I have a bad feeling about this, there is no way this thread is not going to devolve into shitposting and role-playing
Been listening to a few thelema audiobooks lately, as well as learning more about the history around that time. Mostly because in the podcast about cults that I listen to a fuck ton of cult leaders rip off aspects from thelema ether in part or in whole. It comes up almost as often as some off-shoot of Christianity comes up.
So I figured it was high time for me to learn more and go beyond Aleister Crowley on the subject.
>It already begins
Yup, this is not going to go well.
Any chance you can cite reference material or use standardized versions of terms.
What you are trying to say doesn't really come across because you are using a redefined personal definition of nearly every word in every sentence, which makes it require guess work and assumption to arrive at any conclusion regarding meaning.
Not seeking to fight, just to understand your actual point rather than guess.
What is reality? One idea said it is concepts coming together as forms. But some forms are real and some are unreal. And some are in-between. What makes some things exist and some things not exist? Try to meditate on it. What I saw was the viewer which possesses no concepts at all. Therefore I call it silence, or void, or the fifth element Quintessence.
Circle = void. 0
Square = matter. 0 made manifest.
How is 0 made manifest? This is the key to magic. I am meditating on it. Possibly tied to perceiving. Must isolate the act of "being" and dissect it.
Ego is all concepts of the self, could be called the soul.
Matter is forms that are highly static compared to others. It's a spectrum between matter things and idea things.
Psycho-surgery is altering the ego, or psyche, or soul. All refer to the same thing.
Is this copy paste from a book or something?
storehouse consciousness, qualia, theory of perception/reality creation, philosophical zombie.>>50690
What he saying is that reality is made by the consciousness interpreting what it hears/sees/feels. To make something real, you must think it to be (reaffirm it), and doing so is an act that you must actively do (you can't reaffirm things passively, therefore trials must be taken to actively reinforce an idea). Ehen the vonsciousness that you hold and who you actually physically are intersect, you are in a specific reality (you aren't fantasizing and your mind is actually with you), then you'd better make sure you anchor your vonsciousness to your actual self to create an anchor, so your sense of vonsciousness doesn't get lost in your visualizations. Therefore the idea of ego death is kinda vontraptoductive, since you lose your anchor point to the real reality.
Visualization is in essence making things somewhat real based on the idea that you are able to feel what you imagine/visualize just as you would feel things your "real world" senses would, things like imaging with your eyes, but also things like emotions felt. Thus, with them being able to create such feelings, they would stand to be called partially real.
Magic eould be the next step, where things get a bit more realer as they would start to affect the "real world".
The idea that is the law of attraction is not so great, since the concept is not changing the core of a situation or a person, but is stuck on a conceptual idea level in the mind, and it confuses personal desire for the "essence" of something (desire to be helpful vs actually being helpful). Too much personality can seep into the process with the law of attraction.
Matter exists in the real world, but it is non manipulatable from zhe stage of the mind (in essence, just because you wish a hard object to be strong it will not be).
The idea would be to form thought into material/make things imagined or visualized real. (Whenever he thinks in terms of actual physical embodiment of magic or just using it as a way to describe it, not sure)
Dreams are irrevelant since the consciousness is not present actively during it. During luvid dreams however, consciousness IS present and thus the ability to actively change the self, personality, etc, is possible. The problem is that while actively lucid dreaming, the consciousness is cut from the real world and the physical. Astral projection may be circumvent this problem.
I'll try to translate again.
What he means is that "reality" as is could be intercahngable, considering that one could interpret given form as visualized. While some ideas may have been given "form", they still remain "not real" or "partially real" in the real reality. Given that idea, why is it that certain things that are properly given form are not real, versus things that are.
There is a 5th element as the concept of consciousness does not fit under the first four, and this exact element is the consciousness.
Consciousness is the void.
Material is either vonsciousness itself made manifest or alternatively, it is through the consciousness that we become aware and thus "create" material.
The key to magic lies in how our consciousness and how it "creates" the material world, most likely through the act of percieving. I must try to isolate and distill the feeling of being at it's most basic level to further learn of this process.
Ego is a collective of things that relate to our conacious selves, therefore it could potentially be the soul itself.
Matter is solid and static in contrary to ideas which are malliable. If that is the case, the idea to put things on a matter of spectrum.between the two ends would suffice to help categorize things.
"psycho surgery" is an act where one creates a deliberate change in one's own ego, self, psyche or soul, all of which are the same thing called differebt names.
Now that I'm done translating, these ideas of course are very rough. Personally, the idea that self or just the ego is the soul rings contrary to my own ideas. As you further disect yourself into smaller and smaller parts, you will naturally seperate even more stuff. Whenever that will include your idea of souls equal ego, I of course cannot tell. In any case, look into storagehouse consciousness. Once you experience the most peeled back state of existing, some things will probably be made much clearer to you (mostly about the relation of the layers of self that exists).
If I may, and you aren't the only one at fault here, but I feel like too many people focus on the i ternal, yet fail to properly establish their own parts. The idea that "I am just me" will not suffice if you are on a path to study internal reality. That would be like trying to drive and repair(by yourself) a vehicle that you don't even know the method of working. There's no real mechanic you can take yourself to for repairs, so I feel it imperative that otgers too realize how they work before they atart to dwelve too deep ibto themselves.
That and you are too focused on the inwardity of personal realities. If you didn't already, I'd recommend investigating the "why" of the static nature of Materia, and what mechanics does the external reality express over the internal. You will also probably find that helpful.
>your successes and failures with magic(k)
Until very recently I was stuck in a rut since last december and couldn't effect anything, even the simplest things I used to easily do and couldn't figure it out. This whole year was devoted to that puzzle and taught me about chakra blockages. It turns out I was suffering one, big time. I successfully identified it and its cause and literally immediately after resolving it my power returned in full. I was on quite a roll for almost a week this october, I even mostly healed the cavities in one of my really bad teeth. Then a series of traumatizing things happened and knocked me back off balance. This has all been a profound learning experience and demystifies very many experiences in the history of my magick. I just wish it didn't need to take so damn long. And I wish I weren't so sensitive to the bad things in this world. Going forward from this point will be a job of either insulating myself even more from reality (and the internet), or learning not to be so sensitive. It won't be easy.
Well soul can sometimes mean the center of a thing. In that case the soul is separate and equivalent to the fifth element consciousness. I think a big issue is many of these words have many different meanings.
But as to the nature of the center of consciousness, I see it as completely concept-less. Meaning that it even lacks the self-other duality. Of course this seems to imply a sort of monism but I can't say for sure if this is so due to the difficulty of interpreting the nature of something with no definition. But the moment a thing differentiates itself from other things in any way, it seems that it must have taken on a concept other than the Quintessence. The Quintessence thus being filtered through these concepts, "looking" through them so to speak; it's like if you drive a car you get empathy for the car and if you're a professional driver you may feel like you are the car eventually. It's another layer to your being, same thing as personality and unconscious factors I suppose. Problem is with the manipulation of the primal I-point, if you completely do away with the self what happens is you die. So yes it's important to know your self, but I think it's best to look at it from a dissociated viewpoint so as not to be distracted or misled by the various machinations of the self. For example when I look at myself from inside my self my mind actions tend to go on a deterministic loop and I get no info, but then if I remove the I from my self too much it just shuts down.
I am also curious as to how exactly the self is bound to the brain. How physical patterns relate to non physical things like personality.
Do you keep a journal/log?
It would have been a lot easier on yourself if you had such a basic tool.
Have you tried using chakras in your practice? Does it improve your efficacy at all?
I'm of the position that the concept of chakras work by abstracting a complex idea into a simple one, so that when the simple idea is manipulated you are in actuality working with the complex idea which is harder to grasp or effect in its unfiltered state with normal consciousness. Similar theory regarding sigils and rituals.
Memories are subjective and can be easily changed after the event.
Logs are static snapshots into a perticular event. Good ones relay information and data in objective detail.
It is one of the most fundimental and important tools of any magician in almost every kind of magickal practice. You are doing a great deal of harm and hardship in not having one no matter how good you think your memory is.
What's your method?
That has almost nothing to do with what is being talked about and isn't at all relevant.
With what you said about chakras I'd hypothesize that some sort of non-physical organ is used for manifestation. I wonder if you could override or fix the determining factors by finding this organ/chakra using passive visualization and powering it up or balancing it. Could be used for mundane emotional transmutation as well, I've had good success using chakra points for that; instigating a building pressure in my solar plexus to counteract anxiety and such. Works for hiccups too.
Also I think that the placebo effect is actually a primitive form of magic. It works even on infants according to how the medicine it's imitating should work, and is highly dependent on the physician's beliefs. This is why "double-blindness" is so important, the efficacy of placebos is greatly reduced if the doctor doesn't think that it's going to work.
You said you had proof and now you are picking fights and poisoning the well when someone then ask for the thing you said you have.
I have been nothing but civil in this thread while you have tried to sow discord.
If you don't have proof don't say you do.
I don't think you know what empirical evedence or proof is, of which you have nether.
Look up what both terms mean, then if you realize you don't have any proof or evedences then don't say you do.
If you do have such proof or empirical evedence then present it.
That is all there is to be said on the matter.
What guy is probably doing is creating thoughtforms which act to affect causal chains and bring desired results. Experiment regarding this is, conceptualize an idea thing and move consciousness into it, you should feel different. You can tell from this the nature of the thought. What is the difference between changing thoughts existing in the brain and thoughts existing in the external world? Both thought things are attached to real objects, should both be manipulatable. Key is finding the point of consciousness, knowing how to look through it. This is probably the purpose of no-mind meditation practices, so if the mind is shut down you can see where you're looking from.
>you can see how repeating a phrase or image in your head is unlikely to do that.
Yes this is key. I see lots on 'visualization', but the process is tricky to grasp. It's not like making a painting, look to your dreams for examples, those are essentially visualizations. Real life is too but we're so used to it the process is difficult to grasp. You're not 'making' an object you're 'seeing' an object, need to perceive the core being of the thing and this is not done through brute force mind-painting but subtle open-mind-seeing.
For changing reality, one needs to grasp the process of change itself. Most simple is moving the body, isolate the active change thing. Not a feeling, feeling is passive, results from the active. Feeling is being, what causes being, that's what you use.
I don't enjoy how, within the four elements chart (lower left-hand), the seasons list "Summer, Autimn, Spring, Winter". It should be, "Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring". It suggests that Winter is Earth andSpring is Air. Simply not true, those should be switched.
As well, how does one contend with the non-euclidean imagery? Scholars discern the left and right side, yet supply the forward-facing Vitruvian Man, labeling the left and right as we see it, not as the Man experiences it.
If the Vitruvian Man were facing the direction as we are, observing, this would then make sense.
I heard about some people closing their eyes and touching the rowan tree to get the energy. However, it seems to be as effective as curing hemorrhoids with putting a cucumber to the anus.
The first part of your post is incomprehensible to me because you're using a lot of unknown terms and we probably mean different things by "thought". I'd be interested in an elaboration.
>It's not like making a painting, look to your dreams for examples, those are essentially visualizations.
"Visualization" is a bad word for it then, because it implies a flat image. The process which you're describing is akin to being "embodied" fully in a sensory experience with all of the perceptual details. Instead of "projecting" a certain image, it's really about "letting in", "perceiving" all the vivid details of a constructed internal experience in order to somehow construct new "higher-order knowledge" from low-level perceptual information. Effectively, even though you're not letting in any new "knowledge" from the world, you're still able reorganize existing structures by (de)composing higher-order "knowledge" into/from very basic, low-level perceptual "knowledge".
For instance, you might remember a situation in your mind in terms of basic sensory information and certain salient details in the environment. From this "knowledge", you can "perceive" new "knowledge" through an internal embodiment/enactment that's made possible by your initial memory of the situation. This happens a lot when people remember a situation and then acquire new interpretations and perspectives. I believe the key question here is what is "perception" really? It's not merely receiving stimuli from the world, it's a much more complex process of attaching various things to it, going from something completely neutral to a qualitative experience colored by our goals, values, ideas etc.
In that way, I could see how "visualization" might actually cause change, but it's important to understand that any change in relation to the mind can only happen in the form of "knowledge" (neurologically, in the form of memories). Of course, physical changes to the brain can also happen which might cause all kinds of neurological reorganization but we are talking about natural change and the brain's natural neuroplasticity, not lobotomies.
I fully acknowledge the power of such tools as mantras and "visualization" but they're very vague and blunt when you do not understand their effectiveness. Similarly, "meditation" can mean a million different things but people act like it doesn't matter how you do it and focus on posture or breathing instead of the infinite possible mental processes one could apply. That's why it's important to be very precise when describing these internal processes, creating "recipes" and sharing them with others so that they might study them and relay that experience back. Saying you're doing "visualization" describes a part of the experience but there is infinite possible ways this tool can be applied, hence the confusion of others and lack of ability to shit-test your own practice through them.
Is the purpose to improve the general heuristic?
Spontaneous creation of coziness negates the need for a quality heuristic.
Is the purpose to find the source of the heuristic?
Ouroboros searching for his head by eating his tail.
Is the purpose to gain supernatural powers?
Casting magic missile at the darkness.
Is the purpose to bolster the ego?
Clubbing yourself to death with giant chicken legs.
Is the purpose to pass the time?
More efficient to enter a coma.
Is the purpose to find the purpose?
Bring your fleshlight to illuminate the way.
Is the purpose?
hope you're prepared for lots of this type of bullshit.
The end result
Every thing that can be perceived in any way is real in a sense.
Perceiving is passive, that is a reception of information.
Being is active, that is a transmission of information.
All things that exist in reality both receive information (are affected) and transmit information (affect others). Reality is a matrix of information.
What separates the self from the other is information. Boundaries, affirmations and rejections of what constitutes the object in question. All information can manipulated due to its ability to receive transmissions from other information.
To visualize something is to perceive it. Since you can perceive it it's real, but it may not exist in the physical reality that you know because of its information attributes. This picture alone is impotent, but it is a vital step. Because the thing in question exists, it is actively asserting its existence; it is performing actions. So are 'you'.
So, what needs to be done is 'you' need to manipulate 'yourself' so that 'you' have some causal connection to the thing that is being perceived. Now yourself consists of a multitude of different forms; personalities, personas, desires, etc. I don't know how other people do it, but what I've done is found a form within myself that I have labeled my 'core self'. Actually I'm not even sure that it was originally a part of my self, for all I know I just discovered it and connected somehow. Anyway, through the nature of its being it is able to use its active information transmission to affect other parts of my self. This way, a connection can be established to the perception that is being visualized and the attributes of the object can be affected.
Interesting, that's pretty close to my views as well.
Would you describe your core as another aspect of yourself (just as say personality, feeling, etc) or do you mean it in more of a succint meaning, like the "experience of ecistence"? I myself lean towards the latter, but I am curious of how someone thinking similiarly feels.
I think that the most basic someone can be reduced to is "existence" as an inner shell upon which the outer reality (read the layer of information) is slowly molded and projecred onto by the many layers of filters that are in place (outer senses, inner senses, personalities, memories, etc). I think that the utmost "reality" or layer foes solely contain information only in it's purest form, but I also believe that the most internal one is not in direct contrast to this, rather it is a screen upon which these filters project upon.
Taking the filters away will also reduce the warping made by the interpretative nature of our existence. I do wonder if given the ability to completely remove one's filters would make one enter the realm of information itself as well.
Wizardly thread (unironically). Please proceed.
>>50774>Would you describe your core as another aspect of yourself (just as say personality, feeling, etc) or do you mean it in more of a succint meaning, like the "experience of ecistence"?
I would say that it is the part of my self that is highest on the causal chain I can get before exiting what is conceptualized as my self.
Every thing that exists needs to be actively perpetuated in order to exist. Thus, the common thread that feeds into the psychic objects that make up the self is the quintessential core. Existence is fed into filters, these filters receive impulses, as that is experience. The core itself can't really 'see' but it can 'be', that is it can inject its point of view into things which are passive to it.
David Myatt is another character you might be interested in but some of views are kind of lame now.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Will check him out.
Hmm, as far as I could boil it down to it's essentially what constitutes what is inside the barrier that you are. The "I am me" statement. It's the thing that makes you feel through your own senses and not others. Kind of a "first person-ness" of the existence, which defines your existence as an individual seperate from the enviroment (including other people not you). As far as I experimented with it, it is a part of the self that is the tabula rasa, and the rest of the internal and external mechanics are what creates a specific personalized reality for it to comprehend. As far as my idea of it goes, it's role is that of a viewer of the filtered reality.
In my idea the mechanics behind it actively perpetrating itself lays more in line with the chaos (existence) versus law (inevitable death/destruction, non existence).
Chaos in general is a self generating, just like how life (generally) is as well. In my head, it's similiar to a fire that continues to always spread towards new fuel to sustain itself. Just as everything in existence acts and is acted upon, I believe the fact of existence is the baseline towards establishing the why and how of the nature of this perpetuum. Of course, this is in general. If you were to single out a single existence, the law side will take over, as everything will be dead and/or reduced to dust in the end, but the general level, it's not so easily claimable. Many people are already dead, and many of us will be dead by the time those ahead of us will be theoretically born.
But I went on a tangent about my other beliefs. In any case, while I agree that anything in existence must actively enforce itself, my opinion differs on that I think that life exists unto itself/for it's own. That's probably the reason why I lean more towards the idea that this most base part of you disctint from any of the things that make up your human self (meaning senses, personality, etc).
I think finding out where the action of moving my arm originates is essential to understanding magic. Where and how do my actions originate, and up to where do I have an influence.
So I'm investigating that.
What method are you using to investigate right now?
>>50773>Perceiving is passive, that is a reception of information.
Everything I've read about perception tells me that this isn't the case. We do not passively receive stimuli. Firstly, we are very selective about it because of our limited cognitive capacity - the best case scenario of taking in the entirety of reality is impossible, therefore it's important to take in only what is "relevant". Secondly, information is in itself neutral, but through the process of perception we give quality to it i.e. subjective experience.
A person "transmitting" information to another person relies on the other person "attaching" the right quality i.e. "meaning" to it. A language is a set of verbal symbols we use to communicate with others, a shared subjective space of symbols used to refer to "things" in the world, an imperfect tool but gets the job done most of the time. You can see its limitation in this thread considering even though we are all speaking English, we do not have a proper shared subjective space so we're largely talking past each other. All of your words have meaning in English but they are referring to private internal events that I have no conception of.
>>50785>Unimpressed? Yeah well, I thought I made clear that it's just my method, not the whole of what's involved. There's a lot of stuff underlying it, where the real action is, that makes it effective.
Well, I'm listening, get into the actual details. It's like describing how to draw by saying to just move your pencil while it's touching the paper.
>Maybe you're into ceremonial magick and don't think that a simple way like mine can do anything? I don't know. I'm not sure what "essentially nothing" even means really……
I mean that it's vague and fairly cliche ("just think positively"). Describe the actual internal process.
>If I were just changing my psyche (tried that), then my magick would fall under simple explanation of the placebo effect,
Changing the psyche isn't only about changing beliefs. Those are fairly high-level cognitions that are an expression of a more fundamental internal structure. Like you've described, even though you had strong beliefs in your success, you were still unable to engage in proper action or only very ineffectively. You've conceptualized that as a "chakra block" but there's a lot more to the psyche than surface-level phenomena like thoughts or beliefs. A proper change in the internal structure would result in removing such internal conflict and even redirecting psychic energy in the preferred direction of your conscious goals.
A "placebo" occurs when a person perceives a positive cue (in terms of a goal) which results in a positive emotional valence which then the person takes as another positive cue resulting in a positive feedback loop. This state is temporary and volatile because it doesn't result in any actual change to the structure of the psyche, only a heightened affect as a result of the person perceiving a positive state of their goals. "Placebo" effects usually occur within drug tests or any situation where a person might perceive the cue of positive affect as a sign of their goals going positively i.e. "I feel good, therefore the drug is working" -> increased affect -> "I feel great, therefore the drug is working" -> etc.
The placebo falls apart the moment the person perceives a negative cue which breaks the feedback loop. In certain cases, a placebo could get you far but it's essentially gambling that a negative cue won't occur or that you'll be so zoned out that you don't perceive it. People are able to fire themselves up for a moment but as soon as they see any signs of failure, it breaks down. There's an exception for goals that have vague or abstract cues, where positive affect is your only information that your goal is doing well - in those cases a placebo would be beneficial since a negative cue is unlikely to occur.>>50789
Not him, but there's no such thing as proof in this case, because he's either talking about internal private experiences or metaphysical crap, none of which we have the proper tools to study or even describe. At best, you can judge it on personal experimentation, but even then you're "just doing it wrong" or "there's more to it".
>>50794>Firstly, we are very selective about it because of our limited cognitive capacity - the best case scenario of taking in the entirety of reality is impossible, therefore it's important to take in only what is "relevant". Secondly, information is in itself neutral, but through the process of perception we give quality to it i.e. subjective experience.
Both processes still require an input of some sort, primal information clay to work with and form into beliefs.
Something I've realized. Whenever I have successfully manifested my will, it has never been difficult to do. Not once. It's more like knowing for sure that the thing is happen, kind of feeling reality change. I must conclude that whenever I slip into pushing hard for manifestation, I am wasting energy.
When you close off those inputs, that's when you can truly see how much perception is an active process. People in a sensory deprivation tank report seeing all kinds of illusions, even when nothing is there, the mind still actively constructs images, sounds, sensations etc. Who knows how much of your perception is "reality" and how much it's constructed, ways your mind saves time and energy by filling in the blanks, how it colors your subjective experience based on your ideas, goals and previous experience. The mind is not a passive receiver, it's actively creating your experience of the world.
I'm of the opinion that the myriad of psychic forms that make up the mind each have the ability to passive receive and to actively transmit. Many transmit to other parts of the mind, some receive from external patterns.
>>50794>Not him, but there's no such thing as proof in this case
That has kind of been my point all the long.
That dude shouldn't say he has proof when he clearly doesn't.
But he is hyper defensive and egotistical so being direct about it isn't the way to go.
Please keep discussion about potential rule-breaking behavior in /meta/
Plain introspection while having that in mind.
If you lie down and consciously put the perception of your actions (how it feels to do something) in the same category as other perceptions (things you aren't doing), you can get some pretty neat effects. Sometimes it feels like I'm instantly transitioning into a dream state while doing this for some reason.
I wish you luck in your examinations and hope you keep us posted on your progress.
Very useful. I tried this and it's very easy to cause digestive organs to contract and such. Tried manipulating body heat, was more effective than usually but still felt a lot of resistance.
Coincidentally, right after trying out your technique I found a book on Zen Buddhism (Dropping Ashes on the Buddha) that deals a lot with the phenomenon of doing things and existing vs non existing.
Realization on thoughtforms.
That is, imaginary objects used to create change.
One, doesn't seem that the empty mind source of consciousness (source of being) can actually directly make changes to objects very effectively. What it can do is cause objects to act in ways that they are capable of acting. So the solution to this is to create objects with a purpose to make change in extant objects.
Big mistake: first instinct in making thoughtforms is to just imagine things really vividly. That doesn't work, or not consistently at least. What you need to do is assume the empty mind consciousness. How to do this is, you need to dissociate from your mind and body and personality until it feels that you are watching your mind and body and personality as an external viewer. From this point it's easy to make yourself do things you're normally able to do, but not things you're unable to do. It's easy to say change your mood or do tedious things easily, but nothing supernatural. To accomplish magic, you need to make a new thing to view and control. It's important that you don't slip into the point of view of yourself while doing this, that's a common mistake that often trips me up. Approach it so that the you that is viewing empathizes (becomes) just as much with the spell-form as the form that is your body and mind. Equate the feelings the spell is feeling with the feelings you feel in your everyday life. And then have this spell-form do its actions with you in control.
I'm currently using my body to experiment on since it's easy to verify if I'm successful. I'm not sure if you actually have to be empathizing with the thing the action is affecting in order to be successful. I'm guessing no.
So an example of how this works, if I'm cold and want to warm up, first I quiet my thoughts. Then I dissociate from my self. Then I move my point of view to an imaginary thing that represents what I want, so fire. Then from the fire's point of view I have it cover my body and start emitting heat. Makes me hot. But you need to perform this as the fire, not as your body. Trying to produce heat out of nowhere from your body's position won't work. From your body's point of view it should feel like this is happening on its own.
Both Zen and Taoism make more sense to me every day.
>And that anon still nitpicking
It has been over a week. Really need to learn to let things go, especially when you don't actually have a rational counter argument.
>needs to read a few books on logic. Grow up.
So picking fights that are long over, acting childish, and not making real arguments.
You are actively making this thread worse with your ignorant behavor. The one that needs to grow up is you.
The thing is you aren't discussing magic. You are going out of your way to argue, and you have actively antagonized anyone who doesn't play along with your obvious fabrications.
You also show contempt for everything other then your made up homebrew form of pretend magic.
It seems you just aren't mature enough to discus this topic with a level head, nor competent enough to engage with others on the subject without acting foolish.
Also no one has mentioned guns in this thread. I see no reason why you feel the need to try bring in outside drama from other threads exept in a ploy to bring drama into this thread.
Again, not conductive to conversation and more evidence that the problem is you and that you need to ether learn to behave yourself of leave.
I attempt to invoke various realities and observe the reaction that my body and mind has to it. The purpose of this is to note the correlation between various methods of subtle action and their effect so that it's easier to call on these action for practical purposes.
Example, last night I tried invoking abstracted potency. This caused a feeling like my neck and head were stretching out and body becoming lighter, as well as rapid hot flashes and a bright light in my mind.
This method seems to be effective training, I was able to cause a piece of paper to vibrate this morning by focusing on the mode of action I used previously. I did it for 5 segments and the vibration correlated exactly with my efforts so I am sure it wasn't just air or something. Things such as this are easier to do right after I wake up, I think because I am less attached to ideas about reality in that state so there's less inhibitions.
>I wasn't showing contempt for other magick
Why do you act like people can't read the thread and your earlier post in the thread?
>By your own recognition
Now you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
You also seem to have a beef with thelema and have throughout the thread tried to pick a fight with anyone who mentioned any form of ceremonial or ritual magick. Something tells me you would probably have a fit about folk magic too.
magic don't real
But is the mind real?
Is your sense of self real?
Your memory real?
Is the word, the symbols that you type to form the word "real" even real?
What does real even mean?
As far as Placebo and magic, for some it is a legitimat path that they find quite effective in learning to master.
I personally think mastery of the placebo and nocebo effects are rather basic beginner stuff but for some it is all they apparently need.
For more info I would recommend this podcasthttps://www.farmcodegary.com/tag/placebo-magick-podcast/https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-placebo-magick-podcast/id1442755774
Apparently this particular magician's entire approach to the occult and magic is based around mastery of the placebo effect. Sometimes to great and consistent personal results.
The only person who ever calls me is my father and telemarketers. Whenever I hear my phone ring I assume it's my father. But when I look and it's a telemarketer, nine times out of ten my father will call me within ten minutes. I think that somehow my anticipation of his call signals him to call me. I read that something similar happened to Mark Twain, he always crossed letters when writing to his friend. So instead of sending the letter, he just kept it and waited for the inevitable letter that he 'signaled' for.
I've been able to replicate this somewhat on occasion by creating a strong sense of anticipation in myself for a phone call. I know when I'm going to be successful or not, it depends on how good I am in the moment at autohypnosis.
talking of Clemens and the supernatural, didn't he write of having seen his brothers' funeral years before it actually happened?
>You said it in the last attempted magic thread and countless other times here and there in the past three years. I know it's you because you're the thelema enthusiast who has been so dogged all this time about downplaying my metaphysics as being just the placebo effect.
Have no idea what you are talking about and think you have a major chip on your shoulder causing you to assume a great deal of things, thus making a ass of you and me (eww I sound like my dad).
The problem isn't some crimes of the past but instead your ego in the present.
>Why hasn't anyone pursued a scientific study of it all to identify the mechanisms
Scientific study works to isolate as many variables as they can to find something universally applicable and replicable. This methodology for this particular topic is very slow and takes many MANY studies to even come close to fully understanding the phenomena. That said progress is being made in understanding the placebo and nocebo effect. New studies are published every year.
That said because the nature of the placebo effect is subjective in nature it is far easier on a individual level of someone who practices self mental manipulation to master the effect on themselves, or even better understand how it may effect others.
> cut out the faith-based trickery commonly involved
The pomp and cercumstance is really strongly linked to why such things work. Eternal factors have significant effects. This can be seen everywhere from folk traditions all the way to scientific studies where they found that certain color and shaped sugar pills consistently have repeatable effects in test groups.
>and just have the power to do what you want on command
That is more of self hypnosis territory.
>Or is that considered too far out or something
It is still being studied and is only partially understood on a scientific level. Even the more ancint wisdom of traditional magical working understands through effects and only really guesses in the dark on the underlying mechanisms at play. At least from what I have learned of the really old stuff.
It is actually pretty fertile ground for exploration and experimentation.
I personally find the placebo effect fascinating even if you strongly poo poo it for whatever reason. It is both a tool that can be used right now and a mystery to be solved later. A insight into the complex and powerful abilities of the mind.
Really should have proof read that long post.
Then publish a book or research paper depending upon the angle you are coming from.
This is the information age after all. Where information wants to be free and spread across the world.
>>50943>an essay on magic>is over 100 pages
I think me and the author have a different understanding of what the word essay means, lol.
>there may also be tie-ins with quantum physics
That stuff gives me a head ache whenever I get into it, and most people who mention it in regards to this kind of stuff have never cracked a theoretical physics book. I blame Deepak Chopra for baiting newage types to quantum physics terms without even himself knowing what the fuck he was talking about.
Sorry, for the derail, just get flash backs to 3 page long equations when someone mentions quantum physics. It is pretty nightmarish to actually work with when it comes to the legit math, and nothing about it scales up right.
As for the content of your actual post, I would agree you are probably not ready quite yet to write/publish a book. Both your ideas and most importantly your writing style when it comes to explaining your ideas need further development to be completely understandable to someone that isn't yourself. It is a starting point though. One that requires quite a bit of polish, but you may be on to something.
I would never write a book. And if my post falls short somehow, I don't care. I'm not trying to be anyone's magick sherpa.
Experimentation with changing perspective. I see luminous auras when the right pov is obtained. First was clear, then only blue, now I'm getting some variation, gold, yellow, sharp white. If perception can change with pov maybe action potential can change as well. Successful treatment: hiccups, doldrums, bad digestion. Brute force results in crazed delirium, principled attempts fail; result of attachment to previous reality. Attempt must be purely intuitive. Perspective of sleep is good subject analysis but relying on analysis is folly, as mentioned.
Assertion that hallucination are as legitimate as mundane perception is helpful. Hypothesis of "subtle body" may have originated from alien set of potential actions possessed by supermundane perspectives. "Un"conscious = extrinsic but closely related perspectives connected by causality. Hypothesis is that all perspectives must possess some potency in order to exist in and of themselves, but attempting to connect actions to mundane perspective inevitably causes failure. Full shift is equivalent to death; transcendental illumination = moving the self to a wider plane of causality?
What is the most basic unit of thought?
Depends on context and means of measurement.
Unit implies that you are measuring something, so what are you using to do the measurements and how does it work?
Answer that question and you can probably answer your question as well.
The most basic unit of thought is the most basic unit of thought.
interestingly, i was following the exact same line of thoughts as you have in both this post and the next ones
I've come to that think the talking part of my brain doesn't have an influence over much at all, and that's the part that wants to influence things and can set goals and directions. So even if some part of my consciousness can influence things outside of my body, the talking brain won't recognize it. It's extremely confusing.
Read though it and studied it for a bit.
It is little better then casting bones and shells or reading entrails.
At first impression, I thought it's nonsense, for how can the "I" have any goal or direction if it is separate from the "me".
But after meditating for half an hour with it in mind, it seems to have potential of being an effective way of thinking.
Logically I still don't get it though, the "I" seems to be just a sensation of will arising from the "me", it's all together within the soup of perception.
The way I understand it is, the "I" is simply the object higher on the chain of causality that plays the active role in the body of the Self, which consists of active and passive players. The "I" is not purely active in and of itself, but it's treated as purely active when one is looking at the Self because it is what is supplying the energy for the Me-object's reality generation. Probably if you look at the psychology of a person who gets all of their active energy from an external source such as say their culture, their culture is treated as the "I" for them, because it working as the primary director. Of course the when looking at the culture it isn't actually purely active, but it's acting as purely active in the Self. The same would be true, of the I component of the Self as well. A lot of mystic frameworks talk about getting in contact with the "higher self"; I think what this process basically is is changing the definition of Self from what it is now to the thing that is currently working as the purely active agent. Of course once that happens the same division will arise in what is currently only perceptible as masculine, and then on and on until you reach the end of the causal chain which is the primal cause without an effect which is called God by some.
Looking at it through a different frame; think of a puppet. The puppet itself can be thought of as the passive mind. The hand that pulls the strings can be thought of as the active. The puppet plays the role of actually performing actions, while the hand, through the strings, plays the role of supplying energy to the puppet in a certain way. Without the puppet the hand's energy would be wasted, and without the hand the puppet would just lie there. From the puppet's perspective the hand is only an active agent, but from the hand's perspective it is both an active agent (towards the puppet) and a passive agent (receiving impulses from the person that it's attached to). The same is true of the higher "I" to the lower "Me".
Many people are drawn to solipsism because it seems like their own existence is the only thing that they can confirm, but I don't think that this is the case. What existence is, really, is a perspective. Your existence is a certain perspective that contains within it certain limitations. The changing of perspective is the changing of what is treated as the active and passive in the reality-creating act of perception. To the most macrocosmic perspective, all
realities are equally valid. But from the perspective of the realities themselves, only they are valid. It's all about perspective you see.
Seems like shifting from an illusion to a higher illusion to me. I mean I'll do it, but still.
All illusion are reality when looked at from the correct perspective. And all realities are illusory when looked at from the correct perspective.
Which brings us back to the original problem. If everything is subject to a perspective change, then what can I use to change perspective?
People do it every day. Like how you can shift your perspective to individual body parts. Try 'becoming' your foot, experiment with what it feels like. Same thing with getting absorbed in fiction, or even using a tool or device. you're changing perspective to a reality that was nonexistent for your previous self. Start by examining what exactly is piloting you and try to get absorbed in it, ignoring your lower perceptions.
The practical use of this is if you shift awareness to the active component that maintains what is you you'll be able to modify you. This is the basic idea of invocation. Even more impressive phenomena is possible as you move up the chain of active-passive objects.
A big roadblock is the fear of death that keeps people from letting go of their personality and becoming something else. When you start experimenting with this you may notice that when you start getting successful with major perspective shifts you'll have an inclination to shift back to your lower self in a panic. You'll need to work through this.
"To have sth thy never had, you must do sth you never did"
I know, I've been doing the practice. My point is going up the chain feels like playing the game rather than transcending out, since I know the chain to be infinite.
I strongly suspect that there's nothing else to do other than playing the game though, so I'll do it.>>51175
Any meaning behind the weird abbreviation of "something"?
I had tried reading this before and I dismissed it as silly, but giving it another look since you posted it and it makes a whole ton of sense.
So thank you for posting it.
"I think therefore I am".
The most basic is existing, having an ego, in other words. Just 'being'. Mathematically it's more of a geometrical issue.
>see light>define light>quality of light
>a one>a zero>the two together
>the pain>the pleasure>the will
I'm not into the occult though and am a militant agnostic. So ignore this comment because it has no basis in magic that I am aware of.
Image is Buddhist inner eye, also, before it makes you wonder.