Darkness

[flexibeast]

What constitutes 'dark' magick and / or spirituality is obviously going to mean different things to different people. For me, being on a dark path primarily means:

• Constantly questioning. Not accepting dogma (for example, about what constitutes a 'dark' spiritual path).


• Being willing to face your inner demons, rather than attempting to project them on to others (cf. neo-Nazi pagans).


• Regarding the human body and pleasures of the flesh as positives, as things that can have spiritual value, rather than needing to be 'transcended'.


• Accepting that the universe / multiverse isn't always a nice place from a human perspective, and not expecting it to be otherwise for human convenience.

Further, for me, it does not inherently involve:

• Getting what one wants regardless of the detrimental impact doing so might have on others. And related: treating other people as resources to obtain one's desires instead of as people, with their own feelings and desires. If someone wants to call being a sociopath a spiritual path, then that's their right, but i don't have to agree with them.


• Not looking after / out for others. Firstly, i tend to agree with the Golden Rule. Secondly, i feel i would benefit from living in a world where people embrace diversity instead of trying to impose their life choices on others. Thirdly, i'd hardly be an independent-minded dark pagan if i didn't follow my own feelings on this matter, and instead followed some dogma about what constitutes a 'real' dark pagan, now, would i. :-)

Summary: My dark path is not about being an egotistical prat, but about descending into the depths of my psychology as i continually strive for understanding, wisdom, and internal balance.
 

Comments

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I think constant questioning is the source of all wisdom. Wisdom, though occasionally unsettling, doesn't seem particularly dark to me. There are dark paths to wisdom (e.g. wrestling inner daemons) just as there are light paths (e.g. social consciousness), but questioning is about not having calcified, nay more. Certainly certain varieties of questioning amount to rebellion, amount to testing the boundaries between light and dark, but I think that's more about the tool being sharp than about it being dangerous.

Then again, most folks would prolly consider me darkly, so who am I to judge? :)

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I think constant questioning is the source of all wisdom.

Well, i tend to agree with you. :-) However, many religions, many of which regard themselves as "forces of light", actively claim otherwise - that 'wisdom' is recognising that their dogma is 'right'.

Wisdom, though occasionally unsettling, doesn't seem particularly dark to me.

Well, i'm not claiming otherwise: to me, wisdom is neither light nor dark (or is both light and dark at the same time). Instead, as i indicated in my summary, i feel that my search for wisdom involves travelling some of the dark paths to which you refer. So the journey is dark, not the destination.

Certainly certain varieties of questioning amount to rebellion, amount to testing the boundaries between light and dark, but I think that's more about the tool being sharp than about it being dangerous.

Hm. i'm not sure i understand you here, so please forgive me if the following doesn't really address what you were trying to say.

i feel that the questioning 'tool' can vary widely in its power: one can ask useless questions that are as provocative as a housefly to an elephant (e.g. someone asking me how old i am); one can ask 'sharp' questions (e.g. someone asking me why i identity as bigendered rather than simply as a male expressing his "feminine side"); and one can ask questions that are dangerous to some (e.g. which expose high-level corruption within a powerful group). And more specifically, i do feel that it's possible to ask questions of oneself and others that are 'dangerous' in that they threaten the psychological equanimity of oneself and others, and instead force us into 'dark', uncharted, unfamiliar waters.

Then again, most folks would prolly consider me darkly

Sorry, i don't follow . . . . ?

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

However, many religions, many of which regard themselves as "forces of light", actively claim otherwise - that 'wisdom' is recognising that their dogma is 'right'.

True true. Most organized religions have a strong conservative bent to try to keep people from questioning, since questioning ultimately leads to answers, and these might not be the answers the organization wants people to arrive at. Of course, most organized religions are more about the organization than they are about the religion, a point that seems often overlooked in religious discussions. I don't think it's inherently sinister to have normative social forces out there, but I do think they become a problem when they stifle our human nature for exploration and diversity, or when normativity is used as an excuse for causing violence.

As you say, there are certain types of questions which are dangerous to pose, questions about powerful groups whether they be our secular or religious leaders, or whether they be the norms of the popular or scientific communities as when Galileo argued to the Jesuits for Copernican astronomy. On the topic of religion, often those who question too deeply are counted as heretics because they're "perverting" the religion and have "fallen to the dark side of the force". But just because questioning can threaten those in power, does not mean that questioning itself is inherently dangerous. The entire process of learning on any topic is an act of questioning; it's less dangerous to question whether a car is coming and look to either side afore crossing a street than it is to simply cross. And while it can be dangerous to know how fires are caused, this knowledge too allows for the prevention of fires.

Questioning is a tool, and like a knife the tool is sharp. Certainly, because it is sharp, one can injure themselves or others if they are careless with it, but it is more dangerous to work with a dull knife than it is to work with a sharp one. The danger of a knife comes from its misuse, not from its inherent nature. It is not a gun whose only purpose is to injure and maim, it is not a bomb which is indiscriminate and unreliable. Danger comes not from the fact that questioning is a sharp tool, it comes from a lack of wisdom as to how to wield that tool. Questioning can cut ties or rend the fabric of society, but this is neither good nor ill, it merely is. Life is a process, so too with social mores and with friendships, and as a process things change. Change means inherently a destruction of the old to make way for the new. We do not worry when change means to get well from illness nor when our ignorance is shattered by enlightenment. All societies need to change, to grow, to adapt. Not to do so means stagnation and death.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

most organized religions are more about the organization than they are about the religion

*nod* Excellent point.

just because questioning can threaten those in power, does not mean that questioning itself is inherently dangerous.

Oh, sure, i agree that questions aren't inherently dangerous; they're only dangerous as a result of the context in which they're asked. i don't believe i claimed otherwise (indeed, in the parent of your comment, i gave specific examples of how different questions can have different levels of 'provocativeness'). But then, human language overall only has meaning in the context which it's used; and we can rarely (if at all) question without structuring that process using human language. Further, the fact that it's possible for us to communicate amongst ourselves with language, often relatively successfully, shows that we have at least some (admittedly imperfect) knowledge of the psychology of our fellow humans. Thus, we are able to make educated guesses about how to use a series of aural and/or visual symbols in a way we suspect will provoke a transition to certain psychological states amongst certain groups of people, possibly involving different target states for different groups. So the phrase "End the military dictatorship!" can be felt as threatening ('dangerous') to the beneficiaries of said dictatorship, even as it might be felt to be liberating by those the dicatorship oppresses.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

By saying that constant questioning is a part of a dark path, to me this implies saying that there is something of darkness, of danger, in the questioning itself, outside of any context which may support or oppose those questions. E.g. knowledge a la H.P. Lovecraft. As delectable as tentacles are, and as romantic and tragic as that pairing is (I'm a sucker for a good story afterall), I'm not sure that I actually believe there is such a knowledge we're Not Meant To Know. Knowledge is power, and thus should be treated as delicately as any weapon, but so long as it is handled appropriately I don't think there are limits to what we should investigate or discover.

Certainly all of our human experiences are deeply embedded in a context which lends them force. But that being the case, it would seem to me that the lightness or darkness of any paths therefrom should not be swayed by those ground rules since they affect all paths.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

By saying that constant questioning is a part of a dark path, to me this implies saying that there is something of darkness, of danger, in the questioning itself, outside of any context which may support or oppose those questions.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue then. The very notion of a dark path is a human construct. So to me, dark paths only have meaning in a human context; and thus, to me, it's meaningless to make assertions about what a 'dark path' might or might not involve outside of a human context. Hence, i expressed my beliefs about 'dark paths' assuming it was 'obvious' that i meant them in the context of human activity. However, since your comments indicate that my assumption was in fact incorrect, i'll be sure to explicitly specify the context from now on.

I'm not sure that I actually believe there is such a knowledge we're Not Meant To Know. Knowledge is power, and thus should be treated as delicately as any weapon, but so long as it is handled appropriately I don't think there are limits to what we should investigate or discover.

i agree with you on this, and don't believe i've said otherwise.

Certainly all of our human experiences are deeply embedded in a context which lends them force. But that being the case, it would seem to me that the lightness or darkness of any paths therefrom should not be swayed by those ground rules since they affect all paths.

i disagree. i think, based on experience, that light paths don't necessarily involve constant questioning - one can, for example, simply continually take on 'received wisdom' as one travels that path - whereas dark paths necessarily do. In other words: to me, there's not necessarily a contradiction involved in claiming to travel a light path whilst not constantly questioning, whereas there is if one does so when claiming to travel a dark path.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Sorry, i don't follow . . . . ?

Oh, just that I think most folks would consider me to be on a dark path is all. Given the descriptions in your post, I certainly am, though I don't often think of those particulars as dark.

To wit: the universe certainly isn't a friendly place for humans, at best it's indifferent, at worst we are but grist for the mill --like any other star matter. But then I don't think that the universe should be a happy bubbly place bent on serving our whims. Frankly, humans are often not friendly creatures, we're selfish, ignorant, whimsical, jealous, possessive, vindictive, savage creatures. We like to hide all that behind an illusion of civility, but frankly most people are too caught up in their own physical existence and delusions of grandeur to even notice the fact that the universe doesn't even recognize us as entities apart from the rest of existence.

Maybe it's just misanthropy, but personally I think the idea that humans have any special meaning to the cosmos is an act of extreme arrogance. Are we special? Sure, but we are special just as Niagara falls is special and just as the airlessness of the moon and the blazing of the sun and the gravitational constant are special. The universe would not be the same were we not in it, and for that fact we are unique and beautiful. But we are no more special than any other facet of the divine wonder that is creation. The fact that we are not special, that we are but a shard of existence, should not be seen as a failing but rather should be seen as the liberating gift it is. Lo, behold we who are but ugly bags of mostly water, that we should take part in so grand an enterprise, that we should behold the splendor of all that is around us, and that we should do so with no more responsibility that to be precisely what we are, truly this is a gift if even we cannot see past the fact that "precisely what we are" entails that we should be but mortal.

Then again I believe that the whole of existence is divinity itself, which too is neither good nor ill but merely is. That fact that we are a part of this existence means we are all of us gods. This position, however, is not one that's highly respected among the majority of extant religions, and is strongly antinormative to boot.

:)

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Oh, just that I think most folks would consider me to be on a dark path is all. Given the descriptions in your post, I certainly am, though I don't often think of those particulars as dark.

Ah, well, fair enough. What sort of things would you consider to be 'dark', then?

Re. the rest of your comment, heh, you might be interested to read this recent comment of mine (http://stef-tm.livejournal.com/136178.html?thread=725746#t725746).

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, fair enough. What sort of things would you consider to be 'dark', then?

Hmm, good question. It's something I've thought about, but don't quite have the words for.

I think for me 'dark' is something like the lens one puts on a story. The sort of thing which digs down to the deepest question of what it is to be human and exposes the fact that we might not like what we see there; not because it is bad, but because it is us laid bare. It's about doing What Is Right in the face of a world of impossible choices where everyone else's "right" means sacrificing your morals/ethics/self (conversely it is about discovering morality in a world that does its best to confuse the matter). It's about accepting that there is a darkness in the human soul and that rather than covering it up with hymns we must learn how to bring that nature into harmony with the rest of our selves. It's about accepting that failure is a very real possibility, indeed nearly inevitable, but that we have no hope but to try. It's about realizing the humanity of our parents, about realizing the hardship of history and that they never had a choice. It's about accepting that we are finite, that we are broken, that we are mortal.

As you mentioned, often the body and earthly desires are considered tethers which cause us to stray from the paths. One can say that loosening those binds breaks down barriers and leads to enlightenment in the unity of all things, and this path is oft taken to be the right one. But one can just as well say that being rid of those tethers is to lose our connexions to the world around us, to become detached and isolated in the disunity of all things. When we are struck by this understanding of disunity, as when we are struck by the understanding of unity, this is enlightenment --albeit through a lens darkly.


Re. the rest of your comment, heh, you might be interested to read this recent comment of mine.

What forbidden knowledge is this? or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the 403 ;)

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

To some extent, for me, walking a path of darkness is more about finding one's own way to truth rather than following the lines set by others. That is, the "darkness" is that the path less travelled by has fewer torches along the way and so is easier to fall from and lose sight of. If one hopes to find truth they must be wary of falling into potholes like nihilism and empty hedonism, but each of those things are along the path and so have something to offer those who don't get ensnared.

One of my main sources of religious perspective comes from gnostic traditions, which often revolve around the question of the nature of reality and whether this is differentiable from the nature of the self/psyche and the extent to which knowledge/introspection can give us understanding/wisdom about the nature of reality and self. Gnostic ideas have been becoming fairly popular recently both in the States and in Japan (though usually without the religious trappings) for which wikipedia has a brief listing of some examples (the section on films has some particularly good examples).

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Re. your perspective on dark paths - thanks, that was interesting. :-)

Re. the 403'd comment, sorry! Obviously, i didn't realise that post was locked. :-P Here's the relevant excerpt:

i personally tend to think that nature is amoral, and that looking to nature to provide moral guidance is thus rather silly. For example, since there other primates engage in infanticide, does that mean it's okay for us to do so as well? We may well be able to point to nature to counter arguments that, e.g. same-sex sexual behaviour is generally 'unnatural', but beyond that, since behaviours vary immensely between species, what other guidance can it offer our species? And in any case, why does the universe / multiverse owe us moral guidance? What's so difficult about using the Golden Rule as a starting point?

[astarrymist.livejournal.com]

What beautiful words. Those also apply to me and my notions of "dark."

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

:-)