From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Emotion spells (just a response)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 16:38:45 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

9208.25 e.v.


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.  [the operative phrase]
The word of Sin is Restriction.  [the cooperative phrase]


Someone named 'Myself' writes [damned confusing sig.  I like it]:

I have one major question. Why does everyone here disapprove so strongly of
emotional/empathy spells? This is, of course, not talking about safety and
precaution. Those are needed whatever you do. But, if these are so powerful,
why does everyone disapprove? 


Response:

Seems you have more than one question, but I'm game.

I was one of the first people who responded to the 'empathy spell' post.
I want to make my feelings clear about it.

You question is:  Why do I disapprove of these spells?

I don't.  I am not in a position to 'approve' or to 'disapprove'.  Read
my header:  'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.'

I disagree that safety and caution 'are needed whatever you do'.  I've
done things without nets many times.  You get will that way. ;>


'Myself':

After all, if (new) person A STATES that he/she/it/whatever
WANTS to do this, and has a reasonable idea of the consequences, why
should I not help them, assuming that it is my desire to do so? 


Response:

Many people have the mistaken idea that 'should' is a productive word.
I continually argue against this misconception.

If it is your will (=desire in my book) to help them cast a spell of
MURDER, then I encourage you to do so.  No moralisms will you see
come from my mouth.


'Myself':

After all, if
you avoid everything simply because it is dangerous, you can`t step out of your
house, you might slip, fall, and splatter your brains on the pavement. Of
course, the roof might fall if you stay inside. Weighted risks. Admittedly, the
risks in such a situation are higher, but so is the potential gain. 'nuff said.


Response:

Life is fatal.  Many people like to avoid it.


'Myself':

Anyone who wants to argue, please do so.


Response:

I advise you not to argue with people who tell you that they 'disapprove'
of you.  They are oppressive slaves who will rape you and then sell your
body to 'Science'.   Honestly, I doubt that they are worth your time.


'Myself':

p.s. I HAVE used the type occasionally, and I have had it backfire only once.
Doing this at a Nazi death camp is plain stupid. Any objections to it
with proper precautions?


Response:

Note, I have OBJECTIONS to using it MYSELF.  I feel that such silly,
invasive, coercive spells only do harm and will EVENTUALLY catch up with
the perpetrator.  This works through what I like to call the '3-Fold Law
of Return'.  Many people think this is a moralism.  They are wrong.
It is an esoteric concept of supreme argumentative importance. ;>

1) The energy of coersion passing through our mind and body causes
anxiety.  Any time we want to 'change something' or 'change somebody'
it sets up a double-bind.  We attack another's will in some sense and thus
we perpetuate illness.

2) To the extent that we and the Target are One, we violate them,
and thus ourself.  We won't notice the repurcussions of this for
a while.

3) If our unconscious mind has in the least way been conditioned to
think that coersion is 'bad', then we will reap the punishment of
our Superego.  That 'Big White Man in the Throne' will Judge us for
doing something 'Evil'.  We all know that He is a crock of shit, but
sometimes our subconscious mind still buys his ethics. ;>



Good luck in your future endeavors.  I hope that you achieve your True Will.


Invoke me under my stars.   Love is the law, love under will.


I am I!


Frater (I) Nigris (666)
Newsgroups: alt.magick