Twid's spiritual exploration thingie.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Right before I started posting here I got into Kabbalah. Or, dabbled in Kabbalah.

I found this weird website on it written by this lone due who never capitalized anything. Anyhow, he said that to start, you start at the bottom. Malkuth. It is concerned primarily with the material. To study it you embrace it, focus only on the real, actual, meaty universe in front of you. Like a barstool used to clean your mystical palate.

It really did the trick for me. I got my shit together, mostly, and stopped looking for things that weren't there. This guy said you could easily spend 3 years on malkuth. It takes time to build a foundation. And when you're trying to access mystical or spiritual experienced it pays to make sure you have a cozy place set up to fall back down on.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I thought this relevant to the OP.

Israel Regardie said the same.  Well, not exactly the same, but he suggested anyone seeking to get involved in ceremonial occult practices first of all undergo extensive psychiatric analysis, for very similar reasons.

Peter Carroll once said "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance, never give a wand to a man who can't deal with reality."

With Chaos magic, its all about what's going on inside your own head and your own perceptions... and thats based roughly off of what Crowley and Regardie and others did by deconstructing religious/spiritual/mystical systems.

"It can be real, if you really believe"... for varying interpretations of the words real

[tyrannosaurus vex]

It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.

I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.

Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.

It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.

So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.

Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress.  Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic.  The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.

So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.

Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.

But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.

I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.

Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.

It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.

So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.

Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress.  Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic.  The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.

So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.

Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.

But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.

A belief is just a thought you keep having.

[Salty]

It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.

I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.

Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.

It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.

So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.

Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress.  Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic.  The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.

So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.

Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.

But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.

If I may make a suggestion on how to do that:
Don't consider the larger implications of the religion you examine. Most religions, Christianity and Islam are built on the idea that all of this shit will be done some day. The world is a put stop on the grander path. It reduces the worlds actual problems to none.

People.engage in religion for selfish purposes. You want to see your family when you are all dead. You want to commune with the god and the godess. You want to fuck your little heart out on ripe virgins. Some religions admit this, like Satanism. Others tell themselves elaborate lies, like the concept of charity.

Charity is, of course, always good regardless of the intention behind it. But to assume that Christians engage in charity for any other reason beyond the gratification their god offers them is foolish. Granted, some people want to help people just because. Humans of any type engage in acts of kindness and the intent really doesn't matter.

However, when you live with the love of Jesus in your heart and do Good Acts for Him it is not quite the same as doing it Just Because. IMO.

Point being, to embrace a religion and suspend disbelief it pays to think smaller and more selfishly.

[Pergamos]

It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.

I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.

Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.

It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.

So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.

Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress.  Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic.  The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.

So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.

Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.

But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.

I think that simply taking on the ritual and the behavioral code will do that.  It takes some time, but if you live as a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or whatever) for a while you'll find yourself believing at least some of what they believe.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?

Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.

Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.

What you're talking about is less religion than institutional power systems, into which religions often fit. You find the same patterns in atheistic institutional power systems.

This.

I guess I just don't see a difference between "religions" and "institutional power systems." Without proof of the supernatural origins they claim, they're really no different from any other club that needs money and members, and a place for important people to go when they need someone to boss around.

Dude. Take a step back and critically examine what you're saying. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.

I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.

Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.

It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.

So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.

Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress.  Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic.  The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.

So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.

Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.

But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.

In many religions, you don't have to suspend disbelief. What you do have to suspend is clinging to a personal insistence about what religion "is".

You cannot learn about the reality of anything if you approach it believing you already know all about it, and that what  you know is true.

[Left]

Granted, some people want to help people just because.

Because they are wired that way...here's the SCIENCE:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm

"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711123001.htm

Individuals who excel at understanding others' intents and beliefs are more altruistic than those who struggle at this task. The ability to understand others' perspectives has previously been associated with activity in a brain region known as the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). Based on these past findings, Fehr and his team reasoned that the size and activation of the TPJ would relate to individual differences in altruism.

...Today's thread swerve brought to you by Ooh Shiny and the letters A.D.D.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Granted, some people want to help people just because.

Because they are wired that way...here's the SCIENCE:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm

"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711123001.htm

Individuals who excel at understanding others' intents and beliefs are more altruistic than those who struggle at this task. The ability to understand others' perspectives has previously been associated with activity in a brain region known as the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). Based on these past findings, Fehr and his team reasoned that the size and activation of the TPJ would relate to individual differences in altruism.

...Today's thread swerve brought to you by Ooh Shiny and the letters A.D.D.

I like the altruism studies... I'm hoping that there will be a class on helping behaviors at PSU.

[Left]

I like the altruism studies... I'm hoping that there will be a class on helping behaviors at PSU.

Question tangentially related to topic... do any of us believe that religion can reprogram those otherwise not wired to be altruistic to be altruistic?
...Not expecting someone to have a hard answer, more inviting thoughts...

See, was it the religion that encouraged the altruism?
Or, was it that people who were already inclined to altruism sought out an altruistic religion?

Broadening the question: Is it agreed that religion ought to make us better and happier people?
..I mean, IMO it OUGHT to...
If it does, how does it succeed?

...I note here that self-transformation is difficult, and often painful as hell.  If religion leads people to engage in inner growth, that's a very good thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Our actions change our chemistry, so yes, behaving in altruistic ways makes us more inclined toward altruism.

And yes, religion CAN make us better and happier people. People who have a community and who help others are happier than those who don't. There are many ways of achieving those, and religion can be one of them.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.

I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.

Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.

It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.

So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.

Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress.  Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic.  The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.

So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.

Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.

But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.

In ritualistic systems, its the ritual process that seems to negate disbelief. In chaos magic they define it as a formula which basically boils down to:

The more complex a ritual process is (chanting, ritual objects, the ritual actions etc etc etc) the more it consumes your conscious mind for the duration of the ritual. Once your conscious mind is distracted from disbelief and instead focused on what to do with the cup or candle or what words to intone and what to visualize, then the 'effect' can be achieved.

Religions that don't have obvious ritual, still seem to operate on the same principle. If you immerse yourself in the system, the brain can often go along for the ride. Especially if you connect with the social group.

At least that's what I found when I played with my head.

[Left]

In ritualistic systems, its the ritual process that seems to negate disbelief. In chaos magic they define it as a formula which basically boils down to:

The more complex a ritual process is (chanting, ritual objects, the ritual actions etc etc etc) the more it consumes your conscious mind for the duration of the ritual. Once your conscious mind is distracted from disbelief and instead focused on what to do with the cup or candle or what words to intone and what to visualize, then the 'effect' can be achieved.

Religions that don't have obvious ritual, still seem to operate on the same principle. If you immerse yourself in the system, the brain can often go along for the ride. Especially if you connect with the social group.

At least that's what I found when I played with my head.

Yes, I told Der Twidmuffin that he doesn't have to buy all the shiny stuff unless he needs  the shiny stuff.
Someone over at chaosmatrix said "Basically, you're lubricating your brain." 
It really is much like sexual arousal in a way. 
Different people have different requirements for achieving ecstasy in both the sexual and spiritual sense. (The latter is deeper and quieter, and ultimately far more satisfying)

...I suspend my skeptical mind easily. (Too easily, this is why my ex was able to lie to me about important things through the duration of our marriage. ).

Therefore I need very little of props, which is fortunate because those things get expensive, yeah?
And the ways I achieve a sense of peace, transcendence, boundlessness, being a part of something vast and unutterably wonderful?
These are generally practical exercises.
...Too, I cannot be the person I want to be now, and grow into the person I aspire to be, unless I engage in those practical exercises on a very regular basis.
Like, once daily, bare minimum.

Therefore I advocate to Twid that he adopt his preferred flavor of daily practice to focus his mind.
Whether that be chanting, doing energy work, bowing to Mecca 5 times a day, breath-counting, or simply speaking in prayer to God.
And I guess he ought to try a number of these to see which one works best, maybe keep a log entry summarizing the results?

...I dunno, I just keep finding stuff that's usable in numerous religions.  So I swipe it.

[Left]

One of my favorite exercises:

Mentally "inhale energy" from the sky, visualizing it entering through the crown of your head and filling your body.
This is rather like pulling back a plunger on a syringe, you are drawing in a glowing, fluid substance...or conversely, receiving a charge, as if you were a human battery.

Upon the exhale, the energy/fluid is discharged out of your feet.

Next inhale-energy from the earth is drawn upward into your body through your feet, filling you.

Second exhale-energy discharges into the sky from the top of your head.

I can't run very fast or far, but what I like to do is run or walk while engaging in this exercise.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Praying the rosary in latin was particularly useful for that so thats a practice ill be ultimately keeping. I do a lot of breath control and try and shut my mind down to bare minimum at work because babbling in a dead language would bring too much attention to me at a place where the boredom is pretty... Well penitential.