The Question Nobody Asks

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!

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

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

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

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

"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.