An argument with Carla O'Harris (5)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carla O'Harris [snipped links to books]

Thank you. I will be review them and resume the discussion upon those points upon completion.

Quote:

[link to definition]

Thank you for providing this, it helps me understand how you are using the term. I greatly appreciate it.

Quote:

You're using outdated ideas about Gardner. Gardner received his rituals, initiation, and ideas about the cult from the coven that initiated him that predated him. He had all kinds of ideas about witchcraft from wide reading, but the ideas about not causing harm came from the actual witches with whom he was in contact who initiated him. He was not arguing from other sources here. He was speaking from the tradition into which he was initiated. The works of Ms. Murray were not primarily "unsupported conjecture", but fairly good conjecture at the time, and productive hypotheses that inspired important work such as Ginzburg's. What you may not be aware of is that I am working on a book which will champion the Neo-Murrayite viewpoint, which is a modification of Murray's work, demonstrating the important core of validity within it. I am sorry that ten years of research has been so unfruitful for you. The research I have done over a smaller period of time has proven far more fruitful, and demonstrates that there is indeed a powerful historical precedent for the tradition into which Gardner was initiated. That tradition predates Gardner, and while we do not yet know how far back it stretched, there are precedents in the record for practices and ideas very similar which were practiced in Europe.

I propose that the discussion of the works of Gardner and Murray be held in a different thread. As I think it will be moving away from the primary theme of this one.

Quote:

I have already stated some of those : malice, resentment, envy, psychopathy, and vengeance.

I was not sure if this comprised your entire list.

I ask you, Ms. O'Harris, with the exception of psychopathy, would you agree that the stated attributes are emotions and not actions?

My next question for you, madam, is: is it the emotion that you object to or actions motivated from the emotion?

If the emotion is what you object to, I ask are you proposing regulation of emotion? I think that would be most impossible to achieve, as emotions are rather ephemeral things and more likely to change then the direction of the wind.

If it is the actions motivated by the emotion; I would know, Ms. O'Harris, who ultimately decides what actions are appropriate? What of the actions motivated by distressing emotions not listed, such as anger or deep grief?

On the matter of psychopathy, I think we can agree that this is a psychological illness. Individuals who are suffering from this are in need of care and help dealing with the problems that result from it. Unless you are working from a stand point that defines psychopathy differently then how it is defined within the psychological community, am I correct in understanding that is indeed the context you are working from with respect to this term?

Quote:

If someone is harmed and they file complaint under law against an assault and press charges, the burden of proof of self-defense as defense against the charge of assault, etc., is upon the defendant once the facts of the case have been established. As a procedure of evidence, indeed one is innocent until proven guilty ; however, that was not my point. Once the facts of the crime are established, the burden of proof is upon the person who committed the act of force.

Again, I contend that you are incorrect. I fear, however, that this is a point that I will be unable to persuade you upon. For it appears that this is an opinon that you are most fixed upon and I must respectfully disagree with you upon this. My disagreement is upon the grounds that such a stance "Once the facts of the crime are established, the burden of proof is upon the person who committed the act of force." is in direct opposition to the principles upon which our legal system is supposed to operate.

I will, however, admit that this has become the stance of the legal system du jour. As such, I would argue that our legal system has become corrupt and is now a tool primed for the abuse of the citizenry. That, however, is a topic for the Political Pagan forum.

Quote:

I think this is a ridiculously stated position. It already exists. It is called "the legal system". It exists as a set of institutions which may quite readily be drawn upon.

I contend that this is not irrelevant. Just as the legal system is the institution that is in play to regulate the society at large, within religions and various organized social groups, there is often an organized portion (that may or may not be a separate body) that is responsible for the establishment of norms, monitoring adherance to these norms, and the subsequent enforcement of them.

Quote:

These points are completely irrelevant. Maleficia was a crime in Germanic, Roman, and then later Christian law, when it was still believed to be an effective use of force. If it is not an effective use of force and only psychodrama, it is irrelevant to regulate it. But to the degree that it is accepted as an effective use of force, it is logical to regulate it. Citizens have both a right and a duty to defend other citizens from harm. Such a legal place can be served by the old Anglo-Saxon custom of "hue and cry".

I do not aruge that citizens don't have a right and duty to do so. I apologize that I phrased my point so poorly. I ask, however, that you refer to my earlier point about the establishment and enforcement of norms within a group or organization.

Quote:

As successful as the maleficia in the first place. But there are all kinds of ways of discouraging anti-social acts, the most important of which begin in the social rather than legal realm. When everyday people discourage each other from anti-social acts, engaging in fierce reasoning, shaming, ostracizing, and even blocking, it becomes much more effective. That is why it is logical for a witch community to engage in such actions, and move on to magical-legal actions if necessary.

I will concede that the methods that you present are effective. Their effectiveness, however, is limited by the rather broad spectrum of points that frequently proves self-conflicting. Much like in our debate, it is difficult to hold a discussion when does not know the way all the terms are used. Each of the sub-cultures and religions that make up the witch, pagan and occultist community all have very specific terms. In many situations, these terms will be shared in the different groups. Unfortunately, they will not be used the same way and it makes for the discussion to be most difficult when each person approaching it have two different understandings of the word used and assumes that the other shares their own view.

Quote:

This is an extremist libertarian position that will never be held by the majority of this country or likely any other country. Why don't you go supply gangs with nukes while you're at it? The idea that violence should be regulated is at the heart of any social community.

I shall presume that your sarcasm was said from fustration, as I occasionally do the same. As such, I restrain my sarcastic reply and will respond. You argue that my position will never be held by the majority of this country or of any other country. I will agree that as the world stands today, at the time of my typing this, you are most likely correct. This stance, however, was once held in this very nation. If you look at the political climate of the nation at the time of the Revolutionary War, you find that precise position.

As for your statement "The idea that violence should be regulated is at the heart of any social community." I would argue that you are incorrect. This, I argue, is not the heart of any social community or government for it does not address the primary motivation of said group. The primary motivation of any social community (and government) is the perpetuation of the community, the preservation of the community, and the accomplishment of the community's collective interests.

Furthermore, the regulation of violence is a secondary concern, falling as part of the preservation of the community. I am inclined to argue that the regulation of violence within the community is secondary to preserving the community from hostile external influences. My stances on these matters, Ms. O'Harris, are not extreme. I may sound extreme compared to others, but I assure you that I am not. The position I hold is grounded in the philosophical ideals that lead to the Revolutionary War and the rise of our form of government. If you would like to debate or contrast our views (as I see that yours is clearly dramatically different from mine.) I think it would be an excellent debate for Political Pagan.

Quote:

Freedom is not the freedom to violate, or engage in violence. Someone who refuses to abide by principles of law can be made an outlaw and live with the wolves. I am absolutely for wide and spacious freedom. But freedom is not freedom to violate. If you claim that witches (and occultists, who I do not consider the same thing at all) are operating under the same common law principles that were behind the Revolutionary War, then it makes sense to have juries of witches to investigate and prosecute violations of rights.

I argue that freedom is indeed the freedom to engage in any act you so choose. You are responsible, however, not to enage in violations of the rights of others, including but not limited to violence against their person, interests, and dependants. You are also responsible for the defense of your freedoms, which may possibly include the defense of the freedoms of others. Thus, I argue that we have the right to yell "fire" in any setting we choose to but we have the responciblity not to do so in a crowded theater or otherwise incite a general panic.

If we engage in such an irresponcible act, we are then responcible for the payment of resitution to all whom are injured by it. This may be via fines, replacing destroyed property, or other socially agreed upon forms of compensation. I can not argue that the establishment of juries of witches and occultists would be a poor way to ensure that resitution is paid. I do argue, however, that until the specific questions of what consitutes harm and the mode of committing it are answered, such juries are useless.

When you consider this in the light of the earlier stated problem of ill defined terms in the discussion of these questions, it leaves the problem rather unresolvable. Much like the lack of a clearly defined and accepted definition for when life begins has hindered any and all reasonable legislation on the matter of abortion, contraceptives, and the rights of infants and parents.

Quote:

Ummmmm .... maleficia by definition is molesting the business of others. The right to self-defense is not the right to self-prosecute. I have made it clear that binding -- ie., limiting spells that are purely for self-defense and which preclude any harm to the object of the spell -- are fine forms of self-defense encouraged by Gardner in the appropriate circumstances. But people becoming judge, jury, and executioner and setting out on punitive actions is not a right held within the principles just stated. In fact, part of the limitations of our activities that you mention are limiting ourselves from punitive action, said action only allowed within the limits of due process of law.

I will agree with you that we choose to limit our actions to operate within the scope of due process of law. I argue, however, that in areas which are not the current purview of the law (such as occultism, which I use to include any and all forms of magic and spiritual practices that may be used to enact harm to others) we are forced to act on our own. We do not have the recourse of the law or of a governing/regulating body within the community (due to the lack of organization).

Quote:

I didn't say that Christian laws about maleficia should be enacted. I referred mainly to Roman and Germanic laws against maleficia, which were strictly defined as acts of harm, not the Christian expansion and distortion which used this as laws of religious persecution. As a supporter of religious freedom and paganism especially, I am obviously not suggesting laws against the practice of paganism -- within the law, of course.

If you are referring to the Roman laws against maleficia, I then ask what period of Rome's history? Or, if I may extend this some, if you are referring to the laws of antiquity from any of the cultures of the pre-Christian era, what of the laws prohibiting the practice of religions not of the State religion?

Looking specifically at the Germanic laws, I ask you, Ms. O'Harris, are you supporting the revival of the practice of weirgeld? Or perhaps the Celtic digal? It is a risky thing to embrace the practices of the old religions for they are from a time where nations marched to war more frequently then they do today. Much of the old laws, I have found, tend to encourage the attitude that one does have the right to smite their foes with any and all means possible, limited only in your culture by the person at the top of the heap with more power then you have. In essence, they support a very different social structure then the one we operate in, or at least are supposed to operate in according to the principles our nation is founded upon.

In either situation, the modernization of Christian, Germanic, Roman, or other ancient laws can only result in a gross array of opportunities for all who practice magic to be oppressed. As such, I include witches, other pagans, and occultists in this discussion. To ignore them would be as foolish as it was of the Founding Fathers to ignore the people groaning in slavery at the time of writing the Declaration of Independence, indeed it would smack of hypocracsy.

Quote:

Let self-policing occur on the social level according to the principle of preventing maleficia, and this won't become an issue.

Please refer to my earlier statements with respect to self-policing. Thank you.

Quote:

I am not concerned with spiritual beings per se, but the ethics of the actions of human beings. Someone can love the most malevolent character in the history of villainry, and as long as their actions (and I include magical actions) cause no harm to others, I could care less what they do. It is when they cause harm that it becomes an issue. Gardner's phrasing of his witch tradition's feelings about this is extremely libertarian : An' ye harm none, do what ye will. Do what you want, and the libertarian ethic applies, so long as none are harmed. Step over that line, and there's trouble.

I ask you, Ms. O'Harris, please confirm for me, you are not invalidating the right to self-defense or the defense of others, correct? I also ask, what of accidental harm?

Quote:

Opinion about this is divided. There is evidence for some sacrifice. How prevalent it was is a matter of debate. That the Druids provided solidarity for Gaulish resistance to Roman invasion was the key issue, just as the Imams providing solidarity for Iraqi resistance to American invasion has been of some concern. Of course, the Romans, like the Americans, were engaged in imperialistic adventures, but generally speaking, as long as a religion didn't oppose Roman supremacy, the Romans were surprisingly tolerant.

I can find other examples of cultures and religions oppressed via propaganda by the Romans, other cultures in antiquity, or even by the United States of America. I do see that you can see the parallel that I'm striving to draw here. I don't suspect, however, that my intentions in this illustration were as clear as I thought they were. I will try to rephrase it.

Propaganda is a powerful tool. Public opinion, is in many respects, the hive-mind of a nation and it's life-blood. It is also a very fickle thing and easily manipulated by propaganda. I am extremely apprehensive with the idea of regulating magic as it is an integral part of the religious practices of many individuals. (Depending upon your definition of magic, you could argue of all religions. That's a different discussion, however.) Regulation of the elements of a religion is the same as regulation of religion itself when you take one of the core elements of the religion in question.

It would be like telling a Catholic that they are not permitted to partake of the Eucharist because the communal sharing of the Blood of Christ is a violation of health codes. This is one of the foundational sacraments of Catholicism, take it away and you have a very different religion. In one fell swoop, you have just outlawed Catholicism in practical terms, even if you haven't done so by writing a law specifically naming the faith. You also have outlawed any and all other religions that engaged in the same practice.

The same risk is at play in the regulation of magic. If you do not permit a person to burn a woman shaped candle in the effort to curse a woman's ovaries to wither and make her unfertile, then you also do not permit a person to burn a woman shaped candle in the effort to assist in conception for a woman with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Quote:

And minimizing the violation of other beings is part of the social contract of being part of a community. While it may not be possible to eliminate all harm, that is a far cry from those who deliberately set out to cause harm in a punitive, malefic way, declaring themselves gods able to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I've addressed this point earlier in this post. Please refer to the discussion of the primary goals of a social group or government. Thank you.

Quote:

I consider anyone who cannot keep within non-injury of others, especially when it comes to dealing with the Shadow, to be riding a psychopathic edge that is very dangerous. Psychodrama is one thing. Illegal, intentional infliction of harm is imposing upon others and violating them.

I thank you for your honesty in expressing your opinion. Your statement, however, presents the impression that you are arguing against the defense of self, one's rights, and others.

Quote:

I don't. But maybe I'm a little sharp on the learning curve. But even if you meant that sometimes suffering is a part of the equation of growth, "suffering" is a completely different category than "intentional harm". There is an overabundance of suffering in the world without human beings having to add to that equation. I am glad that you were able to learn from and rise above oppressive situations that caused you suffering.

Again, I will with hold my sarcasm. Though, I must say, it is difficult for I see opportunities to jest here. I will not do so, and there by prevent the misinterpretation of my words in response to your initial statement here.

I will, however, put to you these questions: As you were learning to ride your bike as a child, did you fall off? Did it hurt? Would you agree that pain is suffering?

Your earlier statements with respect to harm painted the incidental suffering that is a natural result of being alive on the same moral ground as intentionally inflicted harm. In your most recent statement about the "overabundance of suffering" in the world, this apparent stance is represented. I will assume, however, that it is due to my misinterpreting what you are saying.

Quote:

Acts of self-defense are legitimate justifications for the appropriate use of force proportional to warding off the threat. I never disagreed with the right of self-defense ; my point is that it, too, is regulated by law and the principle of proportionality.

Your arguments, Ms. O'Harris, presents at times the impression that you are arguing against acts of self-defense. I see quite clearly that you feel that there is a need to use force in appropriate proportionality to the force used against the person defending themselves. I question, madam, whom has the right to determine what is the correct amount of force to apply in defending yourself within the context of magic and what is the correct mode to be used?

I will agree that there is such a thing as excessive force in defending yourself. When you kill the mugger, and the situation was such that breaking their arm would have been most sufficent for preserving your life and liberty, I agree that there is a need for an inquiry into the situation. I do not believe, however, that the person defending themselves are to be assumed as in the wrong from the beginning of the inquiry.

In such a situation, the evidence must speak alone as to where the fault lies. For the initial situation may be such that your killing of the assailant looks to be an excessive response but the subsequent investigation may present that the party had threatened your life in a manner that necessitated your killing them. The impression you present, Ms. O'Harris, is that the assumption is made that the person who killed the mugger is initially at fault for the act of killing and that this assumption is made within the legal community in all acts of self-defense. I argue that this is not the case, as I have been personally informed by members of law enforcement, the military, and professionals that teach self-defense.

Quote:

I do not know what you did, but assuming it was entirely within a reasonable limitation of self-defense, if the other suffered consequences of their own criminal actions and your reasonable defense against them, the responsibility is theirs.

Continuing upon the assumptions presented above, I ask: If I had not given you all of the contextual information for the situation, would you have assumed that I was acting in the wrong?

As for what I did, I reported the person in question to the Board of Trustees and the President of the College for their actions. Failure on the part of the administration of the college and the Board of Trustees would have resulted in my making a public complaint via the local media and then initiating a class action lawsuit with other students who had been subjected to the misbehavior of the administrator in question. [shrugs] I ran the risk of getting thrown out of college for the sake of doing the right thing. It seems to be an unusual trait. It makes me feel sad about my generation, but that is a different topic. If you'd like, I would tell you the whole story about the incident at some point.

Quote:

And you are legally responsible for those actions. You are answerable to a community for them. And if your actions were reasonable and within the limits of law, you will have no reason to worry. But making a decision to harm someone in self defense in an emergency is a different thing altogether than an intentional invocation of magic, which can most certainly be more imaginative than someone caught in a moment of attack.

Madam, I content that every act of self defense is of equal nature. And the limit of your mode of self defense if that of your imagination, thus why there are sections of self defense classes devoted to the use of and identification of unconventional weaponry. Most people might beable to consider using a fork to defend them selves, but with the correct mindset, even a blanket or a peice of paper can be used. The question is to what extent are you willing to go to defend yourself.

All invocation of magic is intentional. It is simply how it works, you can not use it with out intention. Your intentions may not be clear or may not be well thought out, but you intend to use magic, thus you do so. And I have, as well as probably many others, used magic in emergency situations to defend myself. Sometimes, that is what it takes to give that little bit of "luck" you need to avoid grevious injury. I adamantly reject the contention that all magic requires a ritual. That, however, is based in my view of how magic works and functions, which is in a different thread.

Quote:

I am invoking important legal principles to provide perspective in this debate, and to demonstrate why the Gardnerian "harm none" doctrine is extremely important. In fact, you are responsible to the community and the law for your actions. I am truly sorry for the violations you have suffered, and without declaring you a victim in the larger connotation of the word, I recognize, at least according to the description you have given, that you were the victim of a series of violations, which, as a member of the human community, I am very sorry for, and embarassed by the actions of my fellow humans who have treated you so horrendously. I applaud your character and ability to rise above this history. (Not that you need any of that -- I'm not attempting to be patronizing -- but you did mention these incidents and I do not want to be cold to your history, as your rights have been violated.) If you are engaging in actions governed by conscience, good judgement, and a consideration of principles of proportional justice, respect of rights, and self-defense, then you are engaging in ethical action. But this is a different thing altogether than perpetrating injurious actions upon others.

It is kind of you to offer your sympathy for the suffering that I've experienced at the hands of others. I also appreciate your recognition of my efforts to survive, heal and rectify the situations. I empathise with the embaressment and disappointment you feel for humanity at large, as these individuals reflect poorly on our species.

I, ask you, Ms. O'Harris, however, how can you tell that one is perpetrating injurious actions upon others with magic? And when those actions are or are not done in self-defense and in an ethical manner.

An argument with Carla O'Harris (4)

(Written by Carla O'Harris)
Quote:

Originally Posted by cydira Please, present the evidence supporting this statement. Until I see it, I will not beable to agree.

Carlo Ginzburg, The Night Battles. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...081658?ie=UTF8, ISBN: 0801843863)
Carlo Ginzburg, Ecstasies. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022...e=UTF8&s=books,ISBN: 0226296938)

Please pick up these books and we will recommence this part of the discussion.

Quote:

Also, please define "Maleficia" as I am not familiar with this term in this context. I would like to know what definition you are using, this way I understand precicely what you are expressing.

Start here : http://perseus.uchicago.edu/hopper/t...ma^le^fi^ci^um

Quote:

maleficium ī, n 1 maleficus, an evil deed, misdeed, wickedness, offence, crime: conscientia maleficiorum: admittere, commit: in maleficio deprehensus: convictus malefici.—Mischief, hurt, harm, injury, wrong: Pro maleficio beneficium reddere, T: sine ullo maleficio, Cs.: malefici occasione amissā, L.—Enchantment, sorcery, Ta.

Quote:

Ms. O'Harris, you are aware of what precicely Gardner's sources were for his work? You are familiar with the vast amounts of material that he reinterpreted from the Order of the Golden Dawn and the associated occult organizations? And I also presume that you recognize that a large percentage of what he presented as "historical" evidence for his works were flawed due to the sources being third and fourth hand sources, filled with a great deal of speculation on the parts of the previous authors and bias.

You're using outdated ideas about Gardner. Gardner received his rituals, initiation, and ideas about the cult from the coven that initiated him that predated him. He had all kinds of ideas about witchcraft from wide reading, but the ideas about not causing harm came from the actual witches with whom he was in contact who initiated him. He was not arguing from other sources here. He was speaking from the tradition into which he was initiated.

Quote:

If you're not aware of this, I would be happy to direct you to the information supporting this. As I know that most people are not aware of this fact, much like they are not aware that the works of Ms. Murray (the God of the Witches and the Witchcult of Europe) were primarially unsupported conjecture on the part of the author. I can not, in good conscience, say that Gerald Gardner's work can be upheld as evidence of historical witchcraft. The last ten years that I've been researching this work, I've been unable to find any conclusive evidence supporting this. It would be irresponsible of me to do so, as an author and researcher of academic integrity.

The works of Ms. Murray were not primarily "unsupported conjecture", but fairly good conjecture at the time, and productive hypotheses that inspired important work such as Ginzburg's. What you may not be aware of is that I am working on a book which will champion the Neo-Murrayite viewpoint, which is a modification of Murray's work, demonstrating the important core of validity within it.

I am sorry that ten years of research has been so unfruitful for you. The research I have done over a smaller period of time has proven far more fruitful, and demonstrates that there is indeed a powerful historical precedent for the tradition into which Gardner was initiated. That tradition predates Gardner, and while we do not yet know how far back it stretched, there are precedents in the record for practices and ideas very similar which were practiced in Europe.

Quote:

The only part of this statement which I agree with is the clause stating "I am advising community self-policing and against an 'anything goes' mentality" as the subsequent portion of your statement assumes that we are all familiar with what you view as the dangers and agree with your assumption of certian behaviors and thought patters as the "worst and lowest of human impulses."

I have already stated some of those : malice, resentment, envy, psychopathy, and vengeance.

Quote:

Out of respect, I refrained from expressing the initial sarcasm I had to the first portion of your statement here. The burden of proof is not uppon the person who had comitted the act of force to prove that it was justified self-defense. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecutor's office to prove that said action was committed with the intent to cause assault or attempted homicide. Thus the innocent until presumed guilty as supported within the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

If someone is harmed and they file complaint under law against an assault and press charges, the burden of proof of self-defense as defense against the charge of assault, etc., is upon the defendant once the facts of the case have been established. As a procedure of evidence, indeed one is innocent until proven guilty ; however, that was not my point. Once the facts of the crime are established, the burden of proof is upon the person who committed the act of force.

Quote:

I believe that you can agree with me, Ms. O'Harris, that until these questions are adressed we will be unable to obtain a satisfactory answer to what must be the mode by which the community may self-monitor, establish limits, and establish a punitive system to deal with those who exceed the limits of undesired activities.

I think this is a ridiculously stated position. It already exists. It is called "the legal system". It exists as a set of institutions which may quite readily be drawn upon.

Quote:

I contend that this is not, as it is part of a parallel which was initally being drawn by yourself. Within our society (I presume that you are also a resident of the United States of America), it is agreed within the implied social contract that the hiring of mercenaries and assassins is not an activity to be supported. In recognition of the necessity of persons performing such socially frowned upon activities, we have regulated them and made unregulated activity an illegal act. The boundries of the social contract within our society have been defined to state that these acts are unacceptable. This is then supported by the government that functions to support and protect our society, which establishes regulations and laws that are aligned with the socially defined peramiters. Within the community of witchcraft and other occult practitioners, there is no such defined stance. Also, there is no form of government, theocracy, or other central organization to support the agreed points of the social contract with legislation, dogma, or other decree. In short, there is no Pope in witchcraft. There is no Council of Elders. There is no President, Senate, Congress, and Judiciary. As a result of this, there is no institution to uphold the boundries agreed upon within the social contract of the community. To engage in self policing with out such a degree of organization across a community as broad and varied as the one which we are a part of, Ms. O'Harris, would require a monumental amount of agreement, effort, and tolerance. It would also demand very liberal interpretation of the agreed upon points that allows for all ideological and theological stantpoints to be accomodated.

These points are completely irrelevant. Maleficia was a crime in Germanic, Roman, and then later Christian law, when it was still believed to be an effective use of force. If it is not an effective use of force and only psychodrama, it is irrelevant to regulate it. But to the degree that it is accepted as an effective use of force, it is logical to regulate it.

Citizens have both a right and a duty to defend other citizens from harm. Such a legal place can be served by the old Anglo-Saxon custom of "hue and cry".

Quote:

The end result of such a thing, Ms. O'Harris, unfortunately, is that such self-policing is highly ineffective. Thus, you must work within the sub-groups of such an organization and then you have a remote chance of seeing some form of success. Even then, however, it is doubtful. Logic dictates, madam, that success in this venture (which is a most noblely minded one and well intentioned) is not a likely outcome.

As successful as the maleficia in the first place. But there are all kinds of ways of discouraging anti-social acts, the most important of which begin in the social rather than legal realm. When everyday people discourage each other from anti-social acts, engaging in fierce reasoning, shaming, ostracizing, and even blocking, it becomes much more effective. That is why it is logical for a witch community to engage in such actions, and move on to magical-legal actions if necessary.

Quote:

Ms. O'Harris, something you will notice is that I am a woman who frequently uses sarcasm. It is a part of my personality that is rather deeply ingrained. Seeing that it offends you, I shall endevor to restrain this. This said, the idea that the application of force must be regulated is ... is a point that I must state I find objectionable. It is a blanket statement and is opposed to the values that I hold highly. The application of force, in my opinion, must be applied in accordance with necessity and only when all other options have been exhausted. I believe that if the citizenry of our nation (the United States of America) had access to advanced military technology we would not live in a nation that was so quick to strip us of our rights. We have the right to own and bear arms not for the sake of providing for ourselves via hunting, as many people like to state was the intention of the Founding Fathers. Nor is it for the intention of having a ready military, but for the expressed purpose of defending the people from the government. Just as we have a right to defend ourselves from assault by another person, we have the right to defend ourselves from assault by the government.

This is an extremist libertarian position that will never be held by the majority of this country or likely any other country. Why don't you go supply gangs with nukes while you're at it?

The idea that violence should be regulated is at the heart of any social community.

Quote:

This, however, has no longer been taught to the people of our nation, and the view of our right to defend ourselves in any fashion necessary has become abridged. You speak of understanding principles. I ask you, Ms. O'Harris, what of the principles upon which our nation was founded? What of the principles that prompted the Revolutionary war? These principles are also at play within the community of witches and occultists, if anything, within our country.

Freedom is not the freedom to violate, or engage in violence. Someone who refuses to abide by principles of law can be made an outlaw and live with the wolves. I am absolutely for wide and spacious freedom. But freedom is not freedom to violate.

If you claim that witches (and occultists, who I do not consider the same thing at all) are operating under the same common law principles that were behind the Revolutionary War, then it makes sense to have juries of witches to investigate and prosecute violations of rights.

Quote:

Those principles state that a person has a right to live, engage in commerce, persue happiness, and otherwise carry on their personal business unmolested by others, including the government. They also state that a person has the right to defend themselves, their families, associates, and interests from said molestation. We agree to limit our activities and to support the government for the sake of securing our right to these things.

Ummmmm .... maleficia by definition is molesting the business of others. The right to self-defense is not the right to self-prosecute. I have made it clear that binding -- ie., limiting spells that are purely for self-defense and which preclude any harm to the object of the spell -- are fine forms of self-defense encouraged by Gardner in the appropriate circumstances. But people becoming judge, jury, and executioner and setting out on punitive actions is not a right held within the principles just stated. In fact, part of the limitations of our activities that you mention are limiting ourselves from punitive action, said action only allowed within the limits of due process of law.

Quote:

You mention that there were laws in Europe on the matter of your ascribed maleficia. Have you reviewed these laws, Ms. O'Harris? I have, as part of my research into the history of witchcraft. I must say, madam, you must have incomplete information if you are stating that such laws must be ressurrected. I give below one such law: 'Not only celebrating feasts in the abominable places of the heathen and offering food there, but also consuming it. Serving this hidden idolatry, having relinquished Christ. If anyone at the kalends of January goes about as a stag or a bull; that is, making himself into a wild animal and dressing in the skin of a herd animal, and putting on the heads of beasts; those who in such wise transform themselves into the appearance of a wild animal, penance for three years because this is devilish.' Looking at this law, one asks the following questions: What is the objective of this law? Why is this law in place? What actions are objectionable in the light of this law? How would this law be applied today? Does this law serve to prevent said maleficia? The objective of this law is to prevent the worship of heathen idols and devils. It is in place because said worship is a mode by which actions of harm and malevolence were perpetuated within the nation of question. The actions objectionable within this law are: frequenting locations associated with said worship; engaging in and consuming feasts at said location; engaging in the rites of said worship; relenquishing Christian belief; and engaging in ritual dress of animal skins, primarially of herd animals.

I didn't say that Christian laws about maleficia should be enacted. I referred mainly to Roman and Germanic laws against maleficia, which were strictly defined as acts of harm, not the Christian expansion and distortion which used this as laws of religious persecution. As a supporter of religious freedom and paganism especially, I am obviously not suggesting laws against the practice of paganism -- within the law, of course.

Quote:

This law, however, can be abused greviously and result in the oppression of all witches and occultists.

Let self-policing occur on the social level according to the principle of preventing maleficia, and this won't become an issue.

Quote:

We can not state with certianty that all of the spiritual beings that are traditionally ascribed to have such malevolence truly are of that mindset.

I am not concerned with spiritual beings per se, but the ethics of the actions of human beings. Someone can love the most malevolent character in the history of villainry, and as long as their actions (and I include magical actions) cause no harm to others, I could care less what they do. It is when they cause harm that it becomes an issue.

Gardner's phrasing of his witch tradition's feelings about this is extremely libertarian : An' ye harm none, do what ye will. Do what you want, and the libertarian ethic applies, so long as none are harmed. Step over that line, and there's trouble.

Quote:

Look at the Romans and the Gauls, it's a great example of just this situation. The Romans stated that the Gauls, more specifically the Druids, regularly engaged in ritual human sacrifice of a rather horrific nature, burning people alive to be precise. I don't know about you, Ms. O'Harris, but my research has shown that the ritual human sacrifice via burning was not as frequent as Julius Ceaser stated in his Gallic Wars. Indeed, from what I've been able to peice together from the evidence that I've studied from the anthropological studies and the various second hand sources from the Greeks and other Roman writers aside from Ceaser, it appears that what Ceaser witnessed was a rare event and was committed possibly to appease a deity and punish criminals. Much like some of the gladitorial combats that Rome engaged in at roughly the same period in history.

Opinion about this is divided. There is evidence for some sacrifice. How prevalent it was is a matter of debate. That the Druids provided solidarity for Gaulish resistance to Roman invasion was the key issue, just as the Imams providing solidarity for Iraqi resistance to American invasion has been of some concern. Of course, the Romans, like the Americans, were engaged in imperialistic adventures, but generally speaking, as long as a religion didn't oppose Roman supremacy, the Romans were surprisingly tolerant.

Quote:

Ms. O'Harris, while it is kind of you to state that you do not wish to bring more harm into the world, and most kind of you to caution others against doing so as well, I do not believe it is within your ability or that of others, to do so. Harm, pain, and suffering are a part of being alive.

And minimizing the violation of other beings is part of the social contract of being part of a community. While it may not be possible to eliminate all harm, that is a far cry from those who deliberately set out to cause harm in a punitive, malefic way, declaring themselves gods able to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Quote:

I find your sentiment that engaging the shadow portions of the human psyche must be within certian "boundries that do not harm" to be offensive.

I consider anyone who cannot keep within non-injury of others, especially when it comes to dealing with the Shadow, to be riding a psychopathic edge that is very dangerous. Psychodrama is one thing. Illegal, intentional infliction of harm is imposing upon others and violating them.

Quote:

We must suffer a certian degree of harm to grow.

I don't. But maybe I'm a little sharp on the learning curve.

But even if you meant that sometimes suffering is a part of the equation of growth, "suffering" is a completely different category than "intentional harm". There is an overabundance of suffering in the world without human beings having to add to that equation.

I am glad that you were able to learn from and rise above oppressive situations that caused you suffering.

Quote:

Instead, I faced a great deal of suffering and worked to reverse the psychological conditioning of fear and submission that was beaten into me by a man that I was repeatedly raped, choked, and psychologically abused by for roughly two years.

I am very sorry to hear about this. You were subject to violation of your rights in the most egregious way. Pursuing compensation and proportionate justice under due process of law is most certainly your right, and binding the perpetrator(s) from causing further harm is certainly a logical action.

Quote:

In other instances, I was forced to cause harm to another for the sake of protecting myself and associates of mine who were unable to defend themselves.

Acts of self-defense are legitimate justifications for the appropriate use of force proportional to warding off the threat. I never disagreed with the right of self-defense ; my point is that it, too, is regulated by law and the principle of proportionality.

Quote:

My actions resulted in the loss of a job, social standing, and a great deal of emotional suffering for the person in question.

I do not know what you did, but assuming it was entirely within a reasonable limitation of self-defense, if the other suffered consequences of their own criminal actions and your reasonable defense against them, the responsibility is theirs.

Quote:

Ms. O'Harris, you may find my standpoint offensive. I will not apologize for this. Given the choice between causing harm and being harmed myself, I will cause harm. I can always work to rectify the damage I do and pay reparations. My actions are such that I am reluctant to cause harm, for I recognize that I must be responsible for the results. Everything I do will come back to me, it's a simple fact. I'm left to decide, is the action I'm taking worth the consequences.

And you are legally responsible for those actions. You are answerable to a community for them. And if your actions were reasonable and within the limits of law, you will have no reason to worry. But making a decision to harm someone in self defense in an emergency is a different thing altogether than an intentional invocation of magic, which can most certainly be more imaginative than someone caught in a moment of attack.

Quote:

My biggest objection to the activities of other witches and occultists is to those who do not consider the consequences of their actions. My next objection is to those who propose to tell me that the decisions I make based upon my conscience and good judgement are incorrect due to their experties. In all places, I decide what is best for myself and my interests. I have the most intimate knowledge of my needs and goals. No other person can tell me what is good for me, they can advise but they can not dictate to me anything on that front. And that, Ms. O'Harris, is what you appear to be doing.

I am invoking important legal principles to provide perspective in this debate, and to demonstrate why the Gardnerian "harm none" doctrine is extremely important.

In fact, you are responsible to the community and the law for your actions.

I am truly sorry for the violations you have suffered, and without declaring you a victim in the larger connotation of the word, I recognize, at least according to the description you have given, that you were the victim of a series of violations, which, as a member of the human community, I am very sorry for, and embarassed by the actions of my fellow humans who have treated you so horrendously. I applaud your character and ability to rise above this history. (Not that you need any of that -- I'm not attempting to be patronizing -- but you did mention these incidents and I do not want to be cold to your history, as your rights have been violated.)

If you are engaging in actions governed by conscience, good judgement, and a consideration of principles of proportional justice, respect of rights, and self-defense, then you are engaging in ethical action. But this is a different thing altogether than perpetrating injurious actions upon others.

An argument with Carla O'Harris (3)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carla O'Harris Ginzburg found parallel structures to the Benandanti all over Europe. And all over Europe were found structures for prosecuting maleficia.

Please, present the evidence supporting this statement. Until I see it, I will not beable to agree.

Also, please define "Maleficia" as I am not familiar with this term in this context. I would like to know what definition you are using, this way I understand precicely what you are expressing.

Quote:

As far as Gardner's work, let us quote : [snipped quotes of Gardner] I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Not only is the Coven to debate situations that may involve harm, but every witch is enjoined to strongly work against any ill-workings.

Ms. O'Harris, you are aware of what precicely Gardner's sources were for his work? You are familiar with the vast amounts of material that he reinterpreted from the Order of the Golden Dawn and the associated occult organizations? And I also presume that you recognize that a large percentage of what he presented as "historical" evidence for his works were flawed due to the sources being third and fourth hand sources, filled with a great deal of speculation on the parts of the previous authors and bias.

If you're not aware of this, I would be happy to direct you to the information supporting this. As I know that most people are not aware of this fact, much like they are not aware that the works of Ms. Murray (the God of the Witches and the Witchcult of Europe) were primarially unsupported conjecture on the part of the author. I can not, in good conscience, say that Gerald Gardner's work can be upheld as evidence of historical witchcraft. The last ten years that I've been researching this work, I've been unable to find any conclusive evidence supporting this. It would be irresponsible of me to do so, as an author and researcher of academic integrity.

Quote:

I am advising community self-policing and against an "anything goes" mentality that allows the worst and lowest of human impulses to wield dangerous technologies.

The only part of this statement which I agree with is the clause stating "I am advising community self-policing and against an 'anything goes' mentality" as the subsequent portion of your statement assumes that we are all familiar with what you view as the dangers and agree with your assumption of certian behaviors and thought patters as the "worst and lowest of human impulses."

Quote:

While I have no intention of legally educating you, here is a beginning : [snipped links to definitions] Please note that the burden of proof is upon the person having committed the force to prove that it was justified on grounds of self-defense.

Out of respect, I refrained from expressing the initial sarcasm I had to the first portion of your statement here. The burden of proof is not uppon the person who had comitted the act of force to prove that it was justified self-defense. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecutor's office to prove that said action was committed with the intent to cause assault or attempted homicide. Thus the innocent until presumed guilty as supported within the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

Quote:

These are good questions for the community to explore.

I believe that you can agree with me, Ms. O'Harris, that until these questions are adressed we will be unable to obtain a satisfactory answer to what must be the mode by which the community may self-monitor, establish limits, and establish a punitive system to deal with those who exceed the limits of undesired activities.

Quote:

Well, in our society, the hiring of mercenaries and assassins is regulated and illegal. Such things happen, but they are not legal. And they can be prosecuted. If there were a situation of completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins, the level of mayhem would be far greater than it is. Your assumptions about what I usually think about or do not think about are inaccurate and irrelevant.

I contend that this is not, as it is part of a parallel which was initally being drawn by yourself. Within our society (I presume that you are also a resident of the United States of America), it is agreed within the implied social contract that the hiring of mercenaries and assassins is not an activity to be supported. In recognition of the necessity of persons performing such socially frowned upon activities, we have regulated them and made unregulated activity an illegal act.

The boundries of the social contract within our society have been defined to state that these acts are unacceptable. This is then supported by the government that functions to support and protect our society, which establishes regulations and laws that are aligned with the socially defined peramiters. Within the community of witchcraft and other occult practitioners, there is no such defined stance. Also, there is no form of government, theocracy, or other central organization to support the agreed points of the social contract with legislation, dogma, or other decree.

In short, there is no Pope in witchcraft. There is no Council of Elders. There is no President, Senate, Congress, and Judiciary. As a result of this, there is no institution to uphold the boundries agreed upon within the social contract of the community. To engage in self policing with out such a degree of organization across a community as broad and varied as the one which we are a part of, Ms. O'Harris, would require a monumental amount of agreement, effort, and tolerance. It would also demand very liberal interpretation of the agreed upon points that allows for all ideological and theological stantpoints to be accomodated.

The end result of such a thing, Ms. O'Harris, unfortunately, is that such self-policing is highly ineffective. Thus, you must work within the sub-groups of such an organization and then you have a remote chance of seeing some form of success. Even then, however, it is doubtful. Logic dictates, madam, that success in this venture (which is a most noblely minded one and well intentioned) is not a likely outcome.

Quote:

What libertarian sarcasm! But the fact of the matter is that courts do form such rules of thumb to regulate such matters. If you'd like to learn those distinctions, I suggest you study case law. As far as the idea that the application of force must be regulated, most people feel that not everyone should have access to rocket launchers, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, etc. And a society that lives by the rule of law in general agrees to the regulation of force.

Ms. O'Harris, something you will notice is that I am a woman who frequently uses sarcasm. It is a part of my personality that is rather deeply ingrained. Seeing that it offends you, I shall endevor to restrain this. This said, the idea that the application of force must be regulated is ... is a point that I must state I find objectionable. It is a blanket statement and is opposed to the values that I hold highly. The application of force, in my opinion, must be applied in accordance with necessity and only when all other options have been exhausted.

I believe that if the citizenry of our nation (the United States of America) had access to advanced military technology we would not live in a nation that was so quick to strip us of our rights. We have the right to own and bear arms not for the sake of providing for ourselves via hunting, as many people like to state was the intention of the Founding Fathers. Nor is it for the intention of having a ready military, but for the expressed purpose of defending the people from the government. Just as we have a right to defend ourselves from assault by another person, we have the right to defend ourselves from assault by the government.

This, however, has no longer been taught to the people of our nation, and the view of our right to defend ourselves in any fashion necessary has become abridged. You speak of understanding principles. I ask you, Ms. O'Harris, what of the principles upon which our nation was founded? What of the principles that prompted the Revolutionary war? These principles are also at play within the community of witches and occultists, if anything, within our country.

Those principles state that a person has a right to live, engage in commerce, persue happiness, and otherwise carry on their personal business unmolested by others, including the government. They also state that a person has the right to defend themselves, their families, associates, and interests from said molestation. We agree to limit our activities and to support the government for the sake of securing our right to these things.

You mention that there were laws in Europe on the matter of your ascribed maleficia. Have you reviewed these laws, Ms. O'Harris? I have, as part of my research into the history of witchcraft. I must say, madam, you must have incomplete information if you are stating that such laws must be ressurrected. I give below one such law:

'Not only celebrating feasts in the abominable places of the heathen and offering food there, but also consuming it. Serving this hidden idolatry, having relinquished Christ. If anyone at the kalends of January goes about as a stag or a bull; that is, making himself into a wild animal and dressing in the skin of a herd animal, and putting on the heads of beasts; those who in such wise transform themselves into the appearance of a wild animal, penance for three years because this is devilish.'

Looking at this law, one asks the following questions:

What is the objective of this law?
Why is this law in place?
What actions are objectionable in the light of this law?
How would this law be applied today?
Does this law serve to prevent said maleficia?

The objective of this law is to prevent the worship of heathen idols and devils. It is in place because said worship is a mode by which actions of harm and malevolence were perpetuated within the nation of question. The actions objectionable within this law are: frequenting locations associated with said worship; engaging in and consuming feasts at said location; engaging in the rites of said worship; relenquishing Christian belief; and engaging in ritual dress of animal skins, primarially of herd animals.

The application of this law today would be: engaging in association with/worship of objectionable supernatural powers (devils/demons/beings malevolent towards humanity and human interests); celebrating said beings and their interests, including but not limited to feasting; engaging in rites of worship or magical ritual that is associated with said beings and their stated malevolence; and engaging in the ritual dress of animal skins that are obtained as a result of the graphic abuse of said animals, including but not limited to blood and flesh sacrifice to said beings.

Does this law and it's proposed modern adaption prevent maleficia? I am not sure. Your statements seem to imply that maleficia is a general endevour to cause suffering, misery and angst at large to others with out regard for their well being and for the purpose of sowing discord within the community at large. As I do not know what your definition is, I can not be certian. If I am correct, however, in what I've determined, then this law can be argued to have accomplished this goal.

This law, however, can be abused greviously and result in the oppression of all witches and occultists. There is no master codex of beings that are malevolent unto humanity and humanity's interests. We can not state with certianty that all of the spiritual beings that are traditionally ascribed to have such malevolence truly are of that mindset. After all, much of what is traditionally presented is within the tinted scope of faiths and social groups that are engaged in a propaganda war against other faiths and social groups. Look at the Romans and the Gauls, it's a great example of just this situation. The Romans stated that the Gauls, more specifically the Druids, regularly engaged in ritual human sacrifice of a rather horrific nature, burning people alive to be precise.

I don't know about you, Ms. O'Harris, but my research has shown that the ritual human sacrifice via burning was not as frequent as Julius Ceaser stated in his Gallic Wars. Indeed, from what I've been able to peice together from the evidence that I've studied from the anthropological studies and the various second hand sources from the Greeks and other Roman writers aside from Ceaser, it appears that what Ceaser witnessed was a rare event and was committed possibly to appease a deity and punish criminals. Much like some of the gladitorial combats that Rome engaged in at roughly the same period in history.

Quote:

Please observe that I am concerned with maleficia. I like the night and I like darkness. Those things have nothing to do with the deliberate intention to cause harm to another. One can be quite peaceful and loving in the dark. Additionally, healthy, appropriate, consensual psychodrama engaging shadow portions of the human psyche, so long as within boundaries that do not harm, does not in any way encroach upon maleficia. I have not invoked "dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us". I have prudently cautioned against bringing more harm into a world already replete with suffering.

Ms. O'Harris, while it is kind of you to state that you do not wish to bring more harm into the world, and most kind of you to caution others against doing so as well, I do not believe it is within your ability or that of others, to do so. Harm, pain, and suffering are a part of being alive.

I find your sentiment that engaging the shadow portions of the human psyche must be within certian "boundries that do not harm" to be offensive. We must suffer a certian degree of harm to grow. In some situations, suffering is a part of the process of healing and becoming a better person. If I, for example, chose not to walk a path that exposed me to suffering, I would still be inclined to flinch when my husband stood quickly or a man raised their hand above shoulder height.

Instead, I faced a great deal of suffering and worked to reverse the psychological conditioning of fear and submission that was beaten into me by a man that I was repeatedly raped, choked, and psychologically abused by for roughly two years. In other instances, I was forced to cause harm to another for the sake of protecting myself and associates of mine who were unable to defend themselves. My actions resulted in the loss of a job, social standing, and a great deal of emotional suffering for the person in question.

At a different time, I was forced to take physical action and cause grevious bodily harm to another person to prevent harm coming to myself. If I had to, I would do so again with out blinking an eye. And there have been instances where I did not cause harm. As a result of with holding my hand, I came to grevious harm. I am still recovering from the psychological effects of this, while my body has long since healed the physical harm. I look back on it and I say that I truly should have killed the man, as he then proceeded to assault and rape a 16 yr old girl a few weeks later.

Ms. O'Harris, you may find my standpoint offensive. I will not apologize for this. Given the choice between causing harm and being harmed myself, I will cause harm. I can always work to rectify the damage I do and pay reparations. My actions are such that I am reluctant to cause harm, for I recognize that I must be responsible for the results. Everything I do will come back to me, it's a simple fact. I'm left to decide, is the action I'm taking worth the consequences.

My biggest objection to the activities of other witches and occultists is to those who do not consider the consequences of their actions. My next objection is to those who propose to tell me that the decisions I make based upon my conscience and good judgement are incorrect due to their experties. In all places, I decide what is best for myself and my interests. I have the most intimate knowledge of my needs and goals. No other person can tell me what is good for me, they can advise but they can not dictate to me anything on that front.

And that, Ms. O'Harris, is what you appear to be doing.

An argument with Carla O'Harris (2)

(As written by Carla O'Harris)
Quote:

Originally Posted by cydira On the matter of the benandanti, however, you are sorely mistaken. Not all witches subscribe to the organization of the tradition of Strega or related traditions of Greco/Etruscan descent. For that matter, the subsect that is promoted by these traditions makes up a relatively minor portion of the population of practicing witches. The vast majority of witchcraft practiced is the fruit of Anglo-Celtic origin, predominantly of English revisionist witchcraft, as seen in Gardener's work. The point of this rambling, is that the majority of the witches you encounter are not operating under the auspices of the benandanti or some other group of sacred elders.

Ginzburg found parallel structures to the Benandanti all over Europe. And all over Europe were found structures for prosecuting maleficia.

As far as Gardner's work, let us quote :

Quote:

So it is Ardane that none shall use the Art in any way to do ill [45] to any, howevermuch they have injured us. And for long we have obeyed this law, "Harm none" and nowtimes many believe we exist not. So it be Ardane that this law shall still continue to help us in our plight. No one, however great an injury or injustice they receive, may use the Art in any to do ill or harm any. [50] But they may, after great consultations with all, use the Art to prevent or restrain Christians from harming us and others, but only to let or constrain them and never to punish, to this end.

Quote:

In England 'tis now many a year since a witch hath died the death, but any misuse of the power might raise the Persecution again; so never break this law, [65] however much you are tempted, and never consent to its being broken. If you know it is being broken in the least, you must work strongly against it, and any High Priestess or High Priest who consents to it must be immediately deposed, for 'tis the blood of the Brethren they endanger.

Let me emphasize :

Quote:

If you know it is being broken in the least, you must work strongly against it

Quote:

But ever let the Coven debate the matter at length. Only if all are satisfied that none may be harmed [80] may the Art be used. If it is not possible to achieve your ends one way without harming any, perchance the aim may be achieved by acting in a different way, so as to harm none. May the Curse of the Goddess be on any who breach this law.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos38.htm)

I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Not only is the Coven to debate situations that may involve harm, but every witch is enjoined to strongly work against any ill-workings.

Quote:

I highly advise that you recall this, as I know it may be rather foregin to the tradition/sect of witchcraft that you practice. Assuming that all other witches are beholden to some group of sacred elders is on par with declaring that a tradition with such elders is a matter of orthodoxy and an integral part of the structure of the religion of witchcraft. Witchcraft, however, is not constrained by such orthodoxy, as I am sure you are aware. It appears, however, that you are stating this.

I am advising community self-policing and against an "anything goes" mentality that allows the worst and lowest of human impulses to wield dangerous technologies.

Quote:

Ms. O'Harris, are you familiar with the legal distinction between self-defense and assault? Would you please present it to us or perhaps kindly clarify this point, as I do not see how this directly relates to the discussion. Are you arguing that intent to harm is an essential component to assault or that intent to harm can be classed in two different categories: self-defense and assault?

While I have no intention of legally educating you, here is a beginning :

http://www.useofforce.us/

Quote:

In the United States, it is illegal to harm another person intentionally ... You can, however, make the case that you were legally justified in your actions, and if you can prove that, then you’re clear. But while establishing that you did the eye-poking is the prosecution’s problem, establishing justification is yours—your burden of proof.

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

Quote:

In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home his safest refuge”).

Please note that the burden of proof is upon the person having committed the force to prove that it was justified on grounds of self-defense.

Quote:

The only thing that I see here is begging questions: What is the role of the community in relation to the individual? What is the role of the individual in relation to the community? What is the role of individuals, within this community, with relation to eachother? In short, Ms. O'Harris, what is the social contract in place here?

These are good questions for the community to explore.

Quote:

This returns back to the question of what is the social contract within the community. It's ironic that you state the question of "how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire?" in the light of the fact that such things are in play in our "mundane" society. You don't usually think about such unplesant things, do you, Ms. O'Harris? Or, am I incorrect in my estimation and you are deeply troubled by this matter as well? The matter of such ... unsavory professions and individuals aside, there is another statement you made that I find most interesting as well.

Well, in our society, the hiring of mercenaries and assassins is regulated and illegal. Such things happen, but they are not legal. And they can be prosecuted. If there were a situation of completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins, the level of mayhem would be far greater than it is.

Your assumptions about what I usually think about or do not think about are inaccurate and irrelevant.

Quote:

"I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood." The application of force must be regulated, is this what you are arguing? I presume this theoretical regulation would include a listing of scenarious where force is viewed as acceptable and unacceptable. Who would compile such a listing, Ms. O'Harris? Can you personally assure me that this listing would be ehxaustive and touch upon each and every circumstance where force is contemplated as an option? Thus, if I were in a position where I had to choose between lethal and non-lethal action in the defense of myself, my family, my interests, my property or the life and well being of others, I could make an informed decision?

What libertarian sarcasm! But the fact of the matter is that courts do form such rules of thumb to regulate such matters. If you'd like to learn those distinctions, I suggest you study case law. As far as the idea that the application of force must be regulated, most people feel that not everyone should have access to rocket launchers, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, etc. And a society that lives by the rule of law in general agrees to the regulation of force.

Quote:

I highly doubt that you, a well meaning and upstanding member of society at large and a respected individual within the Pagan community, can grant me such assurances. I also highly doubt that such an exhaustive list can be compliled. We can not expect others to view a given situation through the same lense as we do, Ms. O'Harris, and as such can not expect them to view every situation as we would. For this reason, we must work to secure our liberties rather then place more constraints upon the tresspasses.

More sarcasm. Nice. Exhaustive lists are not as important as understanding principles. The courts do expect people to be able to apply these principles, and in fact will prosecute failure to do so. Laws were in place to prosecute maleficia for millenia in Europe, and it is only recently that such laws have been taken off the books. So long as the consensus is that there is no such thing as psychic-harm, it makes no sense to prosecute maleficia as such. However, if the consensus were to shift that there is validity to psi activities, such laws might be looked at in a new light and updated. In other words, there is a long history in law to regarding maleficia as prosecutable.

And while we may not be able to expect others to view things through the same lens as we do, the law demands that when it comes to certain things, that we have the proper lens installed. Failure to do so can result in prosecution.

Quote:

It is far easier to lose freedom then to gain it.

One does not have the "freedom" to harm. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "...The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

Quote:

Ms. O'Harris, I am ... appauled by your blanket statement. You, of all people, should realize that "dark" magic is not all based upon the socially defined traits of evil (resentment, envy, projection, greed, anger, sloth, etc.). "Dark" magic is a thereputic tool in resolving the rifts within ourselves that such emotions can create. It has means by which we can expunge the excess of said emotions and come to terms with them.

This has been an extremely long thread, so I will try to summarize some context which will help here. I made it clear that psychodramas are not troubling to me, only actions with clear intent to harm. If people want to blow off some steam, that is their own business.

This is but one of many, many possibilities of "dark" magic, Ms. O'Harris. A banishment is a form of "dark" magic. It involves the sending away of something. Thus, a person who is ill with a severe cold can aid the healing from said illness by performing a banishment. Is this something motivated by the traits commonly associated with "dark" magic by society at large? [/quote]

It is not maleficia. I have been addressing maleficia.

Quote:

The communication with the dead is classically considered a "dark" art. I see no evidence of malice prompting this, for in most cases it is an innate talent.

This depends on when and where. Odin practiced it, so in the context of a culture where Odin was the chief god, it obviously didn't have the same negative connotations as in a Christian context.

Communication with the dead is in many contexts all over the world a very positive thing.

I agree that it has no trace in and of itself of maleficia.

Quote:

Madam, unless you provide evidence to clarify your sentiments, I am forced to say that you are as blind on the topic of "dark" magic as the people who are inclined to persecute us. My reasoning for this is because your statements all indicate that you feel that we are at dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us, no matter what form of "dark" magic we work. I do hope that a teacher of the Craft, such as yourself, is more enlightened then this and that my estimation of this point is based on misinterpreting your words.

Please observe that I am concerned with maleficia. I like the night and I like darkness. Those things have nothing to do with the deliberate intention to cause harm to another. One can be quite peaceful and loving in the dark. Additionally, healthy, appropriate, consensual psychodrama engaging shadow portions of the human psyche, so long as within boundaries that do not harm, does not in any way encroach upon maleficia.

I have not invoked "dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us". I have prudently cautioned against bringing more harm into a world already replete with suffering.

An argument with Carla O'Harris (1)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carla O'Harris Do the words "benandanti" have any meaning? Or how about "community self-policing"?

Ms. O'Harris, you may have a valid point about community self-policing, as most communities do establish a certian set of activities and behaviors that are viewed as acceptable. Usually this set of acceptable things are proven to be the benefit of the group at large and is not questioned by the group members, thus being agreed upon by acquiescence.

On the matter of the benandanti, however, you are sorely mistaken. Not all witches subscribe to the organization of the tradition of Strega or related traditions of Greco/Etruscan descent. For that matter, the subsect that is promoted by these traditions makes up a relatively minor portion of the population of practicing witches. The vast majority of witchcraft practiced is the fruit of Anglo-Celtic origin, predominantly of English revisionist witchcraft, as seen in Gardener's work. The point of this rambling, is that the majority of the witches you encounter are not operating under the auspices of the benandanti or some other group of sacred elders.

I highly advise that you recall this, as I know it may be rather foregin to the tradition/sect of witchcraft that you practice. Assuming that all other witches are beholden to some group of sacred elders is on par with declaring that a tradition with such elders is a matter of orthodoxy and an integral part of the structure of the religion of witchcraft. Witchcraft, however, is not constrained by such orthodoxy, as I am sure you are aware. It appears, however, that you are stating this.

Quote:

Intent to harm is fairly clear. The distinction between self-defense and various forms of assault and tort are made every day in courts of law, and are not made up in the moment, but based on clear guidelines and precedents, a body of law that is anything but "subjective".

Ms. O'Harris, are you familiar with the legal distinction between self-defense and assault? Would you please present it to us or perhaps kindly clarify this point, as I do not see how this directly relates to the discussion. Are you arguing that intent to harm is an essential component to assault or that intent to harm can be classed in two different categories: self-defense and assault?

Quote:

The community has such a right, and as a member of the community who cares about others in that community, I do have the right to speak up about violence within that community, and injuries done.

I find little place to argue with your statement here. The only thing that I see here is begging questions: What is the role of the community in relation to the individual? What is the role of the individual in relation to the community? What is the role of individuals, within this community, with relation to eachother? In short, Ms. O'Harris, what is the social contract in place here?

Quote:

Someone earlier spoke about magical practitioners doing curses for hire. I wonder how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire? That sounds like the mayhem of gang rule. I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood.

This returns back to the question of what is the social contract within the community. It's ironic that you state the question of "how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire?" in the light of the fact that such things are in play in our "mundane" society. You don't usually think about such unplesant things, do you, Ms. O'Harris? Or, am I incorrect in my estimation and you are deeply troubled by this matter as well? The matter of such ... unsavory professions and individuals aside, there is another statement you made that I find most interesting as well.

"I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood."

The application of force must be regulated, is this what you are arguing? I presume this theoretical regulation would include a listing of scenarious where force is viewed as acceptable and unacceptable. Who would compile such a listing, Ms. O'Harris? Can you personally assure me that this listing would be ehxaustive and touch upon each and every circumstance where force is contemplated as an option? Thus, if I were in a position where I had to choose between lethal and non-lethal action in the defense of myself, my family, my interests, my property or the life and well being of others, I could make an informed decision?

I highly doubt that you, a well meaning and upstanding member of society at large and a respected individual within the Pagan community, can grant me such assurances. I also highly doubt that such an exhaustive list can be compliled. We can not expect others to view a given situation through the same lense as we do, Ms. O'Harris, and as such can not expect them to view every situation as we would. For this reason, we must work to secure our liberties rather then place more constraints upon the tresspasses.

It is far easier to lose freedom then to gain it.

Quote:

And I do have the right to speak out about whether I want to live in a community where people enact violence on the basis of resentment, envy, projection, and a host of other pathological, un-worked-through emotions. Again, the resultant sounds like Lord of the Flies with Grimoires. A pathologically repress/ed/ive concept of good should not inspire a reactionary intrigue with pathologically repress/ed/ive concepts of evil or dark, but a revisioning of good. This fascination with the "dark" puzzles me. I, too, love the night, the shade, and shadows ; and in a literary or theatrical context can appreciate a good villain as much as anyone else --- but in real life, there is already so much suffering that revelling in it or seeking to perpetuate it to me seems like a decadent, pathological luxury.

Ms. O'Harris, I am ... appauled by your blanket statement. You, of all people, should realize that "dark" magic is not all based upon the socially defined traits of evil (resentment, envy, projection, greed, anger, sloth, etc.). "Dark" magic is a thereputic tool in resolving the rifts within ourselves that such emotions can create. It has means by which we can expunge the excess of said emotions and come to terms with them.

This is but one of many, many possibilities of "dark" magic, Ms. O'Harris. A banishment is a form of "dark" magic. It involves the sending away of something. Thus, a person who is ill with a severe cold can aid the healing from said illness by performing a banishment. Is this something motivated by the traits commonly associated with "dark" magic by society at large? The communication with the dead is classically considered a "dark" art. I see no evidence of malice prompting this, for in most cases it is an innate talent.

Madam, unless you provide evidence to clarify your sentiments, I am forced to say that you are as blind on the topic of "dark" magic as the people who are inclined to persecute us. My reasoning for this is because your statements all indicate that you feel that we are at dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us, no matter what form of "dark" magic we work. I do hope that a teacher of the Craft, such as yourself, is more enlightened then this and that my estimation of this point is based on misinterpreting your words.

Magic: how does it work?

My theory of how magic works is tied closely to theoretical physics and psychology. This may sound a little... screwy, but let's give it a shot, shall we?

The brain works thru electro-chemical impulses along physical pathways. Ritual works to get the mind/brain into a specfic mental state. This aligns the electro-chemical impulses in such a fashion where they can exhibit a specific subtle effect on the environment around them.

The mental repitition of the electro-chemical impulses (synaptic paths/thoughts) serves to strengthen the impulses. This results in an easier time for the brain to direct the electro-cemical impulses in the physical pathway built. That's basically how we learn. Now, when we focus our will on something, it also serves to strengthen the impulses because we're devoting more mental energy to it or more of the neuro-chemicals along that pathway.

This has two effects. The first, obvious effect, is that we're creating a well entrenched thought pattern. This makes the brain use the thought pattern more. Why? Because the neurochemicals in the brain move like everything else in the universe, along the path of the least resistance. A practitioner of magic is training their minds to work in this specific fashion, namely to enter a state of trance that is sufficently deep enough to allow them to focus their psyche upon a matter most intently.

The second effect is that by focusing the movement of the electro-chemical impulses along those specific pathways, one can have a physical effect on the world. Moving electrons create magnetic fields. The more electrons moving in a given direction means a stronger magnetic field. The presenece of this magnetic field moves the electrons around it if the magnetif field is moving. Now, the human body is constantly in motion, no matter how slight due to things like the heartbeat. The means that the magnetic field that we create by aligning the electro-chemical processes in our brain to the state of highest focus on a given matter, will result in the movement of electrons around us.

These electrons, in their motion, affects others and thus does the "energy" of our magical efforts extend out into the universe. Eventually, it returns to us in the manifestation of our spell. The psychological element comes into play in entering into that state of trance where we can become so focused and the effects of it.

The fuction of ritual is to serve as a psycholigcal "key" to enter into the trance state and move through it. The role of the trace we've already looked at. Then, as we come out of the trance, the effect of the ritual and the trance is to set up a subconscious tendancy to look for items that will assist in manifesting the effects of the spell. Thus, if we were working on quitting smoking, for example, the effect of the spell would possibly be a decrease in the desire to smoke or repeatedly "misplacing" our cigarettes.

That, however, is my theory on how it all works.

Cosmology: a matter of perspective.

I gave my description of how the witch's universe is presented according to my tradition here. I realize that my description is rather different from the 3 worlds perspective that many others use. It is even more different from the theological perspectives presented by non-witches. And all of these are drastically different from the perspectives presented by the scientific community.

Somewhere, some one is going to ask: Which cosmology is right?

My answer: all of them

I believe that we live in a universe that is so chaotic on it's fundamental level of existance, that it no only permits the validity of multiple cosmologies but demands it. It is only by the examination of all these multiple cosmologies that we are enabled to state the truth about the universe.

It is.

Book of Prophecy: I

The items that fall under the heading Book of Prophecy are things that were told to me via visions and clairauditory experiences. As I am a mystic, these things happen on a fairly regular basis. To quote the Charge of the Goddess: Hear Now the Words of the Goddess

I am the Mother. My names are infinite, but always, I am the Mother eternal. All this is and ever shall exist are a part of me. The universe is bound to me as an infant who is growing within the womb. To some, I was impregnated by a consort who is eternal. To others, I birthed myself through will and by this I did birth the universe. Both of these are true.

I am the Maiden, my heart a tremble with emotion and I am a mystery to all who seek me. I am the child born of myself. I am the newborn psyche and the developing psyche before conceiving the maiden. To some, I am the laughing girl-child of spring. To others, I am the chaste huntress of my mate. Either of these can be true, for I am both the child and mother.

I am the Crone. I am the Bone-mother and iniatrix. I am the midwife to the mother, the teacher of the maiden, and the mother after birthing her child. I am the fairy maiden, youthful of form and ageless in spirit. All know me in names whispered, most powerful and enigmatic is that of death. All who fear me fail to see me as I am. For in transformation, I am the Mother.

There are many who say that I am not the creatrix. Some believe that all that esist are a result of a creator. I am sorrowed for them because they fail to see that I show myself to the universe in many guises. My true form is so vast that not the greatest of minds and spirits can comprehend its way. To do so is to know the eternal ways and forms of the universe, a matter that is continually changing for I am the mother. I always birth new life into the universe.

Many of my children seek to know me as the mother. They look for me in many places but fail to see that they are but a part of me and they have known me for all their lives. As the Wiccans have said, "See me within for I have been with you always and I shall be attained at the end of desire." These are lessons that many forget because they are quite simple lessons. The mind is often so enrapt with complexities in this age that it dismisses the simple as unimportant. It is vital to embrace a simple path of life for it frees the mind to play in its puzzles and celebrate life in simple joy.

Because my children are in need, I shall guide them. While these are the words of a woman, I impart my lesson through her. She is a teacher who brings my schooling to all who would listen. There are important guidelines and basic lessons that must be given. Often, my children argue over whose magic is "right" and over whose worship is "right." This sorrows me. I yearn to correct this and to prevent greater argument. I shall allow this child to interpret my words and bear with them the blessing of my peace. She fears because my hand rests heavily on my brow, but her voice is sweet and strong.

Sometimes the Gods will choose to speak to us. Other times, it is part of our deep psyche speaking to us. The following came to me and I'm not entirely sure how much is strictly from my deep psyche and how much was from the Gods.


I used to feel bad for monotheists. I thought that their view of the universe was limited and inaccurate. After all, one concept can not cover the entirety of the universe, can it?

Then, then I grew up. I had some mystical experiences. I had some life lessons. I knew that polytheism was the way for me but I started to see that the spiritual element of monotheism sort of made sense.

Then, I grew up some more. Some where along the way, I had an ephiphany. The Gods reached out and tapped me right on the top of my blessed little head. Then I understood it.

In the end, there is no God, Goddess, or Gods. There is only the Divine. How we view it is all us. But in the end, there is only one that is reality.

Poem - Voice in the night

In a moment of silence, She called
Her voice whispered from within my soul
The cool call of water's laughter and sweetness of wind-song
She called out to me
Her silver hand touched my brow
Soothing away my fevered anguish
Her golden voice bespoke of dawn and dusk
Of things timeless and dust
And so did the Lady call to me

Return to your soul, child
Know of your way and your song
They sing of glory and might
But yours is the songs of starlight
Of magic and whispers betwixt dusk and vespers
Yours is the song of the soul
Return to your path and way
Mind is the dawn and dust
Mine is that which is and must
Move in the world and sing my song
You are the voice, the harp
Yours is the sound and the song
Yours is the dance eternal
Return, return to your soul

In a moment of silence did She call
Her voice silvered and sweet
A lark's song borne on the night's wind
So did She call to me

Yours is the dance and the way
The patterns are woven within
Hear the beating of the drum
Heed the call of the song
Yours is the flow of the sea
Dance with reed and stone
Dance with blood and bone
So do I move and so do I sing
The dance is yours to bring

In a moment of silence did She call
In winsome voice and sweetest joys to all
Her hidden smile and starry veil
Dancing on the tide
So did She call to me

Yours is the glory and yours is the might
For such are your birthright
Bold and brave, so shall you be
For my own hand did shape ye
Sing now a song of joy, bright and gay
Dance in honor of the day
For ever on are you blessed
For you have found me again
I am the light in the shadows
I am the spirit within
The heart of the world
The heart of a girl
This beats within me
I am the dawn and the dusk
I am the will and that which must
All feel my presence
Only one holds my form
Rejoice, my child, for we are one
E'er since you were born.


*******
This was written by myself several years ago. I just found it again. I'm currently working on a project and I've included it in there. I think the world would probably benefit from this brief glimpse as well.