Chaos Magic

[Limbo]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

[dafydd]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

Keep taking the tablets.

[Giggywig]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!
I prefer the sexual orgasm route. I haven't achieved a psychic expereience yet but I'll keep trying! It's for science.

[Aepervius]

I up your chaos magic with a "circle of protection against chaos". I call it rationality.

[Aepervius]

I prefer the sexual orgasm route. I haven't achieved a psychic expereience yet but I'll keep trying! It's for science.

I take back what i said above, if it is for science, i will try your method. Do you have any video demonstration :D ?

[Limbo]

I up your chaos magic with a "circle of protection agaisnt chaos". I call it rationality.


You spelled against wrong, and so your rationality is revealed for the sham it is. Zap!

[Limbo]

I prefer the sexual orgasm route. I haven't achieved a psychic expereience yet but I'll keep trying! It's for science.


Have you shifted your paradigm and constructed a sigil?

[Giggywig]

Have you shifted your paradigm and constructed a sigil?

I shift my paradigm several times during a session. I got this book from Amazon that shows several different paradigms to try. Me and my partner are not flexible enough for some, though.

[Limbo]

I shift my paradigm several times during a session. I got this book from Amazon that shows several different paradigms to try. Me and my partner are not flexible enough for some, though.


lol

[Aepervius]

You spelled against wrong, and so your rationality is revealed for the sham it is. Zap!

Equating rationality with spelling. An interesting take. I use a counter spell : spell checker and edit my post.

[Bikewer]

Some hurt, too...

Apparently, LSD works pretty well.

[Gawdzilla]

I blame this on the near impossibility of finding a nubile virgin to sacrifice. The sole remaining source, university Computer Science schools, has been over-hunted and is no longer viable. (And, of course, the Obama administration will not allow hunting in the still-fecund computer gaming areas. His opposition to hunting them in "mom's basement" is just another socialist apology and a sign that the Muslims are, indeed, winning this war. *pant, pant, pant*)

I need a lie down.

[Limbo]

Equating rationality with spelling. An interesting take. I use a counter spell : spell checker and edit my post.


No, I equated your spell with spelling. :p

[D'rok]

Would an altered state of consciousness give us any meaningful or reliable information about the external universe? If so, what sort of information, and how?

[Myriad]

I tried paradigm shifting, but all that happened was my core competency got leveraged outside the box to bring my value proposition to the table. Still, at the end of the day it is what it is so if we take this off-line we might still push the synergy envelope and reach the low-hanging fruit.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I never know how to choose between Slaanesh and Tzeench when choosing chaos magic.

[Limbo]

I tried paradigm shifting, but all that happened was my core competency got leveraged outside the box to bring my value proposition to the table. Still, at the end of the day it is what it is so if we take this off-line we might still push the synergy envelope and reach the low-hanging fruit.

Respectfully,
Myriad


Try it on ayahuasca.

[Moss]

I tried paradigm shifting, but all that happened was my core competency got leveraged outside the box to bring my value proposition to the table. Still, at the end of the day it is what it is so if we take this off-line we might still push the synergy envelope and reach the low-hanging fruit.

Respectfully,
Myriad

BINGO!

And it's all about Nurgle.

[Limbo]

I never know how to choose between Slaanesh and Tzeench when choosing chaos magic.


Just remember, one does not drink the mud of the well. No animals come to an old well. And then...flip a coin.

[Sideroxylon]

Where can I get skeptic card from and can I have the British English spelling?

[Limbo]

Where can I get skeptic card from and can I have the British English spelling?


From the skeptic fairy, of course. Just leave your cynicism under your pillow.

[Resume]

From the skeptic fairy, of course. Just leave your cynicism under your pillow.

Right next to your rationality.

[D'rok]

Would an altered state of consciousness give us any meaningful or reliable information about the external universe? If so, what sort of information, and how?
I take it this is a no?

[Myriad]

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.


In other (and many fewer) words, you're advocating wishing, while stoned.

My own life experiences tell me that that does not work and will not work. Can you provide any rationale that make it reasonable to posit that it might work? For instance, even if I'd never seen a telescope in action and didn't know the complete design for a telescope, if I can see that lenses change the direction of light rays, it at least suggests the possibility that a telescope could work. What is the underlying basis for suggesting that wishing while stoned might do anything?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Limbo]

In other (and many fewer) words, you're advocating wishing, while stoned.

My own life experiences tell me that that does not work and will not work. Can you provide any rationale that make it reasonable to posit that it might work? For instance, even if I'd never seen a telescope in action and didn't know the complete design for a telescope, if I can see that lenses change the direction of light rays, it at least suggests the possibility that a telescope could work. What is the underlying basis for suggesting that wishing while stoned might do anything?

Respectfully,
Myriad


The underlying basis is that the nature of reality is or includes consciousness, not merely matter and energy and the 'illusion' of consciousness. Consciousness is primary and it transcends time and space, matter and energy, and it transcends individuality. All those emerge from consciousness. Its a transcendental or mental monism, as opposed to a physical or material monism.

[devnull]

I tried paradigm shifting, but all that happened was my core competency got leveraged outside the box to bring my value proposition to the table. Still, at the end of the day it is what it is so if we take this off-line we might still push the synergy envelope and reach the low-hanging fruit.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Boss? Is that you?

[devnull]

The underlying basis is that the nature of reality is or includes consciousness, not merely matter and energy. Consciousness transcends time and space, matter and energy, and it transcends individuality. Its a transcendental or mental monism, as opposed to a physical or material monism.

No.

[D'rok]

Time and space, matter and energy emerge from consciousness?

Good grief. How did the universe manage to exist before humans became aware of it?

[Sideroxylon]

Would an altered state of consciousness give us any meaningful or reliable information about the external universe? If so, what sort of information, and how?

Got an answer?

[D'rok]

Got an answer?
Are you asking me or Limbo?

[Sideroxylon]

Are you asking me or Limbo?

Limbo, mate. I was wondering if you might have been on ignore.

[D'rok]

Limbo, mate. I was wondering if you might have been on ignore.Roger that. Carry on.

[dafydd]

Time and space, matter and energy emerge from consciousness?

Good grief. How did the universe manage to exist before humans became aware of it?

The same point had occurred to me. Expect more gobbledygook for an answer.

[Hellbound]

The same point had occurred to me. Expect more gobbledygook for an answer.

It didn't. I suspect you'll get some variation of "Last Thursdayism" for an answer.

[Dancing David]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

Um dude, sorry, I already have investigated for many many years, started in 1979 and have practiced cermonial magic, wicca and shamanism.

There are no paranormal powers, the only thing that there is is a human brain, all gods, devi, spirits, powers, reside there and only there. The brain is the center of perception, one can change the parameters of that perception to some degree. But one can not influence teh area outside of the brain.

To quote a story of Uncle Al:

There was a student who sat by the river and days became, months, months became years, everyday they focused their mind on teh water, and the river. And one day after many long years they attained the state of being able to walk on the water and they crossed the river.

The student then went to thei Master and explained that after many years of practice they had walked across the river.

Master: You do know people take the ferry everyday?



The point being, influence yourself and use the tools that exist. Do not pray for strength, develop strength.

[PixyMisa]

Limbo, the moment anyone, anywhere, provides any evidence at all that any of what you're saying does anything, we'll start paying attention.

Until that day, pfft.

[Limbo]

Time and space, matter and energy emerge from consciousness?

Good grief. How did the universe manage to exist before humans became aware of it?


There is more to consciousness than conscious awareness.

[Katopale]

The underlying basis is that the nature of reality is or includes consciousness, not merely matter and energy and the 'illusion' of consciousness. Consciousness is primary and it transcends time and space, matter and energy, and it transcends individuality. All those emerge from consciousness. Its a transcendental or mental monism, as opposed to a physical or material monism.

Are there limits to Chaos Magic?
Could an accomplished Chaos Magician fly or regrow an amputated limb?

If there are limits, what causes those limits?

[Dancing David]

The underlying basis is that the nature of reality is or includes consciousness, not merely matter and energy and the 'illusion' of consciousness. Consciousness is primary and it transcends time and space, matter and energy, and it transcends individuality. All those emerge from consciousness. Its a transcendental or mental monism, as opposed to a physical or material monism.

Un supported assertion.

Ontology is pointless you can not tell if it is lifeless energy particles, godthought, butterfly dreams or brains in vats.

It is all the same, there is NO difference.

[Dancing David]

From the skeptic fairy, of course. Just leave your cynicism under your pillow.

Your teachers have misled you, you need to find better ones.

[Limbo]

Are there limits to Chaos Magic?
Could an accomplished Chaos Magician fly or regrow an amputated limb?

If there are limits, what causes those limits?


I don't know.
Probably.

I don't know.

[Dancing David]

Try it on ayahuasca.

If you need drugs then you haven't practiced enough.

[D'rok]

There is more to consciousness than conscious awareness.
Fine. Then how did the universe manage to exist before conscious life existed?

[Resume]

I don't know.
Probably.

I don't know.

Why don't you just make up an answer? It's worked for you so far.

[Katopale]

I don't know.
Probably.

I don't know.

These answers seem far less certain than:

"Everything is permitted, everything is true"

[Limbo]

Fine. Then how did the universe manage to exist before conscious life existed?


Before? What, you think time is as you percieve it?

[Limbo]

These answers seem far less certain than:

"Everything is permitted, everything is true"


Well then I guess you better become an accomplished Chaos magician so that you can let us know.

Wait, don't tell me you would let uncertainty stop you...?

[D'rok]

Before? What, you think time is as you percieve it?Yesterday I ate too much turkey. Today I am eating too much turkey.

The days are starting to blur together.

Still, yesterday occurred before today. And there was a universe before there was a D'rok.

[Sideroxylon]

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted" - Jim Carroll

[Hellbound]

Before? What, you think time is as you percieve it?

You seem sure time is as you perceive it, so why are you denying the same validity you use to support your ideas (i.e.-your personal experience) to others? It's okay for your personal experience to trump everyone else, but theirs doesn't count? Sorry, that's speacial pleading.

Well then I guess you better become an accomplished Chaos magician so that you can let us know.

Wait, don't tell me you would let uncertainty stop you...?

Why don't you learn science and find out why your worldview doesn't work?

Wait, don't tell me you let fear stop you...?

See, two can play at that game. The statements are meaningless. DO you have any actual arguments or evidence, or will you simply avoid facing any of the arguments with substance as you have in the other thread you mentioned, and focus on trivialities?

[Limbo]

Yesterday I ate too much turkey. Today I am eating too much turkey.

The days are starting to blur together.

Still, yesterday occurred before today. And there was a universe before there was a D'rok.


Yeah, that's the way we perceive it. But of course you know, there is more going on than meets the eye. Or, you should. Even your own scientism idols will tell you that there is a bizarreness to time. But lets just sweep all that under the rug, until such a time as it is useful to YOUR ideology.

[D'rok]

Yeah, that's the way we perceive it. But of course you know, there is more going on than meets the eye. Or, you should. Even your own scientism idols will tell you that there is a bizarreness to time. But lets just sweep all that under the rug, until such a time as it is useful to YOUR ideology.
I think you may be confused about what the word "ideology" means.

But do go on. Tell us how matter arises from consciousness. I'm paying attention.

[Katopale]

Well then I guess you better become an accomplished Chaos magician so that you can let us know.

Wait, don't tell me you would let uncertainty stop you...?

Are you assuming I have not "practiced" chaos magic(k) exactly as you have described it?

[Limbo]

Are you assuming I have not "practiced" chaos magic(k) exactly as you have described it?


I'm assuming you are not an accomplished Chaos magician. A newbie Chaos magician, on the other hand, I could believe.

[KingMerv00]

Everything is permitted, everything is true.

Thoughts that popped into my head when I read this:

1) Death to the templars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin's_Creed)!

2) Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff?

[seayakin]

I tried but my saving throw vs. magic is so low I'm pretty much immune.

[Limbo]

I think you may be confused about what the word "ideology" means.

But do go on. Tell us how matter arises from consciousness. I'm paying attention.


I don't know how. Its a mystery, but luckily its one that does not need to be solved before one can see chaos magic in action for oneself.

[KingMerv00]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

In summary:

TV not projecting a supernatural picture? **** with the wiring until it does because goddamn it, that's the way I think it's supposed to be.

[Pure Argent]

The underlying basis is that the nature of reality is or includes consciousness, not merely matter and energy and the 'illusion' of consciousness. Consciousness is primary and it transcends time and space, matter and energy, and it transcends individuality. All those emerge from consciousness. Its a transcendental or mental monism, as opposed to a physical or material monism.

Ah. So it doesn't work, then.

[Katopale]

I'm assuming you are not an accomplished Chaos magician. A newbie Chaos magician, on the other hand, I could believe.

What class are you?

You haven't said anything about about Chaos Magic I wasn't already familiar with.

[D'rok]

I don't know how. Its a mystery, but luckily its one that does not need to be solved before one can see chaos magic in action for oneself.
OK. Then I'll settle for an example, an instance, of matter arising from consciousness.

I'm assuming that you are not making the metaphorical point that a table starts out as an idea for a table?

[Limbo]

OK. Then I'll settle for an example, an instance, of matter arising from consciousness.


Then I suggest you make a sigil to that end, charge it, and set it off. Then wait. If you can keep yourself from getting in your own way, then maybe you will receive a boon that shows you how screwed up your understanding of consciousness is.

[D'rok]

Then I suggest you make a sigil to that end, charge it, and set it off. Then wait. If you can keep yourself from getting in your own way, then maybe you will receive a boon that shows you how screwed up your understanding of consciousness is.That doesn't sound like an example or an instance to me.

[Giggywig]

I don't know how. Its a mystery, but luckily its one that does not need to be solved before one can see chaos magic in action for oneself.
Have you seen chaos magic in action for yourself?

[Katopale]

Then I suggest you make a sigil to that end, charge it, and set it off. Then wait. If you can keep yourself from getting in your own way, then maybe you will receive a boon that shows you how screwed up your understanding of consciousness is.

Wow, you don't even know the importance of not knowing the original intent of your sigil?

Who is the noob? Geesh!

[Limbo]

That doesn't sound like an example or an instance to me.


Don't you get it? Anything I say to you or link you to as an example will only go in one ear and out the other. If you are to have a paradigm shift, you need to see the light for yourself. But, that means getting out of your own way.

If one can't grab a hold of their own paradigm and wrestle control of it long enough to charge a sigil, then one is a slave to it.

[Resume]

Limbo, imagine me a Ferrari, a 458. I'm giving you my work address now. There . . .

[Limbo]

Have you seen chaos magic in action for yourself?


Yeah.

[Giggywig]

Yeah.

What did you see?

[sadhatter]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

Coherency ( good job btw.) 6/10, content 1/10. Try to bring that to an average of at least 6 or so and we will talk. Use chaos magic if you want.

[sadhatter]

I up your chaos magic with a "circle of protection against chaos". I call it rationality.

The only person using chaos magic in my life is my epic level character. And even he doesn't use it much. Double fail for the chaos magic.

[Limbo]

What did you see?


Well, the intent behind my Chaos magic was to open my "inner eye", that is to say experience psychic ability for myself in a way that I could verify. And it worked because that's what happened.

[Giggywig]

Well, the intent behind my Chaos magic was to open my "inner eye", that is to say experience psychic ability for myself in a way that I could verify. And it worked because that's what happened.
How did you verify psychic ability?

[Limbo]

How did you verify psychic ability?


I had a detailed vision of the future that came true to a tee about 10 minutes later, right before my eyes.

[Giggywig]

I had a detailed vision of the future that came true to a tee about 10 minutes later, right before my eyes.
What did you see?
Did this only happen once or have you seen the future other times?

[Limbo]

What did you see?


I saw a guy resist getting dragged of a public bus by cops, who had the bus surrounded by cop cars.


Did this only happen once or have you seen the future other times?


That particular style of visual, which was a silvery sort-of overlay superimposed on the environment, has only happened once. But I've had several different kinds of paranormal experience because variety was a part of my intent.

[Katopale]

Well, the intent behind my Chaos magic was to open my "inner eye", that is to say experience psychic ability for myself in a way that I could verify. And it worked because that's what happened.

One of my chaos "hits" was the intent to find a great first house where my wife and I would be happy.

I could show you the house and my happy wife.

I hope you and your inner eye as much joy.

[Limbo]

One of my chaos "hits" was the intent to find a great first house where my wife and I would be happy.

I could show you the house and my happy wife.

I hope you and your inner eye as much joy.


Well thank you kindly.

[Giggywig]

I saw a guy resist getting dragged of a public bus by cops, who had the bus surrounded by cop cars.
When did this guy get dragged off the bus? Where you in the bus at the time? near the bus? Watching TV?
That particular style of visual, which was a silvery sort-of overlay superimposed on the environment, has only happened once. But I've had several different kinds of paranormal experience because variety was a part of my intent.
Ok, what other paranormal experiences have you had?

[Limbo]

When did this guy get dragged off the bus? Where you in the bus at the time? near the bus? Watching TV?

Ok, what other paranormal experiences have you had?


Ugh. Is this going to turn into an interrogation? Not in the mood.

[AkuManiMani]

I had a detailed vision of the future that came true to a tee about 10 minutes later, right before my eyes.

I've had intuitive insights myself regarding the course of future events but never something so dramatic as a detailed vision of the future (short of a few useless flashes of déjà vu in my dreams). They usually come to me in the form of daydreams with a lot of figurative imagery or a general sense of "this is probably how things are gonna play out". On maybe one or two occasions have my daydreams ever became as vivid as a full vision but, again, they are usually metaphorical and I tend to interpret them as such. I've mostly chalked the insights up to me utilizing a deep understanding of a situation and the relevant factors to project a plausible forecast.

[Giggywig]

Ugh. Is this going to turn into an interrogation? Not in the mood.

Ok then, we'll leave it as "you assert things with no evidence." Good luck with that.

[Resume]

Ugh. Is this going to turn into an interrogation? Not in the mood.

You started the thread.

[Limbo]

Ok then, we'll leave it as "you assert things with no evidence." Good luck with that.


Its just not sinking in that you could do CM yourself and get your own evidence, is it?

[Dumb All Over]

I had a detailed vision of the future that came true to a tee about 10 minutes later, right before my eyes.
Would it be possible for you to demonstrate this under controlled conditions so we might be able to verify that what you're saying is true?

[drkitten]

Its just not sinking in that you could do CM yourself and get your own evidence, is it?

No, it's not. Largely because we have no reason to believe that.

[Katopale]

Come on people.
Who is your Chaos Magick Master?

The guy offering ultra-near-future visions of public transportation scofflaws or the guy with a great buy on a first home and a happy spouse.
Family friendly, spacious backyard, good bones.
House is nice too.

[Giggywig]

Its just not sinking in that you could do CM yourself and get your own evidence, is it?
It's not sinking in that your assertions are completely without value unless you have evidence, is it?

[Moss]

Its just not sinking in that you could do CM yourself and get your own evidence, is it?

That's not evidence, that's at best personal experience of something you may or may not attribute meaning to.
How are your visions distinct from "regular" visual daydreams?

[D'rok]

Don't you get it? Anything I say to you or link you to as an example will only go in one ear and out the other. If you are to have a paradigm shift, you need to see the light for yourself. But, that means getting out of your own way.

If one can't grab a hold of their own paradigm and wrestle control of it long enough to charge a sigil, then one is a slave to it.Been there done that.

I was a working musician for 10 years. Thanks to that lifestyle, I can answer Jimi's question - yes, I have been experienced. Many times, in fact.

But reality was always there when I got back. Still is.

If you have evidence that matter arises from concsiousness, I am eager to see it. If not, then you are wasting everyone's time with such claims.

[Limbo]

Would it be possible for you to demonstrate this under controlled conditions so we might be able to verify that what you're saying is true?


It was a spontaneous vision that happened some days after I achieved gnosis. I'm not good enough to have conscious control over it.

[Lord Emsworth]

Oh my, what an incredibly gorgeous person you are.

:rolleyes:

[sadhatter]

I tried but my saving throw vs. magic is so low I'm pretty much immune.

Get back to the home grandpa we play 3.5 now. (4th edition obviously doesn't count. lol.)

[AkuManiMani]

It was a spontaneous vision that happened some days after I achieved gnosis. I'm not good enough to have conscious control over it.

If its spontaneous and out of one's deliberate control that kinda makes it inapplicable for controlled repeatable testing and experimental protocols. The important thing is that if -you- personally experienced it then -you- know its validity.

Its a futile exercise trying to convince someone else of the validity of something they have no personal experience of. Just honestly present the facts of what you've experienced and let other people draw whatever conclusions they wish about it. You've no personal stake in what they choose to accept :)

[sadhatter]

Ugh. Is this going to turn into an interrogation? Not in the mood.

I want to show you all this awesome copy and pasted crap original post of my own to show chaos magic is real. But i am not in the mood to explain it.

Your either trying too hard or not hard enough at being a troll, take your pic.

[sadhatter]

If its spontaneous and out of one's deliberate control that kinda makes it inapplicable for controlled repeatable testing and experimental protocols. The important thing is that if -you- personally experienced it then -you- know its validity.

Its a futile exercise trying to convince someone else of the validity of something they have no personal experience of. Just honestly present the facts of what you've experienced and let other people draw whatever conclusions they wish about it. You've no personal stake in what they choose to accept :)

What your overlooking is the reason it is impossible to confirm the validity of experiences like this. People never, and i repeat never, actually do any confirmation of their abilities. I mean how hard would it be for limbo to post his visions here, then when they come true show us the news article and laugh at all us silly skeptics?

Expecting people to take you at face value is either incredibly naive, or a front for a huckster. There are real, easy ways to verify things like this, but they are always avoided by those who practice them. Funny that.

[Dumb All Over]

It was a spontaneous vision that happened some days after I achieved gnosis. I'm not good enough to have conscious control over it.
I'll take that as a "no", then.

[Limbo]

The important thing is that if -you- personally experienced it then -you- know its validity.


Yeah, that was the intent I sent to my 'unconscious mind'. That was the sort of direct, vivid, on-the-spot psychic verification I asked for. Its kinda hard to argue when your 'unconscious mind' shoves the future in your face and then you watch it unfold right in your face moments later.

Its a futile exercise trying to convince someone else of the validity of something they have no personal experience of. Just honestly present the facts of what you've experienced and let other people draw whatever conclusions they wish about it. You've no personal stake in what they choose to accept :)


Yeah, you're probably right. :)

[sadhatter]

Yeah, that was the intent I sent to my 'unconscious mind'. That was the sort of direct, vivid, on-the-spot psychic verification I asked for. Its kinda hard to argue when your 'unconscious mind' shoves the future in your face and then you watch it unfold right in your face moments later.




Yeah, you're probably right. :)

So its only moments? What kind of useless power is that? I , most of the time can tell you what is going to happen in a few moments, sans chaos magic.

And if your going to say " i was not in the area" then you wouldn't know that something happened , unless it was on the news, in which case it is perfectly reasonable for you to be able to post said vision here before the news cast.

I mean by your own definition you have a useless power , even if the supernatural does exist, it doesn't seem to like you very much.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

When I was working on an anthropology project in Mexico and Guatemala, I took some extremely strong hallucinagenic mushrooms and did I guess what you would call a "vision quest." I have to say at the time I really did feel like I was seeing "the real world" for the first time. It was an extremely intense experience. I talked to animals, plants. I was able to remotely view places I had never been to, sending projections of my soul outwards. I was able to see music and hear colors. I was able to commune with nature and see the true nature of the universe. I suddenly UNDERSTOOD life, the universe, and everything.

But then I sobered up, and I realized that I hadn't actually done any of those things, it was just the drugs. Was it a profound experience? Sure. It made me look at the world in a totally different way. It made me interested in mysic, philosophy, and art on an entirely different and deeper level than I had before. It made me look at myself differently.

To be honest, there is still a little part of me that wonders; WAS it real? Were those my ancestors and the guardians of the rainforest talking to me? Are mushrooms really a door to the real world, letting me see what I previously could not? But ultimately...no, I don't believe there was any mysticism involved. I believe I was just on hallucinagenic mushrooms in the rainforest with some guidance from religious people which affected my mental state. Which granted, doesn't mean the experience was meaningless, it had a very profound impact on me that will probably last the rest of my life. It just doesn't make it magic.

[sadhatter]

When I was working on an anthropology project in Mexico and Guatemala, I took some extremely strong hallucinagenic mushrooms and did I guess what you would call a "vision quest." I have to say at the time I really did feel like I was seeing "the real world" for the first time. It was an extremely intense experience. I talked to animals, plants. I was able to remotely view placed I had never been to, sending projections of my soul outwards. I was able to see music and hear colors. I was able to commune with nature and see the true nature of the universe. I suddenly UNDERSTOOD life, the universe, and everything.

But then I sobered up, and I realized that I hadn't actually done any of those things, it was just the drugs. Was it a profound experience? Sure. It made me look at the world in a totally different way. It made me interested in mysic, philosophy, and art on an entirely different and deeper level than I had before. It made me look at myself differently.

To be honest, there is still a little part of me that wonders; WAS it real? Were those my ancestors and the guardians of the rainforest talking to me? Are mushrooms really a door to the real world, letting me see what I previously could not? But ultimately...no, I don't believe there was any mysticism involved. I believe I was just on hallucinagenic mushrooms in the rainforest with some guidance from religious people which affected my mental state. Which granted, doesn't mean the experience was meaningless, it had a very profound impact on me that will probably last the rest of my life. It just doesn't make it magic.

It always amazes me when someone puts a substance into their body for the purpose of messing with their brain, and then is amazed that they had weird crap happen.

For the life of me it seems like tossing gunpowder and lighter flint into a blender then being amazed when the blender blows up because blenders normally don't do that.

[Limbo]

When I was working on an anthropology project in Mexico and Guatemala, I took some extremely strong hallucinagenic mushrooms and did I guess what you would call a "vision quest." I have to say at the time I really did feel like I was seeing "the real world" for the first time. It was an extremely intense experience. I talked to animals, plants. I was able to remotely view places I had never been to, sending projections of my soul outwards. I was able to see music and hear colors. I was able to commune with nature and see the true nature of the universe. I suddenly UNDERSTOOD life, the universe, and everything.

But then I sobered up, and I realized that I hadn't actually done any of those things, it was just the drugs. Was it a profound experience? Sure. It made me look at the world in a totally different way. It made me interested in mysic, philosophy, and art on an entirely different and deeper level than I had before. It made me look at myself differently.

To be honest, there is still a little part of me that wonders; WAS it real? Were those my ancestors and the guardians of the rainforest talking to me? Are mushrooms really a door to the real world, letting me see what I previously could not? But ultimately...no, I don't believe there was any mysticism involved. I believe I was just on hallucinagenic mushrooms in the rainforest with some guidance from religious people which affected my mental state. Which granted, doesn't mean the experience was meaningless, it had a very profound impact on me that will probably last the rest of my life. It just doesn't make it magic.


Sounds like a beautiful experience. Too bad there wasn't more of it that you could take with you, to keep you from falling too far back into the dominant paradigm afterwards. Oh well. Baby steps. Keep your mind in a receptive state. :)

[AkuManiMani]

When I was working on an anthropology project in Mexico and Guatemala, I took some extremely strong hallucinagenic mushrooms and did I guess what you would call a "vision quest." I have to say at the time I really did feel like I was seeing "the real world" for the first time. It was an extremely intense experience. I talked to animals, plants. I was able to remotely view placed I had never been to, sending projections of my soul outwards. I was able to see music and hear colors. I was able to commune with nature and see the true nature of the universe. I suddenly UNDERSTOOD life, the universe, and everything.

But then I sobered up, and I realized that I hadn't actually done any of those things, it was just the drugs. Was it a profound experience? Sure. It made me look at the world in a totally different way. It made me interested in mysic, philosophy, and art on an entirely different and deeper level than I had before. It made me look at myself differently.

To be honest, there is still a little part of me that wonders; WAS it real? Were those my ancestors and the guardians of the rainforest talking to me? Are mushrooms really a door to the real world, letting me see what I previously could not? But ultimately...no, I don't believe there was any mysticism involved. I believe I was just on hallucinagenic mushrooms in the rainforest with some guidance from religious people which affected my mental state. Which granted, doesn't mean the experience was meaningless, it had a very profound impact on me that will probably last the rest of my life. It just doesn't make it magic.

Whats 'magical' really depends on what one's conception of reality is. A simple slight of hand trick is 'magic' to someone if it violates their sense of reality; to the person pulling off the trick its as mundane as the pavement they walk on. All of our world views and paradigms (whether they're mystical, religious, political, scientific, or what-have-you) aren't knowledge, per se, but conceptual matrices we place varying degrees of confidence in to give ourselves as sense of 'whats real' and allow us to operate within those confines. The only real knowledge we have is our immediate experiences; all the other stuff are just lenses thru which people interpret and relate to their experiences.

A lot of what you relayed of your experincse are things that some people live on a day to day basis. You reported that you could "see music and hear colors" while under the effects of the drug; synesthetes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia) experience such things all the time. Daniel Tammet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet) is a synesthete who's perceptions allow him unparalleled mathematical and linguistic abilities. I personally know of one synesthete who sees people's voices as moving colors and shapes [he says my voice looks like red spinning squares :D ] You said you "talked to animals, plants"; shamans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaman) use information the gleamed from such interactions to create pharmacologically potent medicines and treatments for various ailments without the benefit of modern scientific methods. I've personally had an audible female voice speak directly into my mind and tell me personal information about another individual that turned out to be completely accurate. I've also had some other encounters which things that people from certain cultures would call 'spirits'.

Are such experiences 'magical'? Depends on what one defines as 'magic'. Are they 'supernatural'? That also depends on how one defines a word. Do such experiences actually happen? That is itself a dead certainty. Don't discount them just because you currently lack the conceptual frame to comfortably integrate them with your sense of reality. Reality is far vaster, and far stranger than any one person possibly fathom.

[sadhatter]

Sounds like a beautiful experience. Too bad there wasn't more of it that you could take with you, to keep you from falling too far back into the dominant paradigm afterwards. Oh well. Baby steps. Keep your mind in a receptive state. :)

I hear ya limbo i keep my computer in a receptive state by tossing powerful magnets in it, my car in a receptive state by tossing a cup of superglue into the gas tank, and my arcade machines in a receptive state by allowing children with slurpees unrestricted access to them. All proof that to make something work really well, you must seriously screw with the way it works.

I have no problems with drugs, but the fact is they screw with your brain, not improve it. And anyone who thinks otherwise has either done way too many or not enough.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Sounds like a beautiful experience. Too bad there wasn't more of it that you could take with you, to keep you from falling too far back into the dominant paradigm afterwards. Oh well. Baby steps. Keep your mind in a receptive state. :)

It was a really intense and awesome experience, but you don't need to feel bad for me. I still got a lot out of it even though I don't think it was a supernatural in nature.

I also meditate, though I find it difficult. I get a lot out of that too, but I think of it just as a mind exercize, not an escape into mysticism.

I respect people who see such things as spiritual tools, and I really appreciated how they explained their world view to me. One of my favorite books is Adolus Huxley's "The Doors of Perception," in which he posits that we don't see the world the way it really is, but hallucinagens allow us to do so.

It's probably because I'm an anthropology student, but I'm a much bigger fan of mysticism and spiritual/religious beliefs (though not organized religion) than your average agnostic skeptic. Even though I don't buy into mysticism myself, I find it fascinating to study.

But I also don't think one needs to believe in such things to be fulfilled. I recognize that other people find fulfillment in such pursuits, but I don't think it's necessary to appreciate an experience like the one I had.

Bill Maher had a good quote on this once. A religious person on his show was telling them that they felt sorry for his lack of religious beliefs. He said he found that patronizing, and they replied that they didn't mean it to be, it's just that when they saw him, they remembered how they themselves had felt lost prior to finding religion, and they likened their pity to that of a person who had once been hungry who now took pity on a starving person.

Bill answered (paraphrasing), "But here's the thing; I'm not like you were. I'm not hungry."

[Schrodinger's Cat]

deleted duplicate post

[AkuManiMani]

I hear ya limbo i keep my computer in a receptive state by tossing powerful magnets in it, my car in a receptive state by tossing a cup of superglue into the gas tank, and my arcade machines in a receptive state by allowing children with slurpees unrestricted access to them. All proof that to make something work really well, you must seriously screw with the way it works.

I have no problems with drugs, but the fact is they screw with your brain, not improve it. And anyone who thinks otherwise has either done way too many or not enough.

Whos the toll here, again? :confused:

[KingMerv00]

Whos the toll here, again? :confused:
A troll is someone who starts a fight just for the fun of it, not every person who makes a point in a harsh (maybe even rude) way.

[Limbo]

Bill answered (paraphrasing), "But here's the thing; I'm not like you were. I'm not hungry."


Would you be hungry, had you not had your beautiful experience? You say you got a lot out of it.

[catsmate1]

Where can I get skeptic card from and can I have the British English spelling?
Would Skeptic Trumps (http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/search/label/Skeptic%20Trumps) do?:) And no, skeptic it is.

[catsmate1]

Time and space, matter and energy emerge from consciousness?

Good grief. How did the universe manage to exist before humans became aware of it?
Of course not, humans are far too important for the universe to exist without us.:rolleyes:

[sadhatter]

Whos the toll here, again? :confused:

Limbo, the man who purposely makes as little sense as possible in order to draw out a thread that has at this point said nothing concrete. No need to thank me for the clarification.

Me, on the other hand am simply not doing what he wants ,which is for me to put a giant well thought out reply, to which he will reply with a cryptic grammatically anarchistic 2 line post. Then snicker because he made one of those uptight jref'ers waste time replying to him.

Once limbo starts putting actual content and effort into a post, i will reply in kind.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The only real knowledge we have is our immediate experiences; all the other stuff are just lenses thru which people interpret and relate to their experiences.

While I see what you're saying, I don't think that the only thing we have to go on is personal experience. The scientific method is a very good tool for determining the true nature of reality, and it does this by eliminating, as best it can, personal experiences, "lenses", etc. It works, too. Trusting personal experiences has contributed very little of substance to the world. The effectiveness of the scientific method is evident all around us all the time.

However you or I might experience reality, there is an objective reality. You and I might perceive the same event differently (in fact, we're almost certain to do so, even if the difference is only small, but create a hypothesis that's testable, replicable and which makes predictions and, as a community, it's possible to determine whether it's true (or, at least, consistently determine it's not untrue enough to make it being anything other than true extremely unlikely).

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Would you be hungry, had you not had your beautiful experience? You say you got a lot out of it.

Well I wasn't beforehand, and the vast majority of people I know have not undergone such an experience, and don't seem any worse off for it.


Sure I got a lot out of it, but there's lots of things in life that you get things out of without mysticism. I'm an avid hiker, for example, and when I bag a really big peak, I get a lot out of that too. I get a lot out of my marriage, and my family, and friends. I don't know if I will have kids but I imagine that if I do, I'll get a lot out of that as well.

While my mushroom vision quest was a great experience than me, it's nothing in comparison to the effect that say, having a very close and very supportive family has had on me. Being raised by awesome parents who love me has impacted my life and well being a heck of a lot more than meditation or mushrooms.

[Limbo]

Well I wasn't beforehand, and the vast majority of people I know have not undergone such an experience, and don't seem any worse off for it.

Sure I got a lot out of it, but there's lots of things in life that you get things out of without mysticism. I'm an avid hiker, for example, and when I bag a really big peak, I get a lot out of that too. I get a lot out of my marriage, and my family, and friends. I don't know if I will have kids but I imagine that if I do, I'll get a lot out of that as well.

While my mushroom vision quest was a great experience than me, it's nothing in comparison to the effect that say, having a very close and very supportive family has had on me. Being raised by awesome parents who love me has impacted my life and well being a heck of a lot more than meditation or mushrooms.


Yeah, but you aren't your average agnostic skeptic.

I believe that there are many people out there suffering in ways that you are not, and its due to the fact that a paradigm with no mysticism dominates modern culture. The result is rampant 'soul loss', to put it in shamanic terms.

I know there are people like you who are not hungry for spiritual food, and are tolerant of those who are. I have no problem with that. Its the people who are not hungry and are not tolerant of those who are that I have a problem with.

[KingMerv00]

When I was working on an anthropology project in Mexico and Guatemala, I took some extremely strong hallucinagenic mushrooms and did I guess what you would call a "vision quest." I have to say at the time I really did feel like I was seeing "the real world" for the first time. It was an extremely intense experience. I talked to animals, plants. I was able to remotely view places I had never been to, sending projections of my soul outwards. I was able to see music and hear colors. I was able to commune with nature and see the true nature of the universe. I suddenly UNDERSTOOD life, the universe, and everything.

But then I sobered up, and I realized that I hadn't actually done any of those things, it was just the drugs. Was it a profound experience? Sure. It made me look at the world in a totally different way. It made me interested in mysic, philosophy, and art on an entirely different and deeper level than I had before. It made me look at myself differently.

To be honest, there is still a little part of me that wonders; WAS it real? Were those my ancestors and the guardians of the rainforest talking to me? Are mushrooms really a door to the real world, letting me see what I previously could not? But ultimately...no, I don't believe there was any mysticism involved. I believe I was just on hallucinagenic mushrooms in the rainforest with some guidance from religious people which affected my mental state. Which granted, doesn't mean the experience was meaningless, it had a very profound impact on me that will probably last the rest of my life. It just doesn't make it magic.

I have no interest in tinkering with my brain chemistry THAT much (wooo booze!) but I have also had a "transcendent" experience.

While dreaming, there was a flash of light and a feeling of "oneness with the universe". (Of course that phrase is gibberish but that's what it felt like.) I woke up and the feeling was gone. I considered the implications for about a week and decided that the best explanation was a brief, harmless electrical event in my temporal lobe.

Fun? Sure. Magic? No.

I am glad it happened though. It helped me understand religious people better.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I have no interest in tinkering with my brain chemistry THAT much (wooo booze!) but I have also had a "transcendent" experience.

While dreaming, there was a flash of light and a feeling of "oneness with the universe". (Of course that phrase is gibberish but that's what it felt like.) I woke up and the feeling was gone. I considered the implications for about a week and decided that the best explanation was a brief, harmless electrical event in my temporal lobe.

Fun? Sure. Magic? No.

I am glad it happened though. It helped me understand religious people better.

That's pretty interesting. Was there anything that had happened to you the day you had the dream that might have triggered such an experience, a significant event of some kind?

And yeah, it was really intense. I had an opportunity at a later point to try ayahuasca, which is the strongest hallucinagen in the world and which is used in religious ceremonies by various tribal people. I've read other anthropologists' accounts of taking it in various ethnographies, and they describe things like seeing the end of the world and the creation of a new universe. Many describe the experience as "seeing your own soul." But I declined, I just didn't think I could handle something that intense.

[KingMerv00]

That's pretty interesting. Was there anything that had happened to you the day you had the dream that might have triggered such an experience, a significant event of some kind?

Nothing that day. It was soon after I discovered Carl Sagan and skepticism. The dream had a somewhat Christian context. Maybe my old brain was fighting the changes in my thought process? :D

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Nothing that day. It was soon after I discovered Carl Sagan and skepticism. The dream had a somewhat Christian context. Maybe my old brain was fighting the changes in my thought process? :D

Welcome to another edition of Thunderdome?

[KingMerv00]

Welcome to another edition of Thunderdome?

I'm not getting the reference but I hope it involves Master Blaster. That/those guy/guys was/were wicked badass.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm not getting the reference but I hope it involves Master Blaster. That/those guy/guys was/were wicked badass.

I was just picturing your old brain duking it out with your new skeptic brain :D.

[Sledge]

Guys, guys. Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?

[KingMerv00]

Guys, guys. Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?

I agree.

None here are without sin. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

[AkuManiMani]

The only real knowledge we have is our immediate experiences; all the other stuff are just lenses thru which people interpret and relate to their experiences.

While I see what you're saying, I don't think that the only thing we have to go on is personal experience. The scientific method is a very good tool for determining the true nature of reality, and it does this by eliminating, as best it can, personal experiences, "lenses", etc. It works, too. Trusting personal experiences has contributed very little of substance to the world. The effectiveness of the scientific method is evident all around us all the time.

However you or I might experience reality, there is an objective reality. You and I might perceive the same event differently (in fact, we're almost certain to do so, even if the difference is only small, but create a hypothesis that's testable, replicable and which makes predictions and, as a community, it's possible to determine whether it's true (or, at least, consistently determine it's not untrue enough to make it being anything other than true extremely unlikely).

I agree with you, for the most part. Science is ideal for gaining knowledge about the patterns and regularities of reality. I do not deny the objectivity of the world that we share. However, I think do I differ with you on some significant points.

IMO, it isn't so much that there is a distinctly objective reality; the objective and the subjective are just two interdependent aspects of one reality. Each exists within the other and neither exists absent the other. One can have a science of the 'internal' subjective world, just as theres a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world.

Also, based off of some of my own experiences and musings I think that the physical 'consensus' world, thru which we interact with each other in our daily waking lives, is just a subset of a much much larger reality. What we currently consider to be the laws of physics are no more fundamental to reality than the laws of the road. They just happen to be how this local space-time evolved from it's big bang conditions. Things that don't appear to act in accordance with the apparent laws of physics as we know them we call paranormal or supernatural. In reality, all it really is is just weird **** beyond our current ken. The work of science is never complete :cool:

[AkuManiMani]

Limbo, the man who purposely makes as little sense as possible in order to draw out a thread that has at this point said nothing concrete. No need to thank me for the clarification.

Me, on the other hand am simply not doing what he wants ,which is for me to put a giant well thought out reply, to which he will reply with a cryptic grammatically anarchistic 2 line post. Then snicker because he made one of those uptight jref'ers waste time replying to him.

Once limbo starts putting actual content and effort into a post, i will reply in kind.

Maybe theres another method to his madness? ;)

[Limbo]

While dreaming, there was a flash of light and a feeling of "oneness with the universe".


Yeah that was me. Sorry I was just passing through on the way to another dream. :)

[PixyMisa]

Things that don't appear to act in accordance with the apparent laws of physics as we know them we call paranormal or supernatural.
No, we call them lies.

[Limbo]

Pixy! What a surprise! I have my canned response to you all ready to go. Here goes,

"No."

[Halfcentaur]

Dimethyltryptamine, LSD, psilocybin,... these substances and more have all revealed many things to me in the 15 years I've dabbled with them. They have exposed the limits of the placebo effect connected to all spiritual experiences. Awe and wonder and beauty are worth living for, for their aesthetics alone. All meaning is subjective, absolute purpose is an illusion, merely a frame of reference by which we've learned to make sense of the sensory input our very physical and material minds are able to sense. There is an infinitely awe inspiring quality to the universe, right there waiting for us to appreciate it at all times. The trouble is we need to be reminded of it periodically through various means. But we're no more capable of altering the physical world through incorporeal means than a rabbit or a grasshopper or a turtle is. Or a stone or a tree. The miracle is that an object in the universe has developed the capability to be aware of itself and the universe it is a part of. Why people are starving for more than that knowledge alone is a tragedy. You don't need to spice things up pretending to be a magician. You're a walking conglomeration of billions and trillions of improbabilities, and this isn't enough?

[Sideroxylon]

Can anyone remember the case of a fairly famous person taking some sort of drug and recording what they considered to be a deeply profound thought only to find it was nonsense upon sober reading?

As I remember it there was a mention of the colour blue in what he wrote down.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

IMO, it isn't so much that there is a distinctly objective reality; the objective and the subjective are just two interdependent aspects of one reality. Each exists within the other and neither exists absent the other.

I can't agree with that. There's plenty of objective evidence that the universe existed long before consciousness did. I'll agree that consciousness is dependent on the existence of the universe, but I can't agree that the universe is dependent on the existence of consciousness. It's just not supported by evidence.

One can have a science of the 'internal' subjective world, just as theres a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world.Then why haven't we? Science, as it's now known, has been around for a couple of hundred years. The idea of falsifiability has been key for less than a hundred. Many of the early scientists believed the beliefs of their time and did experiments in order to prove things like the existence of the soul. It took many years, but they eventually abandoned the idea of the existence of the soul because they could only find evidence to the contrary. Science reaches a consensus on the matters its investigating. It doesn't do so quickly, it doesn't do so without different theories fighting it out with each other, but it does do so.

The spiritual, paranormal, mystical - whatever you want to call it - on the other hand, has been around throughout all of human history. Going by the studies into such things as superstition in birds, it's probably not unreasonable to say that it's been around since before mankind was what we would recognise today as mankind. And yet there's not one single consensus amongst believers about anything. If there were a science of the "inner", then wouldn't there be a consensus?

And, of course, any time science has been applied to spiritual matters in good experiments, applying the same standards as to testing reality, the results have come up negative. Unfailingly.

Things that don't appear to act in accordance with the apparent laws of physics as we know them we call paranormal or supernatural. In reality, all it really is is just weird **** beyond our current ken. The work of science is never complete :cool:Science has thus far not discovered anything paranormal or supernatural at all. Nothing of that kind has ever been shown to exist. Ever.

[Sledge]

No, we call them lies.

Pixy! What a surprise! I have my canned response to you all ready to go. Here goes,

"No."

To the surprise of no one, Limbo's response made no sense. What was surprising was his keeping it short and not using "grok," "sheep/goat effect," "paradigm," or "the trickster archetype."

[Limbo]

You don't need to spice things up pretending to be a magician.


Well, I'm really more of a mystic. And not a very good one, at that. I'm like a pearl diver who doesn't know how to swim, and so pearls have to be brought up to me. For a mystic, I'm really rather atypical and clumsy in many respects. I don't have a guru or master, or a particular tradition. They are all mine.

I have only cast one chaos magic spell, and it was designed to open my inner eye. I took a leap of faith, betting that faith is a required ingredient in the mental alchemy. It turns out it is.

[Resume]

Well, I'm really more of a mystic. And not a very good one, at that.

A point of agreement! But fear not, there are no good "mystics."

[Dancing David]

Even your own scientism idols will tell you that there is a bizarreness to time.

Nice lack of even a vague citation, so a speculative strawman at best.

You need better teachers.

[Moss]

Well, I'm really more of a mystic. And not a very good one, at that. I'm like a pearl diver who doesn't know how to swim, and so pearls have to be brought up to me. For a mystic, I'm really rather atypical in many respects. I don't have a guru or master, or a particular tradition. They are all mine.

I have only cast one chaos magic spell, and it was designed to open my inner eye. I took a leap of faith, betting that faith is an ingredient in the mental alchemy. It turns out it is.

Not having a guru and conglomerating everything subjectively significant in the field of religion and the "occult" (which it obviously isn't anymore today) seems to have been the whole point of Liber Null et al.
Chaos magic seems to me to be the more honest version of the Wicca "build your own religion from whatever tickles your romantic fantasy" business.But that is at the same time why it is no different to stuff like "The Secret".
Maybe it helps with psychological issues you have. Maybe it also aggravates them. (People like Fries with his "Visual Magick" pretty much admit that it is indeed psychological stuff you are doing.) I'm not sure it's a good way to mess with your psyche. (But then there are a lot of rubbish "psychotherapy" theories around too.)
The funniest part is: if you need "tools" like drugs to get into such states that signifies to me that it is not a normal or even an intended state to be in. It's like playing around with the frequency of your CPU: Maybe it helps, maybe it makes your CPU burn out. But in that example at least you have the guidelines of physics. In playing around with drugs and your psyche you actually have none.

[Dancing David]

Then I suggest you make a sigil to that end, charge it, and set it off. Then wait. If you can keep yourself from getting in your own way, then maybe you will receive a boon that shows you how screwed up your understanding of consciousness is.

This is bad advise Limbo and your teachers are to blame, just like channeling spirits, you are messing with electricity without insulation.

You should really learn about that which you suggest other people do, it looks as though you have very poor teachers who have not instructed you properly.

Sigils have meaning, without the understanding of the meaning and the derivation there is no power to the sigil. There are no keys to the process without that meaning. The first sigils should be constructed based upon the personal meaning of the individual, they should also be used in a ritual space with boundaries.

Your teachers have failed you, I suggest you find better ones.

[Dancing David]

It was a spontaneous vision that happened some days after I achieved gnosis. I'm not good enough to have conscious control over it.

Um, spontaneous vision?

This is a bad sign Limbo, and why I blame your teachers.

You should not, and I repeat not be having any sort of visions or events outside of the ritual space and boundaries. This is Shamanism 100, not even 105 or higher in the course work.

You are playing with electricity without even following the guidelines to preserve the integrity of your selfhood. This is bad very bad, humans in the ritual world posses the ultimate jewel and you are allowing it to be trashed by lack of control. This path leads to delusion, possession and fascination. One should not just allow the forces and spirits to come along randomly, the human in the spiritual sense has the ultimate jewel and you are not caring for it.

Find better teachers.

[Dancing David]

Which granted, doesn't mean the experience was meaningless, it had a very profound impact on me that will probably last the rest of my life. It just doesn't make it magic.

That is the magic. :)

[Dancing David]

Sounds like a beautiful experience. Too bad there wasn't more of it that you could take with you, to keep you from falling too far back into the dominant paradigm afterwards. Oh well. Baby steps. Keep your mind in a receptive state. :)

More evidence that yo do not understand Shmanism 101!

Journeys to the 'spirit realm' are dangerous and taken only after preperation and great caution. Why is that Limbo, why is that what the traditions teach?

Find better teachers.

[Dancing David]

It was a really intense and awesome experience, but you don't need to feel bad for me. I still got a lot out of it even though I don't think it was a supernatural in nature.



Similar path here, same conclusion.

[Limbo]

Dancing David, are you trying to get my attention? lol

You know you are on my ignore list, right? Why do you bother posting in my threads? (rhetorical question)

[Dancing David]

Would you be hungry, had you not had your beautiful experience? You say you got a lot out of it.

One may visit the doctor as needed Limbo, that does not mean you should live in their office.

[Limbo]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread? I get the feeling that maybe the guy is desperate to tell me something. Probably that I'm a dumb-ass crazy woo-woo, right?

[Dancing David]

Yeah, but you aren't your average agnostic skeptic.

I believe that there are many people out there suffering in ways that you are not, and its due to the fact that a paradigm with no mysticism dominates modern culture. The result is rampant 'soul loss', to put it in shamanic terms.

I know there are people like you who are not hungry for spiritual food, and are tolerant of those who are. I have no problem with that. Its the people who are not hungry and are not tolerant of those who are that I have a problem with.

Um, no.

There are more people who waste their time fretting about the spiritual world and imagined ills rather than creating balance and harmony. You can feed your spirit in meaningful ways everyday, you need to understand the true nature of your hunger and bring it into balance. All the traditions will tell you how to do this, pray for others, not yourself and work bhavana in private and without feeding your ego.

There is no 'soul loss' that is just silly and another sign that you need better teachers. You can not loose the soul or spirit, how strange your statement is Limbo.

[Dancing David]

Guys, guys. Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?

We don't need another hero...

[AkuManiMani]

IMO, it isn't so much that there is a distinctly objective reality; the objective and the subjective are just two interdependent aspects of one reality. Each exists within the other and neither exists absent the other.

I can't agree with that. There's plenty of objective evidence that the universe existed long before consciousness did. I'll agree that consciousness is dependent on the existence of the universe, but I can't agree that the universe is dependent on the existence of consciousness. It's just not supported by evidence.

You assume that what most people consider the 'universe' is the extent of reality. The implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in. In any case, even if one assumes that consciousness as we know it could only develop after organic life evolved on this planet the [meta]physical requisites of the subjective had to already exist, elsewise conscious awareness would not be possible.

One can have a science of the 'internal' subjective world, just as theres a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world.

Then why haven't we? Science, as it's now known, has been around for a couple of hundred years. The idea of falsifiability has been key for less than a hundred. Many of the early scientists believed the beliefs of their time and did experiments in order to prove things like the existence of the soul. It took many years, but they eventually abandoned the idea of the existence of the soul because they could only find evidence to the contrary. Science reaches a consensus on the matters its investigating. It doesn't do so quickly, it doesn't do so without different theories fighting it out with each other, but it does do so.

The spiritual, paranormal, mystical - whatever you want to call it - on the other hand, has been around throughout all of human history. Going by the studies into such things as superstition in birds, it's probably not unreasonable to say that it's been around since before mankind was what we would recognise today as mankind. And yet there's not one single consensus amongst believers about anything. If there were a science of the "inner", then wouldn't there be a consensus?

And, of course, any time science has been applied to spiritual matters in good experiments, applying the same standards as to testing reality, the results have come up negative. Unfailingly.

How can one hold a "superstition" concerning something they have first hand experience of? The failed "experiments" you speak of make about as much sense as trying to identify and study your own body from a WoW server. If you want proof of your own subjective existence, you need look no further than your own consciousness. Introspection is as empirical as extrospection [yea, a made up word -- deal with it! :D ].

Things that don't appear to act in accordance with the apparent laws of physics as we know them we call paranormal or supernatural. In reality, all it really is is just weird **** beyond our current ken. The work of science is never complete :cool:

Science has thus far not discovered anything paranormal or supernatural at all. Nothing of that kind has ever been shown to exist. Ever.

Again, that depends on what one defines as "supernatural".

[Dancing David]

Dimethyltryptamine, LSD, psilocybin,... these substances and more have all revealed many things to me in the 15 years I've dabbled with them. They have exposed the limits of the placebo effect connected to all spiritual experiences. Awe and wonder and beauty are worth living for, for their aesthetics alone. All meaning is subjective, absolute purpose is an illusion, merely a frame of reference by which we've learned to make sense of the sensory input our very physical and material minds are able to sense. There is an infinitely awe inspiring quality to the universe, right there waiting for us to appreciate it at all times. The trouble is we need to be reminded of it periodically through various means. But we're no more capable of altering the physical world through incorporeal means than a rabbit or a grasshopper or a turtle is. Or a stone or a tree. The miracle is that an object in the universe has developed the capability to be aware of itself and the universe it is a part of. Why people are starving for more than that knowledge alone is a tragedy. You don't need to spice things up pretending to be a magician. You're a walking conglomeration of billions and trillions of improbabilities, and this isn't enough?

As Uncle Al once said "You can shout the Secrets of the Universe from the roof tops and people will not listen."

[Dancing David]

A point of agreement! But fear not, there are no good "mystics."

It really depends upon the sauce one uses... they should not be overcooked.

[Dancing David]

Dancing David, are you trying to get my attention? lol

You know you are on my ignore list, right? Why do you bother posting in my threads? (rhetorical question)

Funny Limbo!

Why should I not post in your threads, does the world revolve around you?

I must have missed the part of the MA that said 'Dancing David shall not post in Limbo's threads.'

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You assume that what most people consider the 'universe' is the extent of reality. The implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in.

There is no contradiction between these two sentences. And it's a huge, huge, huge leap from "the implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in" to "consciousness exists outside the individual head" or "consciousness is necessary for the universe to exist". The latter two statements have nothing whatsoever to do with any science, cutting edge theoretical physics or not.

In any case, even if one assumes that consciousness as we know it could only develop after organic life evolved on this planet the [meta]physical requisites of the subjective had to already exist, elsewise conscious awareness would not be possible.

What do you mean by "metaphysical requisites of the subjective"? Certainly, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a brain is required for consciousness to exist. And you can't have a subjective perspective without a conscious mind.

How can one hold a "superstition" concerning something they have first hand experience of?

I didn't say they could.

However, it's certainly demonstrably the case that you can have subjective experiences which are not objective truth. Too much is known about the workings of the brain and how it consistently responds under various stimuli for this to be denied.

The failed "experiments" you speak of make about as much sense as trying to identify and study your own body from a WoW server.

The experiments on birds about superstition are not failed, they are very highly-regarded and the theory is accepted by the scientific community.

I have no idea what you mean by your WoW analogy, but it looks like you're completely ignoring the point I was making about scientific consensus. Whether that is because you didn't understand the point or don't want to address it for one reason or another I don't know, but it's not conducive to honest debate.

If you want proof of your own subjective existence, you need look no further than your own consciousness. Introspection is as empirical as extrospection [yea, a made up word -- deal with it! :D ].

I know I have a subjective existence. What I was arguing against was your assertion that there is a science of the internal world which you seem to deem synonymous with that which is classified as paranormal or supernatural.

[quote]Again, that depends on what one defines as "supernatural".

So how do you define it, and can you provide examples of supernatural things that there is a science of?

[Sledge]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread?
Nope. You'll have to read his posts and respond to them or be revealed as a coward. I'd prefer you took option 2. :)

[Resume]

You know you are on my ignore list, right? Why do you bother posting in my threads? (rhetorical question)

You mean your "PSI" doesn't inform you of such things. Sucky PSI then.

[Dancing David]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread? I get the feeling that maybe the guy is desperate to tell me something. Probably that I'm a dumb-ass crazy woo-woo, right?

Even funnier!

[Moss]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread? I get the feeling that maybe the guy is desperate to tell me something. Probably that I'm a dumb-ass crazy woo-woo, right?

Actually: no. David is pretty willing to discuss.

[Limbo]

Are we talking about the same Dancing David? Someone must have kidnapped him and hijacked his account... >.<

[sadhatter]

Maybe theres another method to his madness? ;)

No i have been around long enough to realize that he is simply getting kicks from drawing stuff out. His posts never have any content , and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he is just trying to waste people's time.

So i have to ask, what is your stake in this? Anyone can tell , by a browse of his post history , that he is simply playing a game of virtual keep away. SOme people may reply in order to provide an example to people of a similar belief that see the thread, and others may simply enjoy pointing out how obvious it is that he is just trollin'

So i have to ask, what , exactly about his posts would indicate to you that he is being legitimate? And what explanation would you have for the fact that he rather consistently posts literal nonsense ( as in responses that do no make any kind of sense to the question received.) , that is put into a grammatically anarchistic from? We are not talking the odd joke here we are talking about something specifically made in order to not have any content, but take as long as possible to figure that out.

[sadhatter]

Are we talking about the same Dancing David? Someone must have kidnapped him and hijacked his account... >.<

I always thought it was against TOS to taunt someone on your ignore list?

It seems if you wanted to ignore them, you would be...ignoring them.

But, on the other hand if your goal was to get people angry, it would seem like a worthwhile tactic to try " HAHA can't hear you".

[AkuManiMani]

You assume that what most people consider the 'universe' is the extent of reality. The implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in.

There is no contradiction between these two sentences. And it's a huge, huge, huge leap from "the implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in" to "consciousness exists outside the individual head" or "consciousness is necessary for the universe to exist". The latter two statements have nothing whatsoever to do with any science, cutting edge theoretical physics or not.

My original statement was that the subjective and the objective are two interdependent aspects of reality. Subjects are objectively real and objects are subjectively sensible. A subject that has no objective reality, by definition, does not exist as such, and the same goes for objects that are not subjectively sensible. I think we can agree that brains and physical universes that are not observable do not exist.

In any case, even if one assumes that consciousness as we know it could only develop after organic life evolved on this planet the [meta]physical requisites of the subjective had to already exist, elsewise conscious awareness would not be possible.


What do you mean by "metaphysical requisites of the subjective"? Certainly, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a brain is required for consciousness to exist. And you can't have a subjective perspective without a conscious mind.

No evidence that YOU have personally experienced. You're taking the claims of other people that there is no evidence on faith. I've communicated and interacted with conscious entities that did not have material brains -- at least none that were present during our interactions. I've all the evidence -I- need to convince me of the falsity of your "no evidence" hypothesis.

How can one hold a "superstition" concerning something they have first hand experience of?

I didn't say they could.

Then "spirits" without material bodies are not superstitions.

However, it's certainly demonstrably the case that you can have subjective experiences which are not objective truth. Too much is known about the workings of the brain and how it consistently responds under various stimuli for this to be denied.

Yet I've gained objective veridical knowledge from such encounters. All I'm getting from you is hearsay that such things are not possible.

The failed "experiments" you speak of make about as much sense as trying to identify and study your own body from a WoW server.

I have no idea what you mean by your WoW analogy, but it looks like you're completely ignoring the point I was making about scientific consensus. Whether that is because you didn't understand the point or don't want to address it for one reason or another I don't know, but it's not conducive to honest debate.

I mean the 'external' world that modern science currently studies is analogous to WoW and "souls"/"spirits" are analogous to the material bodies of the users. The bodies do not exist within the frame of the VR world so searching for them there or trying to explain them purely in terms of the physics of that world is a futile exercise.

If you want proof of your own subjective existence, you need look no further than your own consciousness. Introspection is as empirical as extrospection [yea, a made up word -- deal with it! :D ].

I know I have a subjective existence. What I was arguing against was your assertion that there is a science of the internal world which you seem to deem synonymous with that which is classified as paranormal or supernatural.

My point was just as how one can accumulate a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world thru our sensory organs one can also do the same for the 'interior' world via introspection -- i.e. studying consciousness from the 'inside'.

Again, that depends on what one defines as "supernatural".

So how do you define it, and can you provide examples of supernatural things that there is a science of?

Like I mentioned earlier, "supernatural" is just a relative term for anything that seems to operate outside the bounds of what one considers physically possible; like a slight of hand trick it violates an individual's sense of reality, only in a much more radical way. I, and many other people, have experienced things that, according to your conception of what is possible, should not be. To you those things are "supernatural" anecdotes. To me they are empirical proof that our scientific models of reality are woefully incomplete.

[AkuManiMani]

No i have been around long enough to realize that he is simply getting kicks from drawing stuff out. His posts never have any content , and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he is just trying to waste people's time.

So i have to ask, what is your stake in this? Anyone can tell , by a browse of his post history , that he is simply playing a game of virtual keep away. SOme people may reply in order to provide an example to people of a similar belief that see the thread, and others may simply enjoy pointing out how obvious it is that he is just trollin'

So i have to ask, what , exactly about his posts would indicate to you that he is being legitimate? And what explanation would you have for the fact that he rather consistently posts literal nonsense ( as in responses that do no make any kind of sense to the question received.) , that is put into a grammatically anarchistic from? We are not talking the odd joke here we are talking about something specifically made in order to not have any content, but take as long as possible to figure that out.

I think what hes posting is legitimately his POV; its just that hes using the wrong communication methods with the wrong crowd.

[Limbo, if you're reading this, I suggest you adapt your language to fit your audience's mode of thinking ;) ]

[Limbo]

I think what hes posting is legitimately his POV; its just that hes using the wrong communication methods with the wrong crowd.

[Limbo, if you're reading this, I suggest you adapt your language to fit your audience's mode of thinking ;) ]


What mode of thinking is that?

[tsig]

Then I suggest you make a sigil to that end, charge it, and set it off. Then wait. If you can keep yourself from getting in your own way, then maybe you will receive a boon that shows you how screwed up your understanding of consciousness is.

After I make the sigil am I going to have to eat a frog or something like that. Please tell be up front 'cause I ain't riding anymore goats in the dark.

[tsig]

Don't you get it? Anything I say to you or link you to as an example will only go in one ear and out the other. If you are to have a paradigm shift, you need to see the light for yourself. But, that means getting out of your own way.

If one can't grab a hold of their own paradigm and wrestle control of it long enough to charge a sigil, then one is a slave to it.

Dude, I worked the paradigm shift at the fantasy factory before you were born.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

My original statement was that the subjective and the objective are two interdependent aspects of reality. Subjects are objectively real and objects are subjectively sensible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "subjectively sensible". Do you mean that we can sense them? By ourselves? If so then, say, electrons aren't subjectively sensible.

I think we can agree that brains and physical universes that are not observable do not exist.

No, I don't think we can agree on that, if you mean what I think you mean. If there are regions of the universe which are beyond our observation and the observation of any other life forms which may exist in the universe, then I would contend that that universe still exists, even though nobody would know of it.

No evidence that YOU have personally experienced. You're taking the claims of other people that there is no evidence on faith. I've communicated and interacted with conscious entities that did not have material brains -- at least none that were present during our interactions. I've all the evidence -I- need to convince me of the falsity of your "no evidence" hypothesis.

Then I'm back to where I started in this conversation - the untrustworthy nature of subjective experience and the proven track record of empiricism. Once more, science demonstrably works. Without question, it works. Spiritualism, or whatever you want to term what you're talking about, has never been demonstrated to work, and has never achieved anything palpable.

Then "spirits" without material bodies are not superstitions.

No, that logic doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

Yet I've gained objective veridical knowledge from such encounters. All I'm getting from you is hearsay that such things are not possible.

Actually, I'm citing any number of scientific studies into the working of the brain, not hearsay. What you've just presented me with is hearsay.

Still, if what you say is true and you can repeat this feat, then there's a million dollars waiting for you.

I mean the 'external' world that modern science currently studies is analogous to WoW and "souls"/"spirits" are analogous to the material bodies of the users. The bodies do not exist within the frame of the VR world so searching for them there or trying to explain them purely in terms of the physics of that world is a futile exercise.

On what are you basing this?

My point was just as how one can accumulate a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world thru our sensory organs one can also do the same for the 'interior' world via introspection -- i.e. studying consciousness from the 'inside'.

Yes. And, as I pointed out, and which you have thus far ignored, this hasn't been done. No such body of scientific knowledge exists, nor even a consensus about the spiritual. Why do you suppose this is, given that the spiritual has been around for thousands more years than science has?

Like I mentioned earlier, "supernatural" is just a relative term for anything that seems to operate outside the bounds of what one considers physically possible; like a slight of hand trick it violates an individual's sense of reality, only in a much more radical way. I, and many other people, have experienced things that, according to your conception of what is possible, should not be. To you those things are "supernatural" anecdotes. To me they are empirical proof that our scientific models of reality are woefully incomplete.

I think you're equivocating with the word "empirical", here.

[AkuManiMani]

I think what hes posting is legitimately his POV; its just that hes using the wrong communication methods with the wrong crowd.

[Limbo, if you're reading this, I suggest you adapt your language to fit your audience's mode of thinking ;) ]


What mode of thinking is that?

When they ask you for clarification use strait-forward language. They only interpret your attempts at evocation as you being a cryptic troll. You already have them in 'woo' stomping mode by using trigger words and phrases like "mystical", "paradigm shift", "magic", and "sigil". They aren't in the same poetic/mystical frame of mind as you are so you have to meet them where they are "on the ground", so to speak :-X

[Limbo]

When they ask you for clarification use strait-forward language. They only interpret your attempts at evocation as you being a cryptic troll. You already have them in 'woo' stomping mode by using trigger words and phrases like "mystical", "paradigm shift", "magic", and "sigil". They aren't in the same poetic/mystical frame of mind as you are so you have to meet them where they are "on the ground", so to speak :-X


As a matter of principle I use the same language with people here as I would use anywhere. I use the same words whether I'm talking to a religious fundamentalist or a skeptic. I don't like that Sam Harris uses sanitized words just because someone can't swallow a word. I talk the way I talk to anyone I talk to, and if someone can't handle it for whatever reason, then they can always politely excuse themselves from talking to me...can't they? I would think so. They can just put me on ignore.

[Weak Kitten]

When they ask you for clarification use strait-forward language. They only interpret your attempts at evocation as you being a cryptic troll. You already have them in 'woo' stomping mode by using trigger words and phrases like "mystical", "paradigm shift", "magic", and "sigil". They aren't in the same poetic/mystical frame of mind as you are so you have to meet them where they are "on the ground", so to speak :-X

Though Limbo ignored your request I think it was nicely put AkuManiMani. I will have to remember that for future use. I do get confused when I think we are talking about something factual and people start getting poetic in their language.

[Hellbound]

Though Limbo ignored your request I think it was nicely put AkuManiMani. I will have to remember that for future use. I do get confused when I think we are talking about something factual and people start getting poetic in their language.

Second this, and like to add that poetry is, pretty much by definition and design, imprecise and open to interpretation. Which doesn't do well in a discussion of fact and evidence.

[Limbo]

Though Limbo ignored your request I think it was nicely put AkuManiMani. I will have to remember that for future use. I do get confused when I think we are talking about something factual and people start getting poetic in their language.


We are talking about something factual. We are talking about a system of magic that people actually practice. Part of that system are certain words, like 'paradigm shift' and 'sigil'. If you take them out and try to substitute something else to appease someone, then you aren't really talking about Chaos Magic anymore.

If someone just can't handle those words because of an intellectual allergy, then that someone should, in all politeness, excuse themselves from this thread.

[AkuManiMani]

My original statement was that the subjective and the objective are two interdependent aspects of reality. Subjects are objectively real and objects are subjectively sensible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "subjectively sensible". Do you mean that we can sense them? By ourselves? If so then, say, electrons aren't subjectively sensible.

Our own biological equipment does not allow us the sensitivity to perceive individual electrons (or photons) unaided but they are still observable and subject to empirical study.

I think we can agree that brains and physical universes that are not observable do not exist.

No, I don't think we can agree on that, if you mean what I think you mean. If there are regions of the universe which are beyond our observation and the observation of any other life forms which may exist in the universe, then I would contend that that universe still exists, even though nobody would know of it.

Their reality rests upon them being observable in principle and in their interaction with the rest of reality that is being observed. We'll probably have to start another thread for this topic but I think one theory that kinda overlaps with what I'm trying to convey to you would be biocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(cosmology)).

No evidence that YOU have personally experienced. You're taking the claims of other people that there is no evidence on faith. I've communicated and interacted with conscious entities that did not have material brains -- at least none that were present during our interactions. I've all the evidence -I- need to convince me of the falsity of your "no evidence" hypothesis.

Then I'm back to where I started in this conversation - the untrustworthy nature of subjective experience and the proven track record of empiricism. Once more, science demonstrably works. Without question, it works. Spiritualism, or whatever you want to term what you're talking about, has never been demonstrated to work, and has never achieved anything palpable.

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.

Then "spirits" without material bodies are not superstitions.

No, that logic doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

I've interacted with such entities just as I'm interacting with you now. The only difference is that my interactions with them have been much more direct than our correspondence on this web forum.


Yet I've gained objective veridical knowledge from such encounters. All I'm getting from you is hearsay that such things are not possible.

Actually, I'm citing any number of scientific studies into the working of the brain, not hearsay. What you've just presented me with is hearsay.

The studies you reference are not your own experiences. They are the conclusions other people have drawn about their experiences which they have reported and you put a degree of trust in. Your trust in their conclusions is not knowledge but a -belief- in propositions which you have not personally verified. Ergo, what you are claiming to me is hearsay, regardless of the veracity of the source.

Still, if what you say is true and you can repeat this feat, then there's a million dollars waiting for you.

How is being addressed by someone else a 'feat'? I didn't go thru some procedure to invoke the entities in question, they simply contacted me of their own accord; nor am I claiming any special powers, so how does the MDC factor into it?

I mean the 'external' world that modern science currently studies is analogous to WoW and "souls"/"spirits" are analogous to the material bodies of the users. The bodies do not exist within the frame of the VR world so searching for them there or trying to explain them purely in terms of the physics of that world is a futile exercise.

On what are you basing this?

A combination of my 'abnormal' experiences, my readings on current scientific understandings of the physical world (ranging from theoretical physics to biology), introspection, and my reflection upon those information sources to form my own conclusions.

My point was just as how one can accumulate a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world thru our sensory organs one can also do the same for the 'interior' world via introspection -- i.e. studying consciousness from the 'inside'.

Yes. And, as I pointed out, and which you have thus far ignored, this hasn't been done. No such body of scientific knowledge exists, nor even a consensus about the spiritual. Why do you suppose this is, given that the spiritual has been around for thousands more years than science has?

Dude, what do you think Buddhism is?

Like I mentioned earlier, "supernatural" is just a relative term for anything that seems to operate outside the bounds of what one considers physically possible; like a slight of hand trick it violates an individual's sense of reality, only in a much more radical way. I, and many other people, have experienced things that, according to your conception of what is possible, should not be. To you those things are "supernatural" anecdotes. To me they are empirical proof that our scientific models of reality are woefully incomplete.

I think you're equivocating with the word "empirical", here.

How have I misused used the term 'empirical' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/veracity)?

[Resume]

We are talking about something factual. We are talking about a system of magic that people actually practice. Part of that system are certain words, like 'paradigm shift' and 'sigil'. If you take them out and try to substitute something else to appease someone, then you aren't really talking about Chaos Magic anymore.

If someone just can't handle those words because of an intellectual allergy, then that someone should, in all politeness, excuse themselves from this thread.

Bald assertion.

And stop telling people what threads they may or may not participate in.

[AkuManiMani]

Bald assertion.

And stop telling people what threads they may or may not participate in.

What hes saying is that if you don't like his language and are unwilling to meet him where he is then you should politely excuse yourself from the discussion HE started instead of jeering and mocking. I think it is a reasonable request.

[PixyMisa]

Yeah, but you aren't your average agnostic skeptic.

I believe that there are many people out there suffering in ways that you are not, and its due to the fact that a paradigm with no mysticism dominates modern culture. The result is rampant 'soul loss', to put it in shamanic terms.
Bugger the soul loss, what are we going to do about this tragic unicorn shortage?!

[tsig]

It was a spontaneous vision that happened some days after I achieved gnosis. I'm not good enough to have conscious control over it.

I'm sure there's a cure for that.

[AkuManiMani]

I'm sure there's a cure for that.

What makes it a malady that needs curing? Do you even know what hes talking about?

[tsig]

Limbo, the man who purposely makes as little sense as possible in order to draw out a thread that has at this point said nothing concrete. No need to thank me for the clarification.

Me, on the other hand am simply not doing what he wants ,which is for me to put a giant well thought out reply, to which he will reply with a cryptic grammatically anarchistic 2 line post. Then snicker because he made one of those uptight jref'ers waste time replying to him.

Once limbo starts putting actual content and effort into a post, i will reply in kind.

Neveh gonna' 'appen.

[tsig]

Yeah, but you aren't your average agnostic skeptic.

I believe that there are many people out there suffering in ways that you are not, and its due to the fact that a paradigm with no mysticism dominates modern culture. The result is rampant 'soul loss', to put it in shamanic terms.

I know there are people like you who are not hungry for spiritual food, and are tolerant of those who are. I have no problem with that. Its the people who are not hungry and are not tolerant of those who are that I have a problem with.

I agree, that's why I'm selling souls short.

[Resume]

What hes saying is that if you don't like his language and are unwilling to meet him where he is then you should politely excuse yourself from the discussion HE started instead of jeering and mocking. I think it is a reasonable request.
Don't care what you think.

ETA Sorry, that was a bit short. I understand what you're trying to say, but feel I may participate in this thread regardless, and don't need your permission.

[AkuManiMani]

Don't care what you think.

Thats fine. Atleast now I know you've no honest intentions in this discussion. Pardon me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[sadhatter]

I think what hes posting is legitimately his POV; its just that hes using the wrong communication methods with the wrong crowd.

[Limbo, if you're reading this, I suggest you adapt your language to fit your audience's mode of thinking ;) ]

And so did i, but after repeated attempts to help and receiving his usual garbled mess of a post, i hit my head against a brick wall enough times to realize the wall wasn't moving anywhere.

There is a distinct difference between didn't pay attention in english class, and purposely content less and grammatically anarchistic for the purposes of wasting time. His posting style wouldn't fly anywhere, i can forgive spelling mistakes, or grammatical inconsistency. But this is well beyond that. Simply not making sense is not a style of posting that is looked highly upon anywhere. And not making sense in such a way to drag people along to wait for a point, is evidence of someone simply trying to yank some chains.

[Resume]

Thats fine. Atleast now I know you've no honest intentions in this discussion. Pardon me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You know no such thing.

[tsig]

Can anyone remember the case of a fairly famous person taking some sort of drug and recording what they considered to be a deeply profound thought only to find it was nonsense upon sober reading?

As I remember it there was a mention of the colour blue in what he wrote down.

Best I can do:

http://coldspur.com/HogamousHigamous(V2).htm

[sadhatter]

What mode of thinking is that?

Perfect example right here.

He posts that way in order to drag out what should be a one post conversation:

" Change your mode of posting to fit in better with the mode of thinking here. "

" Okay " or " No"

To what is going to turn into this.

" Change your mode of posting to fit better with the mode of thinking here. "

" What mode of thinking is that?"

" The kind you view around here"

" I do not view any kind of thinking around here :)"

" lol, but you know what i mean."

" But that is not what i mean"

" your ideas would get better reception if you tried it though."

" My ideas are my own, and reception is for televisions not ideas"

( and this keeps going until someone finally stops feeding him.)

It is transparent and eye roll inducing at best.

[sadhatter]

What hes saying is that if you don't like his language and are unwilling to meet him where he is then you should politely excuse yourself from the discussion HE started instead of jeering and mocking. I think it is a reasonable request.

And i think it is a troll trying to get " cheap heat" , my evidence though is much more compelling should you actually look over his post history.

[tsig]

Um, spontaneous vision?

This is a bad sign Limbo, and why I blame your teachers.

You should not, and I repeat not be having any sort of visions or events outside of the ritual space and boundaries. This is Shamanism 100, not even 105 or higher in the course work.

You are playing with electricity without even following the guidelines to preserve the integrity of your selfhood. This is bad very bad, humans in the ritual world posses the ultimate jewel and you are allowing it to be trashed by lack of control. This path leads to delusion, possession and fascination. One should not just allow the forces and spirits to come along randomly, the human in the spiritual sense has the ultimate jewel and you are not caring for it.

Find better teachers.

QFL

[AkuManiMani]

And i think it is a troll trying to get " cheap heat" , my evidence though is much more compelling should you actually look over his post history.

If thats the case lets see if he bucks the trend in this thread :)

[sadhatter]

Neveh gonna' 'appen.

Oh i know, but i want to avoid someone making the generic " your just shut down to him" comment.

Should the guy start putting content and a minimal format in his post, i will treat him legitimately. But if he keeps obviously trolling, i am going to keep obviously calling him out.

[nescafe]

Can anyone remember the case of a fairly famous person taking some sort of drug and recording what they considered to be a deeply profound thought only to find it was nonsense upon sober reading?

As I remember it there was a mention of the colour blue in what he wrote down.
Overall, there was a scent of fried onions.

[sadhatter]

If thats the case lets see if he bucks the trend in this thread :)

Trollin' isn't a disease or a mistake, it is purposeful. While i will not only defaecate myself out of surprise , but respond to him should what he says show any sign at all of not being designed to screw with people, i am not holding my breath.

[Resume]

Oh i know, but i want to avoid someone making the generic " your just shut down to him" comment.

Should the guy start putting content and a minimal format in his post, i will treat him legitimately. But if he keeps obviously trolling, i am going to keep obviously calling him out.

I think he actually believes he's offering content.

[tsig]

You mean your "PSI" doesn't inform you of such things. Sucky PSI then.

:dl:

[tsig]

What makes it a malady that needs curing? Do you even know what hes talking about?

Yes. he's saying he has special knowledge that the rest of us don't have therefore he is superior to us.

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

[AkuManiMani]

Don't care what you think.

ETA Sorry, that was a bit short. I understand what you're trying to say, but feel I may participate in this thread regardless, and don't need your permission.

Sorry, didn't catch the ETA.

If you think hes just trolling then your jeering posts are just feeding it anyway.

[Resume]

Sorry, didn't catch the ETA.

If you think hes just trolling then your jeering posts are just feeding it anyway.

I think I'm on ignore at any rate. And I don't jeer, I satirize. That's my story anyway.

[AkuManiMani]

What makes it a malady that needs curing? Do you even know what hes talking about?

Yes. he's saying he has special knowledge that the rest of us don't have therefore he is superior to us.

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint[


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

Limbo, iono if this is the kind of impression you wanna be giving here -- especially when you're discussing the mystical on a skeptic forum. You really should consider using strait forward language to qualify your purpose first instead of just slapping the audience upside the head with esoteric terms :o

[theprestige]

Some of the conversations I've seen recently are boiling down to the point where a skeptic might realize that its his or her own personal responsibility to, as Sam Harris called it (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html), "build your own telescope". That is to say, evaluate mystical claims by becoming a mystic yourself. Of course Sam Harris would use other terms that are sanitized for 'rational folk', such as contemplative. But me, I am not so kind.

So lets say you are a card-carrying skeptic and you want to do a little mystical investigation of your own, that is to say build your own telescope and see what you can see. Where do you start? Well, you could do as Sam seems to be doing and go the meditation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html) route. But most of us Westerners have a hard time with meditation, and most who try it give it up before achieving mystical altered states of consciousness.

So what other choice does that leave for the intrepid skeptic? Whatever contemplative tradition an intepid skeptic chooses must include a method of gaining altered states of consciousness. That is a universal common denominator in mystical traditions. That is to say, its part of every telescope. Sam Harris has chosen meditation to build his telescope with. But for those of us without the temperament or the time to devote to learning and practicing meditation, there is quicker choice. Chaos magic.

The idea behind Chaos magic is simple. Everything is permitted, everything is true. A chaos magician uses the power of paradigm shifting, in conjunction with altered states of consciousness, in order to elicit psychic functioning for a purpose. That, in essence, is magic.

So an intrepid skeptic who wants to test chaoes magic would start with a little reading about the principles of Chaos magic. Then, he or she selects a method of achieving gnosis. Gnosis is the Chaos magic term for altered state of consciousness. There are several methods to choose from, and its a very personal choice. Self-hypnosis, sexual orgasm, frenzied dancing, entheogens, ect.

Then he or she learns to contruct a sigil. A sigil is a personal symbol of intent, which the psychic energy of your gnosis is directed toward. Intent is a crucial ingredient. For instance, our intrepid skeptic has the intent to experience psychic ability. So he or she first constructs a sigil that symbolizes that intent, then uses a method to achieve a temporary state of gnosis, and waits.

It might take a while to get the hang acheiving gnosis but eventually the unconscious mind of the skeptic, in accordance with the intent of the sigil, would begin to provide the conscious mind with psychic experiences. Then what our intrepid skeptic has done in essence is cast a spell. Paradigm manipulation, sigils, and gnosis. Oh my!

For sheer usefulness and reproducibility, give me Law Magic every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Talk about building telescopes? Let me know when any chaos magician, anywhere, anytime, builds anything even as remotely useful or interesting as Galileo's simple instrument--let alone comes up with a "spell" or "ritual" for building such a thing, that is teachable, repeatable, and reliable.

I don't know what chaotes do, but I don't see much magic in it. At least, not any kind of broadly applicable, useful magic.

Moveable type? Not a product of chaos magic.

Actual telescopes? Not a product of chaos magic.

Hygenic dentistry? Not a product of chaos magic.

The Apollo Project? Not even remotely a product of chaos magic. Chaos magicians may imagine they went to the moon, but the "law magicians" at NASA actually did it for real. And they have a proven recipe, that they could use again and again. To me, it's real, repeatable results that signify real magic.

Combine all the useful things done by all the chaos magicians ever, and I'll wager any single accomplishment of the Rationalists has been more useful to more people.

[Limbo]

Limbo, iono if this is the kind of impression you wanna be giving here -- especially when you're discussing the mystical on a skeptic forum. You really should consider using strait forward language to qualify your purpose first instead of just slapping the audience upside the head with esoteric terms :o


I thought I did qualify it when I said it was the Chaos Magic term for altered state of consciousness.

[Zanders]

*sigh* Limbo, you seem to keep ignoring this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=190622) that shows many people here have tried what you said in your opening post. Why not bring this up in that thread? Do you not want to talk to the people who have actually tried already?

Also, Dancing David has made some very good posts. I think that you should at least unblock him temporarily to read them. They seem like something that you might would find interesting and should take in to considerations, they are not blatant attacks or insults. But it is up to you.

[AkuManiMani]

I thought I did qualify it when I said it was the Chaos Magic term for altered state of consciousness.

You're dealin' with a really rough crowd here. You're gonna have to be prepared to clarify and re-clarify before you get to the point where some people start getting into the groove of that you're trying to convey. The ones who really want to understand and the ones who just wanna 'woo'-bash will make themselves apparent eventually :-/

[Limbo]

You're dealin' with a really rough crowd here. You're gonna have to be prepared to clarify and re-clarify before you get to the point where some people start getting into the groove of that you're trying to convey. The ones who really want to understand and the ones who just wanna 'woo'-bash will make themselves apparent eventually :-/


Or, I could just ignore the people who need me to clarify and re-clarify, so that I can focus on the people that I think might be able to grok what i have to say in the only way I know how to say it. I can't possibly respond to every poster, every post. I need a criteria to whittle it down.

[AkuManiMani]

Or, I could just ignore the people who need me to clarify and re-clarify, so that I can focus on the people that I think might be able to grok what i have to say in the only way I know how to say it. I can't possibly respond to every poster, every post. I need a criteria to whittle it down.

True, this.

[Zanders]

Or, I could just ignore the people who need me to clarify and re-clarify, so that I can focus on the people that I think might be able to grok what i have to say in the only way I know how to say it. I can't possibly respond to every poster, every post. I need a criteria to whittle it down.

A good teacher is prepared to explain and defend what he is trying to teach. If you made posts in the past explaining what you beleive, or there are some books that outline it, maybe you could link to those as reference.

Critical thinking doesn't involve taking someones word for it without some form of criticism. It has to stand up to criticism. Nobody is going to beleive what you are saying unless you can explain the mechanics of it. Maybe you should write a book.

[Limbo]

A good teacher is prepared to explain and defend what he is trying to teach. If you made posts in the past explaining what you beleive, or there are some books that outline it, maybe you could link to those as reference.

Critical thinking doesn't involve taking someones word for it without some form of criticism. It has to stand up to criticism.


True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

[ria_rokz]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

LOL! You've obviously never been a teacher!

[Limbo]

LOL! You've obviously never been a teacher!


What do you teach, if I may ask?

[Zanders]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

If your intention is not to teach, then what exactly are you doing?

[Limbo]

If your intention is not to teach, then what exactly are you doing?


A little of this, a little of that. There are some cool people here. You, for instance. You aren't too far gone to teach. And, this place makes me laugh. Skeptics really do have a great sense of humor. Must be all the cynicism.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical, through JREF. I never really had that option, what with having the paranormal shoved in my face all my life and all.

[Zanders]

A little of this, a little of that. There are some cool people here. You, for instance. You aren't too far gone to teach. And, this place makes me laugh. Skeptics really do have a great sense of humor. Must be all the cynicism.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical through JREF. I never really had that option, what with having the paranormal shoved in my face all my life and all.

Thanks for the compliment. I think that people would be more willing to listen if your posts didn't use an enlightened superior tone (I'm not saying they don't do the same, because many do). Saying that you can't explain what you are talking about, even if it is true, makes something very hard to beleive.

[Limbo]

Thanks for the compliment. I think that people would be more willing to listen if your posts didn't use an enlightened superior tone (I'm not saying they don't do the same, because many do). Saying that you can't explain what you are talking about, even if it is true, makes something very hard to beleive.


I'll try. :)

[ria_rokz]

What do you teach, if I may ask?

Many things, many ages. There's always (at least) few who already think they know everything. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail your thread. I was just chuckling at your assumption that being a teacher automatically grants you authority.

[Limbo]

Many things, many ages. There's always (at least) few who already think they know everything. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail your thread. I was just chuckling at your assumption that being a teacher automatically grants you authority.


I suppose it might depend, in part, on who in turn has authority over the teacher in question. A bureaucracy? Or a vibe? ;)

A mystic can expel a student on a whim, as the size of my ignore list can testify to. So, its up to the student. Want to learn, play by the mystics rules. Want to disrupt, end up on ignore. Not that you are disrupting!! :)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Our own biological equipment does not allow us the sensitivity to perceive individual electrons (or photons) unaided but they are still observable and subject to empirical study.

Fair enough.

Their reality rests upon them being observable in principle and in their interaction with the rest of reality that is being observed.

If by this you mean that if we were there we would be able to observe them or their interactions with things which we can observe, then I agree.

We'll probably have to start another thread for this topic but I think one theory that kinda overlaps with what I'm trying to convey to you would be biocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(cosmology)).

I can't say I know much about this, and I only skimmed that article, but my initial thoughts are that it's doubtful. Of course I'll need to read more before making any determination.

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.

In a strictly literal sense, you're right. But the whole point of the scientific method is to eradicate the subjectivity, which it does with falisfiability, replicablity, predictions, and the fact that everybody and their mother criticises, modifies, and repeats the experiments until the data is overwhelming in one direction or another.

The same cannot be said of introspection.

I've interacted with such entities just as I'm interacting with you now. The only difference is that my interactions with them have been much more direct than our correspondence on this web forum.

I don't doubt that you genuinely believe you have. But I don't find that convincing evidence personally.

The studies you reference are not your own experiences.

No, they are better than my own experiences because they have undergone rigorous testing which has been designed to filter out all the biases, assumptions, and so on which I, as a fallible human being, possess and bring to any and all subjective experiences that I have.

Ergo, what you are claiming to me is hearsay, regardless of the veracity of the source.

This is a very odd definition of "hearsay".

How is being addressed by someone else a 'feat'? I didn't go thru some procedure to invoke the entities in question, they simply contacted me of their own accord; nor am I claiming any special powers, so how does the MDC factor into it?

I'm not saying you claim special powers. You are, however, claiming that there is a science of the supernatural, a science of which you have been part through these communications. If there really is a science, then it should be demonstrable. If it's demonstrable, you can prove the supernatural exists. If you can prove the supernatural exists, then you can win a million dollars.

Dude, what do you think Buddhism is?

Neither a body of scientific knowledge nor an accepted consensus of the truth about the supernatural.

How have I misused used the term 'empirical' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/veracity)?

Why did you link to the dictionary entry for the word "veracity"? But, to answer your question, the definition of "empirical" in the scientific sense is not the same as the sense in which you're using it. You are talking about a set of anecdotes and personal experiences with no controls, protocols, replicability, falisfiability or predictions. This is not science.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform.

But that's exactly what you're doing in the first post of this thread. And you're claiming to be a teacher in this post:

Want to learn, play by the mystics rules. Want to disrupt, end up on ignore.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical, through JREF.

You do realise that being sceptical is just the opposite of being credulous, don't you? You can be sceptical and a believer, you just have to have evidence supporting your beliefs.

[AkuManiMani]

We'll probably have to start another thread for this topic but I think one theory that kinda overlaps with what I'm trying to convey to you would be biocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(cosmology)).

I can't say I know much about this, and I only skimmed that article, but my initial thoughts are that it's doubtful. Of course I'll need to read more before making any determination.

Good :)

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.

In a strictly literal sense, you're right. But the whole point of the scientific method is to eradicate the subjectivity, which it does with falisfiability, replicablity, predictions, and the fact that everybody and their mother criticises, modifies, and repeats the experiments until the data is overwhelming in one direction or another.

The same cannot be said of introspection.

I don't think the problem is so much subjectivity, per se, but the unconscious biases one may bring to the table that can distort one's reasoning and perceptions of the world in a deceptive way.

While having a lot of people looking over each other's shoulders to keep one another honest is a decent way to obtain clear accurate knowledge it can just as easily cause one to succumb to groupthink. Shared biases are just as distorting, if not more so, than personal biases because they are much harder to notice and overcome. Honest meditation and introspection is the best way to uncover and examine one's own hidden assumptions, biases, and motivations that operate outside of their awareness. You can't rely on others to read your mind for you.

I've interacted with such entities just as I'm interacting with you now. The only difference is that my interactions with them have been much more direct than our correspondence on this web forum.

I don't doubt that you genuinely believe you have. But I don't find that convincing evidence personally.

And you shouldn't. They aren't -your- experiences, so you are not obliged to accept them as factual. I'm simply providing you with information regarding my own experiences. From your perspective they are only anecdotal but it is evidence, none the less.

The studies you reference are not your own experiences.

No, they are better than my own experiences because they have undergone rigorous testing which has been designed to filter out all the biases, assumptions, and so on which I, as a fallible human being, possess and bring to any and all subjective experiences that I have.

You should approach the studies you referenced with the same open-minded skepticism with which you would approach personal claims like mine. Groups of people [even hyper-rational scientists] are just as fallible as individuals. If you regard even yourself with the same kind of skepticism you'll find that your introspection will prove to be much more reliable.

Ergo, what you are claiming to me is hearsay, regardless of the veracity of the source.

This is a very odd definition of "hearsay".

What can I say? I'm an odd guy ;)

How is being addressed by someone else a 'feat'? I didn't go thru some procedure to invoke the entities in question, they simply contacted me of their own accord; nor am I claiming any special powers, so how does the MDC factor into it?

I'm not saying you claim special powers. You are, however, claiming that there is a science of the supernatural, a science of which you have been part through these communications. If there really is a science, then it should be demonstrable. If it's demonstrable, you can prove the supernatural exists. If you can prove the supernatural exists, then you can win a million dollars.

Thats just the thing. I don't 'believe in' the supernatural and never claimed to; I already said that I think it is a relative term. Why would I waste my time trying to 'prove' it's existence? In any case, you never told me what YOU consider to be 'supernatural' and why it cannot exist.

Dude, what do you think Buddhism is?

Neither a body of scientific knowledge nor an accepted consensus of the truth about the supernatural.

I thought we were talking about a body of knowledge, gained via introspection, concerning spiritual matters. I've already told you what my position on the 'supernatural' is.

How have I misused used the term 'empirical' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/veracity)?

Why did you link to the dictionary entry for the word "veracity"?

Miscopied the link. My bad >_<

But, to answer your question, the definition of "empirical" in the scientific sense is not the same as the sense in which you're using it. You are talking about a set of anecdotes and personal experiences with no controls, protocols, replicability, falisfiability or predictions. This is not science.

Okay, heres the dictionary definitions of 'empirical':

.................................................. ..............................................

em·pir·i·cal  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical)  
[em-pir-i-kuhl]
–adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

.................................................. ..............................................

My usage of 'empirical' is perfectly consistent with every sense of the word :)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't think the problem is so much subjectivity, per se, but the unconscious biases one may bring to the table that can distort one's reasoning and perceptions of the world in a deceptive way.

While having a lot of people looking over each other's shoulders to keep one another honest is a decent way to obtain clear accurate knowledge it can just as easily cause one to succumb to groupthink. Shared biases are just as distorting, if not more so, than personal biases because they are much harder to notice and overcome.

Of course science is subject to this to some degree. But it is deliberately created to eliminate it as much as possible. And such groupthink has happened in the past and has been overcome. When it's overcome, it happens because of the weight of evidence. People ridiculed Einstein when he first published. And yet evidence and reason won out. Science is self-correcting, even for groupthink.

Honest meditation and introspection is the best way to uncover and examine one's own hidden assumptions, biases, and motivations that operate outside of their awareness. You can't rely on others to read your mind for you.

You can't rely on others to read your mind for you, no, but discussion with others is a great way to uncover your own hidden assumptions, biases and motivations. That's what's so good about being challenged on things.

And you shouldn't. They aren't -your- experiences, so you are not obliged to accept them as factual.

I'm not obliged to accept my experiences as factual, either. The human mind is a very strange instrument and is more than capable of fooling you completely in many ways for many reasons.

I'm simply providing you with information regarding my own experiences. From your perspective they are only anecdotal but it is evidence, none the less.

Not evidence that's worth a great deal to me, I'm afraid.

You should approach the studies you referenced with the same open-minded skepticism with which you would approach personal claims like mine. Groups of people [even hyper-rational scientists] are just as fallible as individuals.

Of course you have to evaluate studies for yourself. I always try to read the original paper rather than reports, for example. Which is, of course, another keystone of the scientific method - its transparency. I can read the original papers most of the time, I can see the raw data, I can evaluate the methodology, and I can see whether the conclusions are warranted.

I do approach these things with scepticism. But I also bear in mind the scientific method that the papers are written and published under, as well as how they fit with other papers which cover the same or similar ground. It's only through doing that that you start to build up a picture.

Thats just the thing. I don't 'believe in' the supernatural and never claimed to; I already said that I think it is a relative term. Why would I waste my time trying to 'prove' it's existence?

You seem to believe in something outside the normal want of man. If you could prove some of the claims you've made in this thread you could win a million dollars. And isn't a million dollars a good reason to waste your time?

In any case, you never told me what YOU consider to be 'supernatural' and why it cannot exist.

That's actually a bigger question than it at first appears. It's nearly 2 in the morning here. Can I get back to you on that one tomorrow?

I thought we were talking about a body of knowledge, gained via introspection, concerning spiritual matters. I've already told you what my position on the 'supernatural' is.

If you want to phrase it that way, yes. But "a body of knowledge" isn't what you started out claiming. You were claiming a science of the spiritual, comparable to scientific consensus for naturalistic things. This does not describe Buddhism.

My usage of 'empirical' is perfectly consistent with every sense of the word :)

But it's not the same as how the word is used in reference to empirical data in science.

[AkuManiMani]

I don't think the problem is so much subjectivity, per se, but the unconscious biases one may bring to the table that can distort one's reasoning and perceptions of the world in a deceptive way.

While having a lot of people looking over each other's shoulders to keep one another honest is a decent way to obtain clear accurate knowledge it can just as easily cause one to succumb to groupthink. Shared biases are just as distorting, if not more so, than personal biases because they are much harder to notice and overcome.

Of course science is subject to this to some degree. But it is deliberately created to eliminate it as much as possible. And such groupthink has happened in the past and has been overcome. When it's overcome, it happens because of the weight of evidence. People ridiculed Einstein when he first published. And yet evidence and reason won out. Science is self-correcting, even for groupthink.

Even so, my argument is that the subjective IAOI is an integral part of reality and, being such, is amenable to scientific investigation.

Honest meditation and introspection is the best way to uncover and examine one's own hidden assumptions, biases, and motivations that operate outside of their awareness. You can't rely on others to read your mind for you.

You can't rely on others to read your mind for you, no, but discussion with others is a great way to uncover your own hidden assumptions, biases and motivations. That's what's so good about being challenged on things.

Thats true. Discussions I've had here and with good friends IRL have played a big part in helping me refine many of my own ideas. However, challenging discussions with others only serves as a tool to bring unconscious biases to ones awareness. Its still good to have the skill to do this on your own; thats what introspection is all about :)

And you shouldn't. They aren't -your- experiences, so you are not obliged to accept them as factual.

I'm not obliged to accept my experiences as factual, either. The human mind is a very strange instrument and is more than capable of fooling you completely in many ways for many reasons.

One's experiences, in them selves, are -always- factual. Its the interpretation of those experiences where confusion and inaccuracy can come in.

I'm simply providing you with information regarding my own experiences. From your perspective they are only anecdotal but it is evidence, none the less.

Not evidence that's worth a great deal to me, I'm afraid.

Thats fine. Just remember that there *is* evidence for the existence of "spirits" -- you simply don't find it acceptable.

You should approach the studies you referenced with the same open-minded skepticism with which you would approach personal claims like mine. Groups of people [even hyper-rational scientists] are just as fallible as individuals.

Of course you have to evaluate studies for yourself. I always try to read the original paper rather than reports, for example. Which is, of course, another keystone of the scientific method - its transparency. I can read the original papers most of the time, I can see the raw data, I can evaluate the methodology, and I can see whether the conclusions are warranted.

I do approach these things with scepticism. But I also bear in mind the scientific method that the papers are written and published under, as well as how they fit with other papers which cover the same or similar ground. It's only through doing that that you start to build up a picture.

Do you think that it's possible for one to conduct good honest science on an individual basis, to build their own body of reliable knowledge and understanding?

Thats just the thing. I don't 'believe in' the supernatural and never claimed to; I already said that I think it is a relative term. Why would I waste my time trying to 'prove' it's existence?

You seem to believe in something outside the normal want of man. If you could prove some of the claims you've made in this thread you could win a million dollars. And isn't a million dollars a good reason to waste your time?

I've no idea how I'd go about proving such things, beyond simply proving their possibility in principle. As a matter of fact, the last "spirit" that spoke to me actually advised me -against- even mentioning the encounter to people and she was generally cryptic in answering certain questions. I'm not sure such entities are exactly the ideal subjects for something like the MDC.

In anycase, if I could prove their reality to the general public I'd settle for a Nobel Prize instead :cool:

In any case, you never told me what YOU consider to be 'supernatural' and why it cannot exist.

That's actually a bigger question than it at first appears. It's nearly 2 in the morning here. Can I get back to you on that one tomorrow?

Sure thing :)

I thought we were talking about a body of knowledge, gained via introspection, concerning spiritual matters. I've already told you what my position on the 'supernatural' is.

If you want to phrase it that way, yes. But "a body of knowledge" isn't what you started out claiming. You were claiming a science of the spiritual, comparable to scientific consensus for naturalistic things. This does not describe Buddhism.

My usage of 'empirical' is perfectly consistent with every sense of the word :)

But it's not the same as how the word is used in reference to empirical data in science.

You seem to think that in order for a discipline to be scientific, it must necessarily be experimental and follow laboratory protocols. Would you rule out such fields as archeology, history, psychology, sociology, taxonomy, or theoretical physics?

In anycase, I'd say that at the heart of all sciences lies two basic processes:

1) Acquisition of experiential data [knowledge], and 2) the formulation and refinement of theories used frame and explain that knowledge [understanding].

The objects of investigation and the methods employed may vary, but as long as those twin processes are being used its still science. Various schools of Buddhism very much fall within this definition, so far as mental and spiritual investigation goes.

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

I've no idea how I'd go about proving such things, beyond simply proving their possibility in principle. As a matter of fact, the last "spirit" that spoke to me actually advised me -against- even mentioning the encounter to people and she was generally cryptic in answering certain questions. I'm not sure such entities are exactly the ideal subjects for something like the MDC.



Could you please give some details about this spirit contact? Did you actually hear her voice and/or see an image of her? Or did you sense her thoughts like telepathy? If anyone else were there would they have seen/heard/sensed the same things that you did?

[slingblade]

A little of this, a little of that. There are some cool people here. You, for instance. You aren't too far gone to teach. And, this place makes me laugh. Skeptics really do have a great sense of humor. Must be all the cynicism.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical, through JREF. I never really had that option, what with having the paranormal shoved in my face all my life and all.

Skepticism can be distilled to one question, really:

Am I sure about that?

Of course, that's very simplistic, and not extremely useful, but that's pretty much what it boils down to: a willingness to examine what you think you know.

Many people claim skeptics are closed-minded. And some are, to be sure. But mostly, skeptics are very open-minded, and willing to examine various claims and evidence for soundness and validity.

Now, once they've done this for a while, there are subjects about which they can say, "Yes, I've looked at that, and determined it is true; or false; or as yet undetermined."

It isn't necessary to examine and re-examine every single thought put to us as if each one is brand new. You can form a body of knowledge to use for related topics.

After the 20th person comes in to tell us about this particular thing he and he alone has experienced, we don't need to examine his claim as if it were entirely new. We can compare his claim with others we have examined and unless he's also brought in some brand-new and compelling evidence, it's possible to say, "I've seen that before, and found it doesn't jibe with reality, physics, biology," or whatever.

That's not cynicism. It's simply experience.

But if you want to grow your skepticism, I've something you can use.
A Baloney Detection Kit:

http://therelativelyinterestingblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/carl-sagans-baloney-detection-kit.html

This page features a long excerpt from Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World. It's very much worth a read. But the kit itself is about halfway down the page, where all the bolded bullet points start.

[Dancing David]

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.





Yes and no AMM, the issue is that most people study the phenomenology don't like it when you talk about protocols and controls, they also want to say that the phenomena of the mental set are equatable to the external set with no evidence of the validity of that assertion.

Phenomena brought us the waste of time the is freudian and 'long term' therapy, empiricism brought us CBT.

Data can be recorded and sorted with no mental activities involved, interpretation is a mental act.

[Dancing David]

What hes saying is that if you don't like his language and are unwilling to meet him where he is then you should politely excuse yourself from the discussion HE started instead of jeering and mocking. I think it is a reasonable request.

And when he asks you to leave when you are not jeering and mocking?

Either is unreasonable, this is an open forum.

[Dancing David]

What makes it a malady that needs curing? Do you even know what hes talking about?

Do you? Gnosis tends to be unique to the individual and not universal.

[Dancing David]

QFL

Quoted for lies?
Huh?

[Dancing David]

You're dealin' with a really rough crowd here. You're gonna have to be prepared to clarify and re-clarify before you get to the point where some people start getting into the groove of that you're trying to convey. The ones who really want to understand and the ones who just wanna 'woo'-bash will make themselves apparent eventually :-/

Yes and no, that is the process of the JREF, 75% of the conversations are about definitions and usage, then there is usually a discussion of what evidence there is to support the assertions. Often when people use idiomatic language that they think has meaning to them, in fact they don't really know what they think, at other times it turns out their idiom has clarity and coherence and therefore the discussion of the context and usage allow the conversation to proceed.

Limbo seems to just ignore people who differ in opinion, many of us are not here to woo bash but discuss.

[Dancing David]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

A good teachers still has to explain and defend their, that is part of the proecss of critical thought. A crucial difference between education and indoctrination as well.

The teacher in particular should be aware that they do not know it all and do not have any special understanding, they have experience and practice.

"The more I know the more I understand the less I know." sort of thing.

[Dancing David]

Many things, many ages. There's always (at least) few who already think they know everything. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail your thread. I was just chuckling at your assumption that being a teacher automatically grants you authority.

So true, so true, authority is non-existant. A teacher needs many skills, authority is not among them.

Imposition of order equals escalation of chaos, especially in grade school.

[Dancing David]

Could you please give some details about this spirit contact? Did you actually hear her voice and/or see an image of her? Or did you sense her thoughts like telepathy? If anyone else were there would they have seen/heard/sensed the same things that you did?

Um the unfortunately will border on the Fight Club, the first rule about Fight Club ...

Different people tend to start the conversation with their psyche in different ways, and different traditions have different means as well, for some it is an internal dialogue, for others it is through interpretive divination, others have visual understandings. It tends to be idiomatic in expression and vary from person to person.

The main issue as discussed earlier is that most people are reluctant to actually write these things down and record the results, therefore the issue of confirmation bias is hard to control for. I have two cases of such events (and others) that stand out clearly, and hundreds that did not come to pass.

Now it is important to note that many people train and use these skills everyday and become proficient at it in their line of work, we all have intuition and pattern matching in us. As a social worker one of the skills that you learn and use is the ability to try to understand other people and put your self in their position. This requires a fair amount of training and practice, the hard part being extending your empathy but not your sympathy, and then withdrawing to the objective space.

You develop a way of 'completing the picture' to fill in the missing blanks so it then guides the next set of questions you ask. Now what is really interesting is one you sit back and dissect the process to try to understand the 'tells' that you perceive and bring them into conscious use.

[AkuManiMani]

Could you please give some details about this spirit contact? Did you actually hear her voice and/or see an image of her? Or did you sense her thoughts like telepathy? If anyone else were there would they have seen/heard/sensed the same things that you did?

Well I was at a friend's house, helping her get her kids to bed. After they had finally gone to sleep I just held, caressed, and sang her to sleep as well, as she'd been having a really stressful week. Just a few moments after she had fallen asleep I felt what could best be described as a 'spark'-like sensation at the crown of my head [accompanied by that high pitched ringing sound like the one you often hear when a monitor or some other electrical device is turned on] and I felt a presence come over me (ya, I know it sounds sappy, but thats the best way I can describe it).

A female voice preceded to talk to me as an audible voice in my mind. I was a bit started by this and the voice simply giggled and said "Yes, this is real. All of this is real..." I won't go into the details of what was discussed, as much of it was of a personal nature, but basically we carried on a conversation and at some point she actually physically manipulated my body. The female voice also provided information to me about my sleeping friend, and other things, which I had not been aware of previously. When I decided to ask my friend about the information a couple weeks later she confirmed it. It was then that I decided to inform her of what had happened to me that night. My friend then revealed that she'd had similar experiences in the preceding months.

And before you ask; no, I do not have a history of psychiatric illness. I've had similar encounters to this on a few other occasions of my life but they were usually during altered states between waking/sleeping or under the effect of a psychoactive drug.

ETA: No, I didn't actually see her. I only experienced her as a 'presence' and a voice. The voice seemed to be coming from directly above me and over my right shoulder at various points during the encounter. I was thinking at the time that whatever this entity was, it was interacting directly with my nervous system to communicate with me and manipulate my body.

[Zanders]

Well I was at a friend's house, helping her get her kids to bed. After they had finally gone to sleep I just held, caressed, and sang her to sleep as well, as she'd been having a really stressful week. Just a few moments after she had fallen asleep I felt what could best be described as a 'spark'-like sensation at the crown of my head [accompanied by that high pitched ringing sound like the one you often hear when a monitor or some other electrical device is turned on] and I felt a presence come over me (ya, I know it sounds sappy, but thats the best way I can describe it).

A female voice preceded to talk to me as an audible voice in my mind. I was a bit started by this and the voice simply giggled and said "Yes, this is real. All of this is real..." I won't go into the details of what was discussed, as much of it was of a personal nature, but basically we carried on a conversation and at some point she actually physically manipulated my body. The female voice also provided information to me about my sleeping friend, and other things, which I had not been aware of previously. When I decided to ask my friend about the information a couple weeks later she confirmed it. It was then that I decided to inform her of what had happened to me that night. My friend then revealed that she'd had similar experiences in the preceding months.

And before you ask; no, I do not have a history of psychiatric illness. I've had similar encounters to this on a few other occasions of my life but they were usually during altered states between waking/sleeping or under the effect of a psychoactive drug.

ETA: No, I didn't actually see her. I only experienced her as a 'presence' and a voice. The voice seemed to be coming from directly above me and over my right shoulder at various points during the encounter. I was thinking at the time that whatever this entity was, it was interacting directly with my nervous system to communicate with me and manipulate my body.


See, it is the numerous cases of things such as this that I don't find explained well enough by skeptics. I try to be skeptical, but I just hear so many cases of this that there almost has to be some sort of truth to it. The high pitched ringing sound is also commonly mentioned, and I don't know how anyone can explain finding stuff out about people that you would have had no mundane explanation for knowing. And how could you lab test such things anyway?

Would you ind telling me what kind of things about her it told you? Not the personal details, just what of kinds of things.

[AkuManiMani]

See, it is the numerous cases of things such as this that I don't find explained well enough by skeptics. I try to be skeptical, but I just hear so many cases of this that there almost has to be some sort of truth to it. The high pitched ringing sound is also commonly mentioned, and I don't know how anyone can explain finding stuff out about people that you would have had no mundane explanation for knowing.

Would you ind telling me what kind of things about her it told you? Not the personal details, just what of things.

She mentioned that I had "chose her well [my friend]" and alluded to some odd experiences she's had. She also mentioned some things about me and seemed to be subjecting me to some kind of examination, making comments about my physical and spiritual state as she went along. I can't say much more without going into personal detail but I've had way too many experiences like this [some even more incredible than the one I've just described] to discount them anymore.

I've started taking these experiences at face value, as rationalization and denial aren't exactly practices I prefer to indulge in.

[tsig]

Quoted for lies?
Huh?

Quoted for limbo

[Zanders]

She mentioned that I had "chose her well [my friend]" and alluded to some odd experiences she's had. She also mentioned some things about me and seemed to be subjecting me to some kind of examination, making comments about my physical and spiritual state as she went along. I can't say much more without going into personal detail but I've had way too many experiences like this [some even more incredible than the one I've just described] to discount them anymore.

I've started taking these experiences at face value, as rationalization and denial aren't exactly practices I prefer to indulge in.

Why do you think they are doing this to you, and not some of the many people that are seeking out experiences like this? Also, was the odd experience the thing that you asked her about and found to be true? Was it specific, or something general that could be loosely applied with confirmation bias?

And if you have never had a history of being delusional, are you sure you didn't start with that one event? The feeling in your brain sounds like there might be something wrong, you might aught to get that checked.

[Dancing David]

Quoted for limbo

Sorry, I misunderstood, which is why I asked. Carry on, I don't think Limbo will care, I hope that maybe some lurker will read it and study before they practice.

I hope Limbo finds peace and does not crack.

[Dancing David]

She mentioned that I had "chose her well [my friend]" and alluded to some odd experiences she's had. She also mentioned some things about me and seemed to be subjecting me to some kind of examination, making comments about my physical and spiritual state as she went along. I can't say much more without going into personal detail but I've had way too many experiences like this [some even more incredible than the one I've just described] to discount them anymore.

I've started taking these experiences at face value, as rationalization and denial aren't exactly practices I prefer to indulge in.

They are experiences at face value, and their validity can be remarkable or trivial.

The brain spends most of its time generating patterns and creating patterns, semi dream states are one of teh best ways to activate the pattern mechanism, I never heard voice, I have has some great visions, some true many, many false.

[Zanders]

I'm not really sure how to explain away the numerous cases where people with no history of mental problems have experiences such as the one mentioned by AkuManiMani Anyone want to take a stab at it?

All of the cases like this are why I take so much time reading in to it.

[tsig]

Sorry, I misunderstood, which is why I asked. Carry on, I don't think Limbo will care, I hope that maybe some lurker will read it and study before they practice.

I hope Limbo finds peace and does not crack.

I must be on ignore also.:)

[tsig]

I'm not really sure how to explain away the numerous cases where people with no history of mental problems have experiences such as the one mentioned by AkuManiMani Anyone want to take a stab at it?

All of the cases like this are why I take so much time reading in to it.

However, individuals may hear voices without suffering from diagnosable mental illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_hallucination

On one hand we know we can be fooled, we know of no way to fool the laws of physics.

[Resume]

However, individuals may hear voices without suffering from diagnosable mental illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_hallucination

On one hand we know we can be fooled, we know of no way to fool the laws of physics.

Zanders:

In all seriousness I think it's important to pay particular attention to this post.

[Moss]

I'm not really sure how to explain away the numerous cases where people with no history of mental problems have experiences such as the one mentioned by AkuManiMani Anyone want to take a stab at it?

All of the cases like this are why I take so much time reading in to it.



A friend of mine had the "joy" of suffering from auditory hallucinations as a sideeffect of new medication. Suffice to say she quickly changed it.
There is also the possibility of auditory pareidolia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pareidolia) and apophenia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Apophenia).

[Zanders]

A friend of mine had the "joy" of suffering from auditory hallucinations as a sideeffect of new medication. Suffice to say she quickly changed it.
There is also the possibility of auditory pareidolia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pareidolia) and apophenia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Apophenia).

Well, first I would like to ask AkuManiMani how specific the information he received was.

[slingblade]

When I was a child, I had read the story of Samuel, and how he heard the lord calling to him:

:4 That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered,
Here am I.
:5 And he ran unto Eli, and said,
Here am I; for thou calledst me.
And he said,
I called not;
lie down again.
And he went and lay down.
:6 And the LORD called yet again,
Samuel.
And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said,
Here am I; for thou didst call me.
And he answered,
I called not, my son;
lie down again.
:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD,
neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.

:8 And the LORD called Samuel again the third time.
And he arose and went to Eli, and said,
Here am I; for thou didst call me.
And Eli perceived that the LORD had called the child.

Several times, a similar thing happened to me. I'd be just starting to fall asleep, and I would hear my name called. Except it wasn't god, it was my mother's voice I "heard." But she wasn't calling me. I'd check. Sometimes, she'd also be asleep, too, so I knew it hadn't been her.

And I heard that voice as clearly as I heard any other, while wide awake. It was freaking creepy!

It had also been suggested to me, through reading that story, and my mind simply pulled a familiar voice from my memory and replayed it.

[devnull]

A friend of mine had the "joy" of suffering from auditory hallucinations as a sideeffect of new medication. Suffice to say she quickly changed it.
There is also the possibility of auditory pareidolia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pareidolia) and apophenia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Apophenia).

Yeh, I heard voices when I was on that antidepressant they use for smoking cessation (I forget the name).

I wasnt on it long :D

[AkuManiMani]

Well, first I would like to ask AkuManiMani how specific the information he received was.

I'm sorry but the idea of having a full on conversation with a mere "auditory hallucination" is a bit laughable to me. Yes, the information was specific and the exchange was as lucid as the one we're having now. That combined with the fact that the "voice" was also able to physically manipulate my body kinda clinches the issue for me. If what I experienced was just a "hallucination" then so is what I'm experiencing right now.

[AkuManiMani]

Why do you think they are doing this to you, and not some of the many people that are seeking out experiences like this? Also, was the odd experience the thing that you asked her about and found to be true? Was it specific, or something general that could be loosely applied with confirmation bias?

Like I said, the "voice" alluded to my friend having similar experiences. When I asked my friend a couple weeks later if she'd had any strange experiences she mentioned hearing a male voice speak to her on a few different occasions and a female voice speaking to her atleast once.

She reported that the male voice that spoke to her was preceded by a high-pitched ringing [at this point I had not filled her in on the details of my experience]. The voice then instructed her to stand in a particular location and do a series of odd hand gestures. She said she was a bit baffled by what was going on but followed the instructions she was given. After she did so she said she had a vivid three part vision. She said the male voice tried to communicate with her again on another occasion but her baby started crying in the other room and the voice simply said "You know what? Now is probably not the best time..."; there was a sound like a monitor being turned off and she felt the 'presence' leave.

And if you have never had a history of being delusional, are you sure you didn't start with that one event? The feeling in your brain sounds like there might be something wrong, you might aught to get that checked.

TBH, several years ago I'd be making the exact same arguments that Sceptic Tank and others have made here regarding the lack of evidence regarding "spirits" and other 'paranormal' stuff. I'm not gonna go into all the details of my life story but I've had some pretty odd experiences over the passed several years of my life than don't lend themselves very well to conventional explanations. IMO, its much more parsimonious to simply accept that there are many things about reality that our current level of scientific understanding does not encompass.

[PixyMisa]

IMO, its much more parsimonious to simply accept that there are many things about reality that our current level of scientific understanding does not encompass.
No, it's not. Well, that may be your opinion, but it's not true. It is not only vastly less parsimomious, it is, in the sense you are talking, pure baloney.

We know people hallucinate. We also know that people construct false memories. Indeed, the latter is so common that you have to be on constant guard against it.

You can't always trust your senses or your memories, much less intuition or introspection. If what you believe contradicts controlled, independently confirmed experimental data, you lose.

[Malerin]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

Awesome.

[Malerin]

Many things, many ages. There's always (at least) few who already think they know everything. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail your thread. I was just chuckling at your assumption that being a teacher automatically grants you authority.

It does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

[AkuManiMani]

No, it's not. Well, that may be your opinion, but it's not true. It is not only vastly less parsimomious, it is, in the sense you are talking, pure baloney.

We know people hallucinate. We also know that people construct false memories. Indeed, the latter is so common that you have to be on constant guard against it.

You can't always trust your senses or your memories, much less intuition or introspection. If what you believe contradicts controlled, independently confirmed experimental data, you lose.

Yes PixyMisa, you've caught me! I'm in a losing struggle against all science and reason. I'm so glad I have enlightened omniscient beings, such as yourself, to set me strait in my silly delusions and to instruct me in what I have and have not experienced. Thank you, oh great arbiter of reality and all that encompasses it! How can I ever express my eternal gratitude? :rolleyes:

[Zanders]

Like I said, the "voice" alluded to my friend having similar experiences. When I asked my friend a couple weeks later if she'd had any strange experiences she mentioned hearing a male voice speak to her on a few different occasions and a female voice speaking to her atleast once.

She reported that the male voice that spoke to her was preceded by a high-pitched ringing [at this point I had not filled her in on the details of my experience]. The voice then instructed her to stand in a particular location and do a series of odd hand gestures. She said she was a bit baffled by what was going on but followed the instructions she was given. After she did so she said she had a vivid three part vision. She said the male voice tried to communicate with her again on another occasion but her baby started crying in the other room and the voice simply said "You know what? Now is probably not the best time..."; there was a sound like a monitor being turned off and she felt the 'presence' leave.



TBH, several years ago I'd be making the exact same arguments that Sceptic Tank and others have made here regarding the lack of evidence regarding "spirits" and other 'paranormal' stuff. I'm not gonna go into all the details of my life story but I've had some pretty odd experiences over the passed several years of my life than don't lend themselves very well to conventional explanations. IMO, its much more parsimonious to simply accept that there are many things about reality that our current level of scientific understanding does not encompass.

Do you have any theories of what it might be? A ghost, an alien? Possibly some sort of secret technology? And how long ago did this happen?

And no, I don't think just saying it didn't happen is logical or even intelligent. There are too many cases like this, and there are too many similarities. If you would only accept something that could be tested, how could we test spontaneous encounters like this? If whatever it is doesn't want to make itself exposed or obvious, or it takes complicated steps to communicate with, how could you ever prove it's reality without putting any effort in to it? And what would it take to except it's reality?

[The Norseman]

It really depends upon the sauce one uses... they should not be overcooked.

Overcooking is not the issue when they're all just half-baked.

[PixyMisa]

Do you have any theories of what it might be? A ghost, an alien? Possibly some sort of secret technology? And how long ago did this happen?

And no, I don't think just saying it didn't happen is logical or even intelligent. There are too many cases like this, and there are too many similarities.
Too many for what?

Certainly, where it is possible to investigate the claims (a rarity, but there are instances), we invariably find that things did not happen as reported.

Are there too many cases, too many similarities, for inaccurate and biased reporting? Clearly not.

If you would only accept something that could be tested, how could we test spontaneous encounters like this?
Define what it is. Form a hypothesis. Construct an experiment, or a system of observations.

We can't cause supernovae in the lab, and there hasn't been one observed in our galaxy since the invention of the telescope, but it's not like there's any question whether they happen. A neutrino can pass unhindered through a light year of lead, and we not only know those exist, we know that they oscillate between three different flavours.

The supernatural, on the other hand: Anecdotes uncounted, evidence zero. Stop making excuses.

If whatever it is doesn't want to make itself exposed or obvious, or it takes complicated steps to communicate with, how could you ever prove it's reality without putting any effort in to it? And what would it take to except it's reality?
Evidence.