Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Steve

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 264
Public Classes / Re: Calling all Psions, Magick Users, and Others!
« on: August 29, 2016, 12:28:26 AM »
Unfortunately, the book was swallowed up in the great destruction of 2012 and the end of the mayan calendar (why couldn't they just add a few more pages to their calendar to avert destruction? why?!  :'(), never to be seen again :(


Theories, Articles, and Philosophy / Re: Mindfuck and The Flyer Mind
« on: August 29, 2016, 12:25:45 AM »
Double post!
Quote from: Reaver
The child can be guided through a healing process, but only HE can overcome it, there is room only for one.
Not entirely true. If the child can be programmed one way without his input (or, with only the input of his subconscious mind, and without the input of his conscious mind), then he can be programmed another way without his input (ditto as before, for subconscious and conscious inputs). Same thing with how a child who was programmed in a very wholesome manner could be reprogrammed to become absolutely fucked up. Even among those who take psychology courses and try to fix/change/better themselves, there will be many who just plain cannot learn how to completely become their own Self, and so social conditioning will remain a large part of their lives.

Quote from: Reaver
Yet we can observe that how this person acted out during his/her life was a symptom of these mental programs running in his psyche.
In case you were wondering about the tell-tale signs I mentioned, this is one of them. The denial of self-responsibility that comes from the belief that a child has no control over what to accept and what to disregard. Children actually can and do make partially-conscious-and-partially-subconscious decisions about what teachings to accept and which to only pretend to accept, based upon partially-conscious-and-partially-subconscious criteria that they are not fully aware of. For people who never learn the act of introversion, this partially-conscious-and-partially-subconscious effect continues on into adulthood, and can be discovered through a series of guided questions that would be dependent upon the subject matter of whichever thought processes you wanted to analyze in the other person.

Another tell-tale sign is the "us versus them" mentality that the words "their mind" create, along with all of the "us versus them" phrasing that you keep using. There is no "them" any more than you yourself are one of the "them", from the reference point of any other human being. To say it another way, to your own brother, you are a "them" because he is the only "me" of his existence.

Quote from: Reaver
Think about christian programming. Aren’t there mechanisms in place to make the person feel guilty and scared of questioning his values? let alone leave them behind. To use a metaphor: When “their” mind is threatened it will try to preserve itself.
Depends on the christian programming. I grew up going to church and there were a variety of voices; different people thought, believed, and preached slightly different things, and some people preached guilt while others preached love. Then I started reading the bible itself, and the bible says to study and question and learn: there is no guilt in these things because it is only by studying and learning and turning to God that a person can come to know the will of God, and can learn to discern truth from lies.

Quote from: Reaver
Don’t TPTB try to shape the world according to their image? to their mental schemas? aren’t they infecting the world with “their mind”? their pathological mind is what paves the way for wars, famines, ponzi schemes and all that, symptoms of their mind. You may be able to mitigate those symptoms, to patch things up for a few decades, but if the root is not dealt with, then those symptoms will resurface sooner or later… maybe they’ll just manifest in different ways.
Of course those with social/economic/political power will exert it: that's exactly the point of any of those kinds of power. Any single economic power, for instance, literally cannot exist by itself: it requires the presence of other economic powers in order to justify itself, and the fact that it is an economic power means that it influences other economic powers and factors. The same with politicians: if you took a politician and stuck them on an island where they couldn't interact with other people, they would just be another creature in the wilderness. But not all economic or political powerhouses are bad: many of them are the entire reason that we have such luxurious lives (in first world nations, at least) and such amazing freedoms (even if you claim those freedoms are not always freedom, or are only limited freedoms).

Secondly, the "root" of those problems is humanity itself. It's not just a "their mind" scenario: studies show that certain human behaviours and characteristics, such as a propensity for violence in certain situations, is a low-level biological effect that can at times preclude mental programming entirely, ie fight-or-flight response due to a huge adrenaline dump that the body performs all on its own when the subconscious mind recognizes danger regardless of what the conscious/programmed mind is thinking or aware of.

Quote from: Reaver
So again “their mind” is about identifying the psychological roots of this world’s ills.
Again, "their mind" is about recognizing the fundamental manner in which humans learn and develop. This can be shown to be true because we even learn from animals, who speak no human languages and who have few-if-any of the mental illnesses that humanity has. The learning process of humanity comes from the days of survival, when learning how to recognize and respond to threats was paramount alongside learning how to feed the belly; both learning processes were infinitely better off by learning by watching and mimicing others (monkey see, monkey do) rather than figuring out everything from scratch on your own.

Quote from: Reaver
Take the example of parents who actually believe that sending their children to school is actually beneficial for their children and if that wasn’t enought they also believe it makes them excellent parents. When you apply the skill of observation you can see that it may feel good, that people may believe it’s beneficial, but actually it is highly toxic.
Another tell-tale sign: "education is bad". Education is GREAT. Of course, it must be acknowledged that there are shitty schools out there, and there are shitty things that happen at school, but there are also good schools out there and there are awesome things that happen at school (which you won't find in a life outside of school).

The cons and the pros must be weighed against an individual school, as well as education itself: if a single school is a highly toxic place with a lack of desire on the part of teachers to teach, and lots of violence in the school, then absolutely it will be a bad place. My school was full of teachers who wanted their kids to learn (and even broke the "approved curriculum" a few times to make sure we did, because the approved curriculum tried to avoid certain "hot bed" topics), and there was little violence (I got picked on a lot, but that's not the fault of the school).

The pros of education are that people quickly learn how to do things that other people have already figured out, and learning things that you can then apply within society in order to earn a living in order to maintain a standard of living according to what you earn (no, lifestyles are not "equal", but everyone in my country has the opportunity to try for whatever lifestyle they want, so long as they can overcome whatever personal hurdles are in their way), and being given the opportunity to become one of the leading people in a field such that you can push humanity forwards rather than merely maintaining the status quo. The cons of education are that indeed, you are taught "their mind" because "their mind" was what figured out all the amazing things that humanity can do today; "their mind" figured out how to create all of the different components of the computer that you are using to communicate with so that you and I, who would otherwise be complete strangers to one another who could never meet in person, can talk and exchange ideas. Through education, you have the opportunity to learn how to create computers too, for the benefit of others (or just for the benefit of yourself if all you want is money from a job).

Quote from: Reaver
In this example the cons outweight the pros. Yes, kids may learn to read, write and apply basic arithmetic, but along the way they exchange their potential for the “virtue” of absolute obedience. Of course their mind will seduce people and make them believe it is all for their own good.
Education is not absolute obedience. Bad educators will use obedience in the guise of teaching, but they are not synonymous. In exactly the same way, bad people will use their influence to spread badness, but that doesn't mean all forms of teaching are bad.

Quote from: Reaver
Sometimes I’ve found that I did “good deeds” because it was a mechanism to cope with my own anxiety, but “their mind” is clever so I was telling myself cute stories to avoid facing the underlying reasons for my “good deeds”. They had nothing to do with a response, but they had everything to do with a reaction to try to patch a psychological crack and thus their mind kept getting bigger and stronger.
That wasn't "their mind". That was your mind, trying to tell you THE TRUTH of why you did something. You listened, which is good. But then you believed that it was a negative event rather than realizing it was a good event. You demonized it by saying that it was "their mind kept getting bigger and stronger" when in reality "their mind" just got a little bit smaller when you recognized the true reason for doing what you did. Patching a psychological crack was not altruistic, but it was healthy and it was good.

That's another reason we do many of the things we do: internal impulses, desires, and needs. "Their mind" is another way of talking about external influences, but humans are beset upon by a multitude of both external and internal influences. Learning to tell each influence apart from one another, and categorize it correctly into internal or external, will help with your psychological patching process, which is the mind's way of attempting to heal itself from something. Keep being honest with yourself. It takes time, but you'll get there.

Quote from: Reaver
“their mind” really hates exposure and so it uses all sort of tactics to avoid being discovered and if it is discovered then the toxic mind will use a different set of tactics, this time to convince the host that it is in their best interests to keep “their mind” alive and well.
Not really. Only some forms of external teachings also attempt to imbed psychological tactics of avoidance. The majority are simply "we do this because we 'have' to, because this is what society wants us to do". Most "their minds" are not at all intelligent, and do not "care" about being exposed because they have no feelings to care with (to be more clear on this, "their mind" is not a living thing. I can't tell whether you honestly believe it is alive, or whether you are merely strongly anthropomorphizing it).

The way that you talk about "their mind", and give it such broad powers, you sound like everything in life, whether good or bad, should be considered bad because it supposedly comes from this "their mind", which you consider bad. You are basically subverting anything that might be good and happy in the world and trying to tell people to be paranoid of it, and thus your own teaching about "their mind" is stealing away any happiness that they would otherwise enjoy. Or, to ask a question of this: based upon your beliefs/teachings of "their mind", how is a person ever supposed to be able to be happy? Or are we just doomed to misery, by recognizing the existence of "their mind"? (as you said, "some others go on to live the life of saints and help everyone who looks like are in dire need and so they feed co-dependent relationships" and thus according to you, even a saint doing all the best things that a human could possibly do, is just a product of the evil of "their mind")

Quote from: Reaver
One of the main aims of “their mind” is make their programs “normal” and “familiar” so that the hosts don’t question them at all because they are supposed to be a natural component of humanity.
Too broad, again. What is "normal" then, if you claim any semblance of normal is "their mind". You are basically saying that in order to escape "their mind", I would have to adhere to abnormal thought processes, which ... why? Because you say so? Because it will supposedly make me happier, when happiness is also already a product of "their mind"?

Throughout the whole of your post, you don't tell people what we're supposed to do to escape "their mind", nor what the supposed benefits of escaping "their mind" is, nor what a life outside of "their mind" is supposed to look like. (This is, by the way, another tell-tale sign. You have formulated part of an idea of existence, but it is missing more than half of the idea that would be needed in order to be complete)

Quote from: Reaver
As it has been stated: “Their mind” takes over a person’s psyche and implants a behavioural simulacra. Based on my own experience with it, I’d say this psychological virus makes use of very subtle mechanisms to take over.
Based on my experiences with it, "their mind" is perfectly normal OH MY GOD I"M UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE THEIR MIND BECAUSE I THINK IT"S NORMAL D: (that was sarcasm, which yes, I know you already said is a cunning defense mechanism)

Quote from: Reaver
Some people can become extremely anxious in social situations, other people become anxious by being alone.
Both of those are actually the result of two things: 1) a lack of social experiences, and 2) a different psychological problem where a person constantly criticizes themself and thinks everyone else is also criticizing them, so they can hardly bring themself to talk to others. Both of those two things are sadly very common.

Quote from: Reaver
The permutations and degrees of severity of this phenomenon are too many to list.
Because those permutations and degrees of severity are the basic human condition. You are literally attempting to demonize the basic. human. condition.

Quote from: Reaver
Again, in no way is this “philosophy” telling people to become emotionless droids. Rather it is telling people to watch out for this virus so that it can be sterilized and the Authentic Psyche can unfold.
How do we sterilize it, and how do we tell an authentic psyche from an artificial one?

Quote from: Reaver
Oh and the interactions with “their mind” are far from being pretty.
Yeah, human interactions can often get ugly when people get emotional or just plain sarcastic or cynical or whatever other thing that humans become temporarily.


At some point, after talking with a lot of people, you should hopefully come to the realization that a lot of people who are under the influence of "their mind", are under that influence willingly, because they've seen or experienced some examples of what happens when they try to break free, and they've decided that it is in their best interest to do as they are told. Others, however, break free and do their own thing already, live their own lives, make their own mistakes, etc. It is entirely a personal choice, and everyone makes that decision whether they realize it or not.


PS. For the record, I am not trying to deprogram you "properly".

Theories, Articles, and Philosophy / Re: Mindfuck and The Flyer Mind
« on: August 28, 2016, 11:10:47 PM »
Quote from: Reaver
Yes, that's obvious which is why I made it clear I was interested in the perspective of magicians/sorcerers/psychics or whatever label people like to use.
Well then, I would suggest that you tailor your message to your audience. I know that copying and pasting is the easiest way to get a message out, but then it runs into problems where people don't feel like you're talking to us directly.

It is nice to see that you're going to take an active role by responding, rather than just pasting something and reading replies while lurking.

Quote from: Reaver
Sure you can make impressions on the psyche by physical stimuli, an extreme example being torture. I've never said the psychology of a person couldn't be affected by physical stimuli.

The problem with science is that it pretends the brain equals the mind so they can conveniently rationalize their approach and avoid re-framing their perspective.
While I agree that science is not perfect, the problem with pseudo-science is that many people understand neither the science behind the mind/brain discussion, nor do they understand the philosophy. Simple case in point: there is little reason to suggest that the mind is distinct from the brain, yet it is a favourite viewpoint for many so that they can get away with making all sorts of other claims and go unchecked.

So to reiterate, despite me not liking materialism, I could explain the psyche with materialistic science. It is not impossible, and modern psychology actually falls under the wing of modern science, albeit carefully. For instance, while physicists could discern a simple experiment of throwing two objects together and controlling all sorts of factors in order to make precise measurements and come to definitive results, psychology relies heavily upon studies, statistics, and generalizations involving large groups of people, which is inhernetly far less precise. Yet, psychology can learn certain definitive things and draw certain strong generalizations from it's studies as well, because there are rules for how to go about doing these things.

None of the things you mentioned (about Godel, meta-science of science using the scientific method to test/prove itself, or biases) invalidates science from learning about and explaining the psyche.

Quote from: Reaver
Metaphysics wholly supports science, yet science pretends metaphysics is just a fantasy.
Incorrect. There are multiple camps on either side. There are extreme camps in the metaphysical community that entirely ignore science, and others that attempt to entirely embrace science. There are extreme camps in the scientific community that simplistically dismiss metaphysics offhand, and others that attempt to honestly study metaphysics.

"Obviously science as we know it has benefited humanity tremendously, but that doesn't make it infallible and it is not as mighty as people like to believe."
I do agree with this, so long as it is not taken to dismiss science offhand.

Quote from: Reaver
Most people are NOT educated on psychology, let alone being deprogrammed.
This is my fault, as I realized after I posted that I had worded that poorly. Let me rephrase, while understanding that you may still disagree with it:

To clarify, most people do not react with hostility if they are de-programmed properly, nor do they react with hostility when someone takes the time to properly educate them in psychology. Of course, a person's willingness to open up is very strongly dependant upon themselves, and the subjectiveness of my use of the term "properly" is inherently problematic, and I probably should add something about tendancies rather than certainties.

However, I did not specify violence. You specified that in your own post.

Quote from: Reaver
Actually I can't generalize, but I'm wondering if you actually know what metaphysics is or if you are just pretending to know.
Original use of the term was in reference to a book about philosophy, where several books by Aristotle were about physics, and the next books/chapters in the series regarding were simply "after physics". From this we derive the historically popular philosophical ideas about metaphysics relating to understandings and thoughts and concepts. Much can be said about the philosophy that I won't even attempt to summarize in this short post. If you're talking about any of this stuff, then that would take on a very different form than the next definition I'll mention.

The second definition, and the way that I use the term given the context of this website, is as a generalized term to refer to the various forms of magical, psychic, subtle, etc things that the layman could generalize as magic, but which specialized practitioners decide to label a wide variety of things (orgone, animal magnetism, kundalini, pranayama, qi gong, wicca (yes, I know it's a religion, but some consider it a practice), witchcraft, spiritism, shamanism, voodoo, etc etc etc).

What definition of metaphysics would you like to specify that you are using? One of the two above, or one of your own?

Quote from: Reaver
So what exactly did you deconstructed here?
Well, let's look again what I responded to:
"How could it be their own reaction when we have concluded that they are the receivers of a pathological social conditioning? Thus the talk about “their mind”. It is the mental programming doing the reaction masquerading as the real person. I understand this can sound paradoxical as hell because the claim is: That person is going bonkers, we can observe it in his/her reactions, but at the same time it is not really him/her."

Firstly, "pathological"? Pathologies are illness/diseases/"things that are wrong". So you start off by saying that social conditioning is pathological, which is nonsensical because social conditioning is an inherent trait to humanity. To say that it is "wrong" or disease would imply that humans are naturally, fundamentally diseased, which is an incredibly unfair statement that only shows a lack of understanding of how humans learn and understand. Humans learn the way we do for reasons of survivability: if someone else figures out how to grow a crop, or open a coconut, or fashion a tool, then it is a superior mental capability that allows us to learn from the other person and do those things ourselves. This is not a disease and instead is a strength of humanity.

Secondly, "their mind" that you keep talking about is just another way of talking about social conditioning, so see the previous paragraph. It's perfectly normal for someone to teach me something like "don't talk about sex, politics, or religion at work", and for me to follow those instructions, because talking about those things at work does cause problems: I have seen it first hand for all three of them, so I do not merely have to take someone else at their word for it. There is nothing wrong with this kind of "their mind" being instilled in me, especially because they are attempting to warn me away from negative consequences. A problem does arise when people accept other peoples' teachings (for instance, you trying to teach everyone with your post) without consideration as to whether it's actually a good idea to listen to such things. There are a variety of considerations to be made, such as: is the original teaching actually true in the first place, are there times when the teaching is true and other times when it is false, under what conditions does the teaching hold true (these three are actually all different forms of the same question), do other people support this teaching or oppose it, what are the consequences for failing to adhere to this teaching, etc.

Thirdly, yes, "their mind" does do a lot of masquerading in place of a real person, because the real people tend to hide within their shells, fearing for their safety. A lot of people are little more than social constructs because they can't figure out a better way to live for themselves, and being a good little social construct helps keep them safe from the most harmful thing that most humans will ever have to face first-hand: the violence of other humans who are scorned. It's a bit of a circular circumstance: I teach someone to do something, and they adhere to it simply so I don't hurt them if they refuse to adhere to it, then they teach the next person to adhere to it and person 3 adheres to it because they are afraid person 2 will hurt them because person 2 was subconsciously aggressive in teaching it so as to help person 3 avoid being hurt by me if I were to find out that person 3 was not adhering to my instruction, etc. Not all of human interaction and conditioning is based upon such fear and potential for violence, but this gives a general idea of how the ideas progress. Another example could be how farmers in a community agree on "prices" for various commmodities prior to standardized money: "I will give you a sack of potatoes for a sack of sugar", "I will give you two sacks of sugar for a barrel of milk" (I don't know, I'm not a farmer), etc. And the truth is that while such a tendancy to hide within a shell does indeed cause mental problems for people, many people do try breaking out of their shells when they have learned enough about the complexities of human interaction such that they can feel safe trying to break out of their shells; it's a matter of increasing experience and learning, and sometimes bravery or foolhardiness. (Which you yourself said, "But then again we’ve seen what happens when a person starts to recognize these programs and proceeds to remove them and manage to handle the ensuing inner conflict. They start to get better to a degree and even their personal life seems to improve somewhat or at least their psychological life does.")

Quote from: Reaver
I'm amazed that someone into metaphysics can't even seem to draw a parallel with the Ego.
Even among the Freudians, the Ego is just one part of the mind (along with the id and the super ego).

Quote from: Reaver
Ah yes, but you didn't even finish reading the whole thing so you don't even have a vague idea of the context and thus work based upon a story in your head, so much for metaphysics, eh?
No, I'm not. Which you may have realized had you finished reading the whole thing instead of rushing to conclusions.
I read more than enough to see certain tell-tale signs of your level of understanding. I will read the rest of it now, now that I have some time.

Quote from: Reaver
Hint: What a few psychologists (most of them only repeat words in books) have been able to observe are but the symptoms of a disease which has been observed way before the advent of psychology.
So says you, but based on what you've said, you don't seem to even understand what psychologists have said, so do you really have the grounds to say you know better than them?


Theories, Articles, and Philosophy / Re: Mindfuck and The Flyer Mind
« on: August 24, 2016, 07:06:33 PM »
Quote from: Reaver
The ideas of reality control have nothing to do with new age teachings and very little to do with what most so called teachers promote in the alternative scene. There are fine lines between make believe and practical application.
Um, you do realize you came to a metaphysical site, right? Where we already teach this, and people have learned how to bend reality via the variety of practices here? Or, probably not since you already admitted that you are copy-pasting yourself at a variety of websites.

Quote from: Reaver
You can’t explain the psyche with materialistic science. That’s impossible since science is concerned with the study of the material world, while psychology in concerned with the study of the mental.
False premise, because if the mental really is based upon the material, such as the electrical field of an electron is based upon the electron itself and thus a complex electrical field made up of multiple electrons is still derived from the electrons themselves, then the distinction between brain and mind becomes somewhat arbitrary and pseudo-scientific. The problem is that science has not yet explored enough of the brain to directly "pinpoint" the mind, but they are still working on it and making some pretty amazing strides.

I'm not a fan of materialism, but you can't just rule it out with a hand-wavy sentence like that.

Quote from: Reaver
This person who is “possessed” by this mind virus is someone who has gone through a heavy social conditioning over the years to the extent that this person feels very identified with their programming. In their perception; these mental constructs (which someone else build for them) are what give meaning to their life.
"Brain washed", "social programming", "sheeple", "normal", "sociable", "well adjusted to society". What other terms are there for this?

Quote from: Reaver
If you try to make this person see the truth behind it, then most likely you’ll get a hostile reaction varying in degree. Some may call you crazy, some may even go as far as killing people who oppose these mental programs.
To clarify, most people do not react with hostility, especially if they are educated in psychology, or de-programmed, properly.

Quote from: Reaver
How could it be their own reaction when we have concluded that they are the receivers of a pathological social conditioning? Thus the talk about “their mind”. It is the mental programming doing the reaction masquerading as the real person. I understand this can sound paradoxical as hell because the claim is: That person is going bonkers, we can observe it in his/her reactions, but at the same time it is not really him/her.
Haha, tip of the iceberg, kid. Tip of the iceberg. Let me remind you of something: monkey see, monkey do. <-- that is how humans learn from the time that we are children. How do you expect humans to learn if not by watching others? Well, "by doing themselves" is one way of learning, but it is a much longer, harder road than simply mimicking someone else.

Overall you're using different words to say the same thing that psychologists have known for a long time. Well, except that you have a much more negative view of it than is warranted.

I'm going to stop reading and replying here, because I'm tired. Maybe I'll get to the rest some other time, maybe not.


Psionics / Methods of developing telepathy
« on: August 21, 2016, 06:21:28 PM »
Simple list, nothing complicated. As I've claimed before, I've developed telepathy from different methods, so here is a list of those methods, for anyone who's ever been curious. Ask questions, add your own, or debate anything I've said. I put it under Psionics because most people consider telepathy to be psionic, as opposed to magical or body energy arts.

1. Focal meditation. Continue learning how to focus until you can make it feel like you're able to push your focus outside of your head. Try a variety of things until you find something that works for you; I tried shouting at another person, "throwing" thoughts at them, and finally ended up building a firm mental tunnel from my head to theirs in order to push thoughts from my head to theirs.

Drawbacks: This develops sending telepathy but not receiving telepathy.

2. Void meditation. Just plain continue. At some point your mind will be quiet enough and you'll have paid enough attention to your mind that you should start subtly picking up on the thoughts of other people. There will be no "aha!" moment and will instead be a lot of "wait, why am i thinking of that?" and "wow, I was just thinking of that before they said that", which will eventually turn into "hmm, that popped into my head just before they started talking about it...". If you stop censoring your mouth, and instead start blurting out random thoughts that come to mind, then at some point other people should start saying "Wow, I was just thinking that" *a lot*.

Drawbacks: Takes a long time, progress towards telepathy is actually a side-effect and may never develop. Receptive telepathy only.

3. Pushing aside the Veil. Requires development of some sort of visual psychic perception. Reach out with the mind past your own veil, then simply brush aside the veil that hangs over others.

Drawbacks: Requires that you have already developed psychic ability/abilities, which means you've probably already done this naturally and didn't even need it listed.

Fake telepathy
4. Energy gathering. Continue energy gathering techniques until you can pull in enough that it feels like it is filling you to the brim, to the point where it feels like you are overfilling a balloon with air and the energy wants out. Pull it up into your head and keep pulling energy upward, holding it there. Do this for several sessions, getting a feel for the delimiting "edges" of your "psyche", and then push outward against the edges of the psyche even as you continue pulling upward from below.

Drawbacks: This is in bad taste as it attempts to force the energy. There will also be many other sensations, purely physical, purely metaphysical, and hard to tell between them: none of those other sensations *matter*, but some of them will likely be caused by (I'm guessing here) a blood rush in your head and increased nervous system activity (both of which are natural side-effects of focusing intensely on/near your own head). Try to adjust your practices as you go so that you do not hurt yourself.

5. Psychic Knowledge. Rather than developing telepathy itself, developing the ability to perceive "truth" in it's purest form allows for "fact checking" your own thoughts; this means that as you consider something, you psychically "fact check" it and receive psychic feedback as to whether it is correct or not (close ended answers). Pushing it to the next level, you learn how to receive open ended answers. Direct it towards another person and ponder "Is this person thinking <x>?" for the close ended questions, and "What is this person thinking?" for the open ended questions. A much more versatile skill than mere telepathy as you can use it for nearly anything, restricted of course by your level of development (especially useful for knowing when to shut the fuck up and go research a topic before talking about it).

Drawbacks: Temptation to stop using real world fact checking methods by looking information up properly. Not real telepathy so you do not perceive thoughts in real time. Receptive telepathy only.

6. Existing within the "Mental Plane", or whatever you want to call it. At some point along your practices, if you keep going far enough, you should come upon the psychic perception of partially existing on a pseudo level of reality that is "somewhat" (subjective term, others will have their own ideas on levels of intensity) skewed from physical reality. Probably most easily developed by either practicing over the internet, or with eyes closed. I would argue that this it not "real" telepathy in that it is not "strictly" telepathy, but since thoughts exist upon the Mental Plane it could also be argued that this is the purest form of telepathy.

Drawbacks: I know of no specific techniques for how to develop this ability in itself (others might know specific techniques). Can easily be confused with mere imagination if you do not properly confirm it.

Edited to put energy gathering technique under fake telepathy. I hadn't originally intended to create the fake telepathy group, and I had written up the energy one first.

I'm not going to defend the PDF. I didn't read it, but from the few excerpts you quoted, it doesn't seem like something I'd want to try and defend. I merely wanted to discuss one point that you brought up.

There is an inherent inconsistency in your ideology. Hedonism supposes the (immediate) gratification of ones personally desires, however moral action and moral integrity supposes self constrain. Let me give an example. Lets suppose that you are at a party and a girl is trying to hook up with you. You know she is not into you and you know that she is married as well. But now that she is drunk she is offering herself to you. If you desire her as well then hedonism would allows you to have sex with her, however is it also moral to do so if you consider the fact that she is not in a state to rationally think and that this action will cause her to have major problems.
Again, I will not speak for whatever the author of the PDF wrote, so if his ideology is indeed inconsistent, then so be it. I will instead speak of hedonism.

Hedonism does not need to be immoral, but neither does it need to be moral. Morality and Hedonism are not necessarily tied together, as a person can be very moral while still seeking pleasure, and another can be strongly immoral while still seeking pleasure, and yet another can be completely amoral while still seeking pleasure. Hedonism does not tie together with intelligence level or the ability to see repercussions for one's actions into the future either.

At it's base, hedonism is simply seeking pleasure. How one goes about doing that is entirely personal, as personal pleasure is entirely subjective; one person finds pleasure in reading, while another finds pleasure in drunkenness (not merely drinking, but the state of being drunk), while another finds pleasure in the company of friends or family. As it is personal, one person can stave off immediate gratification for the sake of long term pleasure, while another person ignores long term potentials and seeks out immediate gratification no matter the costs incurred. By way of your example of the drunk girl, an intelligent hedonist would realize that much trouble may come from sleeping with a married drunk woman, and may instead seek the pleasure of sleeping with her in a future encounter when she is sober, and with her husband's permission after they all discuss it like adults. This example, as I laid it out, does not even have anything to do with morals but is simply a better choice for more long term pleasure with less overall pain, and thus I am not providing an example of moralistic hedonism but am instead paving the way for understanding types of hedonism that are not immoral (since hedonism seems to be strongly stereotyped as such).

This is logical however it doesn't coinside with reality
Quoted for truth. Logic does not dictate reality.


Psionics / Re: Adfeng's Technique Stash
« on: August 12, 2016, 06:13:13 PM »
So long as it is not taken to the level of paranoia, then yes, recognizing that the potential for harm exists within energetic (or any) practices, is valid.

Just like with working out the physical body; if you do it right then you'll be okay, but if you go overboard then you will likely harm yourself. The biggest distinction between working out the physical body versus the energy body, is that we have entire cultures and civilizations that have spent millenia physically exercising and refining the practices to be more and more safe. Whereas with energetic practices, especially if you are practicing alone, you are relying upon things you've read over the internet from inherently dubious sources (even the BEST sources with Grade-A techniques are inherently dubious when read over the internet because of the lack of verification/distinction between good techniques and bad techniques except at the whims of other random/dubious people on the internet who are willing to throw their 2 cents worth of opinion at various sources).


Mom. She earned money and picked up after me when I was a kid >_>
Dad. He earned money and kicked my ass when I was bad <_< (he didn't really kick my ass. He did punish, though)

(This post is mostly a joke, only because nobody else has answered yet, so I'm not int disrupting a serious conversation yet.)


Dreams / Hyper Realistic dream
« on: August 12, 2016, 06:04:03 PM »
Hyper realistic dream - dream was from August 12th (the same day as writing this). I woke up at about 2pm (5 hours ago, as verified by the time stamp on text messages I received and replied to shortly after waking up). I wrote this down at about 6:30 to 7pm, as evidenced by me looking at the clock when I started and right now.

I woke up at the home I grew up in, in a bed I grew up sleeping in, but the top bunk of the bed was gone and was replaced with a clear, thick plastic covering (like you'd see at a loading dock, meant to control temperature while still letting people pass). I immediately recognized that this was a dream and that I was lucid dreaming, which I haven't done in a long time. The dream itself seemed very "off" in some manner, as though it was formed at the responsibility of someone else, though I did not get a sense of purpose or meaningfulness. All of the visual details mentioned below were as real as being awake; from seeing the walls and floors and furniture, to seeing the faces of people. The dream did still move like a dream, though, in that I did not take each and every step like I do in the real world, but instead merely "go" in a direction and at times just kind of smoothly "teleport" from one location to another (as the location itself melds itself from the current into the next).

While I laid in the bed, someone was trying to get into the bed beside me, rolling up a blanket or something and then putting it beside me as I sat up and made room. I didn't know who it was so I stood up and grabbed them, asking who they were; turns out it was one of my brothers. I left the room and went upstairs (from the basement) to the main floor.

I stopped in at the kitchen briefly, then went up the stairs to the second level of the house. Four doors along a thin hallway on this level, all doors closed; three doors lead to bedrooms and one leads to the bathroom. I skipped the first bed room, and I went in the room that my parents had lived in while I grew up, though I do not remember the layout. I then went across the hall to a bedroom that I had spent some time sleeping in after I graduated post-secondary; the room was messy and laid out like it was when I used it, and I distinctly thought to myself some sarcastic comment about how my room (or maybe "I") never changed/changes. I exited this room and went back down the stairs towards the main floor.

While still on the stairs, at the bend, several people were now on the stairs, and other people that I recognized as family members were going in and out of the front door that is located right at the bottom of these stairs; one of my sisters was sitting at the top of the group on the stairs and I sat down beside her. The next two people below us were people I did not recognize, one male and one female, both middle to older aged. There were also two very young children playing on the steps under the supervision of the adults. I focused on the female as though she was the one responsible for the dream, and asked her who she was. She replied with an answer that I do not remember, but I do remember it satisfying me in the dream. I asked the man the same question, and he answered but I did not care about his answer. For some reason, I also put my hand on the head of the woman after talking with her.

I then finished going down the stairs and walked towards the back of the house where our living room was. The room was several feet larger in one dimension than it was in real life, which is notable as I noted that in the dream, and because all other dimensions of the house were actually fairly spot on. While still dreaming, I considered the possibilities that the house had undergone some renovations to extend the living room, or perhaps it was just an anomoly of the dream.

Everyone was wearing new clothing, and the entirety of the house was decorated in new materials, from wallpaper to carpets to chairs and beds. It seemed very much like I had won the lottery and split the money with my family, bought the house I grew up in and renovated the whole thing. I also got the impression that this was a few years into the future.

At this point in the dream, I felt the dream start to fall apart. The visual details started fading towards vagueness. I started trying to go through the house again at this point, to try and relive a sense of nostalgia, but the dream ended quickly and I woke up. It has now been about 4 hours since that happened, and I recognize that I have forgotten some of the more minor details that happened in the dream (as mentioned above, during the dream). For instance, upon immediately waking up, I still remembered what the woman had said, and it was only after being awake for a while that I forgot it (for anyone who isn't aware of how to remember details about things that were "forgotten", I started using "metadata" extensively on my thoughts when I was still a teenager. The information that I artificially "tag on to thoughts" stays far more solid over the years than the thoughts themselves tend to).

I am writing this dream down because it was so hyper realistic *and* because it seemed like it *might* be a psychic dream. This way, if it does happen in a few years and I get the deja vu feeling, I can search for this post and see how accurate it was. (This is purely me being selfish. This isn't for anyone else but me :P) In the interests of doing new things, I may start doing this with other dreams that seem psychic as well, as I have never really kept a dream journal before despite the number of times that I have gotten the sense that a dream or daydream may have been a psychic view into the future (I always just blew it off as a "yeah, but it would take soooo long to find out, that it's not really worth writing down to try and figure it out").

EDIT: For clarification to myself: I "woke up into" the dream with the explicit "realization"/thought that it seemed to be an "artificial" dream (ie, as though someone else was creating the environment and I just happened to enter into it). There was a bit of confusion as my mind tried to process that thought, alongside the familiar view of my old room in such realistic detail, also alongside the recent memory of another dream that I had within the past few days where I woke up into the same bed (but that one seemed a perfectly normal dream). It only took a few seconds for the confusion to die off, and I was immediately lucid dreaming, right from the get go, and it strongly seemed/felt like the lucid dreaming was not from my own efforts/capacity.

For anyone else who might be wondering: Yes, I am entirely aware of the possible psychological evaluations of all of this, in being able to say "it was all just a dream" with very real-world explanations for the variety of thoughts, feelings, and sensations. Lecture for the sake of telling other people, or for the practice of getting your own thoughts in order, if you will, but please do not lecture for me :) I have written this not because I have decided that this is a psychic dream, but to determine if it was, which will be decided in the future based on whether this event occurs or not.


Spirituality / Re: Polyamory and soul mates
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:54:41 PM »
Body for the body, soul for the soul.

I know that I have a number of biases regarding body types. But I recognize my associations: for instance, I dislike tons of fat on people because it is indicitive of laziness and an unwillingness to be physically active. I dislike strong, bad odours for obvious reasons. Things like that.

The other part of it has to do with social theories and personal space theories. We judge one another because we are careful about who we want to open up to. We are careful about how much we open up to others, and for those people that we do become friendly with, we still divide them into categories based upon how comfortable we are with them: associates, barely friends, friends, close friends, best friends, lover or sibling type friends. On a purely physical level, this can be easily justified by way of protecting yourself from STDs or violent people. Personality wise, this is justifiable to protect yourself from people who are incapable of keeping your secrets safe, or from people who want to emotionally control you, or who are just plain psychopaths that like to hurt people.

is it not such a selfish and narcissistic concept where you connect only with people on the similar level of consciousness?
Different people are in different situations in life. We are not all at equal points. So I would suggest that you use your feelings of love to get to know individuals better, but without necessarily opening yourself up to the possibility of being hurt, while trying to help them in some way.

Also, just because you like someone doesn't mean you have to have sex with them :P Just like you can have sex with someone you don't like. Sex and intimacy are nice when they go together, but each can be done apart from one another too.

EDIT: And if you feel feelings for people that you don't want to get really intimate with, I would suggest trying to guide those feelings towards compassion, and wanting to help those people in their lives. This will still allow you to interact with them in line with your desires that are being created by your feelings, without needing to judge other people, and thus you won't need to feel the guilt either.


Magick / Re: Lost all faith
« on: July 29, 2016, 11:23:04 AM »
Double post, now that I got my coffee:

Quote from: Hellblazer
To be honest, I just wish I knew for certain that all the time I spent in my practices was worth it.
Whether the results are worthwhile or not, regardless of the labels "magic" or "psychic", is a choice that you make for yourself.

Quote from: Hellblazer
That I did really manifest my intentions. A lot of times I think that I might not be suited for gross manifestation of will, only subtle forms.
Nobody becomes a black belt in martial arts easily. It takes time, so long as you continue to put in the effort, try new things, and continue seeing advancement. For a long time, subtle things may be all you see. My first manifestation attempt succeeded in doing something that was very definitively real, but evenso the vast majority of things I've done since have been subtle and difficult to distinguish.

Quote from: Hellblazer
I think back on what I've done. Did I really cause someone to yawn through mental influence, move someone through energy projection?
I had those same doubts for a long time, as influencing people requires different (more stringent) verification than influencing objects. I was able to move people consistently, over and over again, exactly as I planned ahead of time, until I fatigued each time. For over a year. Yet I still doubted until the last one that I did, where I decided to let the person go prior to me fatiguing: I was not sure at the time what criteria I would accept as being verification of success so I decided to just let it go and see what happened (I was planning on creating specific criteria for future experiments based upon his reaction). When I let them go, their head shot up immediately (I had them reading a magazine) and they said loudly either "why I am reading this?" or "what am I doing?" (I can't remember exactly which), and then they took the magazine back to where I made them pick it up from, and then they went back to their group of friends and started talking with them again as they had been doing prior to my influence. That was the verification I needed: after all the experiments, I was finally able to put "reasonable doubt" aside ([EDIT]sorry, I should have said "unreasonable doubt" at this point, because I had already transitioned from "reasonable doubt" to "unreasonable doubt" previously. At this point, I was strongly sure that I was responsible, but I wanted more than strongly sure: I wanted absolute certainty.[/EDIT]) and accept that it was indeed psychic rather than merely coincidence. If I recall correctly, I was 17 at this time, and I started practicing metaphysical things when I was 15.

You are still in reasonable doubt, which is fine so long as it does not become unreasonable doubt, so keep practicing until you're able to determine whether you're actually doing it or not.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Have'd I actually succeeded at telekinesis?
If you can't tell easily, modify the practice to be something that can't happen spontaneously. For instance, I moved the pin wheel: whoop-de-doo. Doesn't mean much for verification sake, because it's a beginner's practice that's just meant to get you into the practice. It will be hit or miss depending on how it's set up (for instance, if you're using your hands, then anyone could easily say that it moved because of the heat from your hands (which is technically bullshit, as I put my hands around the thing and just left them there for several minutes and the pin wheel did not react by spontaneously spinning around)). What proved to me that telekinesis was possible/real was the first experiment I did with it, where I stopped objects from moving. Almost every other type of telekinesis practice either failed or was inconclusive.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Now I just wonder 1) If it's worth it? 2) If it's worth it, then what should I do with it?
Honestly, from my own life, the most worthwhile abilities that I have developed are abilities of perception. They allow me to know what is going to happen before it does, help me figure out a path towards a goal that I set, and help me carefully pick my way through some very nuanced situations. All the while, I remain in control because I choose what I want, it's so much easier to perceive possibilities than attempting to modify events, and I can easily mix mundane with metaphysical without having to care whether any metaphysical stuff is involved simply because I get the results I want :)

Quote from: Hellblazer
Then again I find my attention drawn back to subtle magick, those events that seem more than chance or a coincidence. I can't count the number of times I've had what I needed when I needed it. Even when I did nothing more than want strongly. It's a demon of frustration that I've dealt with for the past 3 years.
Don't be frustrated by it. Accept it as useful :)

Quote from: Hellblazer
I've learned that I'm not good at spirit working and ritual magick is boring to me. I have no active interest in it as I am not religious in any way. So spirit based magick is out of the question.
Neither of those "have to" deal with religion. If spirits are real, or even if they are just conglomerate constructs, then they are a potential tool to work with (though, I also do not work with them). Rituals can be some of the most scientific aspects of magic if you apply psychology to them: use various tools to encite specific mental states that you can work from. Use the tools of psychology to elicit specific and different mind sets and attempt to work from each of them, then use result-analysis afterward to determine which mind sets provide the best benefits for various criteria (for instance, some are easier to work from, some may produce stronger results, some may produce faster results, some may produce better results for specific kinds of desires, etc).

Quote from: Hellblazer
One question I haven't ever been able to answer is that if magick works. Does it only work to feel a need and this is why wishful desires are often left unseen? Because if I did a working for a casual want I rarely got it, if it was a real need I'd have it.
That's a difficult question to answer as there are several criteria caught up in it. For instance, where does "want" become "desire" become "need"? When does want, desire, or need become obsession? I've found that many workings tend to work best when I am detached from them, emotionally and psychologically, whereas others only work when I employ and overly intense desire for the result (including to the point of saying "fuck you, universe, I fucking want this damned thing, stop being a bitch that's not letting me have it" and incorporating a lot of anger). There could be limitations of thresholds involved in various ways; for instance, the only time I've manipulated fire was when a friend prepped the candle by working on it first: did he then add his own energy to the mix in order to pass some threshold of minimal energy inclusion that I've been unable to pass myself? I don't know.

Quote from: Hellblazer
This goes back to the past 4 years of my life. I hit a terrible patch where it was fire and brimstone in my life. Yet, my family and I made it through it. I got the money I needed for a lawyer, the ruling was the minimum and only enforced to shut up the other party. Our lawyer, the judge, and their lawyer all knew each other on a personal basis. I cast a lot for this situation. It just seemed in hindsight that my magick isn't miracle level, that it works in the background. That perhaps if I hadn't done what I did that success wouldn't have happened.
Sometimes we will never know. If a retro-analysis after the event is unable to determine whether the castings made a difference, then let go and move on.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Then again I don't have path B where I could see the events play out without my efforts. So I don't know what I believe anymore. A part of me consciously doesn't believe anymore, then subconsciously I do. I just wish I had a resolution to this. Living a doubtful life is eating me alive.
From what I've seen, that's the most exact reason why a lot of people either choose to believe or disbelieve in religion, above all else.

But the problem that I keep seeing over and over again seems to have to do with analysis. More specifically, you either don't know how to set up experiments so that they will allow for proper analysis, or you are making a few errors of judgement in the analysis, "all or nothing", for instance. Though I have said before that I use "all or nothing" thinking to default towards "nothing", it's the requirement of "all" that is the problem. Very few human demonstrable skills in the real world can meet the "all" or "100%" requirement that this thinking postulates, so we must instead reduce the benchmark to more reasonable levels, such at 80% or 90%.

Can you perform a working that leaves you 80% sure that you did it via magic? It is okay to have a mixed resolution, where you are strongly sure that you did it by magic and still somewhat doubtful that you did not. It is also okay to be strongly sure that you did not do it by magic, but somewhat consider that you may have (depending on variables that lend themselves towards such a conclusion, not simply because you want to believe in it). Then the goal is to continue practicing and modifying experiments to increase the benchmark.

If you cannot be at least 80% sure that you've performed a manifestation via metaphysical means, what percentage sure are you? Then, are there ways that you can increase this surity, either by modifying the experiment to allow for better analysis, upgrading your analytical abilities to be more precise (ie, via taking a course regarding this), or by increasing your metaphysical abilities to produce more sure results? Ultimately, the question should change from "Is this real?" to "How do I go about verifying whether this is real?"

And then again, as I said before, you are allowed to give up as well, if you want to. Sometimes it is just a hassle to practice metaphysics. Other times, you just need a vacation.


Magick / Re: Lost all faith
« on: July 29, 2016, 10:22:40 AM »
Actually, I should specify that, despite all the people throwing around the words "magic is real!", I should probably also talk a little bit about my own process of proper analysis. (I haven't read your latest post yet, but I will read it after I go get another coffee)

By default, I assume that an affect is not magical until I can prove otherwise. So, when I was first attempting to learn receptive telepathy, I assumed that the thoughts that were coming into my head were merely me guessing at what the other person would say next; this was more than plausible at the time, and in fact was almost guaranteed to be the correct answer because for years prior to developing telepathy I had taken the time to learn and mimic how other people thought in a purely mundane fashion (like an advanced form of cold reading). However, despite that mundane ability, which was incredibly useful, it also had its shortcomings. During post-secondary, telepathy started developing on its own in me by way of random thoughts popping into my head even without me attempting to determine what people around me were thinking; again I assumed this was a subconscious manifestation of the skill that I had developed.

Then one day, full on telepathy just kind of hit me out of nowhere, while I was at work chatting with someone. All of a sudden my mind/perceptions opened up and I could see their thoughts overlaid upon my own perceptions; this wasn't merely imagination as I was able to talk with them and verify what they were thinking. This wasn't merely imagination combined with the skill, because I was able to pick out exact details about their lives from years and years ago, which is impossible to determine using cold reading and such. This mental state lasted for months all on its own, before closing back down to a normal mindset. It was amazing. And after that I learned how to enact it voluntarily, yet it still didn't always work.

A person could always make up reasons and excuses for why to dismiss events like that and claim they were merely psychological and not at all metaphysical, but because I was the person who experienced, I was also able to test it against purely mundane effects and able to determine that there was no realistic way that I could confuse what happened for mere mundane effects. I would have to display very unreasonable doubt about what happened in order to say that it was all merely mundane psychological effects.

Yet still, even with my years of metaphysical experiences, I still default to the idea that something is mundane until proven otherwise. This is perfectly fine with me because there are a shit ton of useful mundane abilities that I had developed over the years (and I've lost many of them since). The ability to set a biological alarm clock, the ability to know the time to within 15 minutes even after 10+ hours of having last seen a clock, the ability to mimic other peoples' mind sets to the point of near-telepathy, perceiving another person's emotions through energy, knowing things were about to happen before they did, mentally figuring out a shit ton of possibilities for how things could turn out and then comparing against the most likely results, and many many more useful things I'd developed, and it doesn't really matter if I can't slap the labels of magical or psychic on them. The more important point to them all is that I could find a use for them, even if those uses were limited or situational or imperfect (ie, only "mostly right") or whether they failed at times.


Magick / Re: Lost all faith
« on: July 29, 2016, 09:42:00 AM »
Forgot to reply to the original post where you replied to me. I'll do that and then edit it in at the bottom.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Does drawing upon the white light of the divine goddess actually mean that you've drawn in some cosmic energy? Are is it the effect of the intention and visualization coupled with expectation that allow you to invoke the dopamine spirit?
This depends entirely upon two things: 1) whether the "divine goddess" is real, and 2) whether you can draw white light from it. Much like drinking water from a glass: if there is no real water in the glass, but you forcibly enough fool your brain into thinking you're drinking water, then you will believe you are drinking water even if you aren't.

This goes back to Plato's Cave, Descartes' Demon, and Brain in a Vat: reality versus perception of reality versus imagination of reality. How does one ever tell the difference between those three things? A partial answer is that a person can never figure out real reality, so we are stuck trying to distinguish between perception and imagination. A recurring theme among metaphysicists, made difficult by the (very real) idea that a person can (if they've figured out how) imprint their imagination over reality in order to change reality, to some degree.

Quote from: Hellblazer
More and more I think on it, if you need faith and belief to make it work, it doesn't work.
Not quite. There are some things which cannot be done via placebo effect, such as proper telekinesis where you move a flat object across a flat surface, and can thus be determined to be real despite the presence of faith or belief. Further, I have produced results while believing that it wouldn't work; even my first result was achieved while I was under the very strong impression that nothing would happen.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Yet breaking glass, commanding the wind, or lighting stuff on fire through magick is taken from stories, not one real shred of scientific data exist to validate that our thoughts influence the objective reality. What 'evidence' there is comes from pseudo science.
Not just "stories", but also from peoples' personal experiences. I have my own experiences that are invaluable, and attempting to dismiss them with a wave of the hand and claims of "subjective perception" or "confirmation bias" or "anecdotal evidence" is a pseudo-scientific response. Proper science should desire to investigate, and there have been lots of investigations and testing, and there has been conflicting evidence, but overall the weight of the evidence leans heavily towards "this shit be real, yo".

Quote from: Hellblazer
Everything thing I thought I had achieved as objective results was me fooling myself.

You want to really know why I have doubts? Because an innocent was punished while the devil walked away. That magick being as supposedly powerful, to be able to bend chance to our will, didn't stop a monster, a monster that deserves death for his sins.

You want to tell me that magick can get you laid.

But when it's put to something important it falls flat.
Incorrect analysis, "moving the goalposts", and "all or nothing" thinking. Replace magic with martial arts in the above; I have seen much hurt done in the world, and I have hurt people myself. The martial arts I have learned haven't helped a single person, so should I then conclude that martial arts isn't real? How about knitting? Knitting didn't step in and crochet a sweater to stop the hurt of your example, so should we say that knitting isn't real either?

Just because magic isn't All Powerful doesn't mean that it's false. It means that it's a normal skill like any other, that most people can't do it "by default", and that people get better at it as they train themselves. But even with the training, there will be times when it will fail, including important times.

Now, regardless of the above, you are going through a period of doubt. This is fine. My words above should not be taken in the context of trying to dissuade you from doubting or trying to convince you to believe what I believe, but instead should be taken in the context of trying to better tune up your thought processes on what is going on.

Quote from: Hellblazer
The psychological model does work for me
You seem to be engaging in double talk, where you say it does work but it doesn't.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Since the psych model is considered a 'sin'. As it tends to take they mystical aspect out of magick and reduce it to a system of self help.
It's not considered a "sin" because it takes the mystical out, but because it provides incorrect analysis based upon knee-jerk reactionism by simply throwing out psychological terms without really investigating whether those terms are actually applicable. It's a pseudo-scientific responce because it dismisses investigation, in favour of assumption.

For instance, "God (and the like) become ideas that empower intentions in the subconscious/deep mind. It's seen as being sterile."
This idea is very much prevalent in various metaphysical paradigms. But it once again becomes an assumption rather than an investigated fact, and many of the people who believe in it never test to try and distinguish their own imagination of a god from the possibility of a real god.

Quote from: Hellblazer
While I've had some paranormal and probably advanced manifestation it's not really convincing me of the functionality of what I've done.
That's fine.

Quote from: Hellblazer
I've pushed people with the empty force, yet see no point other than for show.
It's situational. I've used it to stop people from advancing towards me and picking a fight with me. I'd say that was fairly functional.

Quote from: Hellblazer
I do often wonder that deep magick is about manipulating probability to create the highest chance for one's intention to manifest.
Different people have different ideas on that. Rayn and I, for example, argued about it a lot. He strongly believes that the manipulation of probability is pretty much exactly what magic/psychicism is, whereas I view many of my workings as being no different than mundane workings in that I make an effort to use skill to bypass chance and enforce an outcome; of course chance and "Lady Luck" will always play a part in everything we do, but skill and effort minimize the role that luck and chance play.

Quote from: Hellblazer
I did enjoy the psionic model for a while but it left a huge hole in me. People would often talk about how physical there constructs were and yet to me it was just mental imagery.
Aye, I'm still not entirely sure about constructs either. Different people use their own terminology to describe what they do, and it seems that different people even do different things, so it's hard to determine whether there's an actual consensus on what constructs are or how to make and utilize them.

Quote from: Hellblazer
I could at one time 'see' a psi-ball, which turned out to be nothing more than a visual hallucination. Again it all came down to functionality.
Did you determine whether it was hallucination by attempting to apply it to someone else while they were not told what you were doing? I'm curious as to how you determined that it was a hallucination as opposed to a real thing.

And again, functionality is situational. Martial arts aren't of much use while knitting.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Really thinking about it I went from ritual magick, to psionics, to sigils magick, and then to more mental magick. I don't understand this progression and why, I wish I did. I don't know where I stand. From my perspective it seems like I'm a lazy magician as I don't do rituals or even spell work, just will-working. Which was something I've striven for.
Will working is an accepted paradigm within magic, though some debate as to whether it's "really magic, or just psionics" or other such labelling. Doesn't really matter. "If it's stupid but works, it isn't stupid." The problem comes when it doesn't work.

Quote from: Hellblazer
I just don't know where I'm at now. Is there a higher level that I'm at are am I just not seeing it? Am I there? Or am I just over thinking it all. Direct Magick was that thing that wasn't easy to define. It wasn't magick exactly nor psionics.

I hate being confused. Should I just keep doing the I-M work I've been doing and not worry about it anymore?
There are times when I would suggest that a person continue doing what they are doing, and times I would suggest that a person expand their experiences. In this case, I would suggest that you either pick something new that you haven't done before and try it out, OR go back to doing something you "fell away from" such as ritual magic and try that again (knowing what you know now). Experimenting on new things helps keep it fresh, helps you keep moving forward, and gives you more experiences to compare old ones to and against. (For instance, I'm currently listening to binaural tones to see what kind of an effect that has)


Magick / Re: Lost all faith
« on: July 23, 2016, 06:58:38 PM »
If the psychological model didn't work for you, put it aside and try another. If that one doesn't work, put it aside and try another. Keep doing this until you get the successes you are looking for, or you give up.

Or give up now. It doesn't really matter. How was life going to be different with magic versus without, anyway?


Main Hall / Re: New here/ High Magician
« on: July 23, 2016, 06:55:23 PM »
Promises are fine, but why not do it the usual way. Offer each of your services for free once for long time members of Veritas here, that way you can easily generate the needed review while not costing you much.
We do not have a "usual way" here at Veritas.

Offer your services however you will, SinisterScythe. For the most part, however, this website is for discussion and education, rather than selling of services.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 264