1.0     Magick and Ethics.  ...........................................   3

  1.1     Magick - What Is It?  .........................................   3

  1.1.1   Crowleys definition  ..........................................   3

  1.1.1.1 The Definition  ...............................................   3

  1.1.1.2 What is Art and Science?  .....................................   3

  1.1.1.3 What Is Change?  ..............................................   3

  1.1.1.4 What is Will?  ................................................   3

  1.1.2   Three Schools  ................................................   4

  1.1.2.1 The White  ....................................................   4

  1.1.2.2 The Yellow  ...................................................   4

  1.1.2.3 The Black  ....................................................   4

  1.1.3   Black and White Magick  .......................................   5

  1.1.3.1 What is White Magick?  ........................................   5

  1.1.3.2 What is Black Magick?  ........................................   5

  1.1.3.3 Shades of Grey  ...............................................   5

  1.1.3.4 Is There A True Difference?  ..................................   5

  1.1.4   Religion and/or Magick  .......................................   6

  1.1.4.1 Religion  .....................................................   6

  1.1.4.2 Magick is Not A Religion  .....................................   6

  1.2     Ethics - What Are They?  ......................................   7

  1.2.1   Right and Wrong  ..............................................   7

  1.2.1.1 What is Right?  What is Wrong?  ...............................   7

  1.2.1.2 When Right and Wrong Aren't  ..................................   7

  1.2.1.3 The relativity of the terms  ..................................   8

  1.2.1.4 Absolute Right and Absolute Wrong  ............................   8

  1.2.2   Good and Evil  ................................................   8

  1.2.2.1 What is Good?  What is Evil?  .................................   8

  1.2.2.2 Philosophical Wanderings  .....................................   9

  1.2.2.3 The relativity of the terms  ..................................   9

  1.2.2.4 Absolute Good and Absolute Evil  ..............................   9

  1.2.3   Society and the Individual  ...................................   9

  1.2.3.1 Societal Ethics  ..............................................   9

  1.2.3.2 Individual Ethics  ............................................   9

  1.2.3.3 When Society Supersedes the Individual  .......................  10

  1.2.3.4 When the Individual Supersedes Society  .......................  10

  1.2.4   Religion and Ethics  ..........................................  11

  1.2.4.1 Group-Oriented Religions  .....................................  11

  1.2.4.2 Individual-Oriented Religions  ................................  11

  1.2.4.3 Religion and the Individual  ..................................  12

  1.2.5   Karma  ........................................................  12

  1.2.5.1 The Law of Action  ............................................  12

  1.2.5.2 Past Lives, Future Lives, The Present  ........................  12

  1.2.5.3 Retribution or Balancing?  ....................................  13

  1.3     Transcending Good and Evil  ...................................  13

  1.3.1   A Reason for Evil  ............................................  13

  1.3.1.1 Division by Contrast  .........................................  14

  1.3.1.2 The Reflexive Property of Existence  ..........................  14

  1.3.2   Above the Abyss  ..............................................  14

  1.3.2.1 Compression of Duality  .......................................  14

  1.3.2.2 Time and Number  ..............................................  15

  1.3.2.3 The Question of Separate-Ness  ................................  15

  1.3.3   The Destruction of Duality  ...................................  15

  1.3.3.1 The Theory of Monality  .......................................  15

  1.3.3.2 Brahman  ......................................................  15

  1.3.3.3 Submersion, Return, Union  ....................................  16

  1.3.3.4 The Play of Opposites  ........................................  17

  1.4     Magick, Ethics, and Real Life  ................................  17

  1.4.1   The Spiritual Path  ...........................................  17

  1.4.1.1 In The World  .................................................  17

  1.4.1.2 Retirement, Retreat  ..........................................  18

  1.4.2   Compromise  ...................................................  19

  1.4.2.1 Daily Life  ...................................................  19



                                     - 1 -


  1.4.2.2 Survival vs. Belief  ..........................................  19

  1.4.3   Necessity  ....................................................  20

  1.4.3.1 The Pressure of Society  ......................................  20

  1.4.3.2 The Pressure of Spirit  .......................................  20

  1.4.4   The Responsibility of Power  ..................................  21

  1.4.4.1 Use It or Lose It  ............................................  21

  1.4.4.2 Power over Self/Power Over Others  ............................  21

  1.4.4.3 Interference  .................................................  22

  1.4.4.4 True Will  ....................................................  23

  1.5     Conclusions  ..................................................  24

  1.5.1   The Universe  .................................................  24

  1.5.2   The Hermit  ...................................................  24

  1.5.3   The Hierophant  ...............................................  25

  1.5.4   The Magus  ....................................................  25

  1.5.5   The Fool  .....................................................  26


















































                                     - 2 -



  1.0     Magick and Ethics.


        This is a paper on my concept of the interrelations between the Art

  and Science of Magick and Ethics.  It is STRICTLY One Persons Opinion, and

  is based on only MY beliefs and experiences.  It is not meant to be anything

  other than an exposition of what I perceive on the subject, and I hope that

  no one will take it as an attempt to define Once And For All what Everyone

  Should Believe.  Having stated that, I can now proceed with what I intended.


  1.1     Magick - What Is It?


        Before we can tackle the Bigger Questions, we need to define the terms

  which we will be using.  The first one we will attempt to pin down will be

  Magick.  What is Magick?


  1.1.1   Crowleys definition


  1.1.1.1 The Definition


        I tend to accept the definition of Magick as put forth by Aleister

  Crowley: "Magick is the Art and Science of causing Change in accordance with

  Will".  Seems simple enough, at first glance.  But, the definition itself

  contains terms which need to be pinned down, so that I can assume the Gentle

  Reader knows what I'm talking about.


  1.1.1.2 What is Art and Science?


        'Art and Science' is more informative than might be thought at first

  glance.


        When I see 'Art', I tend to think of things which are not totally

  susceptible to rational analysis or definition.  Thus, Magick is an 'Art' in

  that it is not wholly rational.  Also, I think of 'Art' as being more

  emotional/feeling based, rather than divorced from emotion - thus it can

  depend on the state of the artist.  So, 'Art' means that Magick is not

  completely susceptible to rational analysis or definition, and can depend on

  the state of the operator.


        Now, 'Science' is easier to deal with.  By 'Science' I tend to think

  of a method by which experiences and observations may be quantified and

  recorded, leading to repeatability by a different observer or operator.  So

  by 'Science' is meant that some aspects of Magick are quantifiable and

  repeatable across more than one operator.


  1.1.1.3 What Is Change?


        'Change' is a slippery word.  It can cover so many things, since WHAT

  is changing is never specified.  A change in objective reality, or a change

  in subjective reality?  A temporary or permanent change?


        I believe that both objective and subjective changes may be made via

  the use of various kinds of Magick (never mind WHAT kinds).  I also believe

  that these changes may be either temporary or permanent, depending on the

  goal and ability of the operator.  So, the new definition expands to read:

  "Magick is the Art and Science of causing either permanent or temporary

  changes in subjective or objective reality in accordance with Will".


  1.1.1.4 What is Will?

        Now we enter the stickiest portion of the whole definition.  Just what

  is meant by 'Will'?  Will power (which most people tend to define as "won't

  power")?  Or "the ability to focus desire and concentration to a pre-defined



                                     - 3 -


  point and maintain the state"?  Or does it have something to do with that

  most tenuous of things, "True Will"?


        I believe that 'Will' means, in this case, the ability to focus the

  conscious mind on a single item.  This includes, but is not limited to,

  consciously controlled nonrational desires (such as love).  Desires which

  are not under conscious control, or interruptions from the ever-balky

  rational mind, would be a "weakening of will".  Thus, if the operator

  strongly visualized getting a check for $1000.00 in the mail, and felt a

  strong emotional desire for the check, this would be "strongly willed".

  However, keeping extraneous desires (as in lusting for the car the money

  will help buy, or suddenly thinking about daffodils for no discernible

  reason) will divert the current of will, and thus lessen the probability

  that the desired result will occur.


  1.1.2   Three Schools


        Magick can be thought of as having three basic orientations, depending

  on the attitude taken by the operator towards the world at large.  Aleister

  Crowley defined these three attitudes quite nicely in the book "Magick

  Without Tears", under the colors White, Yellow, and Black.


  1.1.2.1 The White


        The White School of Magick is concerned with raising the general level

  of consciousness of Humanity, sometimes at the expense of personal gain.

  The White School sees the objective world as an opportunity to learn, to

  grow, and to develop.  The White School also believes that it is a duty to

  aid their fellow men to realize their full potential, or to at least develop

  spiritually.  A perfect example of a White Adept is a Boddhisattva, who vows

  not to enter Nirvana until all other creatures have entered.  The White

  Adept can be looked on as being non-egocentric.


  1.1.2.2 The Yellow


        The Yellow School of Magick stands aloof from the world at large.  It

  considers the objective world merely as a fact, and makes no positive or

  negative judgement about it.  The Yellow Adept does not attempt to cause

  changes in the objective world, and sees both Black and White Schools as

  opposites which will exist forever, whatever else occurs.  Seldom (if ever)

  do Yellow Adepts take an active part in attempting to guide or teach those

  who struggle in the world.  The key word for the Yellow Adept is 'aloof',

  and he tries to stand apart from those about him - even other Yellow Adepts.

  The best example of this attitude is the "yogi in the mountain cave", who

  left the world behind to pursue his own spiritual path alone.  The Yellow

  Adept is non-egocentric, but does not consider self sacrifice for the

  benefit of others to be a positive attribute.


  1.1.2.3 The Black


        The Black School of Magick considers the objective world as a mistake

  on the part of its Creator.  The Black Adept considers Creation as being an

  imperfect form of the absolute Void from which it sprang - and to which it

  should return.  It seems that the typical Black Adept considers the

  objective world as having been deliberately put in their path as an

  obstruction.  Needless to say, it becomes a duty to eliminate as much of the

  objective world as possible, to speed the return of the initial Chaos which

  the objective world we know formed from.  DO NOT CONFUSE "THE BLACK SCHOOL"

  WITH "BLACK MAGICK".  From one point of view, the Black School is perfectly

  justified in considering the objective world to be a corruption of the

  Absolute.  The Black Adept is completely egocentric, and seldom cares for

  others.  He positively fears any kind of ego abnegation or self sacrifice.



                                     - 4 -


  1.1.3   Black and White Magick


        One cannot consider the question of Magick without running into the

  question of Black Magick (not to be confused with the Black School).  Just

  what constitutes Black Magick?  What makes White Magick White?  And, is

  there really a difference in the end?


  1.1.3.1 What is White Magick?


        The idea of White Magick conjures (pardon the expression) images of

  groups of magicians or clerics, working to heal some unfortunate person or

  to remove a malefic curse from same.  White Magick is often thought of as a

  positive Magick, working to benefit someone (or something) and in a way

  which does no harm, or the least possible harm.


  1.1.3.2 What is Black Magick?


        The idea of Black Magick produces nightmare visions of a group of

  chanting devil worshippers (?) in a circle, putting a curse on someone or

  performing some kind of blood sacrifice in order to get something which one

  or more people desire.  Black Magick is thought of as being Magick performed

  to harm or control someone other than the operator.


  1.1.3.3 Shades of Grey


        Now, Aleister Crowley was of the opinion that any Magick which was

  performed without the specific goal of achieving the Knowledge and

  Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel as being Black Magick.  This didn't

  stop him from doing same, and it is fairly easy to rationalize all kinds of

  harmful acts as being "for the better in the long run".


        Lets examine a hypothetical situation: suppose that you KNEW with

  Absolute Certainty that someone was going to harm a large group of people.

  Furthermore, let us suppose that you know this person slightly, and actually

  have the ability to "remove" him from action, and thus prevent him from

  harming the large group of people.  You can only stop him by seriously

  injuring him, and you have this ability.  What to do?  Would taking him out

  of the picture be "Black Magick", since you would be harming someone?  Or

  would the end (a large group of people unharmed) justify the means?


        Another situation: you are in need of a fairly large amount of money.

  You can perform a ritual to get it, but in turn someone (who has more than

  enough to spare) would do without it.  Is this White Magick?  Black Magick?

  Or "Grey" Magick, something in between, doing both harm and benefit at the

  same time?


  1.1.3.4 Is There A True Difference?


        As Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the white-ness and

  black-ness of Magick.  What may one day fall into the category of "White"

  may the next day be black as midnight in an unlit coal mine.  There is no

  real clear objective call on White or Black Magick, since many simple things

  which might benefit can also harm.  This is without consideration of the

  long view, as (in the above-mentioned case of the man who wanted to harm a

  large group of people) it may actually be NECESSARY FOR IT TO OCCUR.  Rare

  is the individual who can truthfully see the results of all of his actions.


        Also - the mechanisms for performing the ritual can be identical, with

  the goal of the operations being diametrically opposed.  I believe that the

  RESULT of the operation is what should be termed 'White', 'Black', or

  'Grey'.  In some systems (Voudoun or early Brahmanism, for example), where

  animal sacrifice occurs, it is believed that the sacrifice of the animal



                                     - 5 -


  insures that the Eternal Within will incarnate in a more advanced state than

  if the animal had died naturally.  So, is it Black Magick?  Or White?


        My point, after all of this rambling, is that deciding whether a

  Magickal operation is White or Black is dependent on the judge.  A consensus

  judgement can be reached about some things (unwilling sacrifice, or

  interference with another without his permission), but for the majority of

  cases it very much depends on the observer.  Thus, it is an ETHICAL DECISION

  on the part of the observer to class Magick as White or Black.


  1.1.4   Religion and/or Magick


        Now that I have muddied the waters, and what I think of as Magick has

  been (I hope) explained, we need to consider Religion.  What is Religion?

  How does it differ from Magick, and how is it similar?


  1.1.4.1 Religion


        I define Religion as an activity which directs worship or adoration

  towards one or more Deities, with the Main Purpose of the activity to

  perform said worship or adoration.  This means that worshipping a God or a

  Goddess, or adoring a God or Goddess, would qualify as a Religious Activity.

  To be religious, the activity has to be performed mainly for the benefit of

  the Deity in question.  Threatening, bribing, or otherwise attempting to

  extort favors from a Deity is not, in my definition, a religious activity.


        Another hallmark of Religion is the restriction of worship or

  adoration to one particular Deity, or one particular set of same.  There are

  religions which recognize the validity of multiple pantheons of Deities, but

  this is more the exception than the rule and must be treated separately.


        There is Magick in most religions, but it is usually of a type

  directed to the Mystery of the Deity in question (such as initiatory rites,

  or transubstantiations in Masses).  Some religions actively discourage

  Magick as being "evil" (we'll get to THAT later), or as being unGodly.

  There are also religions that recognize the validity of Magick as a personal

  or religious practice, such as most forms of Wicca.  No matter what, the

  actual Magick is subsidiary to the worship of, adoration of, and service to

  the Deity or Deities in question.


  1.1.4.2 Magick is Not A Religion


        Now, in Magick we find the occasional adoration or worship of a Deity

  - but with a distinct difference: it is not always for the benefit of the

  Deity.  Since in some systems the Deity is thought of as being a higher

  (more powerful, more advanced, etc.) reflection of the same thing which

  produced the operator, a case could be made for it being religious ("I am

  God, so of course I can worship the Great BruHaHa - after all, it's really

  me in a different form!").  All this aside, the usual goal of adoration or

  worship in Magick is the spiritual advancement of the operator.  Of course,

  some religions promise this result also, but only as long as you worship

  THEIR Deity or Deities in the way THEY have defined.  In Magick, the Deity

  most appropriate to the desired result is chosen.


        Also, the prime goal of Magick is not the adoration of one or more

  Deities, but (usually) the accomplishment of some goal, be it as mundane as

  getting money to fix the car or as spiritual as union with the Absolute.

  Magick is usually performed for a purpose other than worship, although it

  most certainly be used for worship (just attend a Catholic Mass, or a Wiccan

  Drawing Down the Moon ritual).  Magick is NOT a religion - there is no one

  specific Deity to worship, adore, or perform service for.




                                     - 6 -


  1.2     Ethics - What Are They?


        Now we reach the heart of the matter.  As difficult to define as

  Magick is, Ethics is a subject which freely squirms around when under

  intense investigation.  What are Ethics?


        The Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary defines Ethic as: "The

  discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with with moral duty and

  obligation"; "a set of moral principles or values"; "a theory or system of

  moral values"; "the principles of conduct governing and individual or a

  group".  Plenty of "moral" there.  And for Moral: "of or relating to

  principles of right and wrong in behavior"; "expressing or teaching a

  conception of right behavior".  We keep coming back to Right and Wrong.


  1.2.1   Right and Wrong


        Since Ethics deal with Right and Wrong, it is only appropriate that we

  draw our Dagger and cut into the beast at once.  Let us proceed.


        This section will define Right and Wrong - mainly in terms of how

  things are categorized under one heading or the other.  The relativity of

  the terms will be shown, with examples.  Is there any such thing as an

  Absolute Right or an Absolute Wrong?


  1.2.1.1 What is Right?  What is Wrong?


        Can we define Right?  Again to the Merriam-Webster: "qualities (as

  adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute

  the idea of moral propriety or merit moral approval".  Fine, lets try

  'duty': "conduct due to parents and superiors"; "obligatory tasks, conduct,

  service, or functions that arise from ones position"; "a moral or legal

  obligation".  Enough from the dictionary on that.


        And Wrong: "not according to the moral standard"; "not right or proper

  according to a code, standard, or convention"; "principles, practices, or

  conduct contrary to to justice, goodness, equity, or law".  So, 'justice':

  "the maintenance or administration of what is just esp. by the impartial

  adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or

  punishment".  Sigh - try 'just': "having a basis in or conforming sometimes

  rigidly to fact or reason"; "acting or being in conformity with what is

  morally upright or good".


        What we end up with is a Warm Fuzzy Feeling instead of any kind of

  concrete concept to associate with Right and Wrong.   Plenty of talk of

  standards, goodness, morals, and so forth, but no ideas on what standards or

  morals are being spoken of.  I'll put forth a working definition for Right:

  "something which someone thinks of as moral"; and Wrong: "something which

  someone thinks of as not moral"; and moral: "a behavior or form of behavior

  which one or more people have agreed upon as being acceptable".  You will

  note that the definitions I provide are very much based on whose point of

  view you are seeing a thing from.


  1.2.1.2 When Right and Wrong Aren't


        Lets take an example from Real Life, and try to judge it using what we

  learned above.  Here: a man who has no home is living in the street.  He is

  hungry - starving, in fact.  He sees a bakery shop, where the owner has just

  put a fresh baked loaf of bread out on the counter and walked back into the

  rear of the store.  The starving man steals the loaf of bread, and is

  pursued and caught.  The judge finds him in violation of the law, and tosses

  him into jail for 90 days.  Who was Right and who was Wrong?




                                     - 7 -


        From the viewpoint of the shopkeeper, the theft was wrong.  The bread

  would have generated income, which he would have then used to feed himself

  and continue to produce goods.


        From the viewpoint of the judge, the starving man committed a crime by

  stealing the bread, and so was automatically wrong, circumstances

  notwithstanding.


        From the viewpoint of the starving man, it was find something to eat

  or die.  At a very basic biological level, it is wrong to die, and thus it

  was right to get the food no matter what the cost.


  1.2.1.3 The relativity of the terms


        It seems we have entered a tar pit.  Everybody in the above escapade

  considers their actions to be right.  And which of them is correct?  Would

  it have been right for the starving man to go ahead and starve?  Would it

  have been right for the baker to merely have let him go?  Would it have been

  right for the judge to let him off, despite the violation of the law?


        Decisions of Right and Wrong are, at the bottom line, individual

  decisions.  You can allow someone else to tell you what constitutes Right

  and Wrong, but it is still you who have decided to let this happen.  Most

  often, Right and Wrong are consensual judgements - and like people tend to

  classify behaviors in like fashions.  In real life terms, the largest group

  of people usually end up defining what is Right and Wrong by passing laws to

  that effect, and then enforcing them.  This does NOT make them absolute.

  But, can there ever be anything which is absolutely Right or Wrong?


  1.2.1.4 Absolute Right and Absolute Wrong


        Is there anything which is Right or Wrong, no matter who judges?  I

  don't believe so.  I believe that it is impossible to define something as

  always Right or always Wrong, because the circumstances can change and thus

  what once was Right is Wrong.  Take murder, for example.  Almost everybody

  will tell you that it is Wrong, until you come to the execution of

  criminals, or speak of war, or bring up self defense in a life threatening

  situation.  Then Wrong can be Wrong, Right, or sometimes both at once.

  Therefore I don't believe in absolutes with Right or Wrong - the terms are

  ALWAYS relative.  Right and Wrong are concepts which Man have defined to

  convienently categorize events which he finds positive or negative.


  1.2.2   Good and Evil


        Here we tackle the age-old Good and Evil question.  What makes Good

  good and Evil evil?  Who decides?  Is there such a thing as absolute Good or

  absolute Evil?


  1.2.2.1 What is Good?  What is Evil?


        Once again I reach for the Merriam-Webster for Good: "a favorable

  character or tendency"; "deserving of respect"; "something conforming to the

  moral order of the universe".  Hold it!  Since when has a universe had any

  kind of moral order?  If we take Nature as defining the moral order of the

  universe, it doesn't fit any man-made definition of 'moral' (except perhaps

  for Darwins, and other naturalists).  I can agree with "a favorable

  character or tendency", but "deserving of respect"?  WHOS respect?  I'll

  define Good thus: "some action or actions which elicit a positive response

  or reaction from one or more people".


        And as for Evil: "morally reprehensible"; "arising from actual or

  imputed bad character or conduct"; "causing discomfort or repulsion".  O.K.,



                                     - 8 -


  we have hit 'moral' again.  I'll define Evil as "some action or actions

  which elicit a negative response or reaction from one or more people".


  1.2.2.2 Philosophical Wanderings


        What makes something Good or Evil?  Can a value judgement be made

  apart from the circumstances surrounding the event, or apart from the

  results thereof?  Does Good or Evil exist without someone to define them?  I

  don't think that one can judge one single action apart from the event which

  surround it, and the result of the action.  I also believe that Good and

  Evil exist only in the mind of the judge - the universe makes no a priori

  assumptions about any event being Good or Evil - the universe is, simply

  put, totally amoral.


  1.2.2.3 The relativity of the terms


        So, as with Right and Wrong, we are left with a human choice.  There

  is no way to define something as Right or Wrong for EVERYBODY.  The same

  action may take on first one, then the other, definition.   The abstract

  concept cannot exist without a human framework to give form to it.  For

  example: one Religion (religions are big movers in Good and Evil) defines an

  action as Evil.  Another Religion defines the identical action as Good.

  Which one is Right, and which one is Wrong?


  1.2.2.4 Absolute Good and Absolute Evil


        So we move once again to the Hard Question: is there Absolute Good and

  Absolute Evil?


        I will put forth that, as with Right and Wrong, there is no absolute

  Good or absolute Evil.  The universe is singularly uncaring, and event occur

  without someone there to judge them and class them as Good or Evil.  It is

  strictly a human decision to define something in such terms.


  1.2.3   Society and the Individual


        Who defines ethics, society or the individual?  Who enforces the

  ethics that are decided on?  Which takes precedence, society or the

  individual?


  1.2.3.1 Societal Ethics


        Man must live with other men - usually, anyway.  It is difficult in

  the modern world to live the life of the hermit on the mountain top, since

  most mountain tops now already contain vacation homes (or are difficult to

  get groceries up to, hard to heat... you get the picture).  The question of

  a persons ethics in the light of society is a very real one.


        Society will usually define ethics in such a way as to cause the least

  amount of trouble to the largest number of people, and to prevent actions

  which the majority of the people making up the society see as harmful to

  themselves.  In this fashion, society acts as if the group was made up of a

  fictitious 'average' individual, and caters to this image.  This is not

  usually a negative situation, as many of the things which are classed as

  immoral (murder, rape, robbery) are classed as immoral by 99% of the people

  in the group.  However, this same levelling effect of society can enforce

  ethics which are positive only to a slight majority of the group, and it is

  here that the flexibility or rigidity of a society will show.  How are

  exceptions handled?  Who is most important - the individual, or the herd?


  1.2.3.2 Individual Ethics




                                     - 9 -


        Each and every person, whether he has chosen them or not, has a set of

  ethics.  They may be borrowed from society in whole or in part, or they may

  be borrowed from a Religion, or they may be unique to an individual, but it

  is a rare person who truly has no ethics.  'Unethical' is a misleading term

  - it is usually taken to mean "not in line with the ethics of the majority"

  - and, while some consider this crime enough, it is NOT necessarily

  negative.


        The individual is faced with the necessity to make many value

  judgements every day, both on occurences which do not personally effect him

  and those which are very personal.  The ethics of the individual determine

  how each of these necessities is dealt with, and the act of judgement may

  itself change the ethical outlook of the judge.  If enough individuals

  develop the same set of ethics, this set can evolve from individual ethics

  to societal ethics.  The individual is the originator of societal ethics, in

  most cases.


  1.2.3.3 When Society Supersedes the Individual


        Sometimes the ethics of the few can become the enforced ethics of the

  many.  Any time a society becomes fearful of change, when one or more

  powerful groups begin to rigidly enforce the 'average' ethics out of self

  interest, the individual becomes a 'threat' to society.  In this case the

  society defines Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, Absolute Right and Absolute

  Wrong, and enforces this 'new ethic' on the populace with an iron fist.

  When the individual is no longer called upon to make his own ethical

  decisions, and the role of judge passes to a single person or a small group

  of people, then true 'ethics' no longer exist.


        Can this kind of activity by society ever be justified?  I believe

  that society may be forced to define the 'average ethic' if the individuals

  in the society refuse to perform the function themselves.  In this case, the

  choice may be between a period of enforced ethics or the collapse of the

  society into Chaos.  Most often, the society eventually rights itself

  (either gradually or through revolution) or is conquered by some stronger

  society.


  1.2.3.4 When the Individual Supersedes Society


        Let us consider now the opposite - what happens when the individual

  ethic is supreme?


        When the ethics of the individual are supreme, then what we know as

  society would probably not exist.  Each person would be required to accept

  the responsibility for his actions in the light of his own personal ethical

  system, and those with similar ethical systems would likely band together

  into small societies.  These societies would interact or not, based on the

  ethics by which they were united - and it would be an individual choice.  No

  one person could tell another what was right or wrong without the

  willingness of the other person.  The definitions of morals, duties, and the

  punishment of transgressors would be in the hands of each and every person.


        Would this form of society function?  It seems, on the face of it, to

  be a kind of utopian anarchy, where each would act as he sees fit.  For it

  to not become total anarchy, the ethically common groups would have to be

  willing to form a consensus if necessary.  I find it highly unlikely that

  such a form of society could exist under any conditions foreseeable in the

  near to middle future (and I mean about 1000 years), since it postulates at

  least one common factor in all ethical systems: the willingness to allow the

  other fellow to follow HIS system un-molested.  The problem of punishment

  also arises: who is the judge, and who is the hangman?  How are conflicts in

  ethical systems resolved?  I leave this to the reader to ponder.



                                     - 10 -


  1.2.4   Religion and Ethics


        One of the most popular sources of personal ethical systems are

  religions.  They, in fact, are also one of the most vocal proponents of

  uniform ethical systems, as most religions believe in such things as

  absolute Right and absolute Wrong, absolute Good and absolute Evil.


  1.2.4.1 Group-Oriented Religions


        I class all religions that attempt to force a uniform code of ethics,

  morals, and behavior as defined by leaders in the religion under the name of

  "Group-Oriented".  These are the mass religions, which provide their

  followers with a ready made and pre-interpreted set of ethics and moral

  guidelines.


        The hallmark of this kind of religion is a large body of

  interpretation of the originating documents, which is purported to be

  authoritative and globally applicable.  Usually, this only occurs in

  religions which have become resistant to any form of change - typically

  older religions with rigid hierarchies of hierophant/worshipper, and a great

  deal of segregation between those 'within' the religion and the followers.

  It is typical to see the followers provided with nothing more than a list of

  negatives - things 'not to do' - rather than a list of positive actions and

  precepts.  Theoretically, all of the problems which could possibly be

  encountered by a member of this type of religion has been encountered, and

  specifically universal procedures written down by an authoritative figure in

  the religion for the solution thereof.


        Little personal leeway is provided in this kind of religion.  Personal

  interpretation of the source documents is frowned upon, if not outright

  outlawed.  Access to the Deity/Deities is through pre-defined channels,

  either prayers or imprecations in a specified format or intercession by an

  officially approved member of the clergy.  Conformity to the general rules,

  as defined in the official interpretations of the source documents, is

  stressed at all times.  A handy way to consider this type of religion is

  "one size fits all".


        This is not necessarily negative.  Many people in the world do not

  wish to (or cannot) spend the time, effort, and struggle necessary to

  develop their own ethical and moral code.  It is far easier to simply follow

  pre-defined rules and regulations than to trial-and-error into an individual

  ethical and moral code.  This kind of religion can act as a mechanism to

  prevent those who do not (or cannot) develop an ethical code from harming

  themselves (or being harmed by others).  It provides a safe, common ground

  on which the many may stand without too much trouble, and can provide a

  legitimate spiritual path for those who wish to tread a well-worn Way.


  1.2.4.2 Individual-Oriented Religions


        Those religions which stress the individual and the individuals

  interaction with the Deity/Deities I call (oddly enough)

  "Individual-Oriented".  These religions typically have few followers, and

  are often called "elitist".  This is true in the main - those religions

  requiring the followers to accept responsibility for their own actions, and

  to think for themselves, are not for the masses.


        The hallmark of this type of religion is a lack of authoritative

  writings on the source documents.  When such exist, they are typically in

  the form of opinions, and are viewed by the followers as valid for the

  author but not necessarily for others.  Individual thought and

  interpretation is stressed, and typically lay persons may act as clergy when

  there is need.  Entering the clergy may be difficult, but it is typically



                                     - 11 -


  open to all who wish to make the attempt.  The individual is provided with

  the basic forms of the religion, but is encouraged to go beyond the common

  forms into what is PERSONALLY relevant for the follower.


        This form of religion is not for the masses.  In whatever society in

  which they exist, there will be mass religions available and these will

  encompass the majority of the populace.  This form of religion is for those

  who are willing to risk, for those who will accept responsibility for their

  own actions.


  1.2.4.3 Religion and the Individual


        The religion entered by the individual effects the ethical code of the

  individual - even no religion can qualify as a religion.  The ethical code

  propounded by the individuals religion may cause that individual to perform

  acts he personally would not have otherwise considered, and this is

  especially true in group-oriented religions.


        Religion can also be used to avoid personal responsibility, at least

  on the surface.  To say, "It says I must do such-and-so in my Holy Book",

  and to do so without thought, is simply an excuse for abuse.  Belonging to

  ANY religion is not an excuse to forget personal responsibility!  The

  selection of a religion is a personal choice, and putting the principles

  into action in life is a personal choice, and choosing to use the religion

  as an excuse to not think or accept responsibility is STILL a personal

  choice.  There is no religious abrogation of responsibility.


        By now, I probably need to clarify my position a bit.  I am NOT

  anti-religion in general.  Religion serves a good purpose, and it is

  sometimes the only vehicle by which large groups of people can find any kind

  of spiritual anchor or Path at all.  I am against religion, ANY RELIGION,

  when it becomes a convenient crutch or an excuse for not thinking.


  1.2.5   Karma


        No discussion of Magick, Religion and Ethics could be complete without

  at least touching on the theory of Karma.  I am hardly an expert, except

  inasmuch as everybody is (is there anyone who wasn't, at least once, ground

  under the Big Wheel of Karma?).  I've read a large number of books where

  explanations ranged from the shatteringly stupid to the most sublime (and

  impossible to understand), and I just have to Try For Myself to put forth My

  Opinion on the subject.


  1.2.5.1 The Law of Action


        One of the primary laws of physics is: "For every action there is an

  equal and opposite reaction".  It is postulated that every action generates

  karma as a by-product, whether it is good karma or bad karma.  I tend to

  think of this concept as the "pendulum theory" - you push a little, it

  swings out, it comes back and hits you.


        Lets drop the idea of Good and Bad.  I'll approach this from the "like

  generates like" point of view, since I believe that Karma possesses no

  morals or ethics - it is simply a natural force, like magnetism.  If you do

  something nice, then, eventually something nice will happen back.  If you do

  something you consider bad, eventually...well...you get the idea.  There is

  no Big Judge in the Sky (or elsewhere) who decides that, since you kicked a

  dog, that someday you will be kicked by a dog in return.  Eventually

  something will happen that will be unpleasant, and you won't know WHICH

  unpleasant thing you did it was for (or will do...Time gets odd here).


  1.2.5.2 Past Lives, Future Lives, The Present



                                     - 12 -


        Karma operates across the span of lives, it is postulated, and in my

  limited experience I would say this is true.  Karma is not only associated

  with the personality of this incarnation, but also with That which is

  constant from incarnation to incarnation.  Thus, karma from past lives can

  certainly roll forward to the next, since in the long run it must balance

  out to zero (or so I believe).  As for future lives, whatever karma is not

  worked out in the current life will have to be worked out in a future life

  (as a popular commercial goes, "you can pay me now or pay me later").


        Karma, I believe, acts as an anchor - preventing progress, sometimes,

  until certain things are worked out and a balance reached.  It may sometimes

  be possible to work out all of a persons old karma in one life - but,

  depending on what was required, it could be exceptionally difficult (and

  perhaps even fatal for the current incarnation).  Spiritual practices of

  certain kinds, initiations, and such can speed the return of karma, in order

  to permit further spiritual development.  But how do you avoid generating

  new karma, when every action causes more to develop?


        Certain Eastern schools of thought handle this in the simplest of

  fashions: perform no actions, and generate no karma.  Easier said than done.

  It is said that there is a point of development which can be reached, where

  one is outside the Law of Karma and exempt from generating new - and can, in

  fact, take on the karma of others (though it is possible for someone to do

  this without being outside the Law of Karma - with the expected results).

  The only way that I can see to avoid Karma is not to avoid Karma - but to do

  the least number of unpleasant things possible, and at least avoid

  unnecessary amounts of "unhappy returns".


  1.2.5.3 Retribution or Balancing?


        I've been speaking of Karma as eventually balancing out.  I believe

  that the universe constantly seeks a point of stability (in a metaphysical

  sense), and that Karma is the way in which corrections are made.  It is NOT

  Divine Retribution - it is simply things seeking equilibrium (although it

  may not feel like it to the sufferer).  Karma knows no morals, no ethics,

  and effects Gods and Men alike - at least, below the Abyss (more on this

  later).  It is also not predictable by most people, since it is seemingly

  random in action.  One or more small bad actions may be balanced by a

  catastrophe, or by many.  One large bad action may work out gradually.  I

  personally know of no way in which it can be permanently avoided - it simply

  MUST work out in order to for the universe to balance (as it were), and from

  the standpoint of a person the Karmic ledger must balance to get past a

  certain point, spiritually (so I believe).


  1.3     Transcending Good and Evil



        Now we enter a rarefied atmosphere indeed, and I must begin speaking

  from a completely theoretical point of view.


        There is a point where the supposedly polar opposites of Good and Evil

  cease to be divided, where the concepts themselves become nonsensical.  I

  have a phenomenally small amount of experience with the states of

  consciousness necessary to know (as in 'gnosis', experiential knowledge

  rather than intellectual knowledge) the Truth of this.  If I become obscure,

  or seem to wander, please bear with me as we are passing the point at which

  intellect fails.


  1.3.1   A Reason for Evil


        This section is a kind of apologia for Evil.  I believe that it is

  necessary for there to be Evil, and that Evil as at least a concept will



                                     - 13 -


  endure as long as Creation.


  1.3.1.1 Division by Contrast


        Consider the concept of Good.  What associations spring to mind?

  Pleasant meals, a lover, laying in the sun?  Positive concepts.  Attractive

  images and memories, all organized under the major heading of Good.  Perhaps

  the idea of angels, Deities, or other religious things.  Light and love.


        Now consider Evil.  Here we see negatives - killings, atrocities,

  possibly images of devils and demons, the flames of some Hell.  Repulsive

  ideas and memories of how we were wronged, or some moral or ethical outrage

  perpetrated.  Darkness and blood.


        Can one of these exist without the other?


  1.3.1.2 The Reflexive Property of Existence


        Imagine there being no Evil - not even a word for it, the very concept

  itself missing from the mind.  Can there be the concept of Good, without

  it's opposite?  The first existence of the concept of Good will reflexively

  generate a concept of something which is not-Good, and in our language we

  have coined the handy term 'Evil'.  Call it 'ungood', 'bad', 'wrong', all

  relate to the same concept in differing intensities.  The rational intellect

  CANNOT comprehend a concept without opposites.  Things are perceived not

  only for what they ARE, but also for what they are NOT.


        Let me attempt to explain further: things are only perceivable by the

  normal human state of consciousness in their separation from other things.

  To define a thing is to imply the existence of a not-thing, some opposite or

  something which is DIFFERENT - else there would be no need to define a

  concept for it.  To define Good is to bring Evil into existence, since if

  there was no Good there would be no Evil to differentiate it from.


  1.3.2   Above the Abyss


        The concept of an Abyss separating the worlds of Opposites from the

  world of Union exists in many philosophical and religious systems.  Across

  the Abyss, Duality begins to fade and the opposites of existence unite into

  a single underlaying basal Thing from which all of existence has sprung.

  Time and Change as methods of the division of things lose hold, and all

  blends into a single point.


        Below the Abyss, as concepts concretize, things become increasingly

  specialized - where one concept may have held many more in potential, the

  potential concepts become discernible in themselves.  Above the Abyss, as

  all concepts and things merge into a single Concept, the separate concepts

  become increasingly absorbed into a single transcending concept which holds,

  in potentiality, all possible variations on the unifying theme.


  1.3.2.1 Compression of Duality


        I will consider three discrete stages above the Abyss, and those

  familiar with Qabala will recognize them as the three Supernal Sephiroth:

  the first point above the Abyss being Binah, the second being Chokmah, and

  the final being Kether.


        As we progress from the Abyss to Binah, the first point above the

  Abyss, we note a compression of duality.  Where below the Abyss we would

  expect to see a clear difference between, say, Up and Down, we note that

  they begin to merge into a single concept of Direction (which holds Up and

  Down in potential, but also transcends them).  At Chokmah, we have only



                                     - 14 -


  Direction - all directions in potentiality awaiting expression.  At Kether,

  we have only the potential for Direction in a blur of one possible

  expression of Existence.  Beyond Kether?  I cannot comprehend the possible

  state which would admit to the potentialities of multiple Existences.



  1.3.2.2 Time and Number


        Time is a convenient way of separating things.  Time is a measure of

  duration and a measure of change.  Time holds one event apart from the next,

  and without Time events would begin to blend, until all events occurred

  simultaneously.


        Number is a convenient way of defining duality.  If there were only

  one thing, numbers would not be needed.  Number becomes useless in a

  non-dual environment, and when duality compresses the concept of Number

  fails us, as the potentialities for the expression of a possibility cannot

  be numbered - but are infinite.


  1.3.2.3 The Question of Separate-Ness


        How are things separated in the Universe?  By Time and Number?  By

  differentiating into opposites?  I see an amount of molten glass, within it

  both a potential cup and a potential sculpture, and other possibilities I

  may not divine.


        When a concept is embodied in Form, then our perceptions can provide a

  handy guide to separate-ness.  But, when these same perceptions are

  presented only with a potential, the rational mind can only provide a small

  set of the possibilities embodied in it.  The rational mind desires to

  separate things into individual ideas, which can then be handily categorized

  with like items.  Things above the Abyss are not rationally categorizable,

  or even rationally comprehensible.  Faced with an infinite, and a

  union-of-opposites can be, rationality will attempt to reduce an infinite to

  a finite - and fail.  Separate-ness is necessary for the operation of the

  rational mind.


  1.3.3   The Destruction of Duality


        Having spoken a bit about duality, and the opposites, I must consider

  what lies beyond the differentiation of opposites.  A driving force in the

  human consciousness seems to be communication, even union, with Divinity.

  How is this accomplished?  What lies beyond the perceiver and the thing

  perceived?


  1.3.3.1 The Theory of Monality


        It is by no means a cut-and-dried fact that there is only one

  underlying Deity (or what passes for it at that level).  Some systems of

  religion presuppose that the highest level consists of TWO principles, and

  that it is the interaction of these two which produce Existence.


        According to my limited experience, and what rational analysis has

  provided for me to consider, I have to believe that everything came from one

  underlying Thing which contains within it all possibilities.  I admit to

  being biased by both my religion (Thelema) and by my studies of Qabala,

  Tantra, and Buddhism.  Should I find out (via experience) otherwise, I will

  have to do a major amount of re-thinking!  Until then, let us continue.


  1.3.3.2 Brahman


        The Indian (East, not Native American) Brahmanism, Tantra, and other



                                     - 15 -


  related religions postulate an underlying Thing which contains, in itself,

  all possibilities and potentialities.  It cannot be described (easily, at

  any rate), and is the Source from which all Existences spring - and to which

  they all return eventually.  They chose to call this God (so it is thought

  of sometimes) Brahman (not to be confused with the lower-level God of the

  same name).  It has no characteristics, having all characteristics in one

  homogeneous Whole which is undifferentiated.  From this, all things

  precipitated (don't ask how) - Gods, Goddesses, Creation, the whole thing.


        It is the goal of may forms of Eastern practice to unite with Brahman

  on a permanent basis.  There are many forms of Yoga (which, by the way,

  means Union) which lead to this.


  1.3.3.3 Submersion, Return, Union


        The early Christian Gnostics believed that every man and woman

  contained a fragment of the Divine Spark, which needed to return to God in

  order to make God complete.  In Qabala, achieving Kether results in a Union

  with the Divine.  Laya-yoga, Raja-Yoga, and many other forms of Yoga bring

  one into Union with the Ultimate.  Kundalini-yoga will do this also.  It has

  occurred to mystics in every religion (ere they wouldn't be called

  'mystics', would they?).  Just what IS going on here?


        It is called in some occult systems the Path of Return, to rise from

  the level of being a materially-based man to become, perhaps, more than

  human and more than merely Divine.  It is to rise from Humanity to rejoin

  the Source of All.  It is also called Submersion, and the allegory most

  often used is that of a wave (the person) rising above the ocean (Brahman)

  for a short while, then subsiding back into the ocean from which it sprang.

  The wave was never apart from the ocean, although it thought it was.


        Lets consider the case of a person practicing Kundalini-yoga.  In this

  system, a precipitated spark of the power which created all of this

  Existence is sleeping in the base chakra of every person living.  The idea

  (simple sounding) is to awaken this (thought of as a snake), and raise it

  upwards through every chakra until it reaches the chakra which lies above

  (or at the top of, in some systems) the head.  When this happens, the Yogi

  is united with God (or, in technical terms, Shakti has united with Shiva).

  When this happens, the Yogi can "white-out", become encompassed in total

  Bliss, and undergo many other interesting (so I hear) experiences.

  Breathing stops, the heartbeat can stop, and this state can last much longer

  than it would take for the Yogi to, well, die.  But the kundalini comes

  down, the Yogi regains consciousness of this world, and everything takes up

  where it left off.  During the time the Yogi was 'dead', his consciousness

  was united with the Ultimate - but not permanently.  This practice has lots

  of side-effects, many of them good and many of them bad (read Gopi Krishna's

  book 'Kundalini', and you'll see what I mean).  But why bother?


        Once again we dive deep into the seas of Personal Opinion, and this is

  entirely Personal Opinion.  Putting aside all of the religious reasons one

  might have, and putting aside the fact that the usual goal of personal

  spiritual development is a union with the Godhead, there doesn't seem to be

  much point in it.  You could say it was to avoid the endless problems that

  reincarnating causes, or you could say it was for the increased personal

  power that such experiences bring, or you could say it was for the Bliss and

  Peace that such a Union produces, but it still doesn't say what it does for

  the Godhead.  You can't personify Brahman - Consciousness and

  Unconsciousness exist simultaneously in It, so It really CAN'T care as you

  or I think of caring.  But what such a Union does is provide, as a

  side-effect, a sharing of Knowledge (in the 'gnosis' sense) which lays in

  the Divine, and It gets the knowledge you bring to It.  I don't believe in

  predestination, else there would be no point in Existence at all.  What the



                                     - 16 -


  Godhead needs is to Learn, to Know itself - and the only true way to Know

  something is to experience.  You are the organ which the Godhead uses to

  Know itself, and when someone enters Nirvana, or Samadhi, or Mystic Union

  with God, your experience is made known to It as Its experience can 'trickle

  down' to you.  All Existence is the Learning of God by becoming and

  experiencing every possibility inherent within It.  But, enough.


  1.3.3.4 The Play of Opposites


        Back on more solid ground now, we look at the world around us.

  Everywhere we see the 'play of opposites', new possibilities brought into

  existence by the continual tension between two poles.  This operates from

  the lowest level of existence right up to what is called the "Play of Shiva

  and Shakti", the continual interaction of the two Ultimate Poles of

  Positivity and Negativity.  To pass beyond the possibility of Good and Evil,

  of Right and Wrong, one must pass beyond the rational human mind which forms

  and classifies things in that fashion.  Until you do this, you are caught in

  the Play of Opposites and have no choice but to endure.


        What has this to do with ethics?  It merely serves to point out that

  there is no ethic which is not strictly human in origin.  In as much as the

  universe exists for itself, not for the individual experiencing it, it is

  completely without ethic or moral.  Attempting to project a universal moral

  or ethical system into Nature is more than worthless, it can be

  psychologically misleading at best and psychologically harmful at worst.

  Ethics are a human invention.


  1.4     Magick, Ethics, and Real Life


        Above, I spoke of the definitions of Magick and Ethics; of Religion

  and how it influenced ethics and morals; and of how ultimately all ethics

  and morals are human inventions.  But what does this have to do with the

  person who lives in the world?


  1.4.1   The Spiritual Path


        How do you deal with spirituality in a mostly materialistic world?

  How do other people see your spirituality?  Why bother with being in the

  world at all, why not retire from it?


  1.4.1.1 In The World


        First, lets define "in the world".  By that, I mean someone who holds

  down a job, interacts with people other than those who are on the same

  spiritual path as he is, someone who hasn't given up their life with others

  to pursue his goal.


        The person who is in the world will meet with intolerance.  I don't

  mean 'might', I mean WILL.  In todays normal society, and not just America

  or Europe, the strongly spiritual person is looked upon as being "not all

  there" or "not playing with a full deck".  The spiritual person will more

  than likely be distrusted by his more materialistic companions, and overtly

  spiritual talk or actions will be (a) politely ignored or (b) met with open

  hostility and derision.  Even those who follow a group-oriented mass

  religion who believe strongly will be treated to the same.


        It is in this environment that the personal ethical system will be

  tried in fire.  Eventually, every ethic and moral will be tested with real

  life situations and have real life results.  The person in the world will

  have little leisure to maintain unworkable or unrealistic ethics, as the

  reward for such could range from embarrassment to physical harm.  Holding

  strongly to an ethical system which is unpopular or misunderstood can



                                     - 17 -


  encourage mistreatment, especially if the ethical or moral system is

  spiritually grounded.


        Take a simple example: Person A is a vegetarian, and strongly believes

  that the eating of any red meat, chicken, or fish is tantamount to

  participation in murder.  We'll also say that Person A isn't obnoxious about

  it, that it is a personal ethical decision and doesn't attempt to

  proselytize.  Well, Person A is invited by his co-workers to a weekend party

  - you guessed it - barbecued ribs and steamed crabs.  Person A shows up,

  drinks a few beers, and generally socializes until someone notices that he

  isn't eating any crabs or ribs.  Someone asks him why, and he replies that

  he's a vegetarian by moral choice.  If he's lucky, his explanation will

  suffice and he won't be bothered about it.  In my experience, about 8 times

  out of 10 he's understood.  The other 2 times, especially if he works with

  intolerant people, he'll be subtly slighted and ridiculed, and more than

  likely become somewhat socially shunned.


        For a more extreme example: Person B doesn't believe in sexual

  discrimination in the workplace.  This person sees a woman's resume passed

  around the office, and hears the person in charge of hiring say: "We have

  enough women around here already.  Forget that resume".  What does Person B

  do?  It could be risking his job if the person in charge decides that Person

  B is a "feminist sympathizer", but to NOT say anything is a violation of a

  strongly held personal ethic.  What to do?


        The person in the world will develop a set of ethics tailored to the

  demands of a life which is not totally dedicated to some spiritual goal.  It

  will be a serviceable, workable system which results in the least amount of

  friction personally acceptable.  This system will also be uniquely personal,

  evolved out of not only the persons beliefs and morals but also out of the

  necessity for continued survival. To be "in the world" is to be constantly

  exposed to a diverse environment which can become confrontational (morally,

  ethically, and physically) at any time.


  1.4.1.2 Retirement, Retreat


        For some people, the continual stress of having to continually defend,

  either to others or to themselves, a personal ethical or moral system can be

  too much of a strain to bear.  What does a person do when they believe in

  their personal system, but isn't able or willing to put it into action in a

  diverse and possibly confrontational environment?


        It is possible, if the person is lucky enough to be rich, or have a

  VERY good friend who will support them, or belongs to a group-oriented mass

  religion which provides facilities for it, to actually 'retire' or 'retreat'

  from "the world" and be devoted full-time to spiritual advancement (or

  whatever is desired).  Sometimes a persons ethics are considered 'invalid'

  or "not realistic" if the person will not defend them, or will not submit

  them to the challenges and confrontations of a diverse environment for

  testing.  Who is to say that it is 'invalid' or 'unrealistic' to refuse to

  submit to what might charitably be called torture?  It seems that at times

  some people are unwilling to admit that it is valid to not want to undergo

  the continual stressing that putting an ethical or moral system to work in a

  diverse (and possibly confrontational) environment would cause.  This denies

  the individuals right to do what he feels is right.  Certainly, sometimes a

  "retreat" can truly mean a "retreat from reality", but this is hardly for

  someone who may not even know the person well to say - especially if the

  opinion (and opinion it is) is unsolicited.  This is a pet peeve of mine, as

  you might be able to tell.


        Since the person is not required to test his ethical system often, and

  when it is tested the results are not usually as dire as when done in the



                                     - 18 -


  world, often the resulting system is idealistic.  However, not having to put

  forth a large quantity of energy to continually refine a system, and not

  having to put forth energy to guard against negative results, the person who

  retires or retreats from the world is left to pursue his spiritual path in

  relative peace.  Being surrounded by others who share the ethical system, or

  who at least will respect it and not challenge it, provides a kind of

  freedom of pursuit not available "in the world".


  1.4.2   Compromise


        To those who attempt to coexist with others who don't share the same

  beliefs, and who might be actively against them, compromise is a familiar

  word.  How does spirituality hold up under the stresses and challenges of a

  diverse environment?  Is individual survival more important than maintaining

  a personal set of ethics?


  1.4.2.1 Daily Life


        How do your ethics and morals effect your day to day life?  Do you

  find yourself continually justifying your actions to others, or to yourself?

  Do you find yourself in a moral dilemma more often than not?


        Behavior in daily life is strongly effected by the individual ethical

  system.  Partaking of the most popular 'group ethic' can provide a smooth

  and easy path through each days possible problems, if the ethic of the group

  is acceptable to you.  Pre-made answers for pre-made problems, and the

  backing of a majority of the populace for any decisions based solidly on the

  'group ethic'.


        But what about those who don't follow the most popular group ethic?

  Daily life will provide a continual stream of opportunities to try the most

  well-thought-out ethical and moral system in situations that would never

  have been imagined (except in fever dreams).  What once seemed solid ethics

  evaporate under the harsh light of Adaptation and Reality, and what seemed

  to be foolish morals become mainstays of life.


        Whether you subscribe to a popular group ethic, or follow your own

  ethical system, you will (often, it seems) encounter situations in which

  your ethical system doesn't produce a simple (or even complex) answer.  Hard

  and fast rules are rocks to be smashed against, again and again, until

  either (a) they break or (b) you break.  How do you handle a situation in

  which the ethical answer is not the best one?


        Enter Compromise.  It is said that the willow will bend in the storm

  and survive, where the oak will shatter.  An ethical system which performs

  perfectly in 99 and 44/100% of all situations can explode when it strikes an

  occasion for which it was not prepared.  A willingness to bend to a certain

  point will insure success.


  1.4.2.2 Survival vs. Belief


        Sometimes, a situation is encountered in which a moral or ethic is

  violated which serves as a foundation stone in a system.  In this case,

  sometimes it is best to maintain the foundation intact at all costs.  It

  again reaches the point of personal choice:  which ethics or morals are so

  important that negative outcomes are better than compromise?  The loss of a

  job, a friend, or a lover/spouse can sometimes be the end result of this

  kind of difficult encounter, possibly even death (in extreme cases -

  remember Patrick Henry).  It is at times such as these that the key stones

  which make up the personal ethical system, rooted deep in the spirit of the

  possessor, are discovered.  Every personal system, somewhere, contains one

  of these founding ethics which cannot be violated without risking the



                                     - 19 -


  integrity of the personality (or soul).  It is here that King Survival will

  be sacrificed on the altar of Belief, sometimes willingly, sometimes

  unwillingly.  Discovering that one will willingly endure a great hardship

  for a belief, ethic, or moral can be both a revelation and a shattering

  experience.  It is here that ethics, morals, and beliefs which transcend the

  personal Ego are brought to light, like precious gems from an abandoned

  mine.  If the ethical system is built around one of these, it is guaranteed

  an endurance and influence beyond rational comprehension.  If the ethical

  system is based on some other value, or something which is the opposite of

  one of these core ethics or beliefs, the system and the possessor can

  splinter apart.  Survival is not necessarily of paramount importance.


  1.4.3   Necessity


        It has been called the Mother of Invention, and I suppose that it most

  certainly seems to be the main reason many things exist (the Father of

  Invention is Convenience).  When does necessity influence ethics?   How can

  it effect the individual?  What of the conflicting pressures of society, and

  the personal spiritual path?


  1.4.3.1 The Pressure of Society


        Despite what anyone might say, the pressure of Society effects us all.

  Laws are passed, beliefs are promulgated, ethical systems which are touted

  as 'beneficial to everyone' are sold on the street corner.


        It can be downright dangerous to subscribe to an ethical which is far

  out of line with the 'average' considered Safe by society.  Not only are

  laws passed which enforce the supposed "ethics of the common man", but "the

  common man" will sometimes take to enforcing his own uncommon law on someone

  he sees as a threat.  Unfashionable beliefs and ethics are tolerated as

  'quaint', those seen as threatening the status quo may cause one to be run

  out of town, harassed, or worse.  While there are ethics which cannot be

  compromised, often this pressure (subtle and none-too-subtle) can either

  consciously or unconsciously effect the development of an ethical system.

  Who likes to be put down or harassed?  Who likes to be denied jobs,

  friendship, or understanding due to "odd beliefs"?


        Many systems of ethics are put forth specifically for the purpose of

  creating a 'new ethic', to supplant the 'old ethic' I guess.  Oddly enough,

  few seem to last against the prevailing 'old ethic' unless partaking of a

  majority of it (I guess a kind of 'son of the old ethic').  "Yuppie-ism" is

  merely a non-religious version of the old familiar "Protestant work ethic",

  updated to be fashionably atheistic.  The pressure of society is to MAINTAIN

  the status quo, for better or for worse, against the influx of change that

  might rock the boat.


  1.4.3.2 The Pressure of Spirit


        It has never been terribly fashionable to be an individual.  Even in

  the supposed "Punk" era, everybody was being different - in the same way,

  maintaining the "safety in numbers" rule.  With the advent of the "New Age"

  era, it is slowly becoming fashionable to believe in spirituality - within a

  certain safe set of guidelines, of course.


        The individual is threatening to the average 'herd member'.  He

  represents something out of the ordinary, off the norm, a possible source of

  dreaded Change.  Does he like this?  Did he choose the lonely path he walks?

  How much free will does the individual really have?


        Some people are called to leave the pack, in the sense of 'vocare', a

  call from God or some higher Divinity which MUST be heeded, and is ignored



                                     - 20 -


  at the highest possible cost.  The called sometimes has little choice in the

  matter, except to willingly accept the Call and all that it implies.

  Something inside this person drives them to make their own way outside of

  the group norm, and while many accept and embrace this with open arms it is

  NOT universally true.


        This 'pressure of Spirit' can come at almost any time in life, to

  anybody, in any circumstance.  A person can hide from society, from his

  friends and enemies alike, but not (for long) from himself or the Deity

  within.  The call can be ignored, but the risk is great that pressure (both

  internal and seemingly coincidental external) will be brought to bear of

  such strength that the individual is broken under it.


        What is the Call demanding?  It could be anything!  Some are called to

  a fuller participation in the group, to guide and help the members.  Some

  are called to leave the comfort of the group, and to enter a less-travelled

  Path.  Some are called to walk alone, finding their own Way.  Seldom is this

  Call something which is comprehensible (and thus acceptable) to society.  It

  seems to be difficult for the common man to comprehend an internal need and

  pressure so strong as to over-rule the pressure exerted by society - at

  least, until it happens to him.


  1.4.4   The Responsibility of Power


        What is power?  How is it used?  What responsibility comes with power,

  if any?  Is there an ethical use of Magickal power?


        Everyone possesses power of some kind, from the power to provide

  friendship and love to Magickal power to cause change in the subjective and

  objective world.  What is the Responsibility of Power?


  1.4.4.1 Use It or Lose It


        There comes a time in most peoples lives where they come into the

  possession of some kind of power.  This can range from the power to hire and

  fire people at the office, to seemingly Magickal abilities.   Sometimes this

  power comes after a long period of hard work, dedicated to the acquisition

  of the power.  Sometimes it comes seemingly without cause, unasked.


        It is the ethical decision of the individual as to how to use the

  power he possesses.  But, one thing is certain: unused power will depart.

  If the supervisor doesn't hire new people, and doesn't fire those who will

  not perform or cause trouble, the supervisor will himself be fired.  When

  Magickal power occurs, it must be exercised and brought under conscious

  control or it will vanish - or use itself.


        Consider a common enough occurence in Magick - the development of the

  ability to influence others (slightly or greatly) at a distance.  It seems

  that if the ability is not brought under conscious control, and trained to

  perform, that it will become the plaything of the unconscious complexes of

  the individual - often in direct opposition to conscious wishes!  The

  'accidental' effecting of friends, enemies, or even someone not personally

  known can be traced many times to the lack of training of a newly-acquired

  ability (or to the unwillingness to accept and use it).  Once out of

  conscious control, it requires great effort to bring it back into the light

  of consciousness, where it can (at least) be kept under control, somewhat

  like a helpful but clumsy Great Dane.


  1.4.4.2 Power over Self/Power Over Others






                                     - 21 -


        I have seen it said that there are two kinds of Power: power over

  yourself, and power over others.  I can agree with that.


        Power over others is easily come by.  Anyone can go out and purchase a

  gun, or a knife, and gain instant power over others.  With sufficient

  practice and effort, one can gain Magickal power over others, but why

  bother?  It is much easier to merely threaten, bribe, or cajole someone into

  something than working up to the level of skill or development required to

  Magickally influence someone.  Power over others is CHEAP.


        Power over yourself is hard to come by.  You must first realize that

  you are not your own master, and this is one of the most difficult

  realizations to make.  There are daily thousands of influences on your life,

  and these cause you do behave in certain ways which you may or may not be

  conscious of.  This doesn't even include the unconscious influence of any

  known or unknown complexes or neuroses, or other psychological factors.  To

  gain mastery of yourself, you must first be able to know yourself as you

  truly are, not as others see you and not as some idealized picture in your

  own mind - this is NOT EASY, and can often take a lifetime.  Most people opt

  out of this by simply saying "that's just the way I am" and "that's just the

  way things are" - in other words, abrogating responsibility for themselves.

  It is not the method of the masses, for to set even one foot on the path to

  self-knowledge and true individuality will result in your alienation from

  the majority of people.  Eventually, the power you gain over yourself will

  provide paths to power over others and other things - and, hopefully, the

  maturity to handle it properly.


  1.4.4.3 Interference


        Once someone has gained a certain amount of power, be it magickal or

  mundane, there will inevitably come the opportunity to (mis-)use it.  One of

  the most (seemingly) popular forms of (mis-)use of power is to interfere in

  the lives of others, or to interfere with the natural order of things.


        Take, for instance, a popular problem: the extinction of certain

  species of animals.  Now, many times the extinction of some species can be

  directly traced to someones interference with Nature, from dumping some kind

  of noxious substance where it shouldn't be to the destruction of an

  environment occupied by the animal.  Fine, as far as it goes.  But what if

  it was destined for that species to become extinct?  What if the ecological

  niche that it once occupied has been taken over by a more efficient

  organism, or if the nice has vanished altogether?  Then, who is interfering

  by attempting to unnaturally perpetuate an environment that should no longer

  exist?  There is a lot of resistance against any form of change at all, and

  it is no less interference to prevent the passing of something than it is to

  prevent its birth.


        In a more personal vein: you are attracted to someone who doesn't even

  know you exist (I know, this is so common a situation and example as to be

  trite - but no less true).  You, being a magician, naturally take the course

  of Fate into your own hands and work a ritual to attract said person.  Lets

  assume it works, and the object of your desire is in your hands.  Just what

  do you think that the other person would think of your actions?  You have

  just interfered in someone elses life, and probably to their detriment at

  that.  The repercussions from this interference are unforeseeable by most,

  but the first repercussions will more than likely fall upon the perpetrator

  of the deed.


        Even supposing that you are interfering for the best of reasons, "for

  the persons/objects/situations own good", unless you are a very achieved

  Adept you cannot know what the outcome of the action could be.  Preventing

  someone from undergoing a difficult time could be interfering with that



                                     - 22 -


  persons Karma at the least, and you may actually be removing the opportunity

  for growth or advancement that trials can bring.


        How do you know when you are interfering?  There is no certain test.

  Even the most exhaustive analysis of a situation can only return a finite

  number of answers, and those only probabilities.  Intuition can be a better

  guide, if you aren't fooling yourself due to some psychological interference

  from within you.  You can only remain true to yourself and your ethical and

  moral system, and attempt to cope with the results of your actions.  As

  always, you are the final arbiter and must take responsibility.


  1.4.4.4 True Will


        Being a Thelemite, I spend a fair amount of time wondering what my

  True Will might be.  No angels or Gods or Goddesses of any fashion have yet

  turned up on my doorstep (or altar, or anywhere for that matter) to inform

  me as to what it might be.


        And what is True Will?  It is supposed by some (many, actually) that

  each and every person born into this Existence is possessed of some ultimate

  purpose - the fulfillment of that purpose, whatever it might be, is the True

  Will of the person.  There are larger questions, like whether a persons True

  Will is valid eternally, or only for one specific incarnation; or whether or

  not someones True Will can change; but for the time we will avoid those

  (since I haven't the faintest idea of the answers).  For my purposes, I will

  consider that True Will can consist of a series of goals which will take one

  or more incarnations to achieve.


        And what does True Will have to do with ethics?  Well, if you believe

  in such a thing (I do), then your ethics will be based on adhering to the

  performance of your True Will as closely as possible.  Anything which

  assists in the doing of your True Will is ethical, and anything which

  interferes with the doing of your True Will is unethical.  This is the path

  which I attempt to follow.


        Now we come to the hard part:  determining your True Will.  Just how

  do you find out what your True Will is - oracles, rational analysis,

  questioning Deities or such?  Well, Aleister Crowley seemed to say that your

  Holy Guardian Angel could inform you as to your True Will.  And just what is

  a Holy Guardian Angel?  Well, I basically see the phrase as being synonymous

  with Higher Self - so, you find out from yourself (as it were).  Achieving

  the Knowledge and Conversation of your Holy Guardian Angel is coming into

  conscious communication with your Higher Self, and this provides a channel

  (pardon the expression) to a greater deal of information than any other

  happening in life (in my opinion).  There is no better source of information

  than your Higher Self or HGA (Holy Guardian Angel), even though it may

  sometimes be obscure, difficult, or downright painful to discover.  Aleister

  Crowley considered any magickal activity which did not contribute to the

  Knowledge and Communication of the Holy Guardian Angel to be black magick,

  and while I don't totally agree with that opinion, the Knowledge and

  Conversation is an absolute necessity for anyone who wishes to cross the

  Abyss, since the HGA can provide information on how best to do this (the

  natural abode of the HGA is across the Abyss).  And how do you get this

  Knowledge and Conversation?  Some people swear by the Abramelin Operation,

  as put forth in the "Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage",

  translated by S.L. MacGregor Mathers (some people swear at it); some people

  try to get to the dwelling-place of the HGA by scrying to the Eighth Aethyr

  in the Enochian System (effective but hazardous); some people simply invoke

  the Higher Self daily until the event occurs.  What works best?  I believe

  that the method which works best is individually best, that no one method

  will work for everybody.  Achieving the Knowledge and Conversation of the

  Holy Guardian Angel is not a simple task - it can take years, and more



                                     - 23 -


  effort than any other magickal operation anybody might reasonably attempt.

  Many don't even try, for one reason or the other, and many spend much time

  travelling false paths.  There are no guarantees.


  1.5     Conclusions


        At last we come to the end of the paper.  Just what have we learned?


        Hopefully, we have learned that our ethical and moral systems come

  from around us and within us; that in the final analysis it is the

  individuals responsibility for developing or choosing an ethical system;

  that there comes a point where ethics and morals no longer function; and

  that the use of Magick is influenced by the ethical system of the operator

  (and sometimes vice versa).


        I will describe several situations (not typical, I hope!) using

  certain Tarot trumps as meaningful keys.  None of this is to be taken as an

  absolute anything (tired of disclaimers yet?), but I hope that it will

  provide a little insight as to what I see.


  1.5.1   The Universe


        The material world, the world of Everymans daily life.  Spirituality

  here is an afterthought, and the ethical system typical of this level is

  provided by a mass producer of ethics and morals - a mass religion or a

  current fashion.  At this stage, free thought is at a minimum, and personal

  responsibility is given lip service only.  This is the average level of the

  greater portion of humanity at the current time (unfortunately).  In the

  absence of a need (or ability) to provide themselves with a system of ethics

  or morals, Society will step in and take over "for their own good".


        It is unfortunate that so many refuse to expend the time or effort to

  think for themselves and learn on their own.  Whenever there are a large

  number of such (someone once coined the term "sheeple") there will be wolves

  to feed on them.  In this way, providers of mass ethical and moral systems

  perform a useful service - they provide a lowest-common-denomenator grouping

  for such as desire to turn over responsibility, and someone to lead them in

  a (more or less) harmless path with minimum damage or disturbance from the

  wolves.


        For those of this type who encounter Magick, it will be via the

  channel of a pseudo-Guru or some such other 'replacement' for the service

  which mass religion would perform.  The aspirant isn't, really, because any

  real striving would necessitate the recognition of exactly what kind of

  person the aspirant was - and this is to be avoided by this type!  If, by

  some chance of Fate, the aspirant has stumbled onto an effective method,

  then the world-view will be shattered and disaster will strike (most often

  repeatedly).  Sometimes, the aspirant (victim?) comes out the other end,

  freed of the yoke provided by society and ready to progress.  Unfortunately,

  this seems to be more the exception than the rule - most don't come out the

  other end of this kind of experience with less than near-critical damage.


        I personally find this kind of person, and those who feed on them, to

  be distasteful to me.  The (lack of?) ethics and morality that pop forth

  from their mouths when the correct button is pushed (thinking optional)

  causes me to get somewhat queasy, and the wolves who are unashamedly wolves

  are no better.  These are the people who watch crimes being committed, and

  don't even call the police (don't get involved!), or who will sell

  themselves into bondage to some religious/political leader who will "make

  everything work out" for them, without effort on their part.


  1.5.2   The Hermit



                                     - 24 -


        Once a person has recognized that they can no longer move with the

  mass, that the predigested ethical and moral systems which seemed to work

  smoothly (or never have worked, in some cases) are useless to him, the true

  work has begun.


        Attempting to wrestle with ones own demons, and in the process develop

  ethically and spiritually, will always lead to a certain amount of

  alienation from the masses.  Society, by it's current nature, cannot abide

  the individual who insists on being his own person without admitting that

  the panacea is NOT universal, and i've yet to see a society which admitted

  such a thing.  From undergoing Jungian analysis (either with an actual

  analyst, or self-analysis) in an attempt to individuate, to performing

  full-scale ceremonial rituals for the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy

  Guardian Angel, the first result is the same: ostracism from those who

  cannot (or will not) try to understand you.


        For some, the shock of discovering that your friend Bob or Joan can't

  understand why you would want to "know yourself better", or "do that kind of

  thing" can be lessened by interaction with other people in the same boat.

  Analysts can always talk to other analysts, Wiccans have the others in the

  coven, and sometimes ceremonial magicians and mystics have schools or occult

  orders to belong to.  A problem shared is less of a problem.  Of course,

  sometimes this very sharing can cause the same sort of problem (as in, "You

  did WHAT?  How odd!" - or "You experienced WHAT?  You must be a Master!"),

  but on the whole for the person starting on his first steps to true

  individuality group support can help.


        However, due to the very individual nature of the process it may be

  impossible to find anyone else who understands (or will attempt to

  understand) what one is experiencing.  This person is the true Hermit, who

  is forced by his own Self (or Higher Self, or Holy Guardian Angel) to tread

  a path unique.  His experiences and thoughts may coincide only tangentially

  with those of others, if at all.  This is both the freest and most dangerous

  situation, as there is little (or no) help if trouble arises and there is an

  ever-present possibility of loss of contact with consensual reality.


  1.5.3   The Hierophant


        Once one has reached a certain stage (it varies, from what I can

  tell), there will be others who will come to ask questions (if only out of

  curiosity).  To answer, or not to answer?  One can remain a Hermit, and

  continue to develop ethically/spiritually free from the outside, or one can

  "come into the open" and try to explain and help others.


        For those who choose the latter, the path is no easy one.  Since the

  ethical system is based on personal experience, translating it into terms

  which someone else can understand (misunderstand?) is a monumental task.

  This becomes even more true when magick enters the fray.  Personal symbology

  is just that - personal.  It is true that some material and symbols is

  archetypal in nature, and this portion will (sometimes) be understood by

  those who are familiar with the symbol-system which the images or ideas are

  drawn from.  The greater the difference in experience between Teacher and

  Student, the more complex is the task of transmitting the concept (ethical

  OR magickal) and the more likely there will be some misunderstanding.  The

  Hierophant must have a great deal of patience (the more the better) and a

  willingness to try, again and again, to get the basic idea across to the

  Student.


  1.5.4   The Magus


        Eventually, ethics and magick blend one into another.  Magick is quite

  capable of absorbing and consuming every type of hobby, interest, and habit



                                     - 25 -


  which one has (not to mention every spare moment).  Is doing Magick ethical?

  What kind of Magick is ethical, if any?  Why do Magick in the first place?

  What is the goal of it all - to what end?


        Well, as far as Magick being ethical, that is of course the personal

  ethical decision of the would-be magician.  So is deciding what kind of

  Magick is ethical, other peoples opinions aside.  As to WHY to do Magick -

  the answers are as varied as the practitioners.  Some do Magick for what I

  believe are the wrong reasons - as an alternative method of getting

  something which they don't really want, without going through the physical

  effort to get it.  Some do Magick for what I believe are the right reasons -

  to achieve union with the Ultimate, to truly Know Deity.  There are cases

  where it is necessary (or prudent) to use Magick to change the course of

  events, either in the personal sphere or in the world outside it.  Then, the

  magician merely serves as a more advanced natural force, beyond the poles of

  Good or Evil, of Right or Wrong.  At this level, above the Abyss, there are

  no ethics or morals, there is merely What Is and What Needs to Be.  The true

  Magus is a part of the mind of the Universe, and it is simply impossible to

  apply normal ethical and moral standards to his actions.  Now, don't believe

  for a minute that everyone who says that they are a Magus even knows what he

  is talking about!  It is a VERY RARE STATE REACHED BY A VERY FEW, and many

  of those are in the Magus state of consciousness continually.  His is merely

  to DO, and there is no Right or Wrong implicit in his actions.


  1.5.5   The Fool


        As it was in the Beginning, so shall it be at the end.


        The primal Mind which desired to Know Itself, that embarked on the

  adventure of manifestation, was Foolish.  To experience every possibility

  implicit in existence is the never-ending journey of Deity.  The Fool goes,

  uncaring of where he travels or how he travels, content in the journey for

  its own sake.  The return to this state is a task which faces us all, deny

  it and refuse it as we might.  Here there is no concern for ethics or

  magick, and I cannot comment on what this must be like.  To quote many a

  sage: "It can only be expressed in Silence, and even that is imperfect".





























                                     - 26 -


ven that is imperfect".