Evil is as Evil Does
By Edward Dain
Evil is perhaps the most problematic of all ontological concepts for Neo-Pagans. The notion of Evil strikes at the very heart of many of the tacit assumptions that form Neo-Pagan spirituality. Historically, these have been formed out of a rejection of Judeo-Christian values, beliefs, and practices. This rejection is then followed by a rather subjective, post-modern approach to what is “good.” With the active assumption and re-framing of a role and identity that is classically evil or bad (the witch, the “demon-worshipper,” etc), many Neo-Pagans have put themselves in the position of saying that nothing is evil or bad, and that value judgments of good and evil are culturally and individually morphic and relative.
There is some validity to this argument. Just because something is labeled evil from a Christian viewpoint doesn’t make it evil from a Jewish one, or even further afield, a Celtic one. There is the further question of whether “evil,” as it exists in Judeo-Christian morality (in particular Christian), even exists in other world-views. Buddhist concepts of dharma, virtue, and law as well as the nature of asuras in Hindu and Buddhist thought illustrate how poorly the concept of evil translates across language and culture. Yezdic “Devil-Worship” and Zoroastrianism provides other examples of the sort of mismatch between notions of good and evil. Currently, the closest that Neo-Pagan philosophy generally gets to a discussion of Good and Evil is the problematic Right-Handed and Left-Handed Paths descriptors of practice and morality.
Interestingly, the other child of the Occult Revival of the 19th Century, modern Ceremonial Magic and Lodge-work, addresses the problem very differently. At least, a couple of key figures did in the early days of modern Western occult practice. This branch of the Occult Revival often explicitly works within a Judeo-Christian paradigm and draws heavily from Qabalistic theory. During the development of modern Ceremonial Magic, occultists and philosophers had to come to terms with non-Christian beliefs and practices. Many thinkers (such as Bailey, Blavatsky, and others) created syncretistic belief systems of Eastern and Judeo-Christian beliefs in an effort to reconcile old and new “truths.” Treating non-Christian beliefs as, if not Good, then at least not Evil. Of course, the nature of Good and Evil had to be addressed and it was, often in some sort of evolutionary sense. Additionally, the existence and acts of Evil were (are) seen as necessary to existence on a metaphysical level in some ways.1 Even authors such as Crowley, who are noted for their opposition to traditional ceremonial magical styles and beliefs, continue with the assertion that standing away from “evolution” or development is Evil.2
These systems also hold the a priori assumption that spiritual evolution comes about through gnosis and logos, twin paths to the Divine. Linked to this belief is the additional belief that by understanding the nature of Divinity, one will naturally align to it and work with it. Problematic with much of this thought process is the recurrent theme that the carnal and the spiritual are opposed. Evolution is considered a process that brings about the elimination of the distinctions between the two and a transition to unity with the Divine. Indeed, much discussion revolves around the concept of the current “division” between the two as being some sort of cosmic mistake or as a result of rebellion against Divine Will.
I first ran across the concepts of “positive evil” and “negative evil” when reading the works of Dion Fortune many years ago.3 The short version is that Evil is a natural, though unfortunate, result of the Creation – metaphysically necessary for its existence, as well as the existence of Free Will (reasons vary considerably with time period and author). “Negative Evil” is that which overcomes the inertia that is the resistance to change. Alternately, it is a process of change which has not yet reached an equilibrium point in the process of evolution. In either case, this is the necessary Evil mentioned above. “Positive Evil” is evil that acts against evolution (and thus the Will of the Divine), a dynamic force in opposition to it, a choice to act in opposition of Good. Neither type is Evil in supernatural sense, but merely in a social or human sense.
W.E Butler takes the concept even further, positing “Negative-Negative Evil”4 and “Positive-Positive Evil.”5 “Negative-Negative Evil” is the quicksand of existence. Events and actions create an almost irresistible downward pull into resistance to evolution. It is not the active principle of Positive Evil, but a more insidious personal and social malaise that reflects a conflicting maelstrom of energies. “Positive-Positive Evil” is the concept of an ontologically active, organized Evil force – the Devil of popular Christian belief.
This is all sophistry for the most part. It is an attempt to retain an actual Evil to combat in a dualistic Good vs. Evil view of the universe with an all-powerful Divine force. It’s a conundrum that has plagued any philosopher who has cared to take it on – and is for the most part irreconcilable. While I am a strong believer in the force of evolution in human physical and spiritual development I do not take the automatic stance that this means unification with Deity and a purely spiritual existence. I am equally unsure that “evolution” is a goal rather than a natural process. This would suggest that I am, at this point, separate from the Divine, which is not my experience or observation. I also reject the notion that there is a supreme Deity who is both all-Good and all-powerful. There are too many different versions of “Good/Evil,” not to mention “Deity,” to support this. Good and Evil have been labels applied to beliefs and actions that support or reject the social order. As such, they are supported and reflected by metaphysical reality and the zeitgeist, raith, or the collective unconscious of the society in question.
I also have a certain distrust of the concept that we can ever have even a clue as to what the nature of the Divine actually is (and the discussion of multiple levels of reality and Deity-forms is another one entirely) or understand what its Will is. It seems the height of hubris to make the assumption. At best, I take the Neo-Pagan stance that the Divine will reveal itself through the faces of Deity-forms and communicate in this matter to each of as we ask for it – or as the Divine chooses to. I also reject the tacit assumption that humanity is towards the top end of some sort of hierarchical evolutionary scale. Much of what is considered “evil” or “bad” seems to keep this underlying assumption dear. I don’t happen to think the Divine values us any more than an ant, or any less for that matter. I think we are all equal in the consideration and plans of the Divine (plants, animals, and spirits). I think that much of what we tend to think of as evil are those forces and spirits which are antithetical to humanity. Related to this is the growing set of theories that many aspects of mental illness are merely normal aspects of human personality and physiology writ large and thus maladaptive in a modern, highly structured society.
This doesn’t take away from the reality of Evil, though, and here I will stand in direct opposition to Butler and Fortune. The closest that I can come to a Judeo-Christian Evil is something almost Cthulhuesque, something from Outside. I’m not sure that I can even philosophically make a concept of Outside work. It is so alien to my worldview that I just flounder. In many ways, it is just the definition of what the Outside should be. No matter what the etiology of the acts, there are humans who are evil by almost any definition, and spirits out there which certainly meet the definition as well.
As such, the terms still have some value.
Negative Evil is the evil of entropic stagnation, the passive acceptance of the negative, the banal, the quicksand of moral and spiritual choice, and the triumph of the entangling personality. It is negative, there is nothing about it which affirms the Divine, life, or death. There is a simultaneous refusal to take or accept responsibility for one’s actions (“I was just following orders,” or “Everyone does it”) that cheapens both life and death.
Positive Evil is the evil of active rebellion against the communal raith. It is the act of antinomian praxis, the pain of growth in the face of comfortable constraint, and the Promethean ideal. It is radical selfish individuality. At its best it is epitomized by a Mahatmas Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, and at its worst it is the drive of an Adolf Hitler or an Idi Amin. In somewhat (ok, incredibly) loaded terms, to embody Positive Evil is to take on the role of The Adversary (Shaitan) and to partake of Luciferian grace – it’s also a very Thelemic concept.
In both cases, this is something beyond simple existence. It is a choice of exceptional praxis.
The question is invariably asked, when I discuss this, whether I think that spirits are responsible for ‘evil’ in some manner akin to possession. A similar question is often posed around addiction. My answer is that I think it’s a mixed bag. For the most part, no, but at the same time my experience is that spirits are drawn by strong emotion, as well as by the occasional badly tuned psychic. There’s an interesting study that’s been done with serious predatory psychopaths on the “atavistic response,” which bears out that idea that there is something significantly different (and wrong) with psychopaths that most people can pick up on. Most people who work regularly with schizophrenics have a similar sense. What I suspect that people are picking up on is the psycho-spiritual “static” that the individual is producing, or the spirits that are hanging around the person. It becomes, in my opinion, a bit of a synergistic situation. Spirits are attracted by X, the person is then surrounded by spirits that like X, which means that they are more likely to engage in X, this in turn attracts more (or stronger) spirits that like X, etc, etc, etc.
Evil exists, but it is not always what we think it is.
1 — Isreal Regardie, The Golden Dawn
2 — Aleister Crowley, Liber ABA
3 — Dion Fortune, The Mystical Qabalah
4 — W.E. Butler, Magic: Its Rituals, Power and Purpose
5 — W.E. Butler, Lords of Light: The Path of Initiation in the Western Mysteries. The Teachings of the Ibis Fraternity
©2007 Edward Dain
Edited by Sheta Kaey
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
