Wild Ethics

[Thomas Tallis]

Greeting everybody,

I'm new here 
I'm no initiate, but I have been fascinated with Feri for a while.
I've been roaming the web trying to find more info on Feri Ethics, but didn't find much.
The FAQ's on this website talk about "Warrior Ethics" and the need to decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong.

But what does that mean? how do we decide what is right and what is wrong?
Is there an action we ought to take, or is it completely up to the person to decide what to do?
What is the rationale behind Feri ethics?

The thing is: if Feri is a truly a wild tradition (wild as in untamed), are there any obligations for a person's actions?
If there are any obligations, of what kind?

I'm sorry for my English, as it is not my first language.

Thank you,
Thomas.

[Storm]

Feri, first and foremost, is a path of witchcraft i.e. sorcery, and as such does not intend to dictate a code of ethics as a blanket that is used to cover every situation. I personally think that one's personal ethics should be highly evolved before they even come to practice a path such as witchcraft. It should not be the exclusive responsibility of religion to teach or instill ethical behavior.

I define the Warrior Ethic as acting in a way that is both honorable and effective. As the situation changes the warrior must adapt in order to consciously and effectively respond, as opposed to just mindlessly reacting.  In this each individual is left to decide their own ethics. In a community this would at least imply developing ethics that are in resonance with others so as to be able to work together.

I'm interested to hear what others might have to say on this subject.

[Morgan Felidae]

I'm interested to hear what others might have to say on this subject.

Even if it's pretty much agreeing with you?

To the OP, a lot of emphasis in Feri trad is being in alignment with our three selves. While the Talker and Fetch aspects tend to make themselves known to varying degrees, many people (Feri and non) are not in alignment or listening to their Higher Selves. There is a theory tossed around that if every single person on the planet were in alignment with xir Higher Selves, there would be no war or disharmony. So if a Feri Witch is doing the work and acting in alignment with xir three souls, ethics kind of naturally follow. Yes, there are consequences, but being able to see those sort of things clearly allow one to make better choices.

[Thomas Tallis]

Storm and Morgan, thank you both for your time and patience to answer me. I appreciate it, and hope you'll bear with me a while longer.

Storm,

If I understand correctly, Feri tries to press the "restart" button on people's ideas about sex, pride, power etc.
As the saying goes: "with great power, comes great responsibility".
If you take the role of changing people's minds about such powerful and primal concepts, eventually this will impact a their outward behavior.
So, I think religion has a great deal of responsibility both to explain why it's values are good in the first place, and a responsibility for it's followers actions in situations that relate to those values.
For example, I think the Catholic Church has a great responsibility for the spreading of AIDS in Africa because their religious values say that sex should only be practiced when there's a possibility for a new life and condoms contradict this value.

About the warrior ethics, this is where it gets a bit fuzzy for me:
1) Why do you think these values are good? What is the rationale?
2) Let's say i'm a hunter. I might say i'm acting effectively by killing the animal quickly and in an honorable way by being true to it's animal nature (not killing it outside its natural habitat etc.).
Now, let's say i'm an extreme animal-rights activist. Then I might say i'm acting effectively by killing the hunter (not to worry, I don't actually intend on killing anyone)  and honorably because the animal's holocaust is the most outrageous moral crime since the beginning of time.
Both of those people think they are true to those values, and yet we all have some inclination to agree with one of them and an aversion to the other person.
So, who is right and who is wrong? on what basis do we say that one was true to those values and the other wasn't?

Morgan,

So, what you're saying is that if we all dig deep enough, we will find that we are alike in what matters most?
It's a very optimistic way of looking at the world. I feel this way too most of the time.
What's funny is that this is kind of the same response I got from Buddhists: if people just follow the instructions, eventually they will see clearly what the Buddha talked about - and then they will agree with him and with each other on almost anything.
Do you think people can ever have so much in common that they won't have disharmony and war?
Do you agree we need to have a lot in common (say, values) for this to happen?

Thank you both again, and i'm sorry if I have taken too much of your time.

[Morgan Felidae]

So, what you're saying is that if we all dig deep enough, we will find that we are alike in what matters most?

Not necessarily...and I probably wouldn't have put it in those words. Are a clarinet and a cello alike? Yet they can produce beautiful music by working together. There are some ranges a baritone sax can't reach that a piccolo can. The bari doesn't try for the piccolo notes, it just does its thing, working in concert with the higher instruments.

Do you think people can ever have so much in common that they won't have disharmony and war?
Do you agree we need to have a lot in common (say, values) for this to happen?

Nope. I don't believe in "in common", I believe in "in concert".

Storm and I have VERY different interests and values on a lot of levels, yet we've still been in ritual together, contributing, and made some powerful stuff happen. Yes, we might share SOME interests and values, but I don't believe that's where the harmony comes from. I used to adapt my personality to match whomever I was friends with, hoping to be more accepted. So in that sense, we had everything in common. Yet there was no harmony, just mimicry, and that made for a very thin concerto :p Not to mention the discordance I was getting by not acting according to my Higher Self.

[GooglyBee23]

I used to adapt my personality to match whomever I was friends with, hoping to be more accepted. So in that sense, we had everything in common. Yet there was no harmony, just mimicry, and that made for a very thin concerto :p Not to mention the discordance I was getting by not acting according to my Higher Self.

Does this mean that in one order of acting according to our Higher Self, we must be less empathic in order to be more ourselves? Or do you simply mean that we should have a balance of our empathy and use it when needed, and then otherwise be completely ourselves?

I've always thought that it was better if you melded with your environment; thus becoming somewhat of a social butterfly and getting to meet other people and stay in contact with so many because you get along so well. Although, I do see the importance of being truly yourself, thus the ultimate definition of "individual". So does this mean you should have a balance of the two?

I personally think that one's personal ethics should be highly evolved before they even come to practice a path such as witchcraft. It should not be the exclusive responsibility of religion to teach or instill ethical behavior.

I'm at a tender age, so I'm not exactly sure if I can agree with you, Storm, in saying that one's personal ethics should be highly evolved before coming to witchcraft. I do believe one should have an idea to what the hell they're doing before getting prepared to get naked in a field screaming at the top of their lungs to the sky whipping around a wand just so that they'll get that extra $5 raise at work. So maybe the ethics comes before witchcraft's actual practices. But one major thing about Paganism is that we learn through experience and we believe in what we've experienced (and shoot, sometimes even those things we don't  ). So through our experiences in our practices do we learn the deeper meaning to w/e it is we're trying to accomplish, which is pretty much the basis of much of Feri; to learn about your Self and everything in it, about, and around it.

In essence, I think that in this our actions and practices (those of Witchcraft) may also shape our morals to what they are. I remember what was going on during the time I found Paganism. I was about 12-13yrs. old. Sure, I had the morals my mother taught me growing up, and even "Pagan morals" my father taught me. But those weren't enough to get me through the bull I was going through in middle school (me coming out of the closet to all my friends; good move, wrong friends). But through Paganism, I did learn some morals that were more universal. So maybe not exactly from the practices of Witchcraft, but I guess I see it more as having pre-morals, then Witchcraft, then learned morals.

P.S.- Sorry, I know I write too much for a forum lol

[Morgan Felidae]

Does this mean that in one order of acting according to our Higher Self, we must be less empathic in order to be more ourselves? Or do you simply mean that we should have a balance of our empathy and use it when needed, and then otherwise be completely ourselves?

I don't see why maintaining boundaries in any way requires one to be less empathic. In fact, a large problem many empaths run into is poorly-defined boundaries, because they get so caught up in the emotions of the other person they can get lost themselves. The general theory behind the practice is if everyone in your interactions were in alignment, there would be no choice or balance needed, because they would not be asking anything of you that you would not be comfortable doing.

I've always thought that it was better if you melded with your environment; thus becoming somewhat of a social butterfly and getting to meet other people and stay in contact with so many because you get along so well. Although, I do see the importance of being truly yourself, thus the ultimate definition of "individual". So does this mean you should have a balance of the two?

Always Balance is important. It's quite possible to be a social butterfly and integrated with your environment, without having to melt into some amalgamation of bits n' pieces. It goes back to some of the earlier questions and the differentiation between harmonizing and mirroring.

[GooglyBee23]

Wow, that's one lesson I really need to learn. And one that I slowly have been learning ever since I first read the first comment I replied to. I've never really been an individual seeing as I've sort of had identity-searching at such a young age. I've never known exactly how to just be me w/o being someone else. And I can't really say I do it for the purposes of fitting in; it's more of "do what mommy and daddy do, and you'll learn to do it on your own" kind of thing. I definitely wouldn't want to be wallpaper in the back; more like the nice nightstand by the bed. Convenient for storage, and here when you need to lean on Though, I guess it is time to be Self. My Self.

My mother and I were speaking together during dinner at a restaurant. about her new spiritual path, and I kept realizing that I kept getting irritated at the people around us, simply at their presence, just as she was talking about the "purity of the mind". I realized that I just wanted to be alone, and secluded. I needed some Me-Time. And being in school all day, I don't get much of it(I guess that's why I liked it when my mother always went to her boyfriend's house and left the house all to me!!) I then remembered the only time I'd ever really been secluded which was once during school's summer vacation (2 whole months). Seeing as I like being in the house alone while my mother was at work all day, and I considered myself a loner, I exiled myself from everyone for those 2 months. Let's just say I got a big sense of who Self really was w/o anyone affecting me (except maybe the dog). But seeing as it was only those 2 months versus a whole lifetime, I never got to really know "the work of this God". One way or another, though, that's all gonna change; I'm committed.

[Thomas Tallis]

I don't see why maintaining boundaries in any way requires one to be less empathic. In fact, a large problem many empaths run into is poorly-defined boundaries, because they get so caught up in the emotions of the other person they can get lost themselves. The general theory behind the practice is if everyone in your interactions were in alignment, there would be no choice or balance needed, because they would not be asking anything of you that you would not be comfortable doing.

I can see how this can be true for human interactions, but what about human-animal  or animal-animal interactions?
Many times we and other animals take from them things they would not be comfortable giving (say, their life).
Yet, this is very much a natural aspect of nature: animals kill other animals regularly.
What is the meaning of harmony in that area of life?

I thank all of you who participate in this discussion, I have benefited greatly from your writing. 

[GooglyBee23]

I definitely agree; in nature death, disease, etc. are found, and the majority is not asked for. I don't know where I"m going with this, so I'll just ramble on a bit (bear with me )

I think it's one thing when a non-human kills a non-human, whether it be animal-animal, animal-plant, plant-animal,  plant-plant, or something beyond like diseases or starvation, all being a moving force and undoubtedly a part of life. I think it's another thing when it comes to humans. Firstly, as humans, we bear something which differs from other species on Earth; compassion. With this comes our ability to shed tears (ever noticed no animal does this but humans?) I don't want to say we're "more evolved" (even if there is the possibility of this being true). But I see us simply as beings with this powerful gift, one which through thousands of years has given us the power to change the world to our please, whether the results be good or bane (though, even we powerful mortals are limited).
So I think we must have utmost responsibility when it comes to cultivating with other lives. It especially comes down to the reason for taking if we do take. Mark Twain wrote an essay called "The Lowest Animal", in which he argues how highly egotistical humans have become in calling themselves the "highest animal". One basis he specifies on is how humans kill w/o intention, while other animals kill with intention. And even though a cat may terrorize a mouse by scratching it and flicking it around while the mouse is still alive, the cat does not know this because the cat bears no emotional connection with the mouse. But we as humans do, which is why naturally it has become moral ethics to "harm none" throughout society.
A last point I'd like to make is that our ancestors used to pray to the Gods for a "happy hunting", so to speak. Then they would pray during and after the kill of the animal, sending its life in brightest blessings to the afterlife, thanking the spirit for the food they will share with their people. Though, as you said, the animal never asked for their death, so to say whether this justifies the act, I'm still open-minded to ideas. The only inference I could come up with is that they saw it as a gift from the Gods. Consciously, I wouldn't know

These are my musings^_^

[Morgan Felidae]

I can see how this can be true for human interactions, but what about human-animal  or animal-animal interactions?
Many times we and other animals take from them things they would not be comfortable giving (say, their life).
Yet, this is very much a natural aspect of nature: animals kill other animals regularly.
What is the meaning of harmony in that area of life?

I won't begin to speculate on the mental processes of animals. Their cognitive processes differ pretty widely, and I don't believe any human being can fully understand it.

[Thomas Tallis]

I can see how this can be true for human interactions, but what about human-animal  or animal-animal interactions?
Many times we and other animals take from them things they would not be comfortable giving (say, their life).
Yet, this is very much a natural aspect of nature: animals kill other animals regularly.
What is the meaning of harmony in that area of life?

I won't begin to speculate on the mental processes of animals. Their cognitive processes differ pretty widely, and I don't believe any human being can fully understand it.

Fair enough, but our relationship with animals is still very much a part of our life.
Will you be willing to explain how do you see our relationship with them? Was there an aspect of Feri which affected your view?

Thank you & sorry if i'm being too rude with my questions.

[Morgan Felidae]

Fair enough, but our relationship with animals is still very much a part of our life.
Will you be willing to explain how do you see our relationship with them?

Kind of going off topic, so I'm not interested in making it a lengthy conversation (as in, much beyond this point) but as it's rude to leave a question unanswered...
I don't speculate on any sort of "we"...as for my part, I have worked in humane societies, rescue groups, and wildlife rescues for nearly a decade. My only children are four-legged and furred. I don't have pets, I have companions.

Was there an aspect of Feri which affected your view?

No

[nanyo]

FREE THE COWS!

[Storm]

Eat the cows!