know what that's like. Everything not Christian or Judaic is of the devil, apparently. When I bought my first book on Qabalah, she asked me if it had anything to do with "communicating with Satan". I know she means well, and I'm happy she's concerned about my spiritual welfare (and it's kinda amusing in an "you know, two hundred years ago you would have lynched me for owning this book." kind of way. Har!) but I guess she's spent too long a time as a southern baptist.

I'm sorta nervous about finally having to leave a school where, despite accusations of being on the path to damnation every now and again, no one does anything physical, and I get the impression that people are truly worried about my soul. Which is awfully nice of them. I wonder what kind of shit is in store for me out in the workforce.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
22:25 / 31.03.02
Lurid Archive wrote

Anyway, questions. There is an implication by some posters that the use of magick is inherently "good", if I may use inadequate terminology.

For me, Magick is a tool and is therefore neutral. It's what is specifically done by the individual that is 'good' or 'evil' or whatever inadequate moral terms people want to use.

Having experienced magickal 'paradigms' outside of western magick, I don't think magick gravitates towards working for the greater good or a greater evil and if magick is only successful when it works with the will of the universe then sometimes the universe's will is pretty dark, nasty, and antagonistic to what us arrogant humans consider 'good'.

There is plenty of cultures where what we consider 'evil' is done without fear of spiritual or magickal retribution and is even rationalized as being good.

I find it very enlightening to work in other cultures where different rules apply. The most drastic one for me is Palo Mayombe which is considered by a lot of Santeria practitioners to be very evil because of the necromancy inherent in their practice (Santeria is also considered very evil by most latin Catholics because of their practices). The Palero I know and the majority of his congregation that I've met are very moral and have a lot of integrity. They support their community, help each other out and have the same concerns as everyone else. The Palero did some amazing work that really helped a buddy of mine out (he's now an initiate). They also do some pretty fucking scary magick and I never want to make any of them angry at me.

Are they good or evil? Is the magick they do good or evil? The more I experience the varying ways that magick works in different places and cultures and by differnt people I don't feel comfortable using terms like that. Except maybe on very specific individual cases. And even then it's usually too complex to be 'black' or 'white'.

The visualization techniques used against Will on the Tube wasn't in itself malicious. The way the person used it was.

The labelling problem with 'good' and 'evil' comes in theurgic practice where religion and magick meet. Invoking a 'death god' for a working that speeds up the metaphoric 'death' of an aspect of your life would not necessarily be 'evil'. Except to the fundamental Christian who considers all magick evil and all pantheistic gods (especially death gods) to be demons.

Invoking a death god to physically smite your foes may be a bit more morally questionable.

My personal philosophy is that most 'gods' are not inherently evil (although I have encountered certain spirits that have evolved out of human created horrors that I personally consider 'evil') or inherently good but are necessary parts of balance. In the same way that death, chaos, etc. is necessary to keep the cycle of life spinning away their respective god forms are also necessary parts of the balance.

Each magickal practitioner, especially those who work theurgically, need to decide for themselves, what they believe, what they stand for, and what they support and oppose.

Does any of that make sense Lurid Archive or have I just been rambling? (I do that sometimes )
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:39 / 31.03.02
I strongly suspected that was your position, Lothar. Its interesting that though my philosophical and spiritual beliefs are different from those of many here (I'm an atheist) I still feel a certain harmony with much of what is expressed.

Anyway, its good to hear you flesh it out, Lothar.
 
 
grant
17:37 / 01.04.02
I realize the discussion has moved into more fruitful territory over Easter weekend, but just in case anyone is still curious about Catholicism and the nature of evil....

Lothar said:
Gotcha. Even then different belief systems will label these differently. I still think that actually killing someone would be morally worse than thinking about it.

Even in Catholocism. I would guess that there would be a few more 'Hail Marys' necessary after confession for actually doing the act.

You'd think it'd be that cut and dried, but oddly enough, there's a lot of discussion over that.

Here, the Catholic Encyclopedia. Look under "Internal Sins" in Section II of the entry.

The "Decalogue", in case you're unfamiliar with the term, refers to the 10 Commandments.
excerpt:
Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed". Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:

delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and
desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.

If you're into that sort of thing.


More recently, Lothar said:
There is plenty of cultures where what we consider 'evil' is done without fear of spiritual or magickal retribution and is even rationalized as being good.

I'm curious about how much of what others see as "evil" is due to curiosity unfulfilled. You know, what dead people look like, what human flesh tastes like, anything that punches past the squick barrier. Sins of Prometheus, maybe - the desire to punish those who know too much, who dare too much.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
21:20 / 01.04.02
Grant wrote:
Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed". Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:

Ok. They're more whacked than I thought.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
21:20 / 01.04.02
...is that where the whole 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' saying came from?
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
21:29 / 01.04.02
Grant also wrote:
Sins of Prometheus, maybe - the desire to punish those who know too much, who dare too much.

I definitely think you're on to something here. We (humans) are the many heads of Ialdabaoth acting as our own archons and wardens of black iron prisons made out of our own fears and insecurities.

We can be just as scary as any alien demiurge anyday.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply