THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.lucky.w,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Re: Spell Kits Vs. Joel Wiggy Morocco (watch out for those low-flying scud-magic-spells!; was catherine ...)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 03:41:45 GMT

50010729 VI! om Hail Satan!

winding down a conversation with...

"Chris" :
> ...[Magick] is a divin[e] tool used for return. Not a party game.

oh no, you've fallen in with charlatans and shams, get out
before it's too late!

let me provide you with some background. Hermetic confidence
men have constructed a quasi-religious edifice which opaques
the falsities and deceptions it promotes (inclusive of the
claim that its adherents are "adepts" of fabulous spiritual
exercises, have attained spiritual and mystical authority,
often masquerading as part of longstanding competing mystical
traditions in the doing). 

really magic is a tool for getting what you want. there IS
no "return"! that was just a left-over deceit which was kept
by Hermetics so as to convince the religious of the value of
what they were selling in their texts and organizations.

see, if they can debase the world-wide practice of magic by
hijacking its *actual* principles (claiming that they are
religious, that all gods are the same, like you do, etc.),
then they could side-step into the positions of authority
within the grey areas surrounding the intercultural mesh and,
eventually, completely co-opt their competition. this has been
the way of many religious institutions over the last couple
thousand years (the RC Church is getting good at it,
attaching itself to an invasive political authority,
overlaying their own doctrines and symbolism atop the
indigenous rituals and beliefs, and slowly displacing all
the competition -- until the opposition arises and casts
them out on their ear!).

but first they've got to convince you (and M. others)
that 'the real magic is in the mind'. this is part of what
writers like Crowley sought to DISabuse, preferring instead
to expand the mysticism he promoted as properly coordinated
with (his) God's will (True Will! (tm)). cf. 'Magical Link' at:

	http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/004mitap.txt

especially Chapter XIV).

> If people want to abuse magick by buying such ridiculas 
> things as "Instan[t] Love: The spell in a can, yes in only 
> 5 minutes all your dreams will be fufilled",  

nobody's talking about this kind of thing. it is evident
that you are unfamiliar with that which you are criticizing
and are therefore probably a convert to Hermetic religious
ideas and have no idea what you are talking about.

> then they really have no place in the magick circle. The circle
> reprents the Macrocosm, and you as the Microcosm are manipulating your
> environment through divine power. These are no small responsibilities. 

these are all part of the line of religious ideas by which you've 
been hoodwinked. don't think those ritual initiations are just
symbols, they blindfold you but good! my wider perspective on the
subject does not yield a confirmation of these baseless claims.

for you, in your magical tradition, this may well be true, but be
assured that your cosmology and ethics presented here are just
so much religious argumentation. I'll contrast this with some
alternatives:

the "magicK circle" is an invention of modern magical traditions
out of Solomonic reflections in traditional grimoires. its
extension into conventional descriptions of the symbolic
position or activity of magicians is just as much an invention
and, regardless of what it may represent to you, it's all just
imagery without substance except in your mind. 

the REAL things are those which are material, which you can
touch, feel, smell, etc. these are the MEAT AND POTATOES of
real magic, and that which the mystics will attempt to keep
you from because of its corrosive influence on ascetic norms.
you'll eventually turn to hedonism if you delve too deeply
into the realm material, and this is what is called "taking
the Devil's pact" by many fundamentalists.

> Its like justifying a child playing with his fathers gun. 
> Its harsh, but magick is a sacred art, not to be profaned. 

no, this is more of the lies told by Hermetics. if it is
powerful and could change things, then we must protect those
who could use it from hurting themselves. but who are "we"
to determine this? can you provide for us some actual
accounts of those who have been harmed through use of spells
prior to their education according to your standards? please
understand that I've been asking for this kind of data from
alarmists like you for years in alt.magick and nobody's been
able to come up with any hard evidence for the concern aside
from the stray SRA Blood Libel and claims about AD&D.

the child playing with spells will not get hurt any more than
she might by playing with role-playing games and books of
fiction. hir will, combined with the REAL MAGICAL GOODS
(which those who play with magic seldom actually obtain or
know much about), will do what is able. the child is scarcely
able to extend hirself to DISCIPLINE, let alone a real spell.
and if she does do a spell, fine, perhaps she'll learn something.

the sacred and the profane are fictional imaginings except
for those religious who desire to set it up that way. sure, 
there are certain human bugaboos which may have old fear
associated with them based on cultural baggage, but none
of these is based in science, for example, or on anything
other than more hyped conjecture by those who wish to frighten.

magic is no more or less "sacred" than washing your hair.
it cannot be "profaned" except in *your* eyes, and for those
who aren't your religious acolytes, your contentions about
it being so will tend to fall on deaf ears or be dismissed
as just so much more religious bias derived from ignorance.

> Do we have to be so tolerant as to say that everything is 
> acceptable? Why cant we ever draw the line? 

nobody's saying you can't draw lines, but when you try to
draw lines for other people, then you may get some arguments
to the contrary, especially regarding their personal business.

it *is* my objective to be tolerant (even accepting) of many
other cultural standards and ideologies. I understand that
taboos can serve very peculiar and interesting religious
and magical purposes. however, mistaking these taboos for
principles of magical operation and generalizing about minor
cults as regards the way magic works for everyone is simply
misguided and possibly deceptive.

> Its not like Divine magick, or rather Theurgy, are hidden 
> from the people who buy spell kits, why cant they invest 
> a little time in both? Why be so greedy for the results. 

you make the brownies because you're hungry. you wash the
car because you want it clean. you use a spell kit because
you want the results toward which it is directed. if you
don't understand the motivation here, perhaps it is because
you don't understand the people doing the magic. everyone
doesn't operate according to your standards.

> No one will evolve using spell kits.

it is not the objective of most who engage magical activities
to "evolve". this is a Hermetic lie designed to delude you.
it enables those who practice theurgy to come down on those
who do not and tell them how 'greedy' and 'worldly' they
are, not doing it right, no no no, and deluded by others.

unfortunately half the people who talk about the delusion of
others are themselves deluded. for this reason it is better
to be accepting of others until we know more about them and
their values, background, culture, etc. doing otherwise is
just disrespectful and blatantly manipulative.

>>> ...There aint no quick fix.... spell kits help kee[p] 
>>> magicians in buissiness like Cat, so that can be an 
>>> excuse to sell them.
>>
>> neither does sri catyananda stay 'in business' because of the kits nor
>> do they really contribute, on their own, to the profit. they are merely
>> convenient packs of articles valuable for accomplishing one version of
>> a spell (which is included in the pack!). unrelated to the main topic
>> of whether spell kits foster unoriginality and ignorance.

> I find that they do further ignorance. 

how so? your claim is completely illogical. not only do they
provide a clear example of traditional magical practices,
but they continually make it clear to the witch or conjure
or whatever that they are just helpful GUIDELINES, samples
of hundreds of variations on spellcrafting. if they don't
see this and call, asking for the 'right way to do it' (and
we do get those occasionally) they are told that there is
no One Right Way to do it, but there are traditional ways,
and some of these we support (some, such as Rattlesnake
Rattles and Black Cat Bones, we do not).

> In my quest to learn magick.. I have read many books, 
> talked with many people, travelled many places, experimented 
> with many forms and studied my ass off. 

k00l, what forms of magicK do you know very well? with what
specific cultures of magical practice do you have experience
in extensive interviews and personal experimentation?

> ...When someone picks up a spell kit, all the reasearch is 
> done for them. 

same is true for a book which assembles a vast array of data
and provides it to the reader in order to support the author's
interests or merely as a handy reference guide. does this mean
that the person who reads it 'remains ignorant'? I'd agree, but
there are some trajectories which are aggregate rather than
reconstructive. I've encountered, for example, a great deal of
resistance to going back to the basics, as you seem to be
supporting, and have some reticence to doing it myself
(actually going through the trouble to learn metallurgy and
construct a ritual sword, for example, rather than purchasing
one). it is one thing to criticize the convenience as lacking
in educational byproduct, quite another to equate those who
use spell kits with "Charlatans", which is offensive and false.
 
> They just follow the instructions and *poof* thats it. 

no, obviously you aren't familiar with these spells. they are
more complex and require more followup than you seem to be
aware. entering into the practice of magic is much more
engulfing than just tossing off a spell and being done with it.
those who are serious about magical work thereafter begin to
learn about the principles behind what they have done and ask
innumerable questions about the things they've purchased. if
you think there is a fundamental difference between people who
are not interested in magic except as a means to solve their
problems and those who use magic as an ongoing basis, then
I think you've fallen prey to those Hermetic lies again. some
folks just don't want to be BOTHERED with the concepts behind
the spells, just like many of us don't want to be bothered
learning how to repair our automobiles or other appliances.

Hermetics speak of magicK as if it is a religious and holy,
sacred, activity, and for them it may be. however, for the
bulk of magicians this is simply a minority bias that seldom
lasts as it passes into the mode of conventional religion
(typically at odds with magicians because of the nature of
the acts achieved with each and the amount of interference
offered by the religious).

in fact, when the newbie Hermetic goes on a doctrinal rant
and begins informing hir cohorts that the way that they are
doing it is "wrong" (not because it doesn't get results,
but because it "profanes the lofty aims of magick" (tm)),
then you can tell pretty quickly that she is unstudied and
lacking in the virtues described as the results of the Path (tm).

you have fun with your theurgy, but don't expect the 
thaumaturgists to join in with you and your God(s).
you're just one of the religious zealots, trying to get us
to agree with your faith-based claims, offering no specific
data on why you make the extensive claims you do. I've got
a whole library of data and much of it contradicts you.
if you've really read all that you say you have, then you
must realize that there are many magicians who do NOT
agree with you and you are leaving no room for their
perspective in your assessment.

> They miss all of the things they would have learned if 
> they acctually walked the path of the Magician. Rather they
> choose the path of the Charlatan, lusted for quick results 
> and remained ignorant. Bassically they can do it, but they 
> dont understand the mechanics anf theory behind it. 

in contrast, let me say that magic is not a "path" to the
majority of magicians. that's more of the religious hype
that you've been fed. magic is just simple symbolic
technology intentionally deployed to a desired end. if
you or your cultists want to MAKE it into a path, I have
no problem with that. but expecting the world to revolve
around you will only get you ignored and laughed at.

> And as everyone knows, 

major flaw in your argument here. there are very few things
which 'everyone knows' about magic, in part because there
are so many different sociocultural traditions of magic
and ideas about what it is and how it works. see the FAQ.

> all parts of magick , theory and psychology must be understood 
> beofre the operation can take place. 

any support for this assertion besides your peculiar experience?
I'm not aware of many magicians who, as authors, have supported
this notion, and would be interested to know your sources.

>> ...[I wish to] comment on spell kits, and occult shops I know of.

like which shops? like what spell kits? let's get specific in
your evaluation and criticism. otherwise it comes off like you
are trying to slam someone else for what they're doing against
which you have a biased beef (i.e. a personal attack).

>>> That being said, how many Magicians in here would ever use a spell kit,
>>> or ever have?
>>
>> why not? there is no inherent problem with them from what I can see.
>> perpetuating the original bias without justification.
>
> No there isnt a problem when Magicians do it. They already have 
> paid their dues. Walked the path, learned and studied. 

there are no dues necessary. there is no path to be walked.
learning and studying are unnecessary to do magic. this is
hype promoted by literature-based magicians who wish to
dogmatically utilize their art for mysticism, religion (i.e.
CONVERSION) and to sell their books (BUSINESS/ATTENTION).

> They understand the symbolism and the theory behind it. But 
> since they understand these things, they would not be 
> insulting to themselves by relying on a spell kit. They 
> would make a tailsman, or use an Enochian formula or Conjure 
> a spirit and charge them with a task.

now we're getting some more identifying information from you.
ok, so you're one of those conditioned by Enochian (and
probably Solomonic) magic. thanks for making this more clear.
Poke Runyon might be your ally in this conversation. :> 

there is no reason that a magician would necessarily avoid
spell kits, especially if they didn't have a well-stocked
cabinet of magical supplies and wanted to use a well-known
spell from a source they trusted. it would be no 'insult'
to the working mage to take advantage of the convenience
offered to those who package it up for them. this is just
a fictional overlay on an image you cherish.
 
> The problem with spell kits is it gives a small amount 
> of power to those who understand next to nothing about Magick.

I've heard this one many times before, but usually it isn't
reserved for spell KITS, but spells as a whole and especially
those which are given out by those on the net or from some
"anonymous" source which 'does not take responsibility for
the power it is giving to those who ask'. this is a newsgroup
FAQ and I will eventually consolidate a response and add it
to the nagasiva alt.magick FAQ:

	"Isn't giving (or selling) spells to people without training 
	 them like giving children a loaded weapon? Shouldn't those
	 who give out spells be held responsible for any bad outcomes 
	 of the spellcasting?"

short answer: no it isn't. spells are more like boxes of brownie
              mix than they are like loaded guns. children have
	      adults to watch over them, adults are presumed to
	      have the smarts and self-responsibility that any
	      purchaser of dangerous mechanical or chemical
	      goods is expected to have. not only this, the
	      added personal element of WILL makes results, 
	      either negative or positive, less likely without
	      some kind of personal practice or training, but
	      it isn't the job of those who provide equipment
	      to police the usage of that equipment.

>> who the fuck cares about "Divine Magick"? the brownie box has the
>> shit in it to cook up some chocolaty delights which I shall eat
>> and enjoy. the spell kit has the shit in it to cause change in
>> conformity with will which I shall experience and enjoy. no
>> fucking gods necessary, no Divine Rules required.

> Without knowing that al things are sacred and divine you will 
> get no where.

and if I'm not part of your cult then I don't have to 'get 
somewhere'. the progress/evolution lies are meant to delude
you into supporting the Exalted Masters with dues (you're
stuck paying them based on your faith-based suppositions),
and has very little to do with the magic of most people.

besides, you said yourself that things can be 'profaned'.
if they can be, then all things/actions/etc. are NOT sacred
and divine. some of them suck! kindly resolve this apparent
inconsistency in your rhetoric, thank you.

> ...Magick is divine in origin. 

can you trace it down for me? show me where it originates,
where its divinity lies, what divinity it comes from, etc.?

> If there is no God, no Kether, there would be nothing. 

it's this kind of assertion which has me informing you that
your Hermetic path is weak. surely you must realize that
this kind of assertion is illogical and baseless. because
*you* cannot imagine alternatives to the dogmas you have
been fed, you presume that there are no logical alternatives.

there might be no God AND no Kether. both of these are quite
probably merely imaginary, just props to support weak minds,
and yet the REST of the world exists and always has. that you
cannot fathom how this might be so is as expected as that I
cannot fathom how your God created something from nothing. 
where will we begin our metaphysics? must I agree with yours?

> ...As for "divine rules" you are bound by [natural] law and 
> karma just like all of us. 

thank you again for making your religious indoctrination all
the more plain for the reader. please understand that most
magicians probably don't believe in your religious ideas
about karma and Gods and Kethers. they're cute, but they
have no basis in real life. they just prop up the internal
volition sufficiently to express a willed desire into the
realm of symbol through material rites and spells so it can 
become manifest. the rest is just intellectual window-
dressing and imagination-popsickles that trap the fanatics.

> ...Just accept the way the universe is set up.

I'm trying to, but I also try entertaining new ideas and
even novel expressions of old ideas, and they tend to run
counter to my experience because, from what I can tell,
they are base fictions masquerading as truths. 

the way the universe is set up is that I can give away
spells of the darkest, deepest power and there ain't a
thing you can do about it. I *like* it that way, and I
don't believe that you've made very much progress in
the area of philosophy and study given your insular and
biased responses here.

> The Magician uses the divine. He is part of the divine. 
> It is said that the Magician is being guided by the 
> divine in the magick circle, that it is wrapped around 
> him like his robe. Those who practice Sorcery use whatever
> means necessary to get what they want. There is a large 
> difference between the two.

ah the old 'difference between "bad sorcery" and "good magic"'
tactic. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking 
about. could you please explain to us what the procedural and
structural differences are between "Sorcery" and "Magick"?

> I wonder what Franz Bardon, or Agrippa would say if they 
> heard this absurd comment of yours.

my impression is that Agrippa was a natural magician and did
not support your contentions. I'll look into that more
carefully if I have any inclination later this week. if you
would like to quote something from Agrippa (I know Bardon
was a Hermetic cultist), then I'd be interested in seeing it.

>> the ignorant part is in 1) presuming that what is posted in alt.magick
>> has to do with "Divine Magick" (it does not necessarily have anything
>> to do with any divinity, religion, spirituality, etc.), and 2) being
>> so sure of the "insult" extended to your favourite religious magic.
>
> I didnt presume anything. Im stating my opinion on spell kits and 
> other forms of "quick fix" magick that premote ignorance.

yes, I think your argument is flawed and I've detailed why above.
I genuinely hope you'll take the time to respond to my analysis.

> All magick is divine. Its not the spell kits that are the problem, 
> but rather that they teach the practioner nothing about the nature 
> of magick.

since you don't appear to understand the nature of magic, and have
apparently avoided spell kits and studying and whatnot, for who
knows how many years, you appear to be an example (I've seen many, 
including m.) of someone who has become deluded by Hermetism 
into believing its religious and mystical propositions.

thus you and m.appear to represent examples of the affect of
Hermeticism's tendency to PROMOTE IGNORANCE (by asserting it
and proposing with certainty your misguided views). why don't
you give it up?

>>> Is there no tradition or respect anymore?
>>
>> respect is *earned*, ain't it? why does any tradition deserve
>> any kind of respect? why the need for tradition at all? throw it
>> out, I say, see if you can do without it before taking offense to
>> all the kitchen witches what don't give a flying one about your
>> God(s). unrelated to the original assertion.
>
> *I* dont have a God. There is one supreme being. Call it whatever 
> you will.  It still exists.

no, your God is an archon, a pathetic excuse for a Cosmocrater,
whose Hermetic cult has you deluded into thinking he's something
special. however, neither is he supreme (talk to Diana Ross!)
nor is he apparent (show us evidence of this faux supreme being).

your religious dogmas don't persuade in their expression. you'll
have to do more than that to get converts to your cult, sorry.

> As for respect. Hundreds of years or practice study and results 
> have earned the respect. 

neither have you hundreds of years of practice and study under
your belt nor can you point to actual results achieved by your
magician predecessors.

> You can throw it out, thats fine with me. But tradition deserves 
> respect because you would know NOTHING about magick if it wasnt for
> traditional methods and good record keeping. You use magick but 
> have no respect for those masters who came before you.

I agree that cultural traditions deserve respect as preservers of
psychotechnology. this is one of the few values I've been able to
identify for religions. however, magic is typically hidden and
even popular magicians tend to fake, lie, and cover up their
sources and the fact that they introduce many new things into the
records of the Art.

I do not agree that the magicians who came before me *were*
masters. I am too skeptical to believe it without evidence.
even this was encouraged by your so-called 'masters',
especially those who engage in spirit-summoning.
 
>>> We can no longer take love in the sutdy,
>>
>> speak for yourself. loving study is a far cry from complaining
>> about the form of *someone else's* magical endeavour
>> (i.e. spell kits).

> How much study is taken when one buys a spell kit?

not important.

> There are some practionioners of Voodoo and so forth which do, but then
> again they dont NEED spell kits. They can use anything to work their magick.
> As I said, it keeps those who are ignorant in ignorance by not letting them
> walk the path on their own, just providing instant results.

you've mistaken providing working tools with providing instant results.
you look into the *actual* things you're trying to criticize more
carefully and I'll take you more seriously.

>>> the learning, the relationship formed with God?
>>
>> problem: WHICH GOD? yours? Jesus' God? the Kitchen God? Mot the
>> cosmic Death Monster? c'mon, you don't really think we're all
>> part of the same tradition, do you?

>Same Tradition. no.  Same Universe with the Same supreme being. Yes.

that supreme being is Kali, Queen of the Demons. you don't really
understand Her very well. instead of pretending like you're
playing with the Big Cahuntas, why not actually get into some kind
of relationship with that Deity? I'll buy your identification of
your God with mine, ok. but then you'll have to deal with my own
preferred notions about the universe which are adverse to yours! :>

> Whatever you call "God" Tetragrammaton, the Blue flying Unicorn, 
> Ala etc. Its all just different names for the same thing.

I'll tentatively accept your Cosmic Elephant theory, but you must
understand that I call Her Kali, and that She doesn't conform to
some of the things you've been laying down, man. for one, She
hasn't set this all up as a cosmic classroom for us like a clever
watch-maker who watches his golem AIs learn and grow. magic and
hedonism are perfect as they are and do not need overlays of
Hermetic doctrine or some kind of ascetic hierarchy to be valuable.

>> ...some people like to avoid the religious shit
>> and instead find value in Getting Things Done (rather than just
>> talking about it or imagining it, begging Gods for it, etc.).
>> so you don't like what other people are doing, this still has
>> nothing to do with the original assertion (which is unsupported).

> I have never Beged any God for my results. But I get them none 
> the less.

congrats. I'm glad that you are enjoying your magic. it *does*
sound like Kali requires all kinds of beliefs, understandings,
etc., etc., in order for you to 'do magic correctly'. perhaps you 
need that kind of strictness from Kali. Kali teaches me of the 
bankruptcy of value in generalization of term or ideology (by
coming up with exceptions to my foolish statements :>). 

>You dont have to have religion in practice to give respect to the higher
>powers your working with.

you don't have to have "higher powers" working with you. you're talking
about the fringe of magic here, by the way -- theurgy. the reason that
I say it is the 'fringe of magic' is that, more often than not, one
has to suck up to the gods and do all kinds of funny ritual or taboo
things in order to get the power. real magicians don't bother kissing
the ass of a cosmic deity. they are their own God (or pretend to be).

>> >> ignorance -- undemonstrated and untrue. evidence?

you didn't provide this.

>> evidence for his assertions? you're not helping him any.
>> I'm attacking him because he's disrupting the forum with
>> ethics considerations and that POORLY. I've done it myself
>> before but for good reason and from a standpoint which was
>> easily justified.
>
> And your still doing it.

obviously you don't have any evidence else you'd have provided it.

> I deal with you or anyone else who annoys me, you gotta deal 
> with me and Joel or whoever else you dont like.

dream on. I can killfile you in two seconds flat. I am choosing
at this point not to do so because I feel that the Hermetic
Error has got too much airplay in the newsgroup and I wish to
exhibit the competent argument against it for a while. 

>>> ...You claim to be scholarly,
>>
>> nope, I don't think that I made that claim. I have tried to steer clear
>> of that self-descript because of some of the assholes who like it.
>
> Agreed.

however, I do claim to be fairly *literate*, which is more than I 
can say for most of the Hermetic mages who come in and argue with 
us about how oh so bad giving or selling spells is, why we aren't
worshipping or kissing ass to their God, presuming that their
cosmology and ways are suitable for the rest of us, and 
generally not being very intelligent about the subject of magic.

> I agree Joel got out of line when he threatened people. But he 
> also tried to walk away from it and kept getting hit....

if he paid more attention to the results of his actions, then
perhaps he wouldn't have had to walk (run?) away.

> ...He did have good points about spell kits, 

flawed and faulty, as are yours and M.'s. honestly I've argued
both sides of this issue and y'all aren't very convincing. if
you want to change sides, I'll consider it. :>

>>> You get back what you put out.
>>
>> let's follow that assertion on your part, echoing my own....
>>
>> therefore, making spell kits available to people means that
>> whoever does so will have others offer up convenient
>> packages of (magical) goods for a reasonable price??!
>> sounds great! let's all do it. why don't you do it too?

you didn't address this.

>>> Use half assed magick, you get half assed results.
>>
>> where did the "half-assed magick" come from? how did you arrive
>> at this assessment and upon what is it based? this is the same
>> kind of thing that Wiggy was offering for us -- stupid evaluations
>> without discernable criteria based on ignorance, personal bias,
>> and a lack of experience in the field.
>
> ...Spell kits really do make for half assed magick.
> Its about energy The energy generated by a spell is so far less 
> that a ritual preformed by an acomplished adept.

how did you arrive at this conclusion and what is it that 
so convinces you that it is correct?

> All of this together makes for a much more potent bang than simply 
> dousing a voodoo doll in bourbon and burning it, saying some lame 
> rhyme with it.

obviously you have little familiarity with spells or spell kits,
by this description.

> ...If people want to learn about magick they should roll up their 
> sleaves and get to work. Not whine and make excuses. 

problems with your argument:

	a) using spell kits is a form of education
	b) you're the one doing the whining

> In this day and age, no one requires to be a member of an order. 
> All the knowedge is availible.  LEARN WHAT YOUR DOING BEFORE YOU DO IT.
> If you cant do that, then go take a knitting course, magick has no 
> place for the dabbler.

lucky charms, protective mudras, anointing oils, blessings
of protection in times of trouble, etc., are all 'dabblings'
which fit perfectly fine within folk magic. if you want to 
pretend that your magical cult is in charge of what is needed 
and not for the application of magic toward your own presumed 
goals, please understand that there will be dissention from
those whose experience is different.

> Just like The army has no place for children. Some things 
> ouy have to pay your dues before you can take part in them. 
> Magick is like that. I leanred how to play my instrument 
> before I got into my orchestra, I learned about magick 
> before I used it. Everything in life is Earned.

problems with your argument:

	a) you're complaining because people *aren't* paying
	   their dues -- they're doing the spells instead;
	   so obviously they don't "have to" pay them; ;>

	b) magic isn't controlled like armies or orchestras.
	   it can be practiced by individuals without the
	   need for your interference or glib pronouncements
	   on the "path of Magick" or what Kali wants.

>> now you're echoing him. why?

why are you continuing to echo him? you're adding very little
in the way of support for his or M's contentions. I'm
actively trying to find it in your expression, but it is
absent other than a few fitfully repeated doctrines you've
learned from the Exalted Hermetic Masters. you appear to be
easily distracted by ad hominem arguments. this displays a
failure to do your philosophy homework or your yoga, mage.

>>> Now when someone is making a fair critique about the nature
>>> of their use you jump at him ?
>>
>> where's the "fair critique"? please quote it.
>
> "...in my opinion a "spell kit" fosters a continuance
>  of unoriginality and ignorance."
> Its his opinion. Its a thesis, and its fair.

you're not getting it. an expression of opinion is not a
critique, especially when so many valuable objections can
be raised in refutation. it may be a thesis, but in its
abject generalization and vague particulars it does not
stand up to any degree of scrutiny. we're not told upon
what spell kits or experiences or whatnot it is based,
told why the experiences of others may be different, etc.

the masters said it, so it must be so?

>>>>>> Your customers may have asked you to provide spell kits, but is this
>>>>>> a good enough reason to do so?
>>>>
>>>> the question is: why wouldn't it be a good enough reason? why does
>>>>                  one NEED a reason to do it?
>>>
>>> Why does one need a reason to do anything ?
>>
>> another good question! you didn't answer ANY OF THEM.

you're avoiding these questions. why?

> I was once in a rare occult book shop. They had some great books. 
> Rare old ones. And then on the other wall a huge shelf of 
> pornography. he said to me " The occult stuff is my passion, but 
> the porn pays the rent" 

so the spell kits didn't pay the rent, the porn did. are you
generalizing from this experience to reach some sort of
logical conclusion?

> The same thing happened again to me. Down in Orilla I know a girl 
> who runs an occult shop that also sells drug paraphanellia. "The 
> head shop keeps us afloat, while the magick is what I love"

ok, so it sounds like the shopkeeps aren't selling it in order to
make a profit so much as that they *love* what they are involved
with selling. this is *undermining your contention*.

> Most magicians just sell the spell kits or whatever else to help 
> stay in bussiness, if they only could sell old grimoires and 
> special herbs and high quality ritual tools they would. But they 
> would be out of bussiness.

you just said that the magic stuff DOESN'T pay the rent. did they
say that the spell kits helped pay the rent? I am familiar with
shopkeepers who sell spell kits and whatnot because they LIKE
THEM AND CONSIDER THEM VALUABLE. these represent clear contradictions
to the two examples (if they even supported you) you provided. since
there are exceptions to your generalization (unless you are now
claiming that there are none, which would be funny), then you're
left with the fallback of explaining why shopkeepers vary in their
expressions and attitudes.

>> yet this says NOTHING about the relative value of doing so, whether
>> the kits have anything of worth to them, and whether there are
>> differentials of quality and content to them (which neither you
>> nor Wiggy has addressed).
>
> Its not the spell kist, or the quality of whats in them. 

then you aren't even paying attention to the most important aspect
of spell kit construction, because there are a whole heck of a
lot of them which probably WOULD support your contention, being
rip-offs without quality that also serve nobody in the learning
of magic. however, by generalizing you are not only incorrect,
you have misunderstood where the true value lies.

> Its the fact that they help to promote ignorance in the occult.

this has proven to be a baseless contention you have failed to
substantiate, especially in this particular incidence (where
the one to whom you are complaining goes out of her way to
educate people, customers and no, about the methods of magic
and alternatives to spell kits for those who don't want them).

>>> Its hard to function selling only to the elite.
>>
>> consider the illogic of your presumptions here. you may wish to
>> engage a more formal instruction on logic and philosophy before
>> you go much further with your 'Divine Magick'. the Divine Magick
>> Master, Aleister 'Beast' Crowley recommends a "classical education"
>> which included quite a bit of philosophic and mathematical material,
>> and your response displays obvious lack in that area.

> Crowley also claimed many times about the Magician being a tool 
> for the divine.

mystics that have been raised with fundamentalist Christian
backgrounds sometimes have a tough time letting go of the dogma.

> You must be quite impressive to determine my whole education from 
> one usenet post. Tell me more about myself, please.

there are some elements which come through, most do not.
you do alright on your own.

> I acctually have been quite classically trained. Philosophy, Theology
> Classical Orchestral Music, Studies in The romantic Era and Neo 
> Classical poetry. History, Mathematics, Sciences  I did the later 
> part of my Secondary School studying on my own, with permission from 
> the government to give me my credits providing I did the work. I 
> wanted to get out of the pathetically immature environment that high
> school never failed to provide.
>
> Remember, Im only 18 1/2 I still have much more training to go, but 
> I havent done too badly so far.

that about says it all.

>Bt lets also be fair....

naw, let's not. I've been more than fair since I arrived in the
newsgroup. sometimes I get to be UNfair too. :> you simply do
not know how many teens and newbies I've championed to those
much more caustic and rude than myself in alt.magick. to coin
a phrase "I've earned my place" and find it unnecessary to
accede to the fairness needs of those who promote Hermetic
crap without basis.

> Yeah with rarely anyone in it ever.

it gets the attention it deserves. I consider the distraction
to ethics to be meta-discussion and a foible and problem of
those who have been unduly indoctrinated by Christian norms
of ideology and philosophy. while the rest of us are trying
to exchange actual data, in come the "concerned" who are
usually wasting our time with their moral taboos and limits.

>>> They acctually do some "Bouncing", removing those who are
>>> unwanted.
>>
>> gimme time.
>
> And what does this mean? Please explain how you will remove 
> people from the newsgroup? using what methods?

if I use a spell kit will you be afraid?

nagasiva
-- 
emailed replies may be posted  -----   "sa avidya ya vimuktaye"   ----- 
"that which liberates is ignorance"  http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
    hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catalogues@luckymojo.com