The notion that JS Thompson is echoing in these quotes is that magic is simply a methodology to alter the natural world to fit the desires of the practitioner. That 'primitives' wanted to manipulate nature, alter her to do their magical bidding, no matter the cost. In contrast to these 'savages', most modern (and Christian) philosophers would argue that their own longing for God is different, since it simply accepts the will of their deity in the world without any further pretension of changing its creation. This fatalist idea is a pure concoction of the Reformers, albeit an interesting one. But how does that square with the fact that primitives are also further accused of worshipping nature to the point of focusing all of their rites on appeasing her? Said pantheist tend to be obsessive about making sure that all of their rubrics conform to basic notions of naturalness so that her forces assist in providing the needed 'fortune'. How can 'primitives' be accused of simultaneously desiring to adore and rape their mother?

The clue to this conundrum lies in the dialectics of idealism and immanentism. To the Abrahamic systems, their god is a transcendental and simple essence, he can only be immanent through energies or creations. Nature to them is thus a creature, an object that is there to serve the will of their god. To the 'animists', the deity is absolutely immanent and thus active in every particle and object in their universe. Nature per se is a living being that cannot be 'overcome', it is a living being composed of innumerable emanations and manifestations. 

The shamanic magician wishes to communicate, commune and participate in the metaphysical dynamics of existence, not simply play with them as a child would a toy. The Abrahamic magician, on the other hand, wishes to know the operations of creation so that he can both navigate it and overcome it entirely. The modern scientist is basically a skeptical Abrahamist. 

​As above, none below!

When judged at the court of the Mighty Osiris, your 'jeb' (heart soul) is placed on a scale against the feather of Maat, the goddess of justice, morality, and religion. If the heart was found to be heavier than Maat's feather your soul will be given a second and permanent death. On the other hand, if your soul is found to be in balance with goodness, justice and truth, it will be given eternal life (at least in theory, since there are plenty of perils in the afterlife).

What I find interesting is the fact that the considerations given here are either to a balanced heart or a guilty heart; but what happens to the heart that is lighter than the feather, tipping the scale in the opposite direction? Is it impossible to fathom a heart that is purer than the epitome of purity? The balance methodology is being used by the gods (the curiosity persists as a metaphor, since there are plenty of other obvious alternatives), so it must occur to all the gods assembled that it could definitely go the other way. What happens then? I am yet to encounter a spell that addresses this possibility but it would probably involve pulling down the initiate down to 'earth'.

It is key to understand also that the entire transaction does permit trickery, since the initiate is allowed to utilize the scarab amulet to silence his heart from betraying his secrets and past sins at his tribunal, albeit giving enough information to make sure the scale balances out accordingly. But again...what happens if the initiate decides to conceal too much and tilts the scale in the complete opposite direction?

Balance, it seems, is a higher value than good. It also seems to be key to the magical art of concealment and misdirection.

Nonetheless, the very notion that things could be unbalanced in the favor of righteousness is apparently too crazy of an idea to take seriously by those who journey to the land of the dead.

There are plenty of ancient world "demons" that I find interesting and Pazuzu has never disappointed me. One aspect that usually remains unexplored is the fact that he was utilized in protective (apotropaic) amulets. Across countless cultures, entities of this sort, no matter how nasty, were seen as possible allies in the fight against even nastier opponents, including the powers of disease and dangers of childbirth.

The similitudes between Pazuzu and Vayu (in the Vedas) are quite obvious, similar associations have been made with the Egyptian Set. These are interesting connections that are quite worthy of study, but beyond this is the fact that the hard dialectic that still overcomes most modern people when any demon is mentioned was simply not there in the traditional mindset. Gods and demons were perceived as entities with diverse temperaments and personalities, this meant that any of them could sometimes be "good" or "bad" depending on the occasion and the mood. We should hence keep always an open mind to the fact that archetypal descriptions are not enough to know the actual metaphysical person, it requires actual exchanges with it, and this is impossible to reconstruct. I have plenty of times heard those who say that the Norse didn't call out to Loki for help with leikn (female personifications of plague and pestilence) as if this implies that said culture was somehow "moral" and "civilized" but can't forget that most of what we know about any of those myths comes directly from the pen of Christian descendants of those who actually practiced those magical systems. Again, 'scientific' reconstruction is absurdly problematic.

Finally, an important observation is the fact that the animal components from which most of these beings were seemingly composed of had plenty of philosophy to communicate. Animals were mostly seen as forces that represented the power of material reality itself, they were beings that functioned in a perfect coordination of instinct and timelessness. The interchangeability that animals pointed to in their generational consistency gave the cultists a sense of awe and reverence that could only be a manifestation of the divine. It is not simply a symbol, it is communicating an entire perception of existence.

​We would be wise to reflect on these things more often.

This is from the foot notes of ES Drower's book on the Nasorean Gnostics. As it can be clearly seen, the notions involved here are almost identical to the ones seen in the Vedic tradition, in which the Maha Purusha (Vishnu in most traditions) is the physical manifestation of the entire cosmos. We are thus living 'inside' Vishnu. This notion is also found in the Norse conception, albeit Odin and his two brothers kill the Maha Purusha (Ymir) and form the universe from his corpse. 

Metaphysically, these notions may conflict with the gnostic notions of creation, since the idea that we live inside 'God' could be seen in a positive fashion, unless this physical manifestation is itself evil and thus killing it to form reality would make sense. It is fair to wonder if the killing of the god in question is a gnostic echo or simply an understanding that material reality itself is chthonic and disturbingly static.