Controlling the spirits: Enslavement?

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

I thought that most other forms weren't "against" the entity's "will" though? ninja

wink Wills can and do conflict.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

I thought that most other forms weren't "against" the entity's "will" though? ninja

wink Wills can and do conflict.

...now my head just hurts neutral  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus>> Vit I?

Also- as a general question to the guild:

Since we have been talking about forcing your win on another, I have to question some of the hardline stances with a specific situation:

Some beings don't belong where they are. Some of them will take their leave when informed of this. Some of them need to be asked nicely. Some of them are happy to poison people, places and things and aren't going to leave without force.

If as a matter of principle we argue that to force one's will on another spirit is always immoral, are we not condemning others who belong in a certain state to suffer under the power of those who have taken up what I would call "wrongful" residence?

And would this be any different than a person breaking into your home and squatting in your living room?  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus>> Vit I?

Also- as a general question to the guild:

Since we have been talking about forcing your win on another, I have to question some of the hardline stances with a specific situation:

Some beings don't belong where they are. Some of them will take their leave when informed of this. Some of them need to be asked nicely. Some of them are happy to poison people, places and things and aren't going to leave without force.

If as a matter of principle we argue that to force one's will on another spirit is always immoral, are we not condemning others who belong in a certain state to suffer under the power of those who have taken up what I would call "wrongful" residence?

And would this be any different than a person breaking into your home and squatting in your living room?

I tried to avoid making an absolute statement and I apologize for any confusion if I accidentally did.

Considering I support abortion options as a right it would be a bit hypocritical of me to not support ousting spiritual beings forcefully if they did something like that.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Also- as a general question to the guild:

Since we have been talking about forcing your win on another, I have to question some of the hardline stances with a specific situation:

Some beings don't belong where they are. Some of them will take their leave when informed of this. Some of them need to be asked nicely. Some of them are happy to poison people, places and things and aren't going to leave without force.

If as a matter of principle we argue that to force one's will on another spirit is always immoral, are we not condemning others who belong in a certain state to suffer under the power of those who have taken up what I would call "wrongful" residence?

And would this be any different than a person breaking into your home and squatting in your living room?

This is where my odd stance on morality comes in. I'd see forcing some form of spirit that was causing harm and the like out of one's home/other area as 100% justified and understandable. I wouldn't necessarily see it as moral however. In short, if it's necessary, it's necessary, whilst it wouldn't be moral in my eyes, I'm not going to think any less of the person for it, after all, sometimes immoral actions just have to be taken. ninja *ominous piano music foreshadowing a possible debate about the nature of his morality structure*

Edit: also note, this is without including those traditions where such actions are considered moral, in which I would have to look at the justification for it ninja  

[Gho the Girl]

Cyrus the Elder

This is where my odd stance on morality comes in. I'd see forcing some form of spirit that was causing harm and the like out of one's home/other area as 100% justified and understandable. I wouldn't necessarily see it as moral however. In short, if it's necessary, it's necessary, whilst it wouldn't be moral in my eyes, I'm not going to think any less of the person for it, after all, sometimes immoral actions just have to be taken. ninja *ominous piano music foreshadowing a possible debate about the nature of his morality structure*

Edit: also note, this is without including those traditions where such actions are considered moral, in which I would have to look at the justification for it ninja

What do you define as "moral" and I don't mean "what in your view of morality is good/bad" I mean, what definitionn do you use regarding the words "morality" or "moral?"  

[Cyrus the Elder]

Gho the Girl

What do you define as "moral" and I don't mean "what in your view of morality is good/bad" I mean, what definitionn do you use regarding the words "morality" or "moral?"

The traditional sense? As in, that which is ethically good? ninja  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

Gho the Girl

What do you define as "moral" and I don't mean "what in your view of morality is good/bad" I mean, what definitionn do you use regarding the words "morality" or "moral?"

The traditional sense? As in, that which is ethically good? ninja

Hmmm... interesting.
I guess the question then becomes, is there an objective stance? Are professional ethics objective?  

[Fiddlers Green]

Recursive Paradox

A bit yes. After all I could be mistaken about the nature of the sourcing. All I can truly say (the rest is theory built from that) is that it's external sourced affinity based energy flows that operate the best on the elemental or universal force that the given Aspect is associated with.

So I know for sure that it doesn't come from me and that only certain types can be drawn in. But whether that's vis remains to be seen I guess.

Heck, it is entirely possible that I'm mildly delusional. Or that the Aspects are actually thoughtforms that allow me to channel external sourced energies through adjusting and playing with energy flow affinities. Which means I could be pulling energy from all sorts of crazy places.

I should try to just reach out into the native flow without a specific Aspect in mind and just sort of commune with it, not channel it. See if I spot a difference.

Vis = Energy
Everything contains vis. In it's rawest form it is Vim.
All jokes comparing this to the Force can stop now.
This will be hard to explain online, I normally use props...
Basically, there is a difference between respiring vis, and rampantly devouring local geomantic vis flows.
It's like the difference between sipping water from a stream and building a dam to make a lake that only you can use. One has very little impact, the other can be disastrous.
We breath, all living creatures (and some that aren't alive) are part of the network of flowing vis thru the world.
Thoughtforms may either be patterns imposed on local vis, or created from one's own vis. It's hard to tell from a distance.

I do whole heartedly endorse the later idea, about feeling around rather than directing at some point.


Tea, I hope my previous posts made clear my stance on Outsiders and Strangers. surprised
If not... let me just say this much, I love my home... possibly more than I have ever loved anything else, the Geni Loci are amongst my closest friends... If anything, Anything comes from outside to threaten them, woe unto them.
They shall learn why my name was once a name to be feared.
Be they Man, Ghost, or Demon, I care not.
An enemy is an enemy.
The morality of the situation is nil.
There is nothing more than the morality of a Bear protecting her cubs, or Hornet protecting it's nest. It is mine, and I shall not tolerate it being harmed.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

Gho the Girl

What do you define as "moral" and I don't mean "what in your view of morality is good/bad" I mean, what definitionn do you use regarding the words "morality" or "moral?"

The traditional sense? As in, that which is ethically good? ninja

Hmmm... interesting.
I guess the question then becomes, is there an objective stance? Are professional ethics objective?

Personally, I think certain things are objective, some things aren't (I'm subjectively objective ninja )

In short, I apply things to only what I know, so things seem objective, and are considered as such until I find something contradictory, at which point I amend my previous stance to incorporate the new information. The only time I can currently think of where it would be good was where the entity didn't mind it, but that wouldn't really be against its will then, and thus would be excluded as previously noted. ninja

Edit: That is why, I guess, my statements sometimes come off as sounding overbearingly broad and lead to misunderstandings sweatdrop  

[Recursive Paradox]

Fiddlers Green

Recursive Paradox

A bit yes. After all I could be mistaken about the nature of the sourcing. All I can truly say (the rest is theory built from that) is that it's external sourced affinity based energy flows that operate the best on the elemental or universal force that the given Aspect is associated with.

So I know for sure that it doesn't come from me and that only certain types can be drawn in. But whether that's vis remains to be seen I guess.

Heck, it is entirely possible that I'm mildly delusional. Or that the Aspects are actually thoughtforms that allow me to channel external sourced energies through adjusting and playing with energy flow affinities. Which means I could be pulling energy from all sorts of crazy places.

I should try to just reach out into the native flow without a specific Aspect in mind and just sort of commune with it, not channel it. See if I spot a difference.

Vis = Energy
Everything contains vis. In it's rawest form it is Vim.
All jokes comparing this to the Force can stop now.
This will be hard to explain online, I normally use props...
Basically, there is a difference between respiring vis, and rampantly devouring local geomantic vis flows.
It's like the difference between sipping water from a stream and building a dam to make a lake that only you can use. One has very little impact, the other can be disastrous.
We breath, all living creatures (and some that aren't alive) are part of the network of flowing vis thru the world.
Thoughtforms may either be patterns imposed on local vis, or created from one's own vis. It's hard to tell from a distance.

It sounds like Vis and The Ether are two different ways to describe a very similar concept. Or at least that the Vis would be included in the overall ebb and flow of the Ether.

Sorry if that was religiocentric of me, I'm just trying to get a sense of common ground.

Quote:

I do whole heartedly endorse the later idea, about feeling around rather than directing at some point.

It's how I started out. No reason why I can't do it now. ^^  

[Fiddlers Green]

Recursive Paradox

It sounds like Vis and The Ether are two different ways to describe a very similar concept. Or at least that the Vis would be included in the overall ebb and flow of the Ether.

Sorry if that was religiocentric of me, I'm just trying to get a sense of common ground.

Indeed, in some areas I have heard Ether used interchangeably with Vis or Vim.
Also, there is no need to apologize to me for things I do myself. wink
We all are limited by our own perspectives as to how we can express what we know, or think we know.
I find direct exchanges from alternate points of view to be refreshing and enlightening. 3nodding

Quote:

It's how I started out. No reason why I can't do it now. ^^

I always encourage study before interaction, but then again, I am a cautious old fuddy-duddy.
So many... traditions... encourage what I can only describe as a poke it and see style of research that I often come off as a bit reactionary. If I am overbearing, that is why, I do not mean to excuse the behavior, but do like to clarify it's reasoning.

Also, as to the Objectivity question...
I am a creature living in an objective world who's awareness of it is mostly perceptual, leaving my understanding of it largely subjective.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Fiddlers Green

Recursive Paradox

It sounds like Vis and The Ether are two different ways to describe a very similar concept. Or at least that the Vis would be included in the overall ebb and flow of the Ether.

Sorry if that was religiocentric of me, I'm just trying to get a sense of common ground.

Indeed, in some areas I have heard Ether used interchangeably with Vis or Vim.
Also, there is no need to apologize to me for things I do myself. wink
We all are limited by our own perspectives as to how we can express what we know, or think we know.
I find direct exchanges from alternate points of view to be refreshing and enlightening. 3nodding

Whew. I worry a little about that. My path is the one religion I know the most about right now so that tends to be the approach I take.

From your understanding of what I've written so far, would you feel there is a possibility that I'm describing Vis and the Vim in terms of energy channeling and the state of universal energies?

Quote:

I always encourage study before interaction, but then again, I am a cautious old fuddy-duddy.
So many... traditions... encourage what I can only describe as a poke it and see style of research that I often come off as a bit reactionary. If I am overbearing, that is why, I do not mean to excuse the behavior, but do like to clarify it's reasoning.

I'm very cautious by nature so I tend to do the same. And I've been burned badly enough in the past in multiple ways and mediums that I've learned to be cautious with certain things.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Tea, I hope my previous posts made clear my stance on Outsiders and Strangers. surprised
If not... let me just say this much, I love my home... possibly more than I have ever loved anything else, the Geni Loci are amongst my closest friends... If anything, Anything comes from outside to threaten them, woe unto them.
They shall learn why my name was once a name to be feared.
Be they Man, Ghost, or Demon, I care not.
An enemy is an enemy.
The morality of the situation is nil.
There is nothing more than the morality of a Bear protecting her cubs, or Hornet protecting it's nest. It is mine, and I shall not tolerate it being harmed.

3nodding Very reasonable.

Cyrus the Elder

Personally, I think certain things are objective, some things aren't (I'm subjectively objective ninja )

In short, I apply things to only what I know, so things seem objective, and are considered as such until I find something contradictory, at which point I amend my previous stance to incorporate the new information. The only time I can currently think of where it would be good was where the entity didn't mind it, but that wouldn't really be against its will then, and thus would be excluded as previously noted. ninja

Your concept of morality reads as non-existent.

Basically, when it comes to imposing your will on another, there is no time when doing so is okay, yes?  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Your concept of morality reads as non-existent.

Not really, how to put it simply...what I see as moral or not isn't necessarily fixed because I acknowledge that I don't know everything, yet it takes a damn good argument to manage to shift me to believe that my current stance is incorrect. If someone can show me a situation in which it would be moral to take an action that I previously believed was immoral, I'd consider that situation, whether or not it being moral is justified, and if so amend my previous belief on the action's immorality accordingly. It's not a matter of any time anyone says something is moral it becomes moral, it's a matter of convincing me of its morality.

Quote:

Basically, when it comes to imposing your will on another, there is no time when doing so is okay, yes?

No. If said other is fine with it/doesn't care/wants it, it would be morally neutral/good depending on which one of those three it was. If it was somehow necessary, say, forcing one's will on another unwillingly to stop them from committing murder, it would be justifiable, but morally bad, and at that point it comes down to weighing which bad is greater and thus should be stopped.