THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.satanism From: xeper@aol.com (Dr. Michael A. Aquino) Date: 25 Jul 2001 19:12:07 GMT Subject: Re: Questions for Michael Aquino -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 selfmademillionaire@volcanomail.com (Cindy) wrote: >1. Do you consider yourself above any and all >external consequences? Do you consider yourself >above any and all external standards, laws, >values, etc.? >5. Does your use of the words "integrity", "ethics", >and "ethical" apply only to yourself (and why?), >or to everyone (and why)? - From my _Black Magic_ in the _Crystal Tablet of Set_: As you become adept in LBM, you will be tempted to use it for all manner of personal gratification. The more skilled you are, the more you will be inclined to think that you can get away with almost anything. The governing factor is not whether you can or can't, but rather whether your consciously-determined ethics allow you to. As you begin to direct your life independently of morals, codes, and customs imposed upon you by the politics and propaganda of society, you will have to assume the responsibility for your own ethics. *Only if you are known to be a strictly ethical individual will your rejection of social norms be tolerated*. Otherwise you will be ostracized and probably persecuted by society. If it cannot be sure of controlling you, it will tend not to trust you to control yourself intelligently unless you make it very clear that you can do precisely that. In that case society will tend not only to tolerate you, but even to respect and admire you for the unique, creative being that you are ... The Black Magician contemplating a particular LBM Working must therefore determine not only whether that Working will be ethical in his eyes, but also ethical according to the cultural mind-sets of all other parties to the Working: participants, objects, catalysts, witnesses. To label a Working "good" or "evil" by some knee-jerk, propagandistic formula is entirely inadequate. [Formula "good/evil" values are merely appropriate for the profane masses, who can't - and don't want to - understand anything more precise.] There is thus no easy answer to the question of whether a given magical act is "good" or "evil". In itself it is ethically neutral. As Machiavelli so clearly observed, it is the *result it produces* which will be judged - and then it is up to the magician to determine what judgments - by which judges - will be important. Successfully conducted, such an assessment will not only reinforce the success of a given Working; it will also ensure that the magician correctly anticipates the *actual* consequences of its immediate results. >3. You recently used the term "integrity" in a >post. How do you define the word "integrity" and >by what standard(s), philosophical basis, social >more(s) etc.? >4. You have used the words "ethics" and "ethical" >in posts. How do you define the words "ethics" and >"ethical" and by what standard(s), philosophical >basis, social more(s), etc.? Further from my _Black Magic_: _Ethics_, alternatively called _moral philosophy_, seeks to distinguish what is good from what is bad and to formulate justifiable reasons for making such distinctions. As a branch of philosophy, ethics is a *normative* science; that is, it seeks to identify principles of good and evil that transcend social, cultural, or political convention (social contract theory). Beyond a merely normative approach to ethics is *metaethics*, which seeks to investigate normative currency-terms such as "good", "evil", "justice", "ought", "right", and "wrong". The neutrality and objectivity of metaethics depend on the assumption that such terms are not dependent upon moral beliefs (such as religion). The metaethical concept of *naturalism*, advanced by theorists such as John Dewey and Herbert Spencer posits that moral terms have a basis in scientific fact. *Intuitionists* agree that moral terms have an external, reliable basis, but attribute it to self-evident ("I know it when I see it") qualities. Challenging intuitionists and naturalists are *moral skepticists* who insist that moral terms are completely arbitrary. *Emotivists* claim that such terms have no capacity for being true or false in themselves, and that the people who use them are simply stating their emotions about an issue. *Subjectivists* maintain that moral judgments state subjective facts only about attitudes, not the objects of those attitudes. And *Imperativists* insist that moral judgments are actually "commands" in another guise, hence do not focus at all on criteria of truth or objectivity. When even its basic language terms are so fraught with controversy, normative ethics is off to a rough start. Beyond this are arguments over the criteria for making any kind of moral judgment. *Teleologists* maintain that the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences. Some teleologists, such as Plato, insist that the perfection of the self is the correct consequence; hedonists say that it is mere pleasure; utilitarians counter that it must be the greatest benefit to society. *Theologians*, such as Aquinas, Luther, et al., dispense with teleology altogether in favor of obedience to proclaimed or perceived morality from a God or gods. The sharpest attack on ethics generally comes from *egoists* such as Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche (cf. his _Genealogy of Morals_) [and Ragnar Redbeard!], who consider all ethics as verbal camouflage to conceal the reality that all actions are merely in the interest of the stronger (who by that same strength dictates all definitions of "justice", "right", etc.). The egoist position was represented in the Platonic Dialogue _The Republic_ by Glaucon, and went on to form the basis for Enlightenment "social contract" theories (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau), wherein "justice" and related terms became simply (!) matters of agreement and contract between the people of a society. Accordingly it is not surprising that practical problem-solvers shy away from metaethical issues and try rather to address questions in terms of what are generally called *descriptive ethics* - the customs and standards of a given culture which serve as measurements of rightness and wrongness within that culture. An acceptance of descriptive ethics as ethics leads to an attitude of *ethical relativism*, according to which there is no standard for judging right and wrong apart from the cultural environment of specific situations. Hence the killing of humans by humans may be "ethical" if sanctioned by a judge or national sovereign, but the identical act may be "unethical" if undertaken by an individual, regardless of reasons. Until the Enlightenment of the late-17th and 18th centuries, ethical philosophy was completely metaethical; standards of good and evil were accepted as being prescribed by one or more divinities or divine principles (_neteru_, Forms). It was humanity's task not to determine ethics, but rather to understand and obey divinely-ordained ethics. The ancient Egyptians perceived the Universe as actively controlled by conscious, natural principles or "gods" (_neteru_ in hieroglyphic). To the Egyptians, all of "nature" (derived from _neteru_) was alive and the direct consequence of the wills of the _neteru_. Nature was intelligible not just through inanimate, automatic, general regularities which could be discovered via observation, but also through *connections and associations between things and events perceived in the human mind*. There was no distinction between "reality" and "appearance"; anything capable of exerting an effect upon the mind thereby existed. Justice and virtue were sought in manifestations of beauty, symmetry, and harmony, and were personified by the goddess Ma'at. In contrast to the Egyptian view of humanity as being a harmonious component of nature - symbolized by the Pharaoh's position as half-divine deputy of the _neteru_ - ancient Mesopotamian tradition posited humanity as something estranged from the gods. Virtue in Mesopotamia was thus understood as obedience to the willful desires of the god(s), not harmony with their natural principles. Mesopotamian kings sought the "right ruling" of their communities in accordance with the Akkadian principle of _Shulmu_ (later the Hebrew _Shalom_), a term meaning not just "peace" but the community well-being that engenders peace. In the Hebraic system, God is not intelligible through reason or logic, but rather through prophecy and the history of events, whether or not the events' outcomes seem situationally appropriate (*theodicy*). The Hebraic presumption of a "covenant" between mankind and a divinity reflected the notion that mankind is given a "mission" and/or a "destiny", and that virtue lies in the fulfillment of that mission/destiny - whether or not it is aesthetically palatable or even understandable. Herein lie the roots of a certain kind of "outcome-justified" thinking that is prevalent in modern culture. The ethics of Plato reflect his commitment to *teleology*, the doctrine that purpose and design are apparent in nature, and that natural phenomena move inexorably towards certain goals of ultimate self-realization. [The opposite of teleology is *mechanism*, which describes phenomena in terms of *prior causes* rather than presumed destination or fulfillment. Modern science is thus mechanistic.] In his _Dialogues_ Plato, through the character of Socrates, endorsed the Egyptian and Pythagorean model of human virtue as a particularization of Universal principles (an application of his famous "Theory of the Forms"). Such Forms or principles could be apprehended through rigorous exercise of the higher faculties of reason (_Dianoia_), leading to an intuitional or _Noetic_ apprehension of the good - and a simultaneous veneration of it for its own sake. This process Plato referred to as the _dialectic_, meaning self-teaching through the examination and refutation of logically- or factually-imperfect concepts. In Plato's _Republic_ Socrates is unable to directly refute Glaucon's egoist charge that justice is merely a rationalization for the prevailing of the interests of the stronger. Socrates can only suggest, through the analogy of a perfectly- harmonious "republic", that it is more natural for a man to be just if his psyche is healthy and each part is doing its proper work. The virtuous state is held up as "the psyche writ large". Aristotle, the most famous of the early mechanists, laid the groundwork for situational ethics by denying that virtue, truth, beauty, and the other Pythagorean/Platonic Forms existed in an absolute sense. Such values, as they applied to humanity, were rather to be sought in moderation between unacceptable extremes in specific situations: Aristotle's doctrine of the "golden mean". Until this point in human history, ethics and politics were inseparable; the individual's good and the community's good had to be pursued together; there was no such thing as "personal ethics within an unethical state", nor "an ethical state comprised of unethical citizens". The sins of OEdipus necessitated not only his blinding but his exile, and Socrates' challenge to the harmony of Athens was considered sufficient grounds to condemn him to death. Socrates himself acknowledged this principle, accepting his execution as a "cure" of his function as a kind of social "illness" - albeit one whose impact would ultimately strengthen the Athenian political culture. In the Hellenistic era - the period following the conquests of Alexander the Great - ancient mankind lost its innocence. Elaborate philosophical systems dependent upon specific cultural deities were discredited when other cultures with different philosophies and different gods were seen to be doing just as well - and perhaps better. Materialism was the order of the day, and the power of ethics to influence society was denied by the *Cynics* and *Skeptics*. If virtue had any place in human affairs, it was in one's personal conduct. *Epicureanism* held that virtue could be found in the happiness of the soul, and that such happiness was to be pursued by disassociating oneself from the corruption of society. *Stoicism* also despaired of social ethics, but insisted that personal ethics were to be pursued by one's labors within the social fabric rather than apart from it. The importance of Stoicism to the subsequent path of Western civilization can scarcely be overemphasized. Stoics, like Aristotle, sought validation of knowledge in sense-experience rather than through abstract logic or intuition. A wise man, said the Stoics, can distinguish reliable impressions (_kataleptika phantasia_ = "grasping impressions") from ethereal ones. Humanity is integral with nature; virtue is to be found in reason-based endurance of the natural flux. Thus if evil comes to the good man, it is only temporary and not really evil, since in the greater sense it is natural. The Stoic thus accepts the fortunes and misfortunes of life calmly, seeking to avoid passionate loss of objectivity. The Stoics' ideal was a gradually-evolving "world society" (_cosmopolis_) transcending geographic and cultural divisions. Stoicism was the primary ethical force in the Roman Republic and Empire, and it is not surprising to find its core principles adopted by early Christianity. Augustine's doctrine of the "two cities" reflected the Stoic notion of a virtuous soul co-existing with a flawed social system. By the medieval era, the "two cities" had been refined into Thomas Aquinas' "hierarchy of laws", with social and political "human law" placed firmly beneath [church-] revealed "divine law" and Stoic-derived "natural law". The contradictions and corruptions of such a climate spawned Machiavelli. Niccolo Machiavelli (after whom the Devil began to be called "Old Nick") sought to prescribe wise conduct (_virtu_) for Italian princes faced with unavoidable problems (_necessita_) brought about by factors beyond their control (_fortuna_). Contrary to his church-propagandized image, Machiavelli was constantly and intensely concerned with the establishment of the ethical society, and his manipulative techniques were justified in his eyes by the "best political results under the circumstances" that he expected as the eventual outcome. *Precisely* quoted, the famous passage from Chapter #18 of _The Prince_ reads: "In the actions of all men, and especially of princes who are not subject to a court of appeal, we must always look to the end." While Machiavelli advocated the tacit manipulation of society for deliberate [and ultimately virtuous] ends, early Protestant theorists such as Martin Luther and John Calvin regarded ethics as being beyond the rational reach of mankind. The basis for ethical behavior, they said, is that a righteous man will automatically incline towards such behavior, not because it is logically or empirically justified in itself. Salvation (=attainment of righteousness) is attainable only through the complete surrender of oneself to Christ. This constituted a rejection of medieval scholasticism, and of the "logical ethics" arguments of Aristotle (whom Luther called "this damned, conceited, rascally heathen") and Aquinas. The impact of the Protestant Reformation was to remove the rational basis and responsibility for either personal or social ethics, replacing these with the notion of ethics as a suprarational article of religious faith - to be selectively invoked by spokesmen for that religion. With the social-contract theorists of the 17th- and 18th-century "Enlightenment" came a renaissance of reason - including as the negotiated basis for ethics. Thomas Hobbes, after Glaucon, denied the religious tenet of a "supreme good", seeing in its place only material self-interest and gratification. Hobbes' prescribed social contract was thus a negative one, establishing an atmosphere of truce between citizens who would otherwise savage one another mercilessly. Such a contemptuous view of humanity evolved forward into many "lower" ideologies of contemporary society, most conspicuously communism. "Hobbes," Karl Marx is said to have muttered, "is the father of us all." It should be pointed out, however, that Hobbes' reputation for harshness came not from personal preference, but rather from a coldly practical analysis of what makes human beings behave unpleasantly towards one another. Previously "evil" had been excused as a theological force, or as the result of "original sin", i.e. something for which rational individuals could not be held exclusively responsible. Hobbes denied such excuses. In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke suggested that social-contract nations could exist on a *positively cooperative* basis of mutual interest. It is important to note that Locke's prescription was based not on idealistic abstractions (such as ethics), but rather on attainable material objectives: "life, liberty, and estate". Like Hobbes, he sought to design a society reflecting "basic man" rather than one espousing unattainable ideals and expectations. Locke's positively-cooperative assumptions and prescription for limited government based upon majority rule formed the philosophical basis for the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to include the latter's Bill of Rights [against the government]. Locke recommended a "reasonable Christianity" - a faith which, while satisfying personal religious desires, would play only a symbolic and ceremonial role in political decision-making. The history of social-contract ethics does not cease with John Locke, but his ideas, as immortalized in the aforementioned documents, ordained the ethical atmosphere of United States political culture, in which the Temple of Set is principally based, to the present day. This atmosphere may be summarized in five general maxims: (1) Government based on law is a positive institution, not something to be eliminated in an ideal society. (2) Good government is a construct of the people and is responsible to them (social contract theory), not to a higher religion, destiny, or ideology. (3) The will of the people is best ascertained through the opinion of the majority, which thus determines "political truth". [It is precisely because there is no authority superior to such majority opinion that Locke placed certain "inalienable rights" of all humanity beyond the reach of government.] (4) As society is based upon cooperative self-interest, so the attractions of such self-interest - for example, private property - must be preserved and enhanced as beneficial and indeed vital features of that society. (5) There is an intrinsic dignity in the individual human life which must be accepted and respected as an article of faith. To the Lockean frame of mind, these values are, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "held to be self-evident"; they are beyond debate, beyond compromise. Nevertheless many other cultures do not accept them in whole or part - and *do not necessarily see this as a deficiency* in their social structures. As the United States aged sufficiently to develop a sense of and regard for its own history, "pure" Lockean theory became leavened with a measure of ethical conservatism: an acceptance of certain things as "good" simply because they have continued to be tolerated over an extended period of time. Conservatism was elevated to a deliberate ethical philosophy by David Hume, who defined the morally good as what one *ought* to do according to prevailing passionate custom. Hume denied that the good could be ascertained by dispassionate reasoning. Reason, he said, is useful only to discover the most practical or sensible approaches to problems. Hence virtue and vice are products of *sentiment*. Virtue is not approved because it is "intrinsically virtue"; it is considered to be virtue because it meets with passionate approval. The point of this brief tour through certain key concepts in the evolution of ethics is simply to show clearly what all too many people perceive only dimly and imprecisely - how the United States has developed its "official ethics". If this background is *not* understood, Setians cannot clearly understand why certain ethical norms are expected in this country - or understand why some foreign cultures "mysteriously/unreasonably" reject those norms ... often on what *they* consider to be ethical grounds! The science of ethics is not peripheral or incidental to the Temple of Set; it is *central* to it. Whether people hold a certain opinion or behave in a certain way is critically influenced by whether or not they believe themselves *justified* in so doing. Once "rightness" or "wrongness" is established, specific LBM Workings will be interpreted accordingly. In order to be effective, a magician must first *recognize* and *consciously appreciate* the ethical components of his designs that are particular to their cultural point of origin ... Michael A. Aquino -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3 iQA/AwUBO18ZzWRWyNykJwrDEQI4uwCglCFz6YZH5amOEPrVJktaUqgaZ9QAoKnl Fi/MlOx80vWbuAeuXRS1W0D5 =ioXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|