Daniel

wise choice

Jews aren't afraid of demons. It's a perk.

"Then why..." What is the precondition? That comes from Jadespear's post.

all I see is an extravagant over-reaction

what did I accuse? can you quote it?

Did I say he conjures harmful demons?

yes, this is very important to you.

ok

No, the other quote. The most recent one. I suggest you re-read the post to which I was replying.

it happens all the time. People conjure their own demons so that they have something to blame. The demon answers their call and gives them something to blame. This is most commonly referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Exorcists contribute to this problem by encouraging their belief and encouraging the blaming. It's a way to setup a dependent relationship with the afflicted. Exorcists, particularly of the western-esoteric variety, tend to be charlatans very willing to accept money in return for validating their client's fears. Among amateur-exorcists, it's more of a barter system. They don't collect money, but they exchange validation for validation. The afflicted gets validation of their fears. The amateur gets validation that they have magical-powers.

I suggest you re-read what he wrote.

then, why are you conjuring harmful demons for yourself through your unwavering belief in ... harmful demons?

"Haste" or not being hasty when it's necessary. More broadly: it's choosing "or" when "and" would have produced a better outcome, and vice versa. The entities are "motives"; influencing forces. During normal, healthy cognition, each of these motives are given equal opportunity to influence executive function. In general, bad decisions are the result of one or two very strong motives over-powering, dominating, the psyche such that none of the other motives are able to express themselves. Among magicians, if that is your interest, this is a transgression of "True Will", the only law, assuming law exists. in particular, the analogy I like to use is an executive board meeting. You are the executive, the decision-maker. When there is a choice to make, an executive board meeting is called to order, in your psyche. Each of the stake-holders ( motives ) are invited to speak on behalf of their interests. As the executive, you have some authority over these motives, but, silencing them if they are out of order takes practice. Encouraging those which rarely speak up to state their case, can also be challenging. Some motives are clever, hiding behind other motives, influencing them. Some motives will scream like a baby having a tantrum, dominating the board meeting so that no other motive can be heard. If that occurs for an extended period of time, the individual begins to act like a fanatic. They are only making choices based on one pure, very noisy, dominant motivating influence for help or for harm, for themself, or for others, whether or not it's rational. The motive is "filibustering" the executive. But, it's also unhealthy and cruel to ignore the crying baby. It's in pain, something's wrong, it's noticed something that's being neglected. What I described above are the two extreme examples: on one end of the spectrum, all the motives are given "air-time" to state their case. The executive prioritizes and includes all the various motives in their actions through the prism of their, the executive's, true-will. At the other end of the spectrum, in haste, only one pure motive is being heard. Healthy cognition is a blend of these, while not excluding the extremes. High-functioning individuals make choices this way extremely rapidly for simple matters, take their time to contemplate when it's warranted, and do not hesitate to act in an emergency. Not properly distinguishing between these three, is another possible fault condition. that's half of it. that's the intellect. The psyche is both mind-and-heart, intellect-and-emotion. The executive board meeting is happening intellectually, most often sub-consciously. That is where concepts are put in their place, prioritized, and shaped. In the heart, it is very very different. if the intellect is like an executive board meeting ( or a court-room ), where motives state their case, in theory, in an orderly manner; the heart is like a garden. In a garden, all plants are expressing themselves simultaneously, not one at a time like in a court-room. The intellect, naturally bows to them, to their unique expression, which is amorphous, like a cloud, a "scent". Archetypically, this bowing of mind to heart, of intellect to emotion, is described as a father who is bowing to the sound of his wife, or his daughter, calling to him while he is reclining in his garden.. He simply must listen to them. He is surrounded by the tender work of his hands, his "precious", all of his blossoming delicacies, their aroma is everywhere. His mind is in a state where he autonomously, automatically answers their calling. And so, he is always bowing towards them. He cannot resist their "scent". That's the other half of it. That's emotion. Mind-and-heart, both are happening simultaneously, but many are only consciously aware of one or the other at one time. They do not consider both simultaneously. It's the same cognitive fault that is happening when one intellectual motive dominates the executive. The individual is in an "either/or" state-of-mind, when they would better served with a "this-and-that". It's the difference between open-minded and closed-minded, narrow contrasted with broad. But. Sometimes it's very important to listen to one and only one motive. If the house is burning down, for example. All other motives are silenced, naturally, and for good reason, behind the over-whelming pursuit to protect life and property. Why do we make bad decisions? There's several large categories of fault conditions which can occur at various layers of cognition. Almost all the fault conditions are a consequence of a misappropriation of attention, fixation or negligence, on the motivational influences which exist in the psyche. The outliers are habitual behaviors which were rewarded excessively in the past.

ok ^^ danger ^^

Francis Israel Regardie (/rɪˈɡɑːrdi/; né Regudy; November 17, 1907 – March 10, 1985) was an English and American occultist, ceremonial magician, and writer who spent much of his life in the United States. He wrote fifteen books on the subject of occultism. Born to a working-class Orthodox Jewish family in the East End of London, Regardie and his family soon moved to Washington, D.C., in the United States. Regardie rejected Orthodox Judaism during his teenage years and took an interest in Theosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jewish mysticism. It was through his interest in yoga that he encountered the writings of the occultist Aleister Crowley. Contacting Crowley, he was invited to serve as the occultist's secretary, necessitating a move to Paris, France in 1928. He followed Crowley to England before their association ended. Living in England, he wrote two books on the Qabalah, A Garden of Pomegranates and The Tree of Life. In 1934 he then joined the Stella Matutina—a ceremonial magic order descended from the defunct Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn—but grew dissatisfied with its leadership and left. He also studied psychology, being particularly influenced by ideas from Jungian psychology, and explored Christian mysticism. In 1937 he returned to the United States. Concerned that the Golden Dawn system of ceremonial magic would be lost, he published the Stella Matutina rituals in a series of books between 1938 and 1940. This entailed breaking his oath of secrecy and brought anger from many other occultists. During the Second World War he served in the U.S. Army. On returning to the U.S., he gained a doctorate in psychology before relocating to Los Angeles in 1947 and setting up practice as a chiropractor. In 1981 he retired and moved to Sedona, Arizona, where he died of a heart attack four years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Regardie

I promise I'll try not to do that, nungali.

yes, I've heard that too. And then, on the other end of the spectrum, anxiety can produce many of the same symptoms.

I've met him a few times. I helped him setup a minyan ( evening prayer service ) after one his concerts. We're in the same community, albeit on opposite sides of the country. And I love the music. I'm a fan.

I relate to all of it.

Gut response? Attorney or Accountant ( self-employed )

At it's most basic, "don't follow the crowd" is a moral imperative?

@Sir Darius the Clairvoyent, Isn't that moralizing? For example: If there are 3 transformations, then a moral choice is being made that the first 2 transformations are immoral. It seems as if moralizing is still happening, but it's happening in a new better way?

" ... You too, go now alone ... " ^^ Thou Shalt Go Alone ^^ " ... thus I want it ... " ?? imposing their will over others ?? "All" cannot be literally true. It's hyperbolic, yes? If 'all' is not literal, then perhaps 'only' is not literal either. Otherwise, this feels like coercion. Do what I say, else you will be without me. If you want me, do what I say. That's how I'm reading it. The disciple is still bound. Not free. How do you read it?

Right! What comes next?

It can be, and often is. I moralize because, moral rules are shortcuts. They make choices easier for me. As an added beneficial side-effect, when another individual adopts similar rules, we are also likely to share similar values. Having settled on my own moral code helps me navigate my circumstances.