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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.christnet.demonology,alt.magick,alt.satanism
From: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE)
Subject: Pacts With Satan (was How do i give my body to satan to use)
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:07:41 GMT

50010505 Vom Hail Satan!

  discussion concerning Kathy's inquiry about how to have give 
  Satan the use of her body for an undisclosed amount of time.

"Blue Rajah"  reflects on sample compact suggested:
>>> Neither party is obligated to fulfill their part.  Satan can use
>>> her body and then suspend the contract without fulfilling any of
>>> her desires.
>>
>> if using her body is what she *wants*, then Satan is fulfilling
>> one of her desires in the acceptance of that part of compact.
>
> If using her body is -all- she wants, then adding the clause about
> satisfying all her desires is superfluous.  

agreed.

> In fact, the whole idea of a contract under those conditions is 
> unnecessary.  You don't need a contract to declare unconditional 
> surrender.

sounded like Kathy wanted a conditional (limited to body) surrender.
there are treaties in which defeated foes sign a treaty during an
unconditional surrender (consider the Germans at end of WWs and the
Japanese at the end of WWII).

> If all she gets out of it is used, though, and that's not all she 
> wanted out of it, it's a bad deal. And there's nothing she could 
> do about it.

goes without saying. she must consider the entity with whom she is
engaging some kind of relationship (which has been my point all
along and one around which we consistently see your bias).

> So, under the hypothetical conditions you laid out, a contract is 
> still absurd.

if the conditions to which you refer are:

	* Satan is wild nature
	* Kathy wants to entreat Satan to use her body but no more
	  PLUS she expects that this will be a desirable experience

then a compact might assist Kathy in negotiating a controlled arising
of her wild nature so as to facilitate physical pleasure. where Kathy
feels impelled on a visceral level to become an *activist* for Satan,
then using her body may be beneficial to both she and to Satan.

>> however, we're really talking about satiation of desire, which
>> is different than fulfilment. an alliance with one's wild nature
>> can be of immense importance to the fulfilment of desire also.

> Wild nature isn't wild if it's allied with anything.  

I think you're mistaking constraint with alliance.

> Alliance is a binding of mutual obligation and binding destroys 
> wildness.

barriers against the effects of wilderness do not themselves 
domesticate that same wilderness. it is far more domesticating to
subdivide and destroy the elements of wilderness, subjugating and
despoiling them to the will of human desire, than merely entering
into an agreement with them as regards mutual energies and intents.

>>> I don't make contracts with entities I conjure.  They're pointless.
>>
>> perhaps we're talking about two different kinds of entity.
>
> I think I understand what you say about Satan being one's wild nature.  
> Am I misunderstanding you?

Satan is not only one's wild nature (i.e. personal), but also wild
nature exterior to human bodies (i.e. what is called 'wilderness').
the latter in particularly is not 'conjured', and the former, while
encountered or summoned up in oneself or manifested, identified,
whatever, is typically not described as 'conjured' (as 'fabricated
as if out of thin air or drawn to a particular container as in a
triangle during Solomonic demon-summoning).

>> I have not "conjured" Satan, I have discovered Hir. that you
>> mayn't perceive Hir as independent doesn't affect my
>> interests in making  a compact. in fact, if more of us made
>> pacts with Satan we'd enjoy a far more compassionate world.

> Making a pact with an entity which will do exactly as it chooses, 
> without regard for you in the slightest, is useless.  Your 
> expectations of its behavior mean nothing to it.  It's -wild-, see?  
> It recognizes no bounds or obligations of any kind, including your 
> silly compacts.  Wild things don't make deals.  If they did, they 
> would be tame things.

in the internal boundarilands where tame and wild cross and mutate,
a pact might facilitate increased cooperation between the two where
conflict presently exists. presuming that there is some kind of
absolute DISTINCTION between the personal and the external is part
of what I'd call 'the problem', and consign those who prefer to
dwell on it to the difficulties of their preferences.

a pact between a person and some aspect of themselves could obviously
be of valuable (the presumption is that some negotiation room may be
found, regardless of your simplistic pact-makes-domestic assertion),
whereas a pact/alliance between a person and some aspect of the world 
could *also* be valuable, even if the only aspect of the world which 
is affected by the alliance is the person making the pact.

the only real objection you could make here that would be meaningful
to me is that having a pact with the external wild Satan would not
likely lead to a satiation of personal desire, and yet this is based
on the absolute distinctions you have apparently already presumed --
ones with which Kathy may or may not agree (obviously I am asserting
that any such absolute distinction is damaging to the person making it
by virtue of its destruction of holistic and integrative regard).

blessed beast!

boboroshi@satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
-------------------------------------------------------
Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
TOKUS (http://www.satanservice.org/)

Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail
From: nagasiva 
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.christnet.demonology,alt.magick,alt.satanism
Subject: Pacts and Legality (was How do i give my body to satan to use)
Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net
Lines: 50
Sender: yronwode@sonic.net
Message-ID: <9d25f4$cra@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <20010322010102.08333.00000260@ng-mn1.aol.com> <9b6ao2$ubi@bolt.sonic.net>  <%tGB6.6323$lJ2.3718737@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com> <9bav95$m0g@bolt.sonic.net> <3ad921dc.71476458@news-server> <9crjsi$g6j@bolt.sonic.net> <3af22d75.81286845@news-server>
Reply-To: nagasiva@yronwode.com
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV)
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:22:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 989108568 208.201.224.36 (Sat, 05 May 2001 17:22:48 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:22:48 PDT
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:27106 alt.pagan.magick:26722 alt.christnet.demonology:12617 alt.magick:242323 alt.satanism:175063

50010505 Vom Hail Satan! Lucky Five Day!

steelwolf@mmcable.com (The Steel Wolf) regarding boboroshi's example pact:
>>> If I were to enter into a contract--a legal agreement--such as this,
>>> I would certainly expect all of the terms and conditions to be
>>> included therein.

(SOD of CoE) scripsit:
>> since we each are the highest authorities, it can hardly be, 
>> in conventional terminology 'a legal agreement'.

steelwolf@mmcable.com (The Steel Wolf):
> Then it might be best not to refer to it as a contract, a pact, or any
> other such term which denotes a binding agreement, such as has been
> done thus far in the thread.  Perhaps it would be most accurate to
> refer to it as a mutual understanding.

pact, alliance, treaty, these are all reasonable terms for what I am
describing, and my pact is especially applicable amongst sovereigns.

>>> Yet a contract is unlike a magical oath in that the terms of the
>>> contract are flexible and open for negotiation.

>> this is as much true for magical oaths to organizations, though
>> the organizations would probably like you to think yourself
>> constrained to the terms it desires.
>
> There's an important difference between not being entirely constrained
> to an oath that one has taken and negotiating the terms of such an
> oath before agreeing to it.  Whereas I was referring to the latter,
> you seem to be referring to the former.

where the terms are ambiguous, the negotiation is subject to the
discretion of the participants. the oath one has taken is not at
all specific or may be specified in symbolic language, and in the
case of the example pact, is an alliance of intention specified
in generalities. 

the range of pacts extends from those required by dominating agents
(as that signed by Japan post-WWII) to a blood pact shared with
one's ally (which requires no binding, instead ACKNOWLEDGING one's
agreed shared values and loyalty -- breaking the pact breaks the
alliance and demonstrates a difference of interest to the act of
taking it; i.e. no consequences are NECESSARY -- cf. marriage/divorce).

blessed beast!

boboroshi@satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director,
Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
TOKUS (http://www.satanservice.org/)

Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail
From: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.christnet.demonology,alt.magick,alt.satanism
Subject: Contracts, Pacts, and Perspective (was How do i give my body to satan to use...)
Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net
Lines: 77
Sender: yronwode@sonic.net
Message-ID: <9d2jv3$hns@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <20010322010102.08333.00000260@ng-mn1.aol.com> <9b6ao2$ubi@bolt.sonic.net>  <3AD7F5C2.60BBC368@earthlink.net>  <9bb2i1$45t@bolt.sonic.net>  <9crm17$l0k@bolt.sonic.net>  <3AF200E4.3D80@luckymojo.com>  <3AF36452.78E3@luckymojo.com>
Reply-To: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE)
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV)
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 04:30:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 989123416 208.201.224.36 (Sat, 05 May 2001 21:30:16 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:30:16 PDT
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:27113 alt.pagan.magick:26730 alt.christnet.demonology:12623 alt.magick:242351 alt.satanism:175074

50010505 Vom Law of Fives Day!  Hail Satan!

boboroshi:
>>>>> without trust that the participants will fulfill their part,
>>>>> outside a social system or some cosmological hierarchy one
>>>>> cannot make strictly legal contracts at all...

Blue Rajah:
>>>> It is -only- under conditions of mistrust that contracts are
>>>> necessary at all.

sri catyananda :
>>> To some people -- such as yourself -- contracts ipso facto
>>> imply a lack of trust between the parties.
>>>
>>> To other people -- as [bobo] expressed -- a contract can or
>>> should only entered into when a certain level of trust is reached
>>> between the parties and that trust extends beyond the two
>>> parties to the legal system under which one operates -- that is,
>>> the parties must trust the police or courts to be fair and
>>> unprejudiced with regard to the parties.
 
Blue Rajah:
>> We're not talking absolutes here.  A certain amount of trust must be
>> present before a contract can be useful, but for a contract to be
>> necessary, a certain amount of distrust must also be present.

not always for 'blood pacts', which are sometimes made between
individuals to symbolize and cement more firmly agreed areas of
absolute trust. that is, no distrust is necessary for this type
of pact. cf. 'blood brotherhood' in your dictionary.
 
>>> A third paradigm -- not expressed by either of you -- is that
>>> contracts in and of themselves have positive value as
>>> profoundly symbolic tokens of already given and received trust.
>> 
>> Like marriage vows?
>> Consider divorce decrees. 

origins in chattel and property-exchange.

sri catyananda :
> The third view of contracts i gave [is] the view that they are rituals 
> for symbolizing trust.... Your statement, that contracts imply mistrust 
> between the parties, is not often found among Jews, probably because 
> their religio-culutral values are formed around the concept of "a contract
> with God."  

this seems somewhat a Jewish vs Christian thing where there are uproars
about it. e.g. there is an attitude in Solomonic magic that archangels,
the divine, etc., can be expected to perform according to a specific set
of rules, and that this set of rules can be used to one's advantage.

> Further, as Marc and i have noticed, Jews also tend to
> strongly oppose siva's statements that one needs a social organization
> (viz. courts and police) to enforce contracts, 

it wasn't that I contended this, but that such a force is FEARED by
those who question the wisdom of making pacts with demonic entities,
or with what they believe (usually on Babylonian standards) to be
Satan.

> In fact, many Jews
> believe that such social institutions will NOT help a Jew in a contract
> dispute against a non-Jew -- that racial prejudice will obviate any form
> of legal enforcement of the contract -- and thus they tend to only enter
> into contracts with those whom they already trust -- NOT with those whom
> they distrust -- especially non-Jews. 

yes, there is a spectrum involved. the stereotypical 'blood brotherhood'
appears to be an example of contracts amongst those with complete trust.

blessed beast!

boboroshi@satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director,
Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
TOKUS (http://www.satanservice.org/)