The Veritas Society
*
*
Home
Forums
Chat
Help
Search
Retro
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 05:05:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:

  Advanced search
216810 Posts in 15434 Topics by 19967 Members - Latest Member: - Mana Most online today: 110 - most online ever: 430 (June 28, 2007, 02:58:51 PM)
+  The Veritas Society
|-+  Discussion Areas
| |-+  Magick
| | |-+  Omnimancy
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Print
Author Topic: Omnimancy  (Read 11614 times)
kobok
Veritas Council
Tech Team
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 4937

Karma: 169



Veritas Council


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2005, 01:59:58 PM »

Quote from: Kettle
Now what would you do if instead it wasn't something like healing, but it was let's say; the reproduction and amplification of the vibrations associated with specific intent, as well as the ability to broadcast this intent on a large scale long after the intent (from you) has ceased.


For constructs with complex properties (rather than a simple result), I  usually do construct them out of simpler conceptual components.  I think this has value, it just shouldn't be used exclusively due to the advantages of direct focus on simple results that have complex mechanisms.

Quote from: Kettle
Another question has actually just come to my mind; What if you did create a construct without going into speicifc HOW it worked, and then you did find out EXACTLY how it works. Would that make the construct any less fuctional? Couldn't you actaully use this information to your advantage the next time you made a construct of a similar nature? And due to this understanding, couldn't you refine and increase the capacity and proficiency of the construct?


In the same way that it sometimes works to ones detriment to worry too much about how to achieve a result, it can also work to ones detriment to focus too much on how a construct is constructed, especially if its behavior can be conceptualized in a simple manner.  For example, if you were to make a construct that provided vision, you could go to extensive detail in how you construct that construct, or you could focus on the simply intent for the construct, which is vision.  The mechanisms of vision are complicated, but the conceptualization is simple, so in the world of constructs it's more efficient to go with the simple part and use the conceptualization of the intent.  "Deconstructing" it wouldn't have much meaning, because its construction IS the conceptual intent which created it.
Logged

Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.
impossibleFork
Frequent poster
A Familiar Feature
***
Posts: 117

Karma: 4


Frequent poster


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2005, 03:22:24 PM »

Quote from: impossibleFork
One who is learning painting may for example draw a cube, a circle and other forms from predefined patterns; for such is our memory, we associate one pattern with another. This is not the way of the master painter; for he must abandon his patterns and surpass them by drawing their true form, for if he would paint the actual object he would apply his symbols and his paiting would never be that of master.

It is my view that this is true for all arts and sciences; and it has been said by kobok that the metaphysical arts are the artistic expression of the soul, a statement which I hold most true. I can thus not see why there is such praise for this technique. It is against the very purpose of the arts that we study, it is to transcend our patterns only to create them anew.

P.S. I corrected a grammatic mistake in the quote.
Logged
Zake
Veritas Staff
Veritas Moderator
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 1722

Karma: 1



Veritas Staff


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2005, 04:07:19 PM »

That is very poetic, impossiblefork, though not particularly relevant:  Psionics and magic, while arts, are not painting, and the system of "overcoming the pieces to master the whole" is not inherent in all forms of art.  For example, a poet, no matter how masterful, will never forget how to spell individual words and will, furthermore, use the same set of words that he learned from his education and such.  Art can easily be modular.

In either case, while I understand kobok's point in that details detract from the effect, there is also the point that this is probably an entirely different philosophy of causing change than the standard "focus on it and it happens".  Instead of adapting "what one can do" for whatever situation one is in, such a psion or mage or whatever develops a set of "things he/she can do" which can be combined to cause various effects.  There are diverse pros and cons, obviously, such as that while the direct psion is focused more on the end, the detailed psion has perhaps a more reliable means, as he is only doing things he is experienced at doing.
Logged

Act; for the universe will never forget your movement, nor will it ever forgive your stillness.
Kettle
Frequent poster
Veritas Teacher
Veritas Furniture
*****
Posts: 376

Karma: 21


Frequent poster


View Profile
Re
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2005, 04:14:44 PM »

Quote
For constructs with complex properties (rather than a simple result), I usually do construct them out of simpler conceptual components. I think this has value, it just shouldn't be used exclusively due to the advantages of direct focus on simple results that have complex mechanisms.


Well then, we have no real disimilarity there. I leave simpler parts of my constructs undefined as well.

Quote
In the same way that it sometimes works to ones detriment to worry too much about how to achieve a result, it can also work to ones detriment to focus too much on how a construct is constructed, especially if its behavior can be conceptualized in a simple manner.


IF it can be conceptualized in a simple manner.

Quote
For example, if you were to make a construct that provided vision


That's real subtle there.

Quote
you could go to extensive detail in how you construct that construct, or you could focus on the simply intent for the construct, which is vision. The mechanisms of vision are complicated, but the conceptualization is simple, so in the world of constructs it's more efficient to go with the simple part and use the conceptualization of the intent.


To say something like that backing it up is necessary (*not said in an aggressive tone). Firstly there has to be some rationale to the efficiency you've proposed. Secondly, have you yourself ever produced a construct capable of supplying vision? (once again I'm not "callin you out" here, just your points needed proof or justification).

My problem is that I really would like to know how it works. Constructs are reallly of a psionic origin (by name), and from what I've known of psi it was always a scientifically studied practice. It is a scientifically studied practice that does not rely on faith, but function and reason. The purpose of science is to understand that which is around us to the best of our abilities, to gain a full and impartial understanding. What if we found out there were atoms for the first time and that they could bond with one another, you wouldn't just say; "Well, they bond on their own, no reason to figure out why or how", of course not, it's against science.

Quote
Verus Veritas(The Actual/Real Truth, in Latin)


Knowledge of the intricacies of something will always allow for a better use and control of it. Like, if you want to get the most out a car it'd be best to know how it works, as opposed to just how the gas, brake, and wheel works. So if you need to you can repair the vehicle, or maybe even supe it up with a better part.

My logic just follows that if you know how something works, you can probably make it work better.

-k

I come with a grain of salt, feel free to use it.
Logged
impossibleFork
Frequent poster
A Familiar Feature
***
Posts: 117

Karma: 4


Frequent poster


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2005, 04:40:10 PM »

Zake, I must througly disagree with you. The matter of which I have written is obvious even in the mathematics. Do you count, making use of the aritmetic, such as do children; or do you not solve your problems intuitevely, such as do the mathematician? The great mathematician discards the symbols, as do the painter and the poet; which you make use of for your example: you are confusing the matter which is manipulated with the process of manipulation. The poet manipulates a sentence, while the mathematician manipulates an expression; the idea of the expression is not a pattern in the manipulation of expressions, nor is the idea of the sentence a pattern within the manipulation of sentences.

P.S. I rewrote this post somewhat, as it was a bit disorganized.

P.P.S. As this post, to me appears to have been somewhat misinterpreted I add that it is meant to be read in the context of Liber CLVII XXVII:I; (http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib157.htm).
Logged
kobok
Veritas Council
Tech Team
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 4937

Karma: 169



Veritas Council


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2005, 06:11:43 PM »

Quote from: Kettle
Firstly there has to be some rationale to the efficiency you've proposed. Secondly, have you yourself ever produced a construct capable of supplying vision?


Yes.

Quote from: Kettle
My problem is that I really would like to know how it works. Constructs are reallly of a psionic origin (by name), and from what I've known of psi it was always a scientifically studied practice. It is a scientifically studied practice that does not rely on faith, but function and reason. The purpose of science is to understand that which is around us to the best of our abilities, to gain a full and impartial understanding. What if we found out there were atoms for the first time and that they could bond with one another, you wouldn't just say; "Well, they bond on their own, no reason to figure out why or how", of course not, it's against science.


Well, if you look at the edges of physics now and what it hints about the fundamental nature of the universe, you can see that somehow there is a fundamental nature to information which transcends its representation in space and time.  (This is hinted at by quantum information, and I'm certainly not the first person to suggest it.)

And in psi we can experience this more directly.  When you form a link for telepathy, scanning, pk, or any psi ability, you can either form that link across space by conceiving of a location, or you can form that link across conceptual space by conceiving of something conceptually.  For example, if I want to scan "Kettle", I can link to "Kettle" without knowing where he's located.  This doesn't work by the name "Kettle" acting as a phonebook, and then the information traveling across the intervening space.  Instead, the link actually travels through the concept of "Kettle" straight to you.  This is supported both by the experience of it and by the studies which show psi performance having no dependence on separation in space or time.

In the same way, constructs can function conceptually as their fundamental nature.  When I make a vision construct, its composition is the concept of vision, rather than having physical parts or some spatially arranged parts.  It's arranged conceptually, as a single conceptual item.

When I first started studying psi I had great trouble trying to find fundamental explanations for how the simple effects that should have complicated mechanisms occured, since I came from a scientific background and was so used to finding spatial explanations for things.  But after I realized that ideas and space can both be a realm for movement and existence of energy in psi, the explanation did a much better job of fitting the experience of performing such things.

So asking "how it works" in terms of trying to find a mechanism for a concept is just asking the wrong question, because the question assumes a simpler model of psi which doesn't include "idea space".
Logged

Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.
Kettle
Frequent poster
Veritas Teacher
Veritas Furniture
*****
Posts: 376

Karma: 21


Frequent poster


View Profile
Re
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2005, 01:21:52 PM »

Everyone saw that right? I just got e-castrated by Kobok. He took his big e-boot and thrust directly down upon my e- ...you get the picture.

Anyways, assuming what you say is true Kobok, I have no reason to assume it wouldn't be, then my arguement is rendered obsolete, and you have won this debate. I did enjoy it though.

Just out of curiosity, the construct I proposed;
Quote
You focus on a particular thought (desired or specific intent) like moving an object with pk, the construct picks up the vibratory expression of your intent, sends the information to something that can reproduce the vibration, the vibration is reproduced, amplified and broadcast outwards from the source.

how would you go about making it? How defined would you have to get?

-k

I come with a grain of salt, feel free to take it.
Logged
kobok
Veritas Council
Tech Team
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 4937

Karma: 169



Veritas Council


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2005, 01:47:46 PM »

Quote from: Kettle
Anyways, assuming what you say is true Kobok, I have no reason to assume it wouldn't be, then my arguement is rendered obsolete, and you have won this debate. I did enjoy it though.


I also enjoyed it.  Such debates help me think my reasoning through more concretely.

Quote from: Kettle
Just out of curiosity, the construct I proposed;

Quote
You focus on a particular thought (desired or specific intent) like moving an object with pk, the construct picks up the vibratory expression of your intent, sends the information to something that can reproduce the vibration, the vibration is reproduced, amplified and broadcast outwards from the source.

 
how would you go about making it? How defined would you have to get?


I've made similar constructs to that before, and I would just focus on a simple definition like defining the construct to "amplify and empower my intent".  (I wouldn't bother focusing on anything like "vibratory expression" or "rebroadcasting", as the first is an expression of a transmission mechanism, and the second specifies a spatial orientation which is not critical to the desired result.)

The exception case in which I would specify a transmission mechanism is the case in which I am constructing something more elaborate, such as a self-replicating construct.  Then it requires a more specific definition.
Logged

Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.
KayVee
Regular Member
Settling In
*
Posts: 34

Karma: 0



Regular Member


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2005, 10:21:06 AM »

As an Omnimancer on temporary hiatus due to university:

Why isn't this on the Omnimancy boards themselves? They're open access.

As far as I'm concerned (and I believe this is 'official') 'Omnimancy', as in the term itself, refers not to anything promised from the outset, but to the intent of supplying a certain kind of magical 'education' so as to be able to deal quickly and effectively with any and all things that crop up on your path. Least, that's how it should be treated. they're not a static group working on basic tenets, rather attempting to create a workable structure from the ground up, which is commendable. To whit, Arthur has a way with words that's entirely his own, which i've had difficulties with to, HENCE YOU GO TO THE SOURCE OF THE 'PROBLEM'. The fact you're immediately attempting to define an unorthodox/modern magical practice by orthodox/old labels, yourselves, seems a bit futile.

I'm not solely into Omnimancy, I've worked with many many systems in the past. The Omnimancers, also, are real people, with differing personalities and attitudes to things. And I'm gunna state now that i've had BLAZING rows with half of them, because of my background, however it's not because they're wrong. As well as it being a thoroughly foreign paradigm (though based on as much objectivity as possible, as opposed to the Chaos magick 'paradigm'), there's an distinct 'no bullshit' mentality at the top, and like minded individuals run it.

Fact of the matter being, ask an Omnimancer, not people who have had access to nothing but the public documents, as they're far, far, far from what you get to know at high levels. As for 'Lord', it's pretty much a joke. We're given 'Jesus Names', for god's sake. We're not without healthy humour.

I'd also like to note that even if the 'thesis' behind omnimancy, or any other magic, were to be throroughly and totally debunked, Chaos magick is in fact its own classification nowadays, so perhaps what's being looked at shouldn't be the attitude or individual beliefs of anyone in particular, rather, the effectiveness of the craft. And being that even after Prophecy's tirade against them, his final sentence is that 'the exact quality of their instructions in magic I can make no valuable comment towards, having no verifiably knowledge of them myself', I find myself wondering what the entire point of this discussion is.

Not that Proph seems, on having perused his class notes, to be able to make any valuable contribution about any kind of magic at all.  Smiley  Smiley  Smiley

May or may not follow up to replies, as THIS SHOULD BE ON THE OMNIMANCY BOARD.

To close, I see that Veritas has redesigned itself again. I pray it's not into double figures?
Logged


A b o d e || KayVee's Den
Plato once noted that those who seek power are invariably the least fit to wield it.
[/b]
KayVee
Regular Member
Settling In
*
Posts: 34

Karma: 0



Regular Member


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2005, 10:23:25 AM »

OH and and and:

Zake writes:

"Now, technically, I shouldn't answer this question, 'cos I hadn't heard of omnimancy at all before this post, as far as I recall.

However, this doesn't mean that I can't say that its almost certaintly stupid."

I missed this before, simply because on reading the post my brain couldn't process that someone could possibly write something so silly. Geez, people.
Logged


A b o d e || KayVee's Den
Plato once noted that those who seek power are invariably the least fit to wield it.
[/b]
Silverdawn
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 620

Karma: 2



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2005, 10:37:05 AM »

Quote
Why isn't this on the Omnimancy boards themselves? They're open access.


The person who started this thread was curious about what Veritas members thought of Omnimancy. Smiley
Logged
KayVee
Regular Member
Settling In
*
Posts: 34

Karma: 0



Regular Member


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2005, 11:49:38 AM »

Because that makes sense, given the number of people at veritas who have any experience of it. Imma go ask my cat what dog food tastes like.  Cheesy
Logged


A b o d e || KayVee's Den
Plato once noted that those who seek power are invariably the least fit to wield it.
[/b]
Silverdawn
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 620

Karma: 2



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2005, 11:52:34 AM »

Quote from: KayVee
Because that makes sense, given the number of people at veritas who have any experience of it. Imma go ask my cat what dog food tastes like.  Cheesy


Doesn't matter if that's the case - the person who started this thread asked what we thought  of Omnimancers. If you went to PsiPog and asked them what they thought of themselves, I'm not sure if you'd paint an objective picture. Smiley Same goes for any group. It's not weird to ask other groups about eachothers impressions.
Logged
kobok
Veritas Council
Tech Team
Posts By Osmosis
*****
Posts: 4937

Karma: 169



Veritas Council


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2005, 12:08:51 PM »

Quote from: KayVee
Fact of the matter being, ask an Omnimancer, not people who have had access to nothing but the public documents, as they're far, far, far from what you get to know at high levels.
...
so perhaps what's being looked at shouldn't be the attitude or individual beliefs of anyone in particular, rather, the effectiveness of the craft.


So then perhaps you, being one of the omnimancers you say we should ask, could share with us your view of what the art of omnimancy consists of.  You already said that it is an "educational system" that "prepares you for everything", but that's a little vague.  Could you give us more specific details about your view of the energy work principles in common use and the philosophy and paradigm involved?
Logged

Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.
Fire Essence
he-who-posts-lots
Veritas Furniture
****
Posts: 266

Karma: -1



he-who-posts-lots


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2005, 01:15:21 PM »

Quote from: kobok
So then perhaps you, being one of the omnimancers you say we should ask, could share with us your view of what the art of omnimancy consists of.  You already said that it is an "educational system" that "prepares you for everything", but that's a little vague.  Could you give us more specific details about your view of the energy work principles in common use and the philosophy and paradigm involved?


Kobok, he said the term/name Omnimancy refers to the groups INTENT to provide a magical education that prepares you for everything, never said it did.

Quote from: Silverdawn
Doesn't matter if that's the case - the person who started this thread asked what we thought of Omnimancers. If you went to PsiPog and asked them what they thought of themselves, I'm not sure if you'd paint an objective picture.  Same goes for any group. It's not weird to ask other groups about eachothers impressions.

Silver, PsiPog isn't a private group which doesn't allow non-members access to it's materials.

A better analogy for Omnimancy's vagueness than has been provided would be comparable to a civilian gaining access to information the NSA doesn't give to the public. It could a) be dangerous in the NSA's opinion and b) is by NSA standards, none of the civilians concern.
The Omnimancers believe that their system is well enough put together that the average person could make use of it dangerously thus don't give out more than a small amount of information unless you meet their standards and become a member.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!