Gray Magick

Time Doesn't Exist

2021-05-24T08:37:00.001-04:00

I think one of the main ways that people are controlled in life, is by our acceptance of the popular conception of time without critically thinking about what time is, because if one critically considers what our ideas regarding time are based upon, one will realize that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

THE FALLACY OF PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Take for example our idea of time basically consisting of the combination of what we call "past", "present", and "future". Our working idea of the past has to do with what has already occurred, but isn't it true that what we are really discussing when we mention the past is only our memory (or written/oral history) of the past? Further, it depends entirely upon only what was observed, which is itself dependent upon the observer along with whatever limited tools were used when the observation occurred.

Our idea of the present has to do with what is presently occurring, but there are problems with that idea as well. To a large degree, we really have very little idea of what is presently occurring except that which we observe directly. In other words, if you cannot directly observe what is presently occurring, then you must rely on anecdotal evidence of it, and even that is based upon incomplete information due to the fact that our senses and our technology for perceiving occurrences are both quite limited and narrow in their scope. Finally our idea of the future, has only to do with what is likely to occur based upon all present and past circumstances, or an interrelationship between "processes-in-progress" and related modifying forces (or elements of chaos such as last-minute decisions). In other words, the "future" is simply a set of interrelated probabilities, and is in no way set in stone as it were, so it's entire existence can only be speculated until it is observed in what we call the "present".

So let's get back to our idea of the present for a bit. Since we cannot observe everything that is occurring at any one time, and can only observe what our senses and technologies allow us to observe, and further, since what our senses are capable of observing is usually limited to what we focus upon, which itself is based solely in a desire to focus upon it, we could rationally and more precisely think of the "present" as "desired and currently focused observations". This definition actually jibes more easily with quantum discoveries of the behavior of "matter" as being influenced in its behavior by us noticing or focusing upon it.

So let's rethink our terminology to attempt to deduce the actuality of time. For now, let's just call the "past" memory, since the term memory inescapably and necessarily includes mental images of observed occurrences/written histories/genetic memories, etc. But by using this different terminology, we begin to see how the limitations in observable occurrences and the focus on what was actually recorded results in an incomplete record, as well as a dependance upon the awareness (and any lack thereof) of an observer.

By the same token, if we think of the "present" as "currently focused observations", and finally the "future" as "a set of probabilities", then we can begin to build a new model.

"Past" = Memory

"Present" = Currently Focused Observation (CFO)

"Future" = Set of Related Probabilities (SORP)

The reader should notice that at no point do our new terms violate the intended meanings nor the ramifications of the words they replace. They are similar enough, and possibly even more precise than the terms past, present, and future. We could even analogize "past, present, and future" to "memory, desire, and probability" respectively and still do no harm to the intended meanings of the former.

So now let's do some "Word Algebra" and a couple of logical rearrangements, shall we?

If "Past" is similar to "Memory", then let A = Past, and A! = Memory.

If "Present" is similar to "CFO", then let B = Present, and B! = CFO.

If Future is similar to "SORP", then let C = Future, and C! = SORP.

A and A! are functionally equivalent.

B and B! are functionally equivalent.

C and C! are functionally equivalent.

Now let's create a couple of memetic equations:

If A = Past, and B = Present, and C = Future, then let {A + B + C = "TIME"}

If A! = Memory, and B! = CFO, and C! = SORP, then let {A! + B! + C! = "NOW"}

(The reason I use the word NOW as the result of the second equation is because a "memory" of the past is always observed in the NOW, a 'Currently Focused Observation" is always done in the NOW, and any likely "Set of Related Probabilities" is also observed in the NOW, then the present or the NOW is the only observable, and therefore real, phenomenon.)

So, using these equations we can begin to really look at "time" more logically. The question then becomes which of these two equations can best describe our definition of time. Let's test:

Can A + B + C = NOW? No.

Can A + B + C = TIME? Yes.

Can A! + B! + C! = NOW? Yes.

Can A! + B! + C! = TIME? Yes.

If that is so, then can TIME = NOW and NOW = TIME?

Yes, because nothing about A!, B!, or C! violates our ideas about time.

THE CAMOUFLAGE OF CLOCKS AND CALENDARS

To further explore this idea, let's look at the two major methods by which we measure time: Clocks and Calendars. Let's deal with clocks first.

In order for a device to qualify as a clock, it must measure three things: seconds, minutes, and hours. 24 hours = one day, or one full rotation of the earth. 60 minutes = one hour, or 1/24th of a full rotation of the earth. 60 seconds = one minute, or 1/1440th of a full rotation of the earth. Notice how all of these definitions are all based solely upon the rotation of the earth. I'll come back to that because it's an important observation.

The Gregorian or Western Calendar is the world's standard measurement of the aspects of time, namely days, weeks, months, years, etc. However these terms are also themselves dependent upon the movement of planetary bodies. Since we have defined days as full rotations of the earth on its axis, let's continue. Weeks are then 7 full rotations of the earth, months are tricky because some months have a different number of days (rotations) than others and the determining factor of how many days per month seems to be quite arbitrary, and years are each a set of 365 rotations of the earth, or the time it takes the earth to make a full orbit around the sun.

Let's get back to months for a moment. A month is roughly the length of a lunar cycle, give or take a few hours. A lunar month is exactly 29.53 days, which if we round up, gets us 30 days. If we divide 365.25 days (the length of a full year) by 29.53, we get 12.4 months per year. This 4/10ths of a month overage gets us into the reason why we use leap years, which is because of the imprecision of our Gregorian calendar. If we had no leap years where an extra day is added to the end of February every 4th year, our calendar would be off by about 6 hours every year. While 6 hours per year of variance doesn't seem like much, it adds up to being 24 days off every 100 years.

Okay, so let's think critically about calendars. Each unit of measurement in a calendar depends entirely upon planetary movement. And those moving planetary bodies reside only within our solar system.

So I want to pose a few key questions to expose the fragility of our time measurement system using clocks and calendars.

1) How would you measure time in a different solar system?
2) How can you measure time precisely over long periods when the earth is slowing down in it's rotation year by year?
3) Could you accurately measure time if for some reason the earth stopped rotating?
4) Would time go in reverse if the earth somehow reversed it's rotation?

These questions, and their answers, serve to prove that our idea of time is not absolute since it is not the same everywhere and in all circumstances. Time is not a law, nor is it a real part of the natural world. Time is simply a means of measurement for the matrix that we call western civilization, and it is used because anything manufactured must have a means of measurement. Time is manufactured and therefore illusory, if for no other reason than it depends upon an observer and methods of observation.

Let's now look critically at our idea that time only moves forward. This is a most insidious fallacy because only clocks and calendars move forward, so we take a mental leap to say that time only moves forward. However, and as always, "the map is not the territory".

Another mental leap is that we don't have access to the past because it has "already happened". However, using our new definition of the past, namely memory, we always have access to memories so therefore we always have access to the past. Further, if by using techniques such as hypnosis we can sufficiently change our memories of the past, then both our present and future will change accordingly.

If nothing else, I hope this expose drives home the necessity of an observer in all measurements of time. Without an observer, time as we know it does not exist, and further, the focused awareness (or lack thereof) of said observer is of primary importance. If the observer could not see the sun, or the moon, or understand exactly what a clock or calendar measures, then our ideas of time could not exist for them. So then it follows that the presence of an observer cannot be divorced from the idea of time, because without that observer, time is meaningless and undefined.

The ramifications of that idea are immense. It brings to mind the age-old question: "How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?"

TOWARDS A BETTER DEFINITION OF TIME

I looked up Google's definition of time and it included the following:

time
tīm/
noun
noun: time; plural noun: times

1. the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
"travel through space and time"
2. a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or noon.
"the time is 9:30"

I found this definition to be inadequate, since as with much of Western scientific thought, the presence of an observer, nor the focus of their observations or even consciousness is nowhere mentioned. So I'd like to propose an alternative definition (which includes a reference to consciousness as a co-factor).

TIME: A measurement of the distance between discrete events which includes the set of all decisions, forces, and vectors separating those events.

Thus is time seen as a line connecting two or more points. To illustrate, let's imagine the building of a house. The process of building the house begins when the idea is formed, and then possibly planned on paper. Once all of the building materials are collected and then assembled together, the process ends. Time would be the line connecting discrete event A, which is the formation of the idea, and discrete event Z, which is the end of the construction process. The movement of planetary bodies has a direct, yet unrelated affect upon the process, thus this movement should not even be considered in the time calculation.

Time only describes the process of the immaterial (ideas) becoming material, and then the material becoming historical (memories).

Faith is The Curse of Religion

2021-05-24T08:01:00.006-04:00

Belief and doubt. These are the poles of the false dichotomy which is generated by the use of religion as a moral baseline, as opposed to science aka 'observation'.

Believing in something which cannot be proven or reliably observed, and worse, defending the same sometimes to the death of a perceived disbeliever, or other adversary, is a ridiculous practice which has been made normal by the acceptance (and tolerance) of 'religion'.

When something has been 'observed' as being true, valid, or authentic, anything to the contrary reveals itself to be a delusion (aka 'Apep'). Discernment is key.

This habit of rigorous belief in spite of contrary evidence, should be classified as a mental illness, not as something noble or upright. Yet, false pride and intellectual laziness typically combine to keep one locked in their unproven and unprovable position. That reveals an emotional immaturity; immovable 'dogma' has no place in science or in life.

Adherence to the principle of Ma'at does away with all of this. When you only operate on the basis of what can be proven and observed, it simplifies everything.

Signs of Being Mentally Weak (copied from Quora Digest)

2021-05-24T07:38:00.000-04:00

You care too much what other people think of you. Everyday, there’s a number of people who wake up, with the sole goal of becoming offended by you. Don’t disappoint them.
You can’t keep promises. I’m not even talking ’bout promises to others, but to yourself. Best example is working out: You told yourself you’d get into shape, but as soon as you tired from work or school, you won’t even go to the gym.
You get overwhelmed with the smallest problems and immediately throw your hands up and surrender. Nothing worthwhile in life comes easy or without failure, rejection and sacrifice. Don’t expect that everything is handed to you on a silver platter! I failed two businesses before I started one that did “okay”. I failed two relationships, before I met my dream wife. I failed at getting lean and muscular numerous times, before I got the “hang” of it….
You’ve been FAT for years but you’re doing NOTHING to fix it. Look, there’s nothing wrong with being fat. If that’s what you really want, then you do you. But…if deep down inside, you’d love to be lean, healthy and confident in your own skin, then why don’t you change?
You’re inauthentic. Contrary to what you might think, I wasn’t always as harsh and straight forward as I am now. In fact, I was a shy, timid, spineless idiot. I never spoke my truth and always agreed and smiled. Needless to say, my life was a mess. I was being used, manipulated and treated like a doormat. That was entirely my fault. I let it happen to me, because I couldn’t say “No.”
You’re a DDD (Dopamine Dependent Dreamer) and watch porn and play video games - Do you struggle with motivation? Do you struggle with being productive or keeping promises to yourself? Do you struggle to do hard things, like writing, reading “dry” texts, building a website, working out….? This might very well be, because you’re jackin’ off to porn or playing endless sessions of “League of Legends”. You see, our brains crave dopamine. Every time you engage in a behavior that’s fun, entertaining and engaging, your brain releases dopamine, which feels incredibly good to us and prompts us to repeat that behavior (pleasure and pain principle at work). Here’s the problem…You can train your brain to release dopamine to unhealthy and unproductive behaviors! Porn for example, feels incredibly good to us. It might even rival crack for that matter. The problem is, when you “spend” all your dopamine on porn, the hard things, the valuable task such as learning, reading, creating feel even MORE boring because there’s no immediate dopamine rush. It’s not exciting. It’s not highly stimulating. So, you won’t do it and thus..become mentally weaker and weaker.
You always WAIT for Motivation to Strike - This one is related to #6, but deserves to be a standalone. You’re always waiting to feel motivated to change your life, but because you never “feel” the motivation, you don’t do the hard stuff that’s necessary. Motivation will always be a fickle beast and you can’t rely on it to show up when you need it. That’s the bad news. The good news is, you can create motivation by ACTING as if you’re motivated. Motion beats meditation.

Sitri

2017-08-06T23:19:00.000-04:00

The Seal of Sitri

Sitri is a spirit that I have employed previously in works related to his office. He is quite effective at creating a lustful aura around a person, and creating sexual passion.

Most recently, I invoked Sitri to create an atmosphere of lust around me, in order that I might seduce a sexy and quite selective young woman that I'd had my eye on for some time.

The operation itself was simple. I meditated upon the Seal of Sitri and called upon him by name until the air shifted and he became aware of me. I spoke my desire, and he obliged. While I was en route to her apartment, I chanted the name of Sitri and then I fine-tuned my desires with subsequent instructions. Sitri indicated that none of my requests would be a problem. Sitri came through with flying colors.

My request to Sitri resulted in quite a satisfying experience with my target, for me and for her, and also plans to meet again for another encounter. I would call this experience a complete success, and cannot imagine how it could have gone better than it did.

I am glad I called upon Sitri to create the energy around me (and around my target) that I requested. Thank you Sitri, for your aid.

Hail Paimon!

2015-06-24T00:02:00.002-04:00

King Paimon is the 9th spirit of the Goetia in the Lesser Key of Solomon. Many sorcerers have worked with him, but I'd never had a reason to do so personally until recently. Some have said that Paimon is actually Azazel, and that may be true or it may not be, I have no real opinion on it.

I'd run in to a number of frustratingly persistent business problems, some of my own making due to attempting to grow my business too quickly and hiring more people than I actually needed. I was hoping that I could thereby extricate myself from the day-to-day operations somewhat, and get more into a managerial/sales role which is more my niche. That turned out to be a costly miscalculation on my part.

As usual, when I run into business problems I turn to magick, and this case was no different. Most times when I'm perplexed as to which spirit I will call upon for aid, I listen for the advice of my guardian/companion spirits or my servitors. In this particular instance, Paimon's name came through loudly and clearly, so I began researching him in order to become familiar with him. Then I did a tarot reading with him in mind to see how working with him was likely to turn out. After the reading turned out positive, I set a date to evoke Paimon.

The evocation was very simply done. I aligned with the West as it is said that he has his seat there, and arranged a few offerings for him along with some props. When he arrived, his presence was felt, and the fanfare which by many accounts usually accompanies him was also heard. I could see him in my mind's eye sitting upon the dromedary, although he was larger than I expected. He was very cordial, and I could sense that he and I would become allied to some degree as I felt very comfortable with him. I've felt that way before about other spirits, such as Belial, but this was a bit different in an indescribable way.

Anyway, I am pleased to say that as of yesterday, which was 11 days since I called upon him (I called upon him on the 11th), he came through with flying colors. Not only did he do everything I asked of him, he helped uproot the main problem, and also helped me see where I'd originally gone wrong. My petition was answered in an unexpected, yet very satisfactory way.

The humorous thing about it was that at the precise moment when I suddenly realized that he had been the one behind the positive developments of the past nearly two weeks, someone's car horn began blaring outside for an inordinately long time (this doesn't happen often in my neighborhood, especially not at 11:30 on a weeknight), which to me goes back to the "fanfare" that he is known for. It was like he was saying "helllooooo, it was meeeee". I found it funny and chuckled, telling him "well played".

I do look forward to calling upon him again. My thanks to King Paimon for his aid.

The Fall of "A Living God"?

2014-11-25T19:48:00.038-05:00

"When you set yourself up as a "Living God", prepare to be crucified for it."

As many know by now, the occult writer known as E.A. Koetting, purveyor of "Become A Living God" and related publications was arrested the other day during a traffic stop. During this stop, various drugs and a gun were allegedly recovered by the officers on the scene, and the "Living God" himself was then taken into custody, along with a roommate. He and the roommate reportedly have since posted bail and are awaiting the next steps in the legal process.

Since this occurred, many occultists on Facebook and elsewhere have offered their take on these events, some with barely restrained glee, and others with a more balanced approach to their commentary. It seems obvious that many have been waiting for just this sort of thing to happen to Mr. Koetting. This is to be expected, because Mr. Koetting's claims of supposedly near-godlike powers, disclosures of numerous "magickal homicides" "archangelic rapes" etc., along with his infomercial-styled marketing methods, seem to have made many people rather resentful of him. Others feel that he has exposed formerly secret teachings to the "profane" in a grand scheme to get rich "at the expense of the gullible". Again, tacky marketing methods aside, all of this was to be expected. Proclaim yourself king of the hill, and then watch as the long line of those who want to knock you off of that hill forms.

It is a fact of life that you cannot become successful without making a few enemies along the way, some of whom will be unknown to you. These people may not all be actively working against you, but they're not going to shed tears if a life-altering misfortune befalls you either. Some will even kick you when you're down, making you wonder what you did to them personally to make them hate you so much.

Some of the online commentary I've read has included shock that Mr. Koetting has a day job (gasp!), and is said to be employed as a carpet cleaner in his mundane life. Others had no idea (myself included) that "E. A. Koetting" is a pseudonym and not the author's real name. Some have speculated that Koetting ran afoul of another magickal group with which he may have had some contention, and this situation resulted from their magickal attacks upon him. I have no idea if that's what actually happened, although I'm sure it's possible.

It's no secret that I, and many others, have found a lot of value in Koetting's magickal methods. I still think his "Book of Azazel" is an inspired work, along with a few of his other titles, most of which I've read, some more than once. Specifically, his teachings on evocation radically altered my magickal practice and resulted in experiences for me that I would not have had otherwise. The divination training course that he offered had a similar effect on my work, although not to as great a degree.

For these reasons I have been very appreciative to him for his years of work and dedication to the arts magickal, just as I have been appreciative of other influences on what I do magickally, such as Jason "Inominandum" Miller, Donald Michael Kraig, Cat Yronwode, Aaron Leitch, Michael W. Ford, Lon Milo Duquette, Phil Hine, Peter Carroll, and countless others. I have also found great value in the works of Aleister Crowley, who is another occultist who battled his own personal demons, albeit unsuccessfully.

The "personal demon" angle for this recent Koetting situation was the most impactful for me, and hit home the hardest. Many of us have gone into extended and pitched warfare against our personal demons, myself included. Mr. Koetting has himself said on numerous occasions that he suffered through a horrible upbringing as a child. I can say the same (maybe I'll write about it one day), as can many others. Unfortunately we can't pick our parents, and it is nearly a given that children who are severely emotionally damaged by their childhood experiences tend to become substance abusers as adults, depending upon the level of damage and types of abuses they suffered.

Am I implying that the drugs found in the car during this stop were likely Mr. Koetting's? No. But I'm also not saying they weren't, because I don't know one way or the other what belonged to whom, and neither does anyone else outside of him and his roommate. The point I'm making is that many who have suffered emotionally during their early lives sometimes retain unresolved issues well into their adulthood. I'm also saying "There, but for the grace of Goddess, go I."

Unless you've lived a person's life, you have no real clue what struggles they're dealing with on an ongoing basis. Some succeed at binding and/or reintegrating their personal demons, while others' demons have their hellish way with them until death. Some stay clean and sober for years, while others relapse every other month. That's life.

But to be fair, and before anyone accuses me of undue sympathy for Mr. Koetting, I should point out that I am against "compulsive" drug use of any kind, no matter the drug (pharmaceuticals included). My personal stance also includes excessive and unrestrained alcohol consumption. This stance has absolutely nothing to do with any moralizing or pontification, a la "Just Say No", but instead has everything to do with becoming fully sovereign over one's life, which by definition cannot include any addictions or compulsive drug use. That is part of the main message found within the Luciferian philosophy as far as I've understood it. And that evolution from rampant addiction to relative normalcy is usually a process, one which requires active effort and almost never happens overnight.

So does my herein publicly-declared stance mean that I always stick to "one or two drinks" as intended when I'm out with friends or with my girlfriend? Nope. But it does mean that I am consciously aware of that particular struggle, have set my own standard by which to live (whether I always fully meet it or not), and fully recognize and celebrate my progress in that area over the years.

I am one of those who only 9 or 10 years ago would be inebriated 4 or 5 nights out of any random week, and basically took the other 2-3 nights off for recovery. I don't drink alcohol at all now, unless it's in ritual. Believe it or not, Lucifer was the one who helped me quit drinking, which throws the Bible's narrative right out the window.

I am one who used to get addicted to everything I ever tried, and I've done it all, but am now one who has been clean from any unprescribed medications or drugs for over 15 years.

Does any of that disclosure mean that I look down upon those who choose to partake in drugs or alcohol, however frequently or in whatever amounts? Not even slightly. In fact, I envy those who can stop precisely when they choose to (and not just because they've run out of money). I envy those who grew up in good homes and have had no comparable damage done to their developing young psyches. I envy those who haven't gone through what I've gone through in life due to consequences for substance abuses of one sort or another. I also envy those who have always remained clean and sober throughout their entire lives.

So I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal by any means. Far from it, because I know better than anyone that I still have a lot of inner work left to do; this is indeed a work in progress. I'm probably still somewhat in danger of relapsing in one way or another if I get around the wrong people for long enough, even after all these years, which is why I don't deal with any of my former bar friends at all, not even returning their (gradually more infrequent) calls.

I'd much rather be friendless than to be a drunk or an addict if those are my options. Being true to Luciferianism as I understand it is far more important to me than any of that, and I will not be a hypocrite about the fact that I was at war with it. I just happened to beat it.

I am also against riding around with illegal substances and illegal firearms in a car like what he did, albeit for different reasons. Even if you do it frequently, and seem to get away with it, you only need to be caught once for it to go really badly. Growing up back home as a young man, I've seen this happen over and over, where a routine traffic stop turns into a 3-to-5 year or longer prison sentence for some unlucky individual - it's almost a cliche to me.

It's just really dumb to ride around like that, especially when you have a lot to lose if you're caught; sorry there's just no other way to put that. And that isn't directed at Koetting specifically by any means (not that he'll read this), because how many athletes, entertainers, and others get caught doing the exact same thing the exact same way? Believe it or not, police rely on traffic stops to make the vast majority of their drug and firearm arrests, so even if you're going to "ride dirty" on occasion at least be vigilant about it while in traffic. Keep your car insured and legal to be on the road, abide the speed limit, come to a complete stop, etc.

(Again, I don't know the specifics of the case, or the backstory, so it could still turn out that Koetting was actually an innocent bystander in all this. We'll see what he says happened when he addresses this situation himself.)

As occultists, we have proven techniques and methods to discover and handle our demons more effectively than many other types of people. It seems that the Hermetically-derived Western Tradition of magickal practice is well-constructed for just that, and that alone comprises a good portion of its appeal for me. Many of my own emotional wounds have been healed as a result of meditation, along with long-overdue closure on painful and tragic childhood events for which I had no rationalizations prior to coming onto this path.

I'm really just saying that magick works if you work it, and not just for getting jobs and bedmates, although you still have to be vigilant and use common sense. Sure, magick is great for manifesting jobs and bedmates, but it can do so much more than that if you direct it to. It can help you make sense of yourself and your current and former relationships. It can reveal things to you about yourself that you would never have otherwise discovered. It can even transform you from being a drug-and-alcohol-addicted, felonious, constantly-angry, black male statistic like I was, into a gradually more dignified and respectable grown man over time.

In closing, the main takeaway from this situation for me was the primary importance of practitioners actually doing the inner work on ourselves so that these sorts of personal demons are better managed and can't easily create these types of unfortunate situations for us. Crowley failed miserably at this, and perhaps Koetting has also, although each has demonstrated above-average magickal prowess and the ability to make obscure magickal concepts much easier to understand. (Ok, I take that last part back, Crowley is still pretty obscure.) This statement doesn't at all mean that I equate Koetting with Crowley because I can't make that equation; I am simply using Crowley's struggles as an example to make my point.

Koetting may also have failed so far at becoming a bonafide "Living God" as indicated by his recent woes, but this same tortured literary savant who can channel and develop a classic occult work like "The Book of Azazel" along with the Mastering Evocation/Divination/Soul Travel courses, can also bounce back from this, hopefully stronger and more focused than ever. I hope he learns a lot from this experience, and grows from it, whether he escapes having to do time or not. If indeed the drugs were his, then I hope he makes it a priority to do the necessary inner work to quell that proclivity and get a solid handle on it. Maybe during the process he'll learn some Jedi mind tricks to use on the next cop. One thing he'll learn for sure during this process, as I did, is that those who are still with you when things go badly, are more than likely those who were always with you.

I for one am looking forward to his next work, instead of his next headline. Why? Because "There, but for the grace of Goddess, go I."

A Different Spin on Gravity

2014-08-04T00:44:00.001-04:00

Greetings,

Ok, I'm going to take a break from black magick with this post to document an idea I had the other week.

I have this thing about trees. I love being around them, especially in highly wooded areas. There's a park not far from my house where I sometimes go to clear my mind.

So anyway, I was checking out this tree, and the thought occurred to me: "What if the tree isn't actually growing up, but instead is growing OUT?" I'll explain.

What if what we call gravity doesn't actually exist at all as the force they claim it is. I'm admittedly not a physicist, and I know that sounds nuts, but follow the thought process for a minute.

What if trees are basically hanging onto the earth by their roots, but are just sort of hanging into the sky and by extension, space. We know that for those living on a rotating sphere, there is no real up or down, it's all perspective. So if there's no real "up" as we like to think, maybe the trees (and other plants) are growing "out" because of the centrifugal forces of the earth's spin. We know there must be a force that causes most plants to grow toward the sun and sky. Let's take it further.

What if we (people), along with everything else, are not being pulled down to the earth by whatever is at the core as we've all been taught, but instead are being pushed down to the earth by whatever is in space? What if all of the stars, planets, moons, and everything that is in rotation is throwing off centrifugal forces in all directions, which balances everything else in the galaxy or universe.

Could what we call "gravity" actually be a manifestation of the average of centrifugal forces from space pushing down on everything on the surface along with the centrifugal forces from the earth pushing up?

If you could somehow cancel the centrifugal forces from space, would that help you levitate by riding the waves of centrifugal forces on the earth? Is that how the pyramids were built?

We know that sound can cause levitation effects. We've seen it occur plenty of times - I just saw someone do it on America's Got Talent, and stories and videos are all over YouTube which show it as well. Maybe specific sound frequencies can cancel or disrupt the earth's centrifugal force causing an object to float.

Isn't this a much simpler idea than the problematic idea of gravity? Did you know that they really don't have much of a working definition of gravity other than: "It's a force that draws things down to the center of the earth". Add to that, physicists when trying to reconcile Newtons Laws with the relativity and quantum theories of Einstein run into plenty of inconsistencies in their calculations with regard to gravity. They reconcile some of those inconsistencies by relating gravity to magnetism, but "gravity" affects things which aren't magnetic, so how exactly does that work?

Long story short, they don't really know what gravity is, and can't really define it, they just "know" what it does. That's not a definition. Why should anyone believe in something that doesn't have a REAL (as opposed to a working) definition, especially when a real definition CAN'T be provided? They can't even prove that what they call gravity exists at all as a force separate from magnetism or from centrifugal forces, let alone that it's a "law". We just know we don't fly off into space as a result of the earth's spin, but no one can explain why without using a bunch of arcane equations that few people understand.

Sorry, but I just don't think nature is that complicated where it needs equations which are 3 city blocks long in order to describe it, or to describe how it works.

Anyway, not to belabor the point but I'd love to hear someone else's take on this idea. It's really just an intriguing possibility, and I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist because I don't actually know whether it exists or not, at least in the way that they describe it.

Where's Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku when you need them?

The Interplay between Light and Shadow

2014-07-06T11:07:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

It occurred to me again yesterday that the things we find in nature can teach us so much about physical reality and what causes it to exist. For example, I was contemplating a particular tree while relaxing on a hill in the park with my daughter, and how we can both see and miss the fullness of a tree's appearance. I'll explain.

A tree (and actually everything) is the result of the light which feeds it, and the darkness from which it grows. It is only a representation of the miracle of life, and the polarities of light and darkness between which it develops. You can see these polarities represented by simply looking at the tree from a new perspective.

The light from the sun illuminates the tree so that you can perceive it, and the shadow behind and under the tree gives the tree "depth". In other words, the light and shadow are inextricably a part of the tree, but we miss those things when just contemplating the tree itself. Since the sun's light nourishes all created life, and since all things cast a shadow while in the presence of light, the sun and the shadow are also a part of all things within this reality.

By this example, we can see the forces of light and shadow, and how necessary they both are for our existence. You cannot extricate the origin of a thing from the thing itself, because if you do, that thing becomes undefined. All things originate from the sun itself, or from the stars, and are present manifestations of an ongoing process. All things also cast a shadow. Therefore to exalt light above shadow is in error, because both are necessary and must be balanced.

The Truth about Belial

2014-06-25T10:20:00.019-04:00

Greetings,

Recently I'd begun working with Belial for a few business-related things, along with to fulfill a desire to know more about him and understand who and what he is. Few "demons" have as varied a story as he, being the ancient avowed enemy of Yahweh, and none have his reputation for being Evil Incarnate, or Satan himself, except perhaps Lucifer. It is said that he was the first to rebel against God during the war in heaven, and some legends say that he was the one who convinced Lucifer to rebel against God and to take a third of the angels with them. Other legends say he is a form (or deific mask) of Lucifer himself.

However, it seems to me from my dealings with him that we've only heard part of the story, and the parts which we've heard have been drastically modified to align with the popular culture's imaginations, themselves being nearly-irreparably contaminated with Christianized-thinking. This post will offer a different take on his legend, along with a less-favorable image for "God" than what we currently have. It must be remembered that Belial is a pre-Christian deity, so although we may perceive him as the Devil Himself, largely due to Christian leanings in Western Culture, Belial serves a very ancient and vital purpose like everything and everyone else in Creation.

THE ILLUSION OF "RULERSHIP"
As is known amongst most occultists and mystics, all of what we perceive around us is illusion (maya), meaning nothing is actually real, it all just appears to be real and is generated in part by what we expect to perceive. In other words, if we do not expect to see or perceive something, it is generally invisible to our senses. What we expect to see is entirely driven by whichever socialization processes we undergo as human children. This framework of socialization, and of civilization itself, is known as a "matrix" which can be thought of as the sum total of what we believe about the universe and how it operates, along with our role within it. The universe itself responds to our ideas about how it operates, and essentially becomes precisely that, so this is why it's vital to operate from observation instead of dogma or belief.

So if what we are taught as children is lies designed to keep us operating at a manageable frequency of consciousness (or limited intelligence), then we can be ruled by those operating at higher frequencies, ie, the elite or the ruling class who know the truth about human existence. This has always been the case for as long as human civilization has existed. The ruling classes of all civilizations are those who perform no meaningful or productive labor, instead relying on their carefully-crafted illusion of rulership over the "lower" classes, and their instituting of multi-varied socialization processes, to perpetuate doing no laborious work themselves. These are they who survive off the labor of others in order to "rule".

We see this throughout history, with most empires (and governments) being enormous labor and wealth extraction apparatuses, which benefit the few at the expense of the many. These apparatuses have borders, which are the boundaries of a kingdom or a state or even a city, and they separate one slaveowner's plantation from another's. We call these plantations different names, like the USA, or perhaps the Roman Empire. The most successful slaveowners were known as Kings, Queens, or Emperors, but are now called Presidents, or possibly dictators, etc.

Through "dynasties", certain families pass down this avoidance of labor to those in their "royal" bloodlines, thereby establishing their family line as being exempt from meaningful work - which gets us into the concept of royal families. In modern times, after the advent of what we call Democracy, citizens are given a voice by being "allowed" to "vote" for whomever is to lead them, but they themselves are eternally unfit to "rule". This is the illusion of "rulership" in a nutshell. However, rulership is nothing more than essentially owning slaves (which are renamed "citizens" to make their plight more palatable), whether through overt or covert means. There are different levels or degrees of slavery, ranging from outright slaves to the clergy class, but these all fall below the highest level of society which is the ruling class, to which none of them shall ever rise.

WHERE DID "DO WHAT THOU WILT" ORIGINATE?

On a more metaphysical level, we know through the work of those like Lon Milo Duquette and others, that there are beings known as angels which uphold and enforce the existence of various aspects of creation. Belial is actually the Angel of Free Will itself, or more precisely, of the "freed" will, and without him, what we perceive as free will and self-determination would not exist.

Belial is likely the spirit who first said "Do what thou wilt", which is why Aleister Crowley and others have been so enamored by him. He is the spirit of Anarchy, or that which upholds the state of being masterless. He is also the chief architect of rebellion against all "authority", while preferably becoming a ruler oneself. He is the reason why people want to become rulers, so that they will have no masters.

Yet the reverse of this principle is also true; Belial rules and represents addiction, or the spectrum found between being dominated by something or dominating it instead. If we consider the opinion of Aleister Crowley where he describes demons as being "portions of the human mind", then Belial represents the sum total of all parts of the mind which have not been mastered. There is no greater indicator of those uncontrolled portions of the mind being present than the state of addiction.

In our society, addiction rules absolutely everything. We see the evidence of compulsions and addictions everywhere we look. People are addicted to everything under the sun, from sex, to substances legal and illegal, to money and power, to violence, to television, to "approval" as indicated by the explosion of social media (whose currency is ostensibly "likes" "comments" and "shares", etc.), the list goes on forever. Add to that the instigation of further addiction by means of food additives like MSG, pharmaceutical drugs, NLP and Neuromarketing techniques, etc. It can be truly said that addiction runs the world.

Addiction can be defined as an irresistible compulsion to partake in a certain behavior regardless of consequences or conscious intention to the contrary. It is exactly what is represented both pictorially and philosophically by the Devil Card in the Tarot, where we see a man and a woman chained (loosely) to the Devil. They could each remove their bonds if they chose to, but they willfully do not. The same can be said of most addictions.

Thus is Belial exalted as ruler in this addicted world as his revealed influence is made evident. However, if one should seek to gain power over an addiction, Belial can be sought for the same. A great advantage to this approach is once a mage conquers any and all personal addictions within himself, he simultaneously gains power over any who remain addicted to one thing or another - which in western society equates to "almost everyone". It would then be a simple matter to use another's addictions for the mage's own benefit if he sees fit to do so. This is the lesson that Crowley never mastered, brilliant though he was, and although he was enamored of Belial, he could not conquer his own addictions and they eventually overtook him.

With that said, let's see how and why Belial has been maligned by Christians and even Yahweh from day one. Belial represents the sum total of the threat against every government, every religious organization, and every ruling class whereby they would lose their carefully crafted illusion of rulership and thus lose power. He represents the throwing off of any and all masters, and the recognizance of no authority.

WHO IS BELIAL REALLY AND WHAT DOES HE REPRESENT?

If we look at Belial's name in Hebrew (בליעל), we find it is translated as "being without worth" or "worthless one" and "without value" or "never to rise". His name has a Gematria value of 142, which corresponds to "worthlessness, wickedness, destruction, destroyer" along with "God loathes" "to take one's stand" "to set up, or stand".

So, what Belial appears to represent is those slaves or citizens who will not perform any work for anyone in the ruling class, nor recognize any rulers at all as such, thereby nullifying their own intrinsic value to the slavemasters and/or the ruling class. He also represents the ruling class itself, or the entire set of they who have no masters, or even the philosophical mindset found within he who will "serve no master".

Prior to the Christian's rendition of who and what Belial is, he has been represented in many earlier pantheons and even in some allegories regarding Atlantis. Some believe him to have ties with Beelzebub (also known as King Bael of the Goetia, Enlil, Baal), and others use his name interchangeably with the name Samael as a reference to "Satan" himself, or the Prince of Darkness. This would imply that Belial and/or Samael could be forms of the god Set (Sutekh, Seth). It is known that "Set-Hen" was a title of Set which meant the 'Majesty of Set', and is speculated that this title became the name 'Satan'.

As postulated by Michael W. Ford, it is possible that Belial and Samael both find their cultural origins, not as separate angels at all, but as a manifestation of the Egyptian god Resheph (also known as Nergal/Mars/Ares, and who has ties to Mot the Semitic God of Death), or perhaps as Montu (Mentu, Monthu) who had quite the following in Ancient Thebes, and was depicted as a falcon-headed god similarly to Ra and Horus. Perhaps the relationship between Samael and Belial is similar to that of Ra and Set (prior to Set's "demonization" in later dynasties), if indeed either is actually separate from the other instead of merely conceptually separate. Unfortunately, many of the historical records from these ancient times which could shed more light on the lore as well as the likely true identities of these entities along with their origins are difficult to come by.

In most early mythologies regarding fallen angels, two beings from the group are almost always recorded together, whether Azazel and Semjaza, or Satan and Lucifer, so much so that in later thought it becomes difficult to separate one from the other. In Egyptian mythology you see this same sort of shared-power relationship between Ra and Thoth, who are known to also be Marduk and Ningishzidda from the earlier Sumerian pantheon. Are these dual beings actually separate, or are they two forms of the same being remains a question. It is said that when Belial is conjured in evocation, he sometimes appears as two angels, and I have seen him in this form although it is not the only form he uses. At any rate, it is evident, even with the dearth of reliable history about him, that Belial is quite an important figure in both human and Earth's history.

He is the ultimate enemy of established human social hierarchy, social structure, and those laws which undergird it, at least as far as the rulers are concerned. Yet those in rulership positions revere him in private, for within their own empires they are the masters, and recognize no masters above themselves, and recognize other slavemasters or rulers only as peers. Once reaching the ruling class, they can rise no higher in human societies, thus can they be said "never to rise". Also upon reaching the ruling class they are no longer expected to work either, so they are then "without value", as labor is the most vital form of capital in any society, so those who do not labor have no real value, only illusory.

In the grimoires, Belial is said to offer senatorships, and to help one to rise on one's job, or in business. He essentially rules "how high one climbs" in life. He is the patron Angel of entrepreneurs also, as their dogged self-determination and burning desire to have no "master" mesh well with his energies and overall purpose. He is a necessity and a vital principle, not just a so-called demon, because the ambition to be masterless, or to be at the apex of any given hierarchy, is itself what fuels all social dynamics no matter the species.

It is no coincidence that the Devil Tarot card has the subscript "Lord of the Gates of Matter", and therefore represents him. Belial is ruler of elemental Earth, or of manifestation. If Lucifer represents the awareness or consciousness of matter (through light/perception), then Belial would represent its formation. It is also notable that the Devil card is ruled by Capricorn, which is the sign of making the immaterial material, and of a ruthless ambition and drive to be self-ruled. This is seen in the entrepreneurial proclivities of many Capricorns.

He is as ancient as is the rebellion against rulership of all kinds, and of one-upmanship. He is king of the hill, or that which climbs the mountain solely to reach the top of it in order to look down upon all that is below it. He represents the ultimate apex predator of any and all given ecosystems, and the striving to be at the top, and as such is quite necessary. This is why he is known as the King, or the God of This World, because this world is run by the whims of those at the top, and most behaviors are in some way tied to the aim of "getting to the top". Only that which is first is unparalleled.

You can even see his dynamic in the act of conception, where millions of sperm cells are shot towards a single ovum, yet only one "winner" will fertilize it or accomplish its purpose or will. You see it in plants as well, where pollen is spewed into the air, yet only an exceptional few grains will find their marks, while the others find oblivion. The strongest, smartest, and luckiest make it to the top, and the others simply serve as food. This is neither good for the winners, nor evil for the losers, it's just the way things are on earth. Some win, others lose, end of story.

There is more I could say about these ideas, along with my work with Belial himself, but I simply wanted to record my impressions of him and what he represents in this post.

The Correct Way to Use a Waning Lunar Cycle

2014-02-23T12:49:00.000-05:00

This post should be of some use to those who may not know the correct way to use a waning lunar cycle, as I didn't until recently. As most practitioners know, waxing lunar cycles are best for pulling things in to you, and waning cycles are best for pushing things away from you. Talismans (which pull things to you) are traditionally used during waxing cycles, and amulets (which push things away) are traditionally used during waning cycles.

However, it can be difficult to use both cycles, especially if one isn't sure what should be pulled in or pushed away. Using the technique that I will show here, can help make a manifestation easier to come by, and more fulfilling as well.

Magick as an Act of Sex with the Cosmos

Many high initiates of sex magick have written about the sexual nature of magickal work. In truth, the act of sex is very closely related to the act of manifesting desired changes, or magick. When using the Moon's cycles, this becomes clear as one uses the gentle "push and pull", or the sexual interplay between Mars and Venus in order to conceive a child, or manifestation.

The main idea here is that the overall intention should remain foremost in one's mind during the work so that there is no deviation from it's manifestation, no matter what current cycle the moon is in. So to illustrate the point, we'll use an example.

A Manifestation Isn't Just the Object of Desire

Let's say that one is performing a spell for a new car. During the waxing cycle, one would perform their magick to pull the car towards them, and during the waning cycle one would use magick to push "everything that is not conducive to the manifestation of that car" away from them. This keeps the car foremost in the mind, and shapes reality by carving that car from the essential nothingness.

Let's use a diagram to further illustrate.

Let the circle below represent the sphere of the desire. The dot within this circle represents the desire itself, or the specific intention of the spell. Everything within the circle that is NOT the dot, represents the environment within which the dot will manifest. Magick done during the waxing cycle pulls the "dot" into manifest reality, and magick done during the waning cycle modifies the environment that the "dot" will manifest within, by removing whichever factors are not conducive to this dot's highest and best manifestation. The dot then is the "embryo", and the entire area inside the circle and around the dot becomes the "womb".

Now since we are using both cycles of the Moon, we could even use two different spells to manifest the same very specific desire. One spell would be to draw the desire forth, and could be worked during the waxing cycle. The other spell would be to push away "what is not conducive to the desire". The second spell basically "lubricates" the manifestation into becoming, by magickally detoxifying the environment which will give the desire it's final form. The desire is the same for both, but the two approaches are essentially mirror images of each other, with one adding energy to the manifestation, and the other spell removing factors from the environment which may hinder it's best manifestation.

A Word of Caution - Use Divination!

This is a two-pronged approach that will work much better than a one-off spell, or even a week-long working. Using this technique over a month's time should bring about a powerful manifestation.

However, care should be taken to ensure that the intended manifestation is what you really want when using this technique, because it intrinsically makes modifications to your sphere that could also have other ramifications in whichever areas of your life they are also connected to.

For example, if you getting a new car requires an improvement to your credit score, you may start hearing from collection agencies or credit counselors in order to help pay off old debts and improve that score. You could suddenly have a falling out with your cable company, and decide that you no longer want their service, which would definitely free up more money for a car payment. Your significant other, who doubles as a leech on your finances, may decide that the grass is greener elsewhere and suddenly leave. One almost never knows how these things can manifest, so as always, a Tarot divination is best done before casting your spell so you'll know if you can tolerate your manifestation's most likely path of progression.

I hope this helps people understand a bit more about using Lunar cycles.

The Question Nobody Asks

2013-12-18T19:05:00.007-05:00

Greetings,

I was listening to a YouTube video while I was cooking dinner, and the speaker was discussing the Garden of Eden, when all of a sudden the subject of this post occurred to me.

We're all familiar with the story: God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or "in the day that they eat thereof, they shall surely die". Then the Serpent comes along and contradicts God by telling Eve that they won't surely die, but will become as Gods if they eat of the tree. So they eat of the tree, and we all know the rest..."Original Sin", man is cast out, etc., etc.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out why this tree was there in the first place. Perhaps a change of venue for the story is in order to illustrate the point.

For example, let's say that in my pantry there are all sorts of good and nutritious foods for my daughter to eat, but there's one particular box of cereal (let's make them Corn Flakes) that I tell her not to eat or she'll surely die.   Maybe they are coated with rat poison or something, who knows.

But the larger question is: what kind of jackass parent leaves "lethal" food laying around that their kids might eat? Wouldn't it be better to just throw it out, or at least have these Corn Flakes under lock and key somewhere if I just have to keep them around? You mean to tell me this idea would occur to me, a lowly human father of one, but not to God Himself, maker of everyone who will ever exist?

C'mon.

And what if, in this example, the Corn Flakes really aren't lethal, but I just like Corn Flakes and don't want them all eaten up in case there's none left when I go to have a bowl. What if our "talking dog" tells my daughter the real deal about the Corn Flakes and why she can't have any? What if she then eats up all my corn flakes, and I find out and then tell her to GTFO of my house forever, and kick my talking dog's ass for good measure to the point where he has to crawl on his belly for the rest of his life? Who would do that?

(And by the way, a "talking dog" is no more farfetched than a "talking serpent" for cryin' out loud.)

So our faithful Christians (and Muslims and Jews) rationalize this inexcusable lapse in common sense on God's supposed part by saying that the tree was there as a test of Adam's and Eve's free will to make sure that they would always listen to the commandments of God, but that they failed that test.

But here's the thing: why should this so-called test of free will have a fatal outcome if it was failed? Isn't that a bit on the heavy-handed side?

I could understand it if you ate of the tree and subsequently grew a third arm, or maybe a horn in the center of your forehead, and possibly had to live with that for the rest of your life, or possibly pass these deformities down to your offspring or something.   But death??? Isn't that a bit harsh? What loving parent would potentially put their child in a predicament like that, especially knowing how curious children can be?

So anyway, back to the story. The serpent comes along and tells Eve "Pshaw, you won't die if you eat of that tree. God just doesn't want you to know good and evil like He does, because then you'll be like Him."

The serpent's is the more plausible of the two explanations of what would happen if the fruit of the tree was eaten, so Eve, who in the back of her mind was probably already suspicious of the original reasons given for not eating of the tree anyway, recognizes this new explanation as being more realistic, and goes ahead and eats the fruit. Then after she doesn't die, she gives a bit of it to Adam who also doesn't die.

So in actuality, the Serpent didn't lie, to the chagrin of every Christian minister (propagandist) out there. They (Adam and Eve) both ate from the tree but neither one died, and actually their eyes WERE opened to the "knowledge of good and evil", just as the Serpent said.

So who was the true liar of the story? The Serpent? Nope, exactly what he said would happen did.

Then was the liar God? Yep, because nobody died like He said they would after eating the fruit.

So my point, and the main "question nobody asks" when confronted with a rational analysis of this story is: "If the entire Christian Bible begins with, and bases itself upon this story about "God" lying to his new creations, precisely why should anything else in the Bible be believed, literally or otherwise?"

I know, I know, that's just TOO simplistic of an analysis.

Or is it? If you simply can't just leave the story at face value without a bunch of doctrinal-sounding rationalizations about why all of the characters involved did what they did, then my analysis may indeed seem simplistic.

However, if we only go by what is written, and treat the story like a court case, where only the known facts are allowed into evidence, then who is the liar (or liars, as in the case of those who actually wrote the Bible) and who is the Liberator?

It really ain't that complicated, is it?

So further, being that the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE is based around this bullshit "fall of man" story, with the ideas about "Original Sin" and the eventual necessity of Jesus' death/sacrifice, etc., shouldn't this analysis give even the staunchest supporter of the story a degree of pause?

Look, if we were in a court of law, given only the evidence presented in this case, we could simply "move to suppress" the entire Christian doctrine as being the "fruit of a poisoned tree" once these facts are revealed. It's not like this contradiction is the only one in the Bible, there are scores of other ones.

But this story isn't just any story, it's basically the foundation of the whole doctrine, meaning NOTHING else in the Old or New Testament scriptures has a rational basis without this story.

BTW, if you're a theologian/minister, a "Chrislemew" as Lon Milo Duquette calls them, or if you simply want to debate this idea, please feel free to counterpoint me in the comments. I promise to use only the Bible (and a healthy dose of common sense) as my reference material. You, on the other hand, can use whatever reference material you think you'd need.

But quite honestly, I really can't see anyone taking me up on my offer....

Circles and Lamens and Swords, Oh My!

2013-09-02T11:43:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

I've written about my first experience in Goetic evocation previously, as have many others on forums or on their own blogs, but one thing that I've rarely seen in others' posts are reflections and observations dealing with how their viewpoints have evolved about the whole topic since then. I intend to do that here. Be mindful that these are only my opinions about the whole thing, and others are welcome to agree or disagree. As always, comments are welcome.

The Goetic spirits, in my estimation, are forces of raw creative power and were placed in their roles by God/dess. Some are probably Nephilim as spoken about in the Book of Enoch, but I won't get into that right now, because it's outside the scope of what I want to write about.

It seems to me that it is no more dangerous to evoke a Goetic spirit than it is to stand outside during a thunderstorm, but within reason. You wouldn't want to stand outside during a lightning storm wearing highly conductive metal armor, because obviously then your chances of being fried by lightning go up substantially. However, we all know that the chances of being struck by lightning are about as remote as winning the Powerball. I think the same applies here.

I think the secret to permanently safeguarding your own well being during Goetic evocations, without the use of Lamens, and Curses, etc., is a complete and irrevocable renunciation all opposing religious dogma, deities, etc. Most people are not willing to do that because the Christian mind-virus is a potent one indeed, and has been highly reinforced by all of the Abrahamic religions along with it's prevalence in western cultural influences. It can be extremely difficult to overcome it, even in one's own sovereign mind.

However belief is a tool, not necessarily a way of life. I could just as easily petition a Catholic saint, as a Goetic spirit, by operating within the same frequency range as the spirit I'm calling up. To do that, one must use either mantra, lighting, scripture, or even raw sine-wave frequency recordings within that range, in order to harmonize with the entity's energy firsthand in order to facilitate smooth communication.

For example, if I wanted to call up a Catholic or Pagan saint (and yes, Pagan saints exist), it would be advisable to find out which psalm corresponds to their energy, and then use it as a mantra to harmonize with that saint's energy frequency. Then I'd make my petition.

Conversely, if I was to call up a Goetic spirit, I'd find out which enn to chant, and would do so in order to harmonize my being with that particular energy frequency.

Why Fear Has No Place in Evocation

I thoroughly believe Crowley's words where he says that the spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain. Lon Milo Duquette has greatly elaborated on that particular theory in depth in his book "Angels, Demons, and Gods of the New Millennium". The writings of Carl Jung also touch on some of that as well.

Thus, if that is so, then it follows that in order to harmonize with that portion of my own brain in order to use it to connect with the macrocosmic version of a corresponding Goetic spirit, one must determine within himself not to fear any portion of one's self or darker nature, and be sincerely seeking to bring it under conscious awareness in order to direct its might towards a practical end.

Since I'm using electrical terminology to describe this process, an insulator is also necessary either way. My insulator is my own aura, which has been hardened by years of ritual work and banishings. It is more of a 4D circle, instead of one drawn upon the ground, and affords all the protection one needs, if any is needed at all.

Why I Don't Use the Solomonic Method of Evocation

Most of the remaining grimoires that document the evocation process are so heavily influenced by Christianized thinking, and Hebraic/Solomonic processes, that they make themselves necessary for those who are also influenced by the same Christianized thinking. Many of those who evoke Goetic spirits will also tell you and the public-at-large that they are indeed Christians.

It is therefore necessary FOR THOSE sorcerers to use the Solomonic-styled processes in order to remain relatively safe. The 72 Goetic spirits are largely comprised of Pre-Christian era gods and goddesses who have been displaced from their former glory in the minds of men. Do you really think they will be friendly to those who worship or have any allegiance to a god that has displaced them ages ago?

Of course not, they will look for any opening in their defenses in order to strike at them. That opening is not usually the "circle", but instead it's the words used when the request itself is phrased. If the words used leave any opening for mischief-making, can you really blame them for making mischief, especially if you claim to be a Christian?

Think of it this way. Let's say you're a powerful king with many subjects and a vast empire. Then one day your kingdom is attacked and is taken from you, and you are placed in a dungeon of sorts (within the collective unconscious) for millenia. Would you be kind to some arrogant little meat puppet who works for the new king of your former kingdom, and who approaches you threateningly in order to coerce you to perform a task for them? No, you wouldn't. You'd probably try to kill them if you could, or create havoc for them in their lives at least. That way you could smack them around a bit, and have some fun at their expense, while still performing the task they requested. This is probably why people commonly accuse the Goetic spirits of performing tasks in the most inconvenient way possible.

However, once one has thoroughly renounced any and all of the sub-or-unconscious Christian influence, it is much easier to harmonize with the so-called infernal spirits. The total absence of fear is also necessary, along with the presence of great respect.

My Patron Goddess Auset, also known as Isis, is also known by the name Astaroth in the Goetic texts. Because of her high rank within the Goetic pantheon under that name of Astaroth, I believe service unto her also affords a certain level of privilege and protection. I've performed a number of Goetic evocations since my first one, and have had no issues. Not once have I used a circle, and not once have I made a threat.

Final Thoughts

I fully intend to evoke all 72 of the Goetic spirits, one by one, at some point and as needed, because I see that as a necessary part of the Great Work itself. This is because if each spirit indeed rules 5 degrees of a 360 degree sphere of influence in the cosmos, then by evoking each one, I will eventually consciously control the entire 360 degrees of my own sphere. As above, so below. I will eventually write about those experiences at length.

I realize all this is somewhat of an oversimplification, because another big factor in the evocation process is direct contact and a relationship with the Divine self. The HGA (Holy Guardian Angel) fits that bill. I am a firm believer that one must have achieved contact with their own HGA/Genius before attempting Goetic evocation, at least in the western magick tradition. African Traditional Religions, along with Tibetan Buddhist traditions, and others likely have their own similar levels of attainment, I would imagine.

Dating and Marriage in the Matrix Age

2013-08-30T08:18:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

Alas, I find myself single (by choice) and bereft of female companionship. That requires me to reenter the pathological and wretched dating market. I guess it's not entirely wretched, as much as it is chaotic. But that's ok, because since the last time I was wandering within its depths, I have developed a much better outlook along with much better tools than I had before. Plus I love chaos and uncertainty. It forces you to adapt and create.

The Dating Dilemma

I responded to an ad yesterday on a popular dating website, seeking to meet a very attractive and highly educated female that I'd found. After emailing her for the first time, she immediately sent me her telephone number, which wouldn't ordinarily have been bad, until she sent me at least 4 subsequent emails within an hour after that wondering why I hadn't called her yet. An obvious red flag, but I continued to entertain the idea of meeting. She was really attractive after all.

So once I called her, we talked for close to two hours and had a lively and pleasant conversation. I've come out of a 3 year relationship and it was good to have a non-business conversation with a female other than my ex, if for no other reason than to cut my teeth so to speak. We made plans to meet up later in the day for drinks.

Two hours later, she calls me again for some reason that I don't recall, but I entertained the call. Then she called again a couple hours after that for something else, and again, and again. I spoke with her at least four times for one reason or another in the 6 hours or so before we met. Another obvious red flag from that alone. I'd thought she was too pretty to appear that desperate, so there had to be something else going on. During those conversations I discovered that she'd recently lost her mother, and her dog, and had also lost her previous relationship with her fiance and had undergone major surgery all within the past year. Wow, talk about bad luck!

The kicker was that our plans had now changed and that her best friend was going to meet with us also for drinks. That was odd, and I teased her asking if she "needed a chaperone". Right away I knew the friend could be a problem, but I psyched myself up that I just needed to sell myself to both women in order to have another shot at my target in a subsequent meeting.

She told me that her friend was only going to stay for one drink (which was a lie), and that she just wanted to meet me since she had gone on and on about me to her. The inclusion of this new factor was indeed another red flag, which took the number of red flags up to at least 7 when adding in some of the other things she'd mentioned to me about herself during our many conversations throughout the day. So I decided to do a Tarot reading to see what the outcome of the situation would be.

The Tarot Reading

The reading was horrible. The Death card followed by the 10 of Swords is what came up for the probability of us hitting it off. Woah! I'd never seen such a harsh reading before, for anything. I had to get clarity just to make sure the reading was accurate, so since I usually throw dice to do my Tarot readings using one of Lon Milo DuQuette's techniques, I decided to reinforce that reading with another reading using actual Tarot cards to see what the outcome of the night would be.

That subsequent reading told the whole story. I did a Past, Present, Future spread on it and the cards that came up were the Two of Pentacles in the past position, Queen of Cups for the present position, and the Empress card reversed in the future position. I interpreted:

A) 2 of Pentacles to have something to do with the both of us being Earth signs (she is a Virgo, I am a Capricorn), along with the traditional interpretation of a material change, which was accurate because I'd needed a change (which was why I'd gotten out of my previous relationship in the first place) and because she'd also gone through some very life-altering changes recently.

B) Queen of Cups, being a watery card, was interpreted to have something to do with the clinginess of the relationship as it presently stood, since water signs can be clingy, although I also was aware of the traditional interpretation of the card having to do with the balled-up knot of negative emotional energy surrounding this female that threatened to entangle me. She was already saying that we were "dating", although when she first said it, I hadn't even physically met her yet. Huh? You want me to meet your dad already? Sweetie, I don't even know you yet, because I just met you freakin' today.

C) The Empress (Reversed) was interpreted to mean I "wasn't gettin' any" from this girl, because it can symbolize the door (Daleth) that we all enter through to get into this life (the Yoni). The card being upside down meant I could create nothing with her, plus she'd already told me she'd had a tubal ligation (who tells a person that before actually meeting them?) which was another indicator of that. Not that I'd want kids with her (or anyone else) anyway. I'm happy with my daughter and don't need any more children, although stepchildren (or grandchildren many years from now) would be fine by me.

So it was obviously not the greatest of readings, but it ended up being highly accurate. So although neither of these two readings were positive, I had already committed myself to going to the "meet-and-greet" as it were, thus I kept my word and went. At least I was glad to be prepared for whatever was to come.

The Date

When I arrived, both females were already there and seated. After greetings, introductions, and ordering drinks, we began getting to know one another. My target was even more attractive than her pictures portrayed, and very sexy, and a bit taller than I'd expected although she did have on heels. She was slender and athletic, but had the curves where they counted, and a flirty feistiness that was intoxicating. Being the lusty goat that I am, I was definitely intrigued by all this, and was wondering how the cards could possibly be correct (although I've never seen my readings wrong). We flirted with each other throughout the evening, while I made it a point not to let her friend feel left out of the conversation. I'd say it went extremely well for about the first 90 minutes, and we all were indeed hitting it off, but then it suddenly all went downhill.

It all started once we got on the subject of marriage. I'd indicated that I wasn't looking to get married again because I'm twice divorced, and through both marriages had discovered that marriage probably wasn't for me, if it ever had been. I have a natal moon placement in Aquarius which is likely to be the true culprit for my views on that. But my "official" reasoning for that was and is two-fold.

In the first place, in both of these past marital relationships, I'd lived with both of my long-term girlfriends prior to making them wives, and both times right after we'd married the relationships took a nose-dive and disintegrated. In my first marriage, my wife and I had been together for 5 years before becoming man and wife, but the marriage itself lasted only another two years even though we'd had a child together. The second time, we were together for 3 years and the marriage only lasted for another 3, but I was glad we'd had no children together in that case.

I couldn't figure it out why the disintegration of both relationships had begun to occur right after marriage, although we'd had almost no issues prior to getting married, so I surmised that marriage itself really wasn't what it was cracked up to be as far as cementing relationships goes. The ridiculous rate of divorce (~75%) in this country is proof enough of that, but I guess I needed to experience it for myself. I think each of those relationships, and those of others with whom I've spoken about this phenomenon, would have fared better had marriage never come into the picture.

Of course, I'd never blame marriage totally for the demise of those relationships, because in any relationship there are always challenges, whether you're married or not. But I figured marriage had to have been a factor somehow, although I could never put my finger on exactly why.

In my most recent non-marital relationship, one point of commonality between my ex and I was that neither of us ever wanted to get married again because each of us were twice divorced. We both thought it would be much better to just live together, although that never actually happened. I guess I hadn't accounted for how rare it is to find a woman nowadays who doesn't want to be married, especially a woman over the age of 35 in the US. Although I will admit that a big part of me wants to be proven wrong on that.

Anyway, back to the "date" with these two women.

My Issues With Marriage

My second reason, and the main point of this post was that I disclosed that I did not recognize any authority of the church, nor of the state, to sanction my vows or the level of my commitment to whomever I'd eventually end up with. This idea literally horrified both women - you should have seen their faces. It was like I'd pulled off a mask and revealed myself as Satan himself or Adolf Hitler or something. It was classic.

I asked them hypothetically that if the apocalypse finally occurred, and suddenly there was no Court of Law, nor a Vatican or other recognized religious authority left standing, who would be left to wed people? Their answer was dead silence, and that silence made my point for me.

I said "Exactly, so don't you see that no one actually needs these institutions because if two people who are truly committed to one other, and vow to each other that until their last breath they will be with their mate, that that is all the sanctioning that is necessary? Do you mean to tell me that prior to the institution of the Church and of the State, that no one stayed together for the rest of their earthly lives, and that their commitment to one another was somehow weaker than what a present-day "married" couple's commitment is? I can't buy that. Marriage as we conceive of it is an elaborate and state-reinforced illusion."

Why does anyone need a third party to sanction their vows to one another? They actually don't, but we've all been conditioned, brainwashed, and society has been engineered for us to believe that we do. I understand that in this society marriage affords privileges to spouses such as death benefits, and estates, social security, etc. I get all of that. But it's all for material reasons, because we've all been taught that material things are somehow more important than love itself, and that love necessarily requires finance for consummation, etc.

The Result

Anyway, once that little tidbit of information came out, our little "meet-and-greet" came to an abrupt but cordial end. My sexy little target said that she really wanted to be a "wife" and that she didn't want to "live in sin" with someone that she wasn't married to because that would somehow set a bad example for her two young daughters. I should have asked why she didn't just say that on her goddamn profile and saved us both the trouble, but instead I wished her the very best in her search, gave her a hug, and went home. As she was leaving, she really looked like she wanted to cry. Poor girl.

However, in light of the two readings I got regarding my possibilities with her, I'd say I dodged a bullet and am grateful that I'm no longer in danger of being bombarded with whatever her particular flavor of all-but-hidden pathology would have been. The sex wouldn't have been worth the headache, had it come to that.

Final Thoughts

At this point in my life, I cannot imagine marrying a woman, or being willing to even have a serious conversation about it, before being with her for at least 5-10 years and after having mutually built a life with her together during that time. And if I were to take that step, I'd rather be married by a witch doctor, voodoo priest, or maybe a shaman because their power is far more legitimate in my opinion, having been earned in the fires of alchemical calcination, not legislated by a body whose power I don't recognize.

Plus I would have to be 110% convinced that my mate and I were indeed soul mates, begging the question that such a companion exists for me. In other words, I would never get married just because "that's what people are expected to do at a certain age, or because we've been dating long enough." And I am quite unapologetic about that. That's the stinkin' thinkin' that led to me getting married (and divorced) both times already.

I realize that it's probably going to be fairly difficult to find a woman who thinks the same way as I do with regard to dating and marriage, and with whom I am compatible on that level. She'd probably also have to have a natal moon placement in Aquarius to understand my stance. Or maybe she'd actually be from Uranus.

Or maybe she'd really be my soul mate. Do soul mates really exist? We'll see...I'm not holding my breath on it though!

Lust and Pride

2013-08-22T12:09:00.002-04:00

Greetings,

I know sometimes I can come off as highly critical of Christianity. There are two reasons for that. The first reason is because I feel my Christian upbringing has damaged me in many unhealthy ways, and that it has and is doing the same to billions of other people. The damage to me has been mental, and emotional (mostly in installing fear and guilt complexes where there was no need for them - a conditioning mechanism that I am dismantling as quickly as possible). For others the damage has been quite physical, and it continues in the religious/oil wars that we see daily on the news.

The second reason is that the criticism is well-deserved, because when you look at the doctrine of Christianity in the cold light of rational and objective thinking, it doesn't make sense at all. It denies basic instinctual urges, represses metaphysical explorations of consciousness, and implies that prosperity and contentment with ones life is solely dependent on one's relationship with a Roman-concocted version of God, and that anything contrary to the belief in this recycled Frankenstein of a deity that has no history before Rome, will damn one to hell; a place that NO ONE has ever seen or been to.

Christianity also ridiculously asserts the idea of 'original sin' as having created the need for redemption, while the term 'original sin' itself, or it's underlying doctrine, is found nowhere in these Christian's OWN BOOK. So who made THAT shit up and why?

Sounds like a classic case of Problem-Reaction-Solution to me...a con-game that's still being used today because it works so well. Identify a problem (Adam sinned so all of his descendants are born sinners), create a reaction ("Oh no, what must I do to be saved?"), provide the solution (accept our version of the savior and everything will be ok).

What Are Sins Exactly?

And speaking of sin, how about these classic so-called "sins" from I John 2:16?

1. Lust of the Flesh - Obviously this implies sexual urges... Umm, but didn't sex get us all here, and our kids too? Aren't orgasms the closest that most of us get to the ecstasy of complete union with God, while we are in physical union with another being. Then why exactly is any of that bad?

If people were really honest with themselves, to a large degree not only do we live because of sex, we live for sex.

As a matter of fact, absolutely everything we do in this life revolves around only three things, sex, chaos and the inevitability of our own death/resurrection/afterlife. That's it, life is no more complicated than that. If you want to know your "true" gods, here they are: Isis, Apophis, and Osiris (IAO) - representative of sex (as in mating and fertility, along with where and how one was nurtured), chaos (as in day-to-day randomness - good and bad), and death/resurrection (the fact that we all need to get our shit together before we die). This is the triune God - the one you need no so-called "faith" to believe in because it's presence is quite evident in your daily life.

2. Lust of the Eyes - implies a lust based within all of the eyes, as in including 'The Third Eye', which implies an urge toward metaphysical experiences and psychic exploration - since the eyes signify perception. Literally all of man's ingenuity in creating tools to make his life better has been the result of his imagination applied to solving problems, bar none. Even if it was only a covetousness that was being spoken of, how the hell can you want anything if you've never seen it before?

Case in point, when I was growing up in the inner city, almost every role model I had was either a drug dealer, or some other type of outlaw. Until I saw with my own eyes a person who had a college degree, and who had been able to support themselves financially as a result, I would have probably become an outlaw myself. That goes for anyone else too. We become what we see in our environment, that's pretty much how human nature and society works. Only very rare people become something, or want something, that they've never seen before.

So at what point is that "lust", and better yet, at what point is that wrong?

3. Pride of Life - pride is contentment with one's life in it's totality. Doesn't pride denote a sense of dignity? A sense of earned pleasure or contentment? How is that a bad thing?

How exactly are these things sins at all? Answer: they're not.

Does Sin Even Exist?

I'm not going to say that sin in general doesn't exist, because I really don't know if it does or not. I'll just say that it doesn't exist for me. Maybe that'll change someday, but probably not.

Incidentally, I'd love to debate these concepts with anyone who is willing to NOT use the Bible as their direct or indirect source of reference material. I doubt that'll happen though. Mostly because without that particular circular reference to stand on, Christianity falls flat on it's face, just like most of the more popular religions.

One should always beware whenever a so-called "prophet" claims to have had a "vision" that no one can corroborate, and is intent on delivering a message in the form of a Holy Book that requires others to either convert to believing in it or to suffer some sort of eternal torment or death. Plenty of people have visions, and receive revelations of all sorts, but if you have to convert people to your specific flavor of enlightenment it by the sword, then there's something wrong there.

The idea of "Doing What Thou Wilt" as popularized by Aleister Crowley eliminates all of these issues. It's simple, straightforward, and imposes no restrictions, restrictions being the truest of sins if there is such a thing as sin at all. And, unlike with the popular religions, the religion he started (Thelema) specifically teaches its adherents (of which I am not) to "convert not". How refreshing is that? It's certainly a far cry from "converting with the sword"!

Getting back to restrictions, is the Sun restricted in providing light, energy, and warmth? Do you see any rivers and streams restricting their flows? Do you see the winds restricted in any way? Are any of the planets, stars, or any heavenly bodies restricted in their courses of orbit? No, no, no, and no. And for the most part they cannot be restricted, because if they were our living environment would break down.

More to the point, aren't these all natural things? Aren't we humans also natural things?

Then why do we restrict ourselves in any way, especially in restricting our natural drives and instincts, in an attempt to adhere to this bigoted, misogynistic, contradictory, schizophrenic, and blood-soaked vestige of Roman domination and control called Orthodox Christianity?

My post may indeed be disrespectful, and so be it. In keeping with the nature of my tit-for-tat philosophy, I have no issue with returning the disrespect that has been shown to me personally, and historically to those who believe like me, by Christianity and similarly hegemonic religions. If you consider me a 'sinner' or blasphemer for voicing my opinion about all of this, fine.

I'll return that favor too and consider you a fool.

First Goetic Evocation of Andromalius

2013-08-08T16:00:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

I've been practicing magick for about 7 years now, give or take. My overall aim is to complete the Great Work of personal transformation, and a big part of the Work is the ridding of any type of fear from the practitioner's sphere of sensation, at least to the extent that fear cannot control or inhibit your actions on any level. This is easier said than done, of course. Note that the trick is not to eliminate fear, because fear has a useful purpose, and some fear is healthy, especially when faced with a life-or-death situation because it can aid in caution and hopefully survival. That's not the type of fear I'm referring to.

How to Face Irrational Fears

The fear that I'm writing about is the irrational fears that we create ourselves, which are based on our own imaginations and not necessarily any real perils. Like Will Smith's character said in the movie "After Earth", "Danger is very real. But fear is a choice."

These fears can range from fears of rejection, of failure, of embarrassment, and many other fears can be included in that short list. It seems that there are new phobias invented daily. However the path of the Magician must include the facing of all fear, especially the irrational ones, in order to lessen fear about a certain situation or action. It must also include the facing of all primal fear, so as to make one mostly fearless.

Truly the fastest and most effective way to eliminate a fear is to face what one is fearful of. To that end, I have consciously decided that whenever I am afraid of something, I must face that fear head-on and experience the things that I am fearful of. By this decision, I have greatly lessened my fear of heights, fear of dark enclosed spaces, and even fears regarding certain roller coasters or amusement park rides. Because of a NDE (Near Death Experience) a few years ago, I no longer have a fear of death either. Perhaps I'll write about that experience at some point.

That does not mean that I am totally fearless, it just means that I am consciously working on all of my fears. In my mind at least, an elite magician is essentially fearless. So it would be hypocritical of me to call myself a magician at all if I were not consciously working on all of my personal fears. Fear is taught and learned, much like guilt, and both are equally useless responses to stimuli.

What does all of that have to do with the topic at hand? Everything. As I stated, I have been a magician for 7 years, and had never once performed a Goetic evocation, mostly because I was afraid to try it, but partially because I felt I didn't have a strong enough reason to do one. I have studied the Shem-hamephorash in depth, both the 72 angels, and the 72 daemons that correspond. But I'd still never taken that leap. Until recently.

One of the unfortunate things about a strong Christian upbringing is a learned apprehension to all things dark and of a dubious or chaotic occult nature. Sure, I can call up an angel or a god/dess or even one of the sub-lunaries, with no moral issues or conflicts. Most of the sublunaries that I speak of include many of the Hoodoo saints and spirits, St. Expedite and High John the Conqueror being just two of the ones that I enjoy a relationship with. But when you begin to speak of the Qlippoth entities, or Goetics in general, the traditional and conditioned Judeo-Christian admonitions of staying away from those types of spirits and practices comes back to mind full force, unbidden or not. The reason I call that unfortunate is because I believe that we are here to experience life in its entirety, which means not just the yin but the yang as well.

I could not truly be a practitioner of Gray Magick if I were fearful of the Black. I would be a hypocrite, and I refuse to be that. At the end of the day, I want to embody the whole truth in my nature, because I consider "wholeness" to be a higher moral standard than "goodness".

I suppose I should speak on the evocation itself at this point.

The Operation

My last job ended badly. So badly in fact, that it will require legal action on my part and against my former employer to make it right. I've been here before, but not quite like this. I had been cheated out of earned commissions, passed over twice for promotions for racial reasons, and just plain abused on multiple levels. I'm surprised I stayed there as long as I did, but I was chasing a goal, and you cannot turn back a true Capricorn once he has his mind set on a goal. At best, you can only delay them.

Because I wanted some payback for my poor treatment, after some research I decided to petition the 72nd Goetic spirit Andromalius because he punishes those who deal with others in an underhanded manner, along with other related specialties. Because I believe that the absence of fear is necessary when dealing with entities of allegedly chaotic natures, I was able to find a Goetic evocation technique that did not require the curses, the circle, nor the tools of the Solomonic method. In other words, I did not want to threaten Andromalius, because threats themselves evoke or demonstrate fear, and because it would have been counterproductive to the goal. Why make a potential enemy of a Goetic when it's unnecessary to do so, especially if it's possible to have need of that entity's services in the future? I'd rather make an ally of a Goetic spirit than an enemy personally.

The method of summoning itself actually required very little in the way of props. You can read more about the actual method here. I'm not a big believer in magickal tools. I don't even have a wand, although I do wear a robe sometimes. I think everything a magician wants to do in magick should be achievable using his mind, words, and body alone as long as he is able to focus his energies and the energies around him into a working. The tools give a working extra power only because the magician believes it so. That may sound like a Chaos Magick approach, but it makes sense to me. You can't tell me that the magicians of old had to use lamens, wands, and rings, etc. every single time they wanted to do some magick. Even Moses himself only used a staff, but he probably didn't even need that. However, I very often will use candles and herbs, etc., because they add to the material basis of a work, but that's about it.

Ok, back to the evocation. I'd already followed the process outlined by Devi Spring to create the petition paper, drawing out the seal etc. After doing my preliminary banishings, Middle Pillar Rite, and the Bornless Rite, I invoked Auset to be present to guide the process, and also asked Lord Ganesha to "open the way" for me to speak with Andromalius. I then began to chant the enn of Andromalius to get his attention - you can do a search for Goetic enns on Google, I won't post them here. I did this ritual on a Tuesday during the nighttime hour of Mars because Andromalius is a night daemon. Andromalius is also an Earl of Hell, so I faced the Southern direction of Fire when evoking.

After chanting his enn for about 3 minutes, the air in the room changed and "darkened" to signal his arrival. The hair on my arms stood up, but I suppressed any fear because I realized it was only a physical reaction to a change in the room's energy quality, and didn't necessarily signify any threat to me personally. I inquired as to whom was present and it turned out it was a deputy of Andromalius who had arrived. I asked him to project the seal of Andromalius, so that I could make sure he could speak for him, which he did, and then I asked his name. He told me his name but I should have written it down as all I can remember is that it began with the letter Z. He also showed me a sigil of his name, but again I wasn't prepared to write anything down. I'll be more prepared next time for that sort of thing.

I then spoke with him regarding the problems I'd been having, and asked if he could help. He indicated that he could perform the tasks I'd requested, and then we discussed payment. I let him know what I would pay, and he indicated that it was sufficient. Payment was to be rendered within two weeks if all tasks were completed. There were three tasks to be performed.

Overall, his demeanor was very businesslike, and cool. Not at all like what I'd expected, although I'd read from multiple sources that Andromalius is very noble and quick to perform what you ask of him provided the payment is adequate. I've found that to be true with him. Again, I didn't use a circle, nor did I make any threats of any kind because I didn't feel they were necessary and would probably create more problems than it would solve. I am confident in my banishing ability, and also in my relationship with two of my patrons, Auset (Isis) and Lord Ganesha, so why would I need protection from chaotic spirits, especially if I have treated them with respect? Add to that I have a good relationship with Archangel Michael, yet another protective entity who I'd already invoked during the Lesser Banishing Ritual.

When communicating with Andromalius' deputy I was cordial, direct, and efficient in my communication, and he was the same toward me. We did chat a bit, but we kept it business for the most part.

The Results?

I am happy to say that the evocation was successful, although I cannot go into very much detail regarding the actual work petitioned. Results began to occur within 3-4 days although I'd given two weeks for results to be made manifest. It was quite a positive experience, and I'd highly recommend working with this spirit if you ever need to get back at someone who has wronged you or a loved one unfairly. I am glad I took this leap, because it is very empowering to release yet another irrational fear.

My thanks again to Andromalius for his aid.

The Difference between Motivation and Will

2013-01-23T14:58:00.001-05:00

"Do or do not...there is no try" - Yoda

Well, here we are...in the year 2013! Many people didn't think we'd make it to see this year, mostly because of Hollywood and the Mayan prophecies, etc., but I'm glad the "doom-and-gloomers" were wrong.

Being that this is my first post of the year, I wanted to talk about motivation and will, hopefully to flesh out the contrasts between them so that people don't continue to confuse the two. Inasmuch as New Years resolutions are fairly ubiquitous, and unfortunately are rarely maintained, I think this post may prove timely, especially since most New Years resolutions almost never last beyond February.

Also, since this is primarily a magickal blog, and in light of the Powers of the Sphinx (To Know, To Will, To Dare, To Be Silent), a more workable grasp and definition of the concept of Will is in order.

When humans are making decisions, it is usually in response to a stressor that has occurred prior to the making of that decision. This stressor is the catalyst that creates the conditions required for a decision to be made. Hunger, loneliness/horny-ness, and financial instability are some of the more common stressors, but there are many others which are as varied as the situations within which they arise.

After encountering a stressor, humans form intentions designed to neutralize that stressor. Decisions are then made, and action flows from those decisions.

If no action flows from those decisions, then they really aren't decisions, they're still just intentions. One can have every iota of intent that exists, but can take no real action until he decides to do something - and then visualizes exactly what he plans to do.

Sometimes this entire process occurs very quickly, and other times more slowly, depending upon the nature of the stressor, the degree of stress perceived, and upon the capabilities, temperament, and resources of the person involved.

To illustrate, let's create a basic flow chart of the process of development of all human actions:

Stressor ---> Intention ---> Decision ---> Countering Actions

Now let's modify the terms used:

Motivator (or motivation) ---> Visualized Intention ---> Will ---> Countering Actions

Using this flow chart, we can see that the motivator/motivation comes two steps *before* the will to do something about it, not after. This distinction is important for making the overall point, which I'll get to next.

Motivation is largely an emotional response to a stressor, but people who don't really understand the concept of will usually use motivation as their fuel for empowering whatever actions they intend to take. Since motivation is more of an emotional response, and all emotions are based around possibly biased or flawed perceptions of one's environment (along with the people in it), motivation is an inferior fuel for action when compared to will.

Will is the ability to stick to a decision made, and therefore perform all countering actions to neutralize stressors, completely regardless of the emotional environment. It is a "child" of motivation, but it is also more powerful than motivation simply because it is unemotional. Will is mental, not emotional. In terms of dimensions, will occupies the mental domain, but not the astral, material, or emotional domains. You cannot "feel" will (emotional), you cannot "sense" will (astral), and you cannot "touch" will (material), yet it exists because it is made apparent through the presence and performance of action.

The ancient Egyptian myth of the war between Horus and Set brings some of this to light. Horus defeated Set once he (with the help of Thoth), became "thought itself" (will) and couldn't be affected by the attacks of Set (stressors) any longer.

Anyway, I believe the reason that many people's New Year's resolutions don't usually stick past February is because they've conflated will with motivation.

When a person fails to perform actions that they have intended to perform, it's usually because something in their environment has affected their motivation. They'll usually say or think things like "I don't feel like doing X right now", and then they allow that emotional response to cripple their will.

But, the emotional component (motivation) has already played its role once a decision has been made, and need not be recalled, nor should it be if one intends to effectively train their will by maintaining consistent action. If one only uses motivation to perform action, their actions will be as inconsistent as the emotional component that drives them.

True will (not necessarily in the Thelemic sense of the phrase) is always absolute and consistent. Motivation, by its very nature, is neither absolute nor consistent.

Once a decision is made, or the will is formed, and as that will manifests as action, that will doesn't (or shouldn't) need motivation anymore, so to wait for or to require motivation is an inferior response, is out of the proper sequence of the manifestation of action, and will eventually lead to the failure to take action (and the abandonment of the resolution).

So, if one is to learn how to develop the will, one must first learn to perform action for neutralizing stressors regardless of the presence of motivation (or emotion). Obviously this is easier said than done, but if one (especially if that one is a magician) intends to "conquer" his life, this lesson is vital.

In conclusion, if you intend to lose weight, to stop smoking, to spend more time with your kids, or whatever your resolutions have been, once you make the decision to do that, let that decision be enough to continue to do it. Focus on the advantages that all corresponding actions will grant you.

The REAL Golden Rule

2012-03-13T13:22:00.066-04:00

One of the things that I do like about all religions is the fact that they provide a moral and ethical baseline for the behavior of their devotees. Civilization would be impossible without an agreed upon code of conduct for all people, and most religions provide that very well.

Christianity in particular has had a huge influence on people's moral baseline, especially in Western cultures. The Ten Commandments in particular establish a very good moral basis. And I will say that I believe the vast majority of Christian ministers are sincere men and women who are committed to their faith. I've met many good people who are in the church; people who actually live it and don't just talk about it on Sunday (or even Saturday as the case may be). I have a lot of respect for each of them.

It's just too easy for misinterpreted words to take on a life of their own. It's worse when a scripture is deliberately misinterpreted in order to justify someone's actions which have nothing to do with the true message of that scripture, and everything to do with gaining or maintaining control over a person's mind, their money, and/or their will.

Take the Golden Rule for example. I won't go too deeply into the fact that Confucius was the first to dictate the rule, and somehow it still ended up being written in the Bible hundreds of years after Confucius' death as if it was revealed by Jesus for the first time in the Bible. Perhaps Jesus said these words too, but Confucius said them long before Jesus was even born.   You can research all of that for yourself by Googling "Confucius and Golden Rule".

The point here is we all think the Biblical Golden Rule says "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."   Only it may not actually say that. More to my point, I think it doesn't really say that, and I'll show you why along with why it matters. Since I've brought it up, Confucius' version is slightly different. It goes like this: "What you do not wish upon yourself, do not extend it to others." The distinction between the two versions will be important later in this post.

Since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, we'd have to go to the original words that were written and work from there to translate and interpret it to get the true meaning. The original Greek scripture that the passage in Matthew 7:12 is based on is transliterated from Greek: "All things therefore, as many as if desire that should do to you (the men) so also you do to them."

Now let's rearrange these words to fit within an English syntax. "If you desire, as many men that should do to you, so also you do to them." Don't agree with this rendition? OK. Here's another one.

Let's take the very similar scripture found in Luke 6:31 and go through the same process. The original Greek scripture uses these words "kai kathos thelete hina poiosin hymin hoi anthropoi poieite autois homoios" (http://biblos.com/luke/6-31.htm). We can literally translate these words as "and as you desire that (men) should do to you do to them likewise". The same words rearranged for English syntax get us: "and as you desire, men that should do to you, do to them likewise." I think that's a reasonable translation.

The most obvious difference between the two versions of scripture has to do with the first words in each scripture that both deal with desire. I interpret them to mean, "If you want to do this, then do it this way." Our popular version is more of a command than a piece of advice because there is no allowance for personal desire in it - as in "DO unto others just like I told you, and screw whatever else you really want to do...".

You mean I don't get a choice? That arrangement doesn't fly for me, kimosabe. My "do what thou wilt" is offended.

A second, more-to-the-point difference is this: both scriptures use the word "should", as in "men that should do to you". We commonly interpret both scriptures as an admonishment to do to others what they should be doing to you. But is that really the original meaning of the usage of the word "should"? OR could it be more like this archaic usage of the same word: "Should I stumble and fall, wilt thou be there to catch me?"

In other words, is "should" actually being used as an "if" as in the previous sentence? If that's the case, the original scripture could be translated similarly to "And as you desire, if men do to you, do to them likewise."

Aha! That translation is a lot more in line with the Gray Philosophy of "tit-for-tat". Actually, the Gray Philosophy is largely based upon what I'm about to show you.

So now let's look at the Greek work for "should" as it's used in the second scripture (Luke 6:31). The Greek word "poiosin" in interpreted to mean "should do" in this context, but it could also mean "to do". If we use the alternate meaning for poiosin, and then reinterpret the Greek scripture, it would read: "And as you desire, men that do to you, do to them likewise."

Radical.

Let's look at the practical reasons and also some behavioral reasons why this scripture should be reinterpreted first and then followed. First, the practical reasons:

I watched a documentary that was produced by BBC Horizon ("Nice Guys Finish First" - 1987) dealing with an aspect of game theory where researchers were trying to discover the best way for a person to play a conflict-style game (think "battleship") to perform as well as statistically possible. During the game, opponents were given the opportunity to either fire on their enemy when it was their turn, or to deliberately "miss" their enemies’ position with their ammunition. The other player in turn was given the option to either retaliate and return fire, or to also deliberately miss their opponent's position in response.

After a few plays, it turned out that the most successful approach for both sides to playing the game was a "tit-for-tat" strategy. That meant, if your opponent fired on you, you'd fire on them. Or, if they deliberately missed you, then you'd deliberately miss them. It ended up where each opponent began to sort of "trust" their opponent to immediately do to them whatever they had been doing to the opponent. Over time, neither opponent fired on the other because they didn't want to deal with the immediate consequences they knew would come.

They then ran a computer simulation of that particular approach of the immediate return of "fire" or the immediate return of a "miss", and it turned out that if one opponent uses the immediate "tit-for-tat" strategy, he usually does significantly better in the long run than the one who uses a different attack strategy - no matter what the opposing gamer's strategy was.

I think I'm onto something here.

So let's get into the behavioral reasons for using this sort of immediate "tit-for-tat" approach in social interactions.

Far too many people will do exactly what they think they can get away with. If they think they can take advantage of you, they'll try. If they don't, they don't try. Most of the entire time you're acquainted with these types of people, especially at first, they're constantly sizing you up to see whether they can get over on you somehow, exactly like kids will do. So it's always necessary to train people in how they should treat you upon first meeting them, and it's usually necessary to reinforce it from time to time just to keep relations going smoothly. That approach is only needed for people who operate that way, but since you don't know if they're that way when you first meet them, you have to be smart about it. But I'm not telling you anything about human nature that you don't already know.

What I'm leading up to is that this new interpretation of the Golden Rule is the antidote for all of that "human nature" stuff. The reason that's important is because not only is it a stupid simple rule to follow, but it always works, and works better than any other approach in the long run. It's profoundly interesting to me that Confucius' (or Jesus') "actual" admonition of treating people exactly how they treat you was scientifically and statistically proven to be the best approach to social relations and for defending one's interests. Just immediately reflect exactly what others throw your way. That's it, and you can cut through all of the "social negotiation" crap with some "social ninjutsu".

In short, if they're cool with you, be cool with them. If they start some trouble, send some trouble their way. If they love you, love them back. If they screw you over...well, you get the idea. This way, neither you nor they can easily take advantage of the other, and relations will hopefully evolve into consistent civility, just as in the researcher's "battleship" game. The whole idea reminds me of one of Sun Tzu's quotes that says it's best to "win without fighting". Even if a conflict ensues, the one with the most firepower usually wins, and also teaches his less-well-armed opponent a valuable lesson about who not to mess with.

Now let's apply this same idea to social interaction.

The problem in social interaction arises when only one party is playing by what they "think" is the Golden Rule, being to "do unto others as you want them to do to you". But if the other party is playing by a different set of rules, such as "do unto others and see what happens" or "do unto others and then laugh your monkey ass off", then the "Misinterpreted Golden Rule" player won't last very long in that exchange. However, the "Newly-Interpreted Golden Rule" player would do just fine against that sort of opponent, and could possibly even make a new ally out of a former enemy.

So, should we play by the old Golden Rule and possibly end up a victim, or should we play by the newly interpreted version of the Golden Rule and probably end up more of a sovereign?

I know what I'm gonna do...

Honoring the Dead

2012-03-12T11:19:00.004-04:00

Some weeks ago, I read a blog about the lack of ancestor reverence in most modern Western religious/spiritual practice. Most indigenous spiritual practice worldwide honors the dead in some way, but it is considered almost necromantic to do so in Western thought, although that is far from the case in most instances I suspect. It seems as though the deceased, once so, are forgotten more often than not, and are relegated to remembrance only on anniversaries or birthdays, if even then.

I decided to change that in my life after finding out through some study that this is a common error in magical practice, for whom of the spirit world would aid a practicing magician more readily than a deceased family member? On a more practical level, it delighted me to think that dead family members can still be contacted, and that death is not the end by any means.

I'd recently also found out that I had been the victim of a long-standing crossed condition that was based from within a graveyard by an enemy of mine. It occurred to me that the most effective counter to that sort of energy was energy of the same astral "frequency" range, i.e., graveyard energy, but from the site of someone who "loved me in life". I hadn't visited my aunt's grave since she had passed on, and had felt badly about that on some level, so why not accomplish two objectives at the same time?

I set out to recover some graveyard dirt from my aunt's grave, but I hadn't done this sort of conjure-style work before and I wanted to do it correctly so as not to disturb or anger the other residents of the graveyard I was about to enter. Getting on the bad side of the deceased was not a problem I wanted to encounter as I have enough going on already!

After driving for about two hours to her remote burial location in a rural area in Northwestern PA, I finally reached the cemetery where her body had been interred. On the way there I purchased a small gift to lay at the gravesite - a gift representative of what she was to me in life (an angel), and one that wouldn't offend her Christian sensibilities. She had been a devout Christian during her life, and I'd attended church with her on more than one occasion, so I wanted to honor that. I had also ordered a small box to contain her soil upon my altar once I'd procured it.

Traditionally, practitioners who honor their ancestors have a separate altar for them in their ritual space. I planned to do something similar eventually, but the area I am using has limited space and I still need to rearrange things there.

Upon entering the cemetery, I recalled how vodou practitioners will knock at the entry gate three times to alert the dead that they are planning to enter. There wasn't much of an entry gate at this particular cemetery, so I opted to knock three times upon the ground outside the burial area to announce my entry. I spoke audibly to the spirits there that my intentions were only to visit my aunt and speak with her, not to disturb them. After getting the feeling that my intention was acceptable, I entered the graveyard and made my way to my aunt's grave.

My first order of business at the grave site was to meditate upon my aunt's image in my mind to connect with her spirit. After I felt a connection, I began to audibly speak to her as though she was present although I didn't yet feel her presence, only her attention. I told her about the things that had been going on in my life since she passed (she had died from a terminal illness at the age of 55). I also told her about things that were going on in the family, although I suspected that she was aware of most of it already. Then I got down to the business at hand.

Traditionally in hoodoo, when one wants to procure graveyard dirt it must be "properly bought and paid for". This is done by scooping out about three handfuls of dirt and placing three pennies in the hole that is left. I've read that the proper price for graveyard dirt is 1 penny per handful, and that up to 13 handfuls can be removed provided they are paid for with an equal amount of pennies. Some say that you can pay with a silver dime as an alternative, but since there was no silver in dimes anymore, I used 3 shiny pennies placed heads up into the hole.

All of this was rather uneventful (not that I expected much to occur) up until we started to leave. I got back into the car after wrapping the soil and saying my goodbyes, and we started driving toward the highway to leave. All at once, I felt the very strong and loving presence of my aunt within the truck we were riding in. I'd felt presences before many times, but this one was familiar in a way, almost like I was feeling her ethereal personality around me if that makes sense.

What made it more notable was that once I mentioned the presence I felt, my girlfriend who was sitting in the passenger's seat said she felt the same presence at that same moment. Then about a minute later, almost as if to confirm the loving presence that we felt, the sky before us opened up a hole in the clouds to let a beautiful sunbeam through, almost directly in front of us in the direction we were heading. At that moment, I knew my aunt was in heaven looking down on me, and that she would help me with whatever she could. It was a surreal experience to say the least. Other "strange and surreal" things occurred of a more private nature that I may write about in the future.

Once I got the soil home, I performed a small ceremony to welcome her presence to dwell in my home in my sacred space, by using only a small dressed votive candle and a prayer. I wanted to consecrate the box for her soil, and to harmonize her energies with the preexisting energies of the altar (and my home) so that there would be no conflict. My objective was to be able to contact her whenever I needed to talk to her about things by using the graveyard dirt as a link. I feel I was successful in that.

Since then, I've felt more protected than I had been feeling. Whatever negative graveyard energies were being directed my way now had formidable opposition from a blood relative within that same current. I don't feel as though I could have asked for better help.