Debate a rule!

Is a love spell really the equivalent of rape?
Post Reply
User avatar
Firelord
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Glasgow, KY
Contact:

Debate a rule!

Post by Firelord » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:10 am

Alright, here goes. I'm trying to get some action started back up in this place, and each of you are going to help me... I call this little game, debate a rule! First up:

An Excerpt of the Wiccan Reed:
An It Harm None, Do what thou wilt.

Either that, or you can debate it as it was originally written by Aleister Crowley:
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of The Law.

Guest

Post by Guest » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:32 pm

(Firelord, if you're going to get the ball rolling, give 'em a ball to roll with.)

Well the first one, An It Harm None, Do what thou wilt, has seem to be too vague for most people or at least the newbies. Especially when you combine it with other influences like karma and the 3-fold rule. It becomes this complicated algebraic equation and gives many a headache trying to decipher it.
Now the bottem one has a little more room to breathe, and more room to make mistakes or intentionaly hurt others. However it reintroduces the old, if you can dream it, it can be done, ideal. Like your mother/father/idolized figure, saying that you can be whatever you want to be, just as long as you put your mind to it. But what is wicca except a ton of mental excercises put together in an order for a specific purpose. Like School, with all it's mental excercises (homework) and challenges to expand, flex and grow our IQ.
After looking at a few of the sides to each rule, I personaly like the latter:
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of The Law.

However, it is quite possible that many newbies or power hungry witches can take it as, he who has the gold makes the laws. And start a witches coven soley based on their views and their "rules".

User avatar
scoia
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by scoia » Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:58 pm

another of his:

Love is the Law, Love under Will

always appealed. You don't really need a detailed listing of 'sins' to know what hurts others and yourself. The Crowley philosophy is interesting, as the above statement also refers to his ideas that 'love', the emergence of diverse energies, is a foundation of magickal practice, and must be kept under your will, with a definite purpose(as far as I can tell anyway, his writing is less than simple or clear)
As for abusing power? No 'organisation' or group of people with similar outlooks are free from 'people' (don't think I can swear here) who want more than everyone else, and want it now...in which case I tend to agree with the three fold law, or as I like to call it, the rule of 'you'll get yours'.

User avatar
Firelord
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Glasgow, KY
Contact:

Post by Firelord » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:57 am

As with some other authors, you must know exactly what Crowley was thinking when he wrote that in order to grasp the full concept of what he meant when he wrote it. My deciphering of this age-old verse is that you have to do what you have to do. If you want something enough to go after it, you should do what you have to in order to get it. This doesn't mean you should go around destroying people's lives in order to gain a better one for youself (that will usually bite you in the rear later), but rather to take the best route or the route that must be taken at times. Some would say this is the path of fate, or the road that must be taken, but there are always side options open and the ability to fail.

We can toss "An it Harm None, Do what thou wilt" right out the window usually as it's such a softy rule that in order to follow it you must stand where you are and not make a move. You will inevitably inadvertantly hurt someone along the road in life.

User avatar
morgana
Level 22
Level 22
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:42 am
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by morgana » Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:37 am

I would definitely side with Crowley's version more than the "An it harm none..." version, because it's just more realistic. Like Firelord said, you'd have to stay absolutely still and not move in order not to harm anyone or anything. Sure, the harm none law is a "safer" rule, cuz it can't be interpreted as "do whatever you want, don't worry about the consequences," but I think in the long run, it doesn't matter how you word a rule or law, there will always be someone who can find some kind of loophole in it. In the case of a religious/spiritual law, if you go around looking for loopholes you end up only cheating yourself in the longrun anyway. Also, if you're an adult and STILL not mature enough to understand that intentionally causing unjustified harm to someone is bad, then I think it's a little too late for rules.
"Love like you've never been hurt."

User avatar
Stormy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:11 pm
Location: Pittsburgh Area, PA
Contact:

Post by Stormy » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:04 am

morgana wrote:Also, if you're an adult and STILL not mature enough to understand that intentionally causing unjustified harm to someone is bad, then I think it's a little too late for rules.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

As for the rules being debated - first An It Harm None, Do what thou wilt.
I think that it is absolutely wrong, and foolish, to take this completely literally. As has been said, to do that, you couldn't even breathe as the act of breathing kills micro-organisms floating around in the air when they get stuck in your mucus membranes and drown.
My personal take on it is this: first, it's "OK" to cause "harm" when doing those things which are essential to your day to day survival - breathing, walking, eating, drinking, driving to work (dear me, the poor bugs on the windshield ;) ), etc.,
secondly, in deciding how the rule applies I consider is the "harm" being done a necessary harm and is the goal it will achieve intended to cause unjustified harm to someone,
and lastly, will it hurt ME - and by that, it doesn't just mean physically. If I do something and I know at the core what I've done goes against my own private integrity, it IS hurting me because it's gonna eat at me, it's gonna chip away at my personal integrity - even if no one else sees it, I will. (Hope I explained that last bit in a way everyone can "get".)

Now, for Crowley's words Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of The Law.
I am not familiar enough with Crowley to even venture a guess as to what he personally meant, but my personal interpretation of it would be something along the lines of "You are personally responsible for every action that you take, good, bad or ugly. You are personally responsible for your life, it's outcome, and the paths you choose to get to that outcome. You cannot lay the blame anywhere but on yourself for ANYTHING, be it good or bad, because YOU make the final choices."

Stormy
Stormy ~~}~}-:>
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Guest

Post by Guest » Mon Nov 29, 2004 9:27 am

Stormy wrote:
morgana wrote:Now, for Crowley's words Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of The Law.
I am not familiar enough with Crowley to even venture a guess as to what he personally meant, but my personal interpretation of it would be something along the lines of "You are personally responsible for every action that you take, good, bad or ugly. You are personally responsible for your life, it's outcome, and the paths you choose to get to that outcome. You cannot lay the blame anywhere but on yourself for ANYTHING, be it good or bad, because YOU make the final choices."

Stormy
That's very insiteful, I hadn't thought of it in that sense. I'm going to think about that for a while before I really make a response.

oh yea.... =D>

User avatar
Firelord
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Glasgow, KY
Contact:

Post by Firelord » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:58 am

ooo, Stormy, you hit that one pretty hard there and have caused me to look at my own answer... you have also fit this in with karma and the threefold... with having to take on the consequences of your actions...

User avatar
Luciferish
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Some say its hell, I think its nice.
Contact:

Post by Luciferish » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:23 am

There are many problems with both of the concepts. Primarily with their interpretation... To understand their ethical intent lets break them down and see where they go...

"An' ye harm none, do what thou wilt" Is the portion of the Wiccan Rede most widely known. A poem of dubious origins which has none the less found its way into the core of Wicca. Many traditionalist crafters have rejected this entire teaching almost completly as anachronistic and unrealistic.

"Harm" in this concept is interpreted most of the time in two ways. First says "harm" is performing any act that causes physical, emotional, mental or spiritual damage. The second is a bit more complicated, mainly that "harm" is the act of doing anything out of the natural order, this exempts taking animals and plants as food and allows for self defense but is more directed toward the ideal of intentional malicious acts.

The second debatable term in this is "None". The first camp takes this to mean ALL except food stuffs and things counter to ones direct survival. Extreamists take this to the "Vegan" state and include all animal life. The more moderate mind set is interpreting "none" to only include human beings or directly "no person".

As for Crowley's concept, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, love is the law, love under will." This is a mostly eastern form of anarchistic concept. The first part simply states that you should be free to do anything that you wish, period. No law of the land, socieity or culture should supersede this. "Do what thou wilt" in both axioms indicates that magical people are either above or outside normal scruitiny. On its most extream it includes animal and human sacrifice for the purpose of personal gain. To the more moderate its more of a licence to ignore cultural norms and use whatever drugs, tools and do what ever to whomever you wish via magic.

"Love is the law, Love under Will" is a bit of a paradox really... Love is the Law means that Love is the supreme ruler of the universe. Love under Will is not intended to mean "Love whomever you want", instead its trying to say that your Will is supreme over Love, thus making you the absolute Ruler of your universe.

Those the two statements sound alike initially, when you break them down they become completely different animals. Add in the interpretive factors of people and it gets even worse...
Even the devil's got a lawyer, would you like my card?



Est nullum problema tantum ut usu vis maximae idonei expediri non possit.

User avatar
scoia
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by scoia » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:20 pm

I don't completely agree with your interpretation of that...

I think that 'love is the law, love under will' has more to do with the importance of reason as opposed to sentimentality. I also don't think 'love' refers exclusively to romanticism, more the natural order and balance. It seems to state that you are involved in everything, inextricable linked ('love'), but you must work towards greater knowlege, well not even knowlege, but wisdom and control.

Pretty much that we must seek to find our own place, our own will, and not let ourselves be swamped

User avatar
Luciferish
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Some say its hell, I think its nice.
Contact:

Post by Luciferish » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:44 am

Well, if you think that Crowley had mostly benign ideals of love and will you should read Liber Al Legis.. after digesting that little morsel of religious zeal you may reconsider.
Even the devil's got a lawyer, would you like my card?



Est nullum problema tantum ut usu vis maximae idonei expediri non possit.

User avatar
scoia
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by scoia » Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:46 pm

Was I saying anything about Crowley's religious zeal? Personally, I think he was a few knives short of a drawer in some respects, but I was discussing my personal interpretations of the law in questions. Neither, while I'm on the topic, do I paticularly support a 'benign' ideal of love, or it's place in the universe. it's more powerful and potentially enourmously harmful, just like all primordial urges/instincts. What I was saying is that the basis of 'the search' and your practice should always be control. Whether you're cool to sit back and let things happen around you, or whther you seek to dominate things, the essentials remain the same.

Also, in terms of your assesment, - that it means that you should do whatever you want, regardless of law, etc, fine. I also think it means you have to be strong enough to take any and all consequences of your actions, assume complete responsibility for yourself.......I don't know, through all my readings of his works, whether Crowley really supprted that. Ostensibly, maybe, but I think he was too much of an egomaniac.

an then I ranted.....yeah....
First they ignore you.
Then they laught at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
--Ghandi

User avatar
Luciferish
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Some say its hell, I think its nice.
Contact:

Post by Luciferish » Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:23 pm

I guess the issue to that would be if you consider "Love is the law, Love under will" to be a "Law" or a "Crowley axiom". I tend toward the latter in which case it needs to be interpreted through the demenor of the author, not the exact paraphrasing. "Laws" have a spirit under which they sway the mind and reality, or at least illustrate reality. I will find the rest of the "Laws" that this one comes from, then perhaps you can frame it better.. Let me run into the basement and dig through a box for them... They do pertain to the spirit of this concept.
Even the devil's got a lawyer, would you like my card?



Est nullum problema tantum ut usu vis maximae idonei expediri non possit.

User avatar
Luciferish
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Some say its hell, I think its nice.
Contact:

Post by Luciferish » Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:45 pm

This is a little tid-bit from Crowley on the subject, digest this...

Liber LXXVII (Oz)

"the law of the strong: this is our law, and the joy of the world." - AL II:21
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of hte law." - AL I:40
"Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that and no other shall say nay." AL I:42,43
"Every man and woman is a star" - AL I:3

There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law ~
to live in the way he wills to do ~
to work as he will ~
to play as he will ~
to rest as he will ~
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will ~
to drink what he will ~
to dwell where he will ~
to to move as he will on the face of the earth..
3. Man has the right to think what he will ~
to speak what he will ~
to write what he will ~
to draw, paint, carve, each, mould, build as he will ~
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will ~
"take your fill and will of love as he will, when, where,
and whit whom ye will." - AL 1:51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thward these rights ~
"the slaves shall serve."

Love is the law, love under will - AL 1:57
Even the devil's got a lawyer, would you like my card?



Est nullum problema tantum ut usu vis maximae idonei expediri non possit.

User avatar
Kiril
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:48 pm
Contact:

Post by Kiril » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm

Celtic_Dragon wrote:And start a witches coven soley based on their views and their "rules".

Umm..isn't that pretty much every pagan coven of wiccan or otherwise path?

And i think crowley's empowerment of man over anything else is absolete if something smarter than man decides to use us for harvest.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests