Principia Discordia

It seems that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to making progress in occult studies is the tradition of mystery (or dare i say mahdjgickque?).

We have all but dismantled that aspect of the occult here.

What is the key understanding to accomplishing this?

Does it need to be understood that the occult words and symbols came after the things that they are describing? That they are a part of a process rather than the cause of a process?

Does it need to be understood that a card pulled from the tarot sheds insight on a situation rather than [i/predicting a concrete outcome[/i] of a specific situation?

Ive been taking a look at these occult systems lately - and it seems that they all aim in some way to re-create the universe we are living in - they allow you to take a 3rd person perspective on the situation that you are actually participating in

and the resulting insight is the thing that seems magical, but in reality is just a very useful insight


some people genuinely try to make progress in studying the occult, but there arent many resources available that deliver the raw goods (not many that i know of at least)


there is a lot of people making a lot of money by writing books and confusing their readers


excuse me - my venus is ascending retrograde (how embarrassing!)

For some reason the occult seems to lend itself to superstition. Allegories are taken as histories and metaphor is taken literally. Charlatanism steps up to the plate and suddenly a gazillion would be wizards are trading on the reputation that they can turn people into newts. Science becomes religion. Suggest write a book "Magic without the bullshit"

Quote from: SillyCybin on December 20, 2006, 09:03:52 PM
For some reason the occult seems to lend itself to superstition. Allegories are taken as histories and metaphor is taken literally. Charlatanism steps up to the plate and suddenly a gazillion would be wizards are trading on the reputation that they can turn people into newts. Science becomes religion. Suggest write a book "Magic without the bullshit"

kaBLAOW

i can dig it

Of course best not forget that I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who started studying magic because I wanted to learn how to turn people into newts. I've often wondered if the smoke and mirrors are arranged in such a way as to pique ones interest. A trail of breadcrumbs that leads you to the awesome troof - you are already a newt - but now you've learned how to turn yourself back. Maybe Crowley wasn't such a dumb fuck after all.

i got mixed opinions on Crowley for sure - definitely wasnt all bad

he played his role in advancing the knowledge


my motives for studying the occult were all selfish at first as well

i thought the I Ching was going to open my mind to be able to Save Teh WOrld,Ñ¢



now its just really cool shit and can help put together some ill stories

Yeah so my point being that maybe occult studies shouldn't be more accessible. Maybe the mystique attracts the right kind of student?

point taken

that mystique seems to be sort of like the opposite of existentialism in a way

existentialism seems to promote detachment while the mystique gives people a desire to be much more involved (by perhaps exaggerating how much of a effect they can have on things)

interesting interesting

Quote from: LHX on December 20, 2006, 09:41:19 PM
point taken

that mystique seems to be sort of like the opposite of existentialism in a way

existentialism seems to promote detachment while the mystique gives people a desire to be much more involved (by perhaps exaggerating how much of a effect they can have on things)

interesting interesting

I know you are referencing how little an effect of one person with very little effort can be greatly exaggerated. But, the effect of one person with incredible effort cannot.

Reference "The Man Who Planted Trees" somtime, if you are interested.

Quote from: LHXWe have all but dismantled that aspect of the occult here.

What is the key understanding to accomplishing this?

The first thing we do is mock them openly.  This is cold and harsh, not to mention not completely honest.

Then we learn them about symbol manipulation, projection, the Law of Fives, somatic loops, and propoganda.

If anybody still cares, or can still believe strongly enough, then they have the keys to madgjyiqukkkkeh.

please to be dropping the bomb about somatic loops for the kids who missed that class (if you get a chance)

Fifth circuit.  It's an extention of the placebo effect, Method Acting, etc.  Basically, once you've figured out how the body sets off its' hormone/chemical cocktail cascade in response to stimuli, you can teach yourself to do it at will, giving you control over your body in almost any situation.




...Of course, it's as hard as fuck to do this.  However, next time you're feeling depressed, force yourself to smile, even artificially.  Eventually, your brain will respond to the physical act of smiling, even if it started out as fake.

oh yeah, that works, definitely.

what especially works for me is when i'm feeling down (usually in combination with tired and a hard working but unsuccessful day) to turn up some happy party song (say, the Michael Viner's Incredible Bongo Band version of Apache) and get on up jump and dance. if the song has lyrics, sing along loudly.

anything to get the act as physical as possible.

in the case of smiling, don't just smile, but laugh. laugh out loud. act out your most convincing laughter.

this is the entire thing about magic. once you know how it works it's not magic anymore. like illusionists at magic shows, it's not the end result that amazes the experts anymore, but the ingenuity of the trick.

Quote from: LMNO on December 21, 2006, 01:48:40 PM
Fifth circuit.  It's an extention of the placebo effect, Method Acting, etc.  Basically, once you've figured out how the body sets off its' hormone/chemical cocktail cascade in response to stimuli, you can teach yourself to do it at will, giving you control over your body in almost any situation.

Oh, hell yes.  I've been playing with this a lot lately.  While I readily admit to having a low threshhold for tears - you could put me in front of a Disney comedy and I'd still find something to sniffle at - I've almost become able to cry on command.

Because I've been playing in a really good RPG and trying to really get into character.

The next step is dealing with 'godforms' ie. invoke a complete paradigm or character almost instantaneously, via whatever ritual stimulation you choose. The higher up the pyramid you can go the more powerful/effective this is.

Notice that although I've gone out my way to strip the mystical gobshite out of the above it still comes off sounding a bit hokey.

That's because you're still using loaded buzzwords.  And because it has little to no connection to casual human experience.




Note:  Please be aware that I am not saying you are full of shit.

One of the biggest hurdles you have to overcome is seeing yourself, ie your ego as, essentially, an imaginary computer program which you can gain total control over and rewrite at will. Try explaining to a layman or beginner occultist that "You aren't really what you think you are" and see where it gets you. Prolly why killing the ego seems like such a scary concept to begin with.

its a tool

killing it seems to mean understanding it for what it is

letting it run wild is the equivalent of letting something you create over-throw you

Quote from: SillyCybin on December 21, 2006, 05:08:35 PM
One of the biggest hurdles you have to overcome is seeing yourself, ie your ego as, essentially, an imaginary computer program which you can gain total control over and rewrite at will. Try explaining to a layman or beginner occultist that "You aren't really what you think you are" and see where it gets you. Prolly why killing the ego seems like such a scary concept to begin with.

I propose a beginner, then, should watch the final episode of "Newhart" 

what's that?

Quote from: SillyCybin on December 21, 2006, 05:08:35 PM
One of the biggest hurdles you have to overcome is seeing yourself, ie your ego as, essentially, an imaginary computer program which you can gain total control over and rewrite at will. Try explaining to a layman or beginner occultist that "You aren't really what you think you are" and see where it gets you. Prolly why killing the ego seems like such a scary concept to begin with.

Reminds me of the Philip K. Dick "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"  where they have a Dial-A-Mood machine.  What people don't realize is they've already got one.

Quote from: triple zero on December 21, 2006, 06:10:20 PM
what's that?

It was a sit-com here in the States featuring Bob Newhart.  Basically it's this guy who runs a bed-and-breakfast in Vermont with his wife.  Anyway, in the final episode it is revealed that the whole thing, characters, events, etc., was just a dream. 

I was putting together a little compendium of functional occultism stripped down to a collection of scientific theories for a while. 

Basically it amounts to self fulfilling prophecy, what hypnotists call "bypassing the critical factor," and what seems to be an inate, biological tendency for self-delusion, which let's face it, has a strong link with happiness.  I throw out the possibility of the paranormal and focus on well established theories that explain how silly mahadgaheicke appears to work to the superstitious practitioner, and what the atheist can take away from the occult and use without feeling like a froofy dipshit.

But I stopped.  Didn't have the time to conduct interviews and write and make something worth publishing.  Also, hasn't somebody written this already?  Maybe I'll get back on that kick and ride it out.

Quote from: Netaungrot on December 23, 2006, 01:10:29 PM
I was putting together a little compendium of functional occultism stripped down to a collection of scientific theories for a while. 

Basically it amounts to self fulfilling prophecy, what hypnotists call "bypassing the critical factor," and what seems to be an inate, biological tendency for self-delusion, which let's face it, has a strong link with happiness.  I throw out the possibility of the paranormal and focus on well established theories that explain how silly mahadgaheicke appears to work to the superstitious practitioner, and what the atheist can take away from the occult and use without feeling like a froofy dipshit.

But I stopped.  Didn't have the time to conduct interviews and write and make something worth publishing.  Also, hasn't somebody written this already?  Maybe I'll get back on that kick and ride it out.

I don't think so. Or if it has, I'd like to find and read it. I've not read too many books that deal with magic (OMG, the insane spelling!) as a collection of techniques for entering altered states of consciousness or behaviour modification.

The closest contender is 'The New Hermetics' by Jason Newcomb who is big into the NLP. He's taken the typical occult (especially Golden Dawn) material and stripped it down into a generalized formula. I'm currently reading 'Walkers Between Worlds' which is compares/contrasts the shamanic and hermetic tradition. Again, the authors have tried to pare the occultism down to the minimum. Unlike Newcomb's book though, they are high on discussion and low on technique whereas his book is more direct & pragmatic.

Maybe it is time for a new kind of occult literature.

humility is tough to find in occult literature

at least i havent come across anything that was informative, humble, practical, and funny


i still havent seen NLP broken down into simple terms and given proper context

Quote from: LHX on December 23, 2006, 05:55:25 PM
humility is tough to find in occult literature

at least i havent come across anything that was informative, humble, practical, and funny

i still havent seen NLP broken down into simple terms and given proper context

informative, humble, practical & funny - precisely the reasons why i love Lon Milo Duquette's writings. i wouldn't have persisted in wading through Crowley's catalogue if it were not for LMD.

the New Hermetics book is very geared toward NLP. i bought a book called 'introduction to NLP'...think it's by Joseph O'Connor (can double check that). that was a pretty straight forward & serviceable book on the subject.

Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii on December 23, 2006, 06:35:20 PM

Quote from: LHX on December 23, 2006, 05:55:25 PM
humility is tough to find in occult literature

at least i havent come across anything that was informative, humble, practical, and funny

i still havent seen NLP broken down into simple terms and given proper context

informative, humble, practical & funny - precisely the reasons why i love Lon Milo Duquette's writings. i wouldn't have persisted in wading through Crowley's catalogue if it were not for LMD.

the New Hermetics book is very geared toward NLP. i bought a book called 'introduction to NLP'...think it's by Joseph O'Connor (can double check that). that was a pretty straight forward & serviceable book on the subject.

Lack of humblitude is one of Crowleys most amusingly endearing features. The guy is a total hoot. Knew a lot about western trad too.

You mentioned tarot cards being used for insight not vision, and someone else said soemthing about I Ching. It was always my understanding that I Ching was used as a guide, not a fortune teller.
It seems so often that the Chinese and Indians were so close to something, then let it slip into idiocy. My examples are Buddism and Taoism the philosophy versus the religions. I consider myself a Taoist in ways, then I see a "religious" textabout a God or blowing an ancestor, and I hate it.

Why does everyone feel the need to take good ideas and Mhadjyyk it up?

Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2006, 08:14:31 PM
You mentioned tarot cards being used for insight not vision, and someone else said soemthing about I Ching. It was always my understanding that I Ching was used as a guide, not a fortune teller.
It seems so often that the Chinese and Indians were so close to something, then let it slip into idiocy. My examples are Buddism and Taoism the philosophy versus the religions. I consider myself a Taoist in ways, then I see a "religious" textabout a God or blowing an ancestor, and I hate it.

Why does everyone feel the need to take good ideas and Mhadjyyk it up?

my guess is profit
fame

etc

Off the top of my head theory:

Sometime in the dark ages a few people got a hold of the tarot system and used it to figure out their brains and how they fitted into the world. Compared to the average mud collector of the time they became very wise and able to pull of the kind of thought's and strategies that were so far in advance of the mud jockeys that the mud jockeys started groupie'ing them and asking all sorts of dumbass - "where can I find more mud?" - kinda questions. Now who the hell in their right mind wouldn't take advantage of that? "Yeah sure I'll find some mud for ya but it's gonna cost ya your eldest virgin daughter and some of that shiny metal shit you got in your pocket."

Quote from: LHX on December 23, 2006, 05:55:25 PM
humility is tough to find in occult literature

at least i havent come across anything that was informative, humble, practical, and funny


i still havent seen NLP broken down into simple terms and given proper context

That's a tall order for most literature though.



How would you know you've got the right context?  People engage in a wide assortment of asshattery and call it NLP.  Seldom do I disclose having any connection to occultism and NLP because they've created such a ridiculous image for themselves.   

I could tell you NLP is a collection of mostly untestable communication methods, quite a bit of utter retardation, and some evidence-backed theory, all aiming at the nebulous concept of "excellence."  But at some point I think you need to pick up the idea and break it into your own terms and context...



I'll check out that Newcomb book, thanks Mangrove.

Netaungrot - Enjoy the Newcomb book.  :-)

Another one that might work better for you is 'Monsters & Magical Sticks'. It was written by an Eriksonian hypnotherapist and is thus devoid of both occult or NLP stigma.

(For those out there not familiar with NLP - the founders of the method, Richard Bandler and his buddy, were studying Milton Erikson. Erikson was a hypnotherapist and psychotherapist who seemed to get unusually good, long-lasting results and quite quickly.

They tried to copy everything he did and then figure out what was therapeutically meaningful and what was just Erikson's personality. The distillation of techniques they observed formed the basis of NLP.)

I've seen some great stuff with NLP but alas, much asshattery also. Monsters & Magical Sticks (published by New Falcon) gives you the Erikson vibe minus the NLP dorkiness or 'woooooo, spooky occultiness'.

Quote from: LHX on December 20, 2006, 08:57:26 PM
It seems that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to making progress in occult studies is the tradition of mystery (or dare i say mahdjgickque?).

Well, other than the fact that it is undiluted bullshit, yeah.

Bump.

(http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=116907&d=1309455192)

This was a retaliatory strike.  Cramulus pushed the button.

And Cram, don't think I'm afraid to go totally nuclear and start bumping EvT/Prince Tao Jones threads.

I'll do it, man.

That's what you meant by occultism, right?

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 14, 2012, 06:33:14 PM
That's what you meant by occultism, right?

That's about all it's good for, besides getting hippies laid with Trustafarian chicks.

I bumped Burns' McLuhan thread because it discusses the Playboy interview I've been reading today. I also find it fascinating. I wasn't trying to start a bump-war or something.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2012, 06:36:01 PM
I bumped Burns' McLuhan thread because it discusses the Playboy interview I've been reading today. I also find it fascinating. I wasn't trying to start a bump-war or something.

So you say.  You've been eyeballing our border for months, lowlander.  Be aware that our entire defense department is high on crack and will have no problem responding to your aggression in what would be politely described as an "extinction event". 

We don't even have to launch.  We could just roll the shit downhill.  You'd have no fucking idea until the damn things crossed the New York state line and sent Ticonderoga into the stratosphere.

So ... this thread is about finding the useful stuff buried in the occult field while ridding ourselves of the mysticism and delusion. Great intent!

To that end, I'd like to submit a link to the opening chapter of the Art of Memetics: http://artofmemetics.com/memetics/page7.html

QuoteOver the years, most of the ideas that were once confined to magical theory and practice have been isolated and reformulated in different fields of study. Magicians are left guarding only a few nuggets of practical application that remain unique to magic.... Even these few ideations are being carted away into other disciplines. So why not just study those other disciplines?

the rest of the chapter illustrates how all jobs that wizards supposedly performed still exist today.. most of them are just under the banner of marketing and entertainment. The ability to wage war using symbols, influence a populace using words and gestures, and make oneself more powerful and spectacular are all well-established marketing techniques.



and on another note,

I don't believe in anything Tarot, astrology, etc etc...

but a few years ago, my girlfriend's roommate was trying to teach herself about Tarot, and she asked if she could give me a reading. Of course she could!  And while nothing mystical took place, her reading did give me some fresh insight on my situation. It's like LHX mentions in the OP - stuff like tarot is able to draw a portrait of an analogous universe, and show you yourself inside that analogy. And this gives you the third-person perspective you often need to work through some of your challenges.

 :magick:

Phil Farber (one of the only active "Madjiiqueueue" authors who actually understands the position held by the majority of this forum) has recently opened a forum for his website:

http://meta-magick.com/interact/?page_id=4

Phil knows his shit, and would probably make a very poor trolling target. But, he's more than willing to discuss actual technique, (and tries to keep the jargon as a reference to the classical occultists techniques).

QuoteTicks, Meditation and State Management
By Philip H. Farber

In the part of New York State where I live, Lyme disease is at an epidemic level. Quite a few of my friends, family members and acquaintances have experienced this illness. One friend holds the record, as far as I know, having contracted the tick-borne illness a total of four times so far. I'm not far beyond, having received Lyme-infected tick bites on three different occasions over the last seven years.

The last time was in June of 2010. I found a tick on me just a couple days before I was scheduled to leave on a trip to Los Angeles, where I was teaching a weekend seminar. I carefully removed the tick using a tick-puller and figured that I'd done a good job and that the tick hadn't been on me long enough to pass along any illness. I was extremely busy finishing up work, packing and getting ready for the seminar so I put the tick bite out of my mind. The seminar went very well and when I returned there were clients and other seminars to prepare for, in England, Europe and other parts of the USA. The bug bite didn't itch or hurt and I forgot about it for a while.

In late August things started to get a little strange. I noticed that I was getting a bit weepy and nostalgic – and those are two words I'd never, ever pick to describe myself. And not only was it odd for me to feel that way, the emotions were being triggered by very unusual things. One day I found myself feeling sentimental about a dishwasher that we used to own. Man, I really missed that old machine. That is, I missed it until my wife reminded me that I always hated the noisy monster. I reflected on that. It was true. It was a strange thing for me to experience nostalgia, let alone for a piece of kitchen equipment that I never actually liked! The weepiness was followed, somewhat randomly over the next couple months, by other emotional outbursts, including anger, fear, and despair, all triggered by thoughts that, considered later, were really not worth the response – not to mention that I'm generally a calm, secure and optimistic person. What was going on in my brain?

What was happening in my brain was that a colony of Borrelia spirochetes, the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease, had taken up residence and was, apparently, pushing buttons that messed with my emotional state. It was around that time that other Lyme symptoms started to show up and I went to the doctor and got my diagnosis. The emotional effects of Lyme disease are rarely discussed by doctors, but a quick search of medical literature turned up over a hundred studies that recorded psychological symptoms. For instance, one study (Functional brain imaging and neuropsychological testing in Lyme disease. Fallon BA, Das S, Plutchok JJ, Tager F, Liegner K, Van Heertum R. Clin Infect Dis. 1997 Jul;25 Suppl 1:S57-63. Review.) reported that "Patients with Lyme disease may experience short-term memory loss, severe depression, panic attacks, unrelenting anxiety, impulsivity, paranoia, obsessive compulsive disorder, personality changes marked by irritability and mood swings, and rarely, manic episodes or psychotic states." Nothing specifically about dishwasher nostalgia, but we can file that under "personality changes" or "mood swings."

I've spent the last thirty or so years of my life practicing meditation and studying state management techniques. Back when I began meditating, I was told that one really starts to notice the results of meditation after 20 years. That seemed like an inordinately long time, back in my youth, and I was quite pleased to notice positive affects fairly quickly in my practice – increasing calm through the days, better sleep at night, ability to relax at will, and much more. But now, decades later, I'm pleased to say that there was also some truth to the advance hype. The long-term positive effects of meditation, for me, amount to, in large part, more of the same, a calmer mind and generally more relaxed mental state. But beyond that, the greatest benefit from all those years sitting and breathing is an understanding of the processes of my mind and an increased ability to observe those processes. Metaphorically speaking, the process of meditation has taught me how to better step back from my own thoughts and observe, listen, and feel what my own brain may be doing. While I'm not sure I'd refer to this as "enlightenment," this ability has certainly saved my sanity more than a few times.

So, while Borrelia bacteria were messing around in my neurons, I found myself in an odd situation. While part of my consciousness experienced a roller coaster of unusual emotions, I was also sitting back, observing my thoughts and behavior. I suppose I've been doing this increasingly all along; now the rapid bacterial shifts in emotion threw it into high relief. Part of my mind, at least, was maintaining its cool. As in a meditation practice, when I became aware of the changes in state, I was moved to accept the change and return my attention to the present.

I think it might be important to reiterate the basic process of meditation here. The meditator attempts to hold attention on a word, symbol, breathing, sitting, being present or any of a thousand other techniques. In mindfulness meditation, one holds attention on the process of consciousness itself. The mind, through its tendency to form associations or because it just likes to wander, will stray from the object of concentration. These breaks in concentration may start from a physical sensation (my foot itches!) or a thought (did I leave the toaster plugged in?) or a daydream (imagine meditating like this on top of a remote Himalayan peak!) or from any of a thousand other distractions. The meditator notices the break in concentration, accepts it without judgment, and then returns to the intended concentration.

It's the same process that we use throughout our lives, on long-term projects or life goals. We set out with our minds focused on one thing – a way of life, a job, a certain kind of family – and we become distracted and must regain our focus. It was this life-process-as-meditation that Lyme disease kept bringing into my consciousness – and my daily life that I had to continually return my attention to. Without the years of meditation practice, I could easily have become lost in the seeming reality of these emotional shifts.

I also found great benefit from short-term hypnosis and NLP techniques to deal with pain and to change state. First, though, I had to realize that my state had changed, which sounds like a simple thing, but when it happens the shifts are so subjective that they are easy to mistake for legitimate mental processes and not the result of illness. Some of the state management techniques that I used can be found in my forthcoming book Brain Magick: Exercises in Meta-Magick and Invocation (Llewellyn Worldwide, October 2011).

So it took a few months of powerful antibiotics, prescribed by my doctor, to get the bugs out of my system. Because of the physical symptoms of the disease, I wasn't able to work for a good part of that time, but now I feel like my mind and body are mine again. It was a difficult few months, but I can only imagine how awful it might have been if it weren't for meditation and hypnosis.

With the benefits of 30 years of meditation on my side, or with the tools of my trade in hand, it all came down to being prepared. In life we often take it for granted that we should learn the steps of driving a car before getting out into heavy traffic, or that we'll do better in a fight if we've practiced martial arts previously, or that our violin recital will go much better if we learn the pieces and perfect them first. How about being prepared for whatever life throws at you – from changing circumstances, financial difficulties, family problems or whatever – by practicing and perfecting our ability to change state beforehand?

I'll leave you with a quick meditation. It's about as simple as it gets, but can be as deep and effective as any other form of meditation:

Simple Zen – at least 10 minutes
Sit in a position with your spine vertical and straight (a chair will do nicely). Allow your breathing to become relaxed and natural. Let it set its own rhythm and depth, however it is comfortable. Focus your attention on your breathing, on the movements of your chest and abdomen rather than on your nose and mouth. Keep your attention focused on your breathing. For some people an additional level of concentration may be helpful. You might add a simple counting rhythm, spoken in your head as you breathe: "One" on the inhale, "Two" on the exhale, and repeat. Or you might visualize your breath as a swinging door, swinging in on the inhale and out on the exhale.

The other thing which this thread brings to mind is Douglas Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach.

The Strange Loop is a system that contains itself. Hofstader says that consciousness is essentially a system that builds an internal (and imperfect) copy of the external universe. Our ability to analyze the past and future is related to how well we've mapped the universe inside ourselves. IE - I don't need to actually hit my thumb with a hammer to know what's going to happen, my internal universe has enough overlap with the external universe that I can just simulate it in my head and figure out what the outcome is.

So consciousness, to some extent, is the fact that the person building the internal universe is also in that universe. "Selfhood" comes from the fact that you have an internal image of yourself in your model of the universe.

and it also occurs to me that my RPG writing has a similar chord ----

my goal in designing any RPG setting for my players is that I want there to be a number of inexplicit parallels to our world. As Hofstader says in GEB, once you have drawn a connection between reality and an isomorphic set of symbols, you can't stop the meaning from bleeding through.

That is to say---- when I was running my Venice campaign, I threw a lot of hooks in there that were sort of populist in nature. It resonated with the Occupy protests that were going on at the time (bankers vs citizens). And I think my players enjoyed it (on a deeper level than typical gameplay) because they could personally relate to the themes of the campaign - it was something we were all talking about passionately already. We weren't writing fiction about Wall Street, but we did create a fictional world that has similar problems to ours. And by exploring these problems within an analogy for our world, people were able to think and express things about the real world that hadn't previously been accessible.

That's why I've always kind of wanted a tarot deck specifically for designing game settings. Those symbols--and the interpretation of those cards--can be very personal and interesting.

This thread makes Occult Jesus cry.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
This thread makes Occult Jesus cry.

Occult Jesus makes Baby Jesus cholera spray hose.

shutup it's totally a verb now.

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 14, 2012, 07:07:29 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
This thread makes Occult Jesus cry.

Occult Jesus makes Baby Jesus cholera spray hose.

shutup it's totally a verb now.

Isn't.

That aside, the occult is unadulterated bad signal, and as for the "mindhack" part of it, that's like saying you're smearing dog shit on your glasses so you can see more clearly.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
This thread makes Occult Jesus cry.

sorry? I felt like there was some good juice in the OP, but if you only bumped this so you could shit in it, I'll just back out of the thread and leave you to your work

Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2012, 07:11:06 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
This thread makes Occult Jesus cry.

sorry? I felt like there was some good juice in the OP, but if you only bumped this so you could shit in it, I'll just back out of the thread and leave you to your work

Oh, for fuck's sake.

SORRY, CRAM, I SHALL REFRAIN FROM EXPRESSING MY OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE FUTURE.

Yo, don't poop in my mouth and tell me it's ice cream! Telarus and I put some thought into our posts ITT today, and you brushed us off with "this makes jesus cry". It's not like you addressed anything that's been said ITT, you just took a dump. Nobody's saying you're not allowed to do that, but don't act like I'm an asshole for getting annoyed when you shit on my post.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2012, 07:23:05 PM
Yo, don't poop in my mouth and tell me it's ice cream! Telarus and I put some thought into our posts ITT today, and you brushed us off with "this makes jesus cry". It's not like you addressed anything that's been said ITT, you just took a dump. Nobody's saying you're not allowed to do that, but don't act like I'm an asshole for getting annoyed when you shit on my post.

There's a fucking solution for that, isn't there?

Okay, calmed down enough to type.

Cram, I was expressing my views of the OP and the first two pages of similar drivel that I waded through, not of YOUR fucking posts.  But since you see fit to call me a liar, then you can go fuck yourself.

Nuff said.

Since this subforum is about thinking for yourself and that requires, y'know, thinking, and since getting hung up on occult mumbo jumbo bullshit isn't something thinking bipeds DO, I think I'll just move this straight to Apple Talk.


WHAT NOW MUTHAFUCKAS? :ECH:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 14, 2012, 09:09:34 PM
Since this subforum is about thinking for yourself and that requires, y'know, thinking, and since getting hung up on occult mumbo jumbo bullshit isn't something thinking bipeds DO, I think I'll just move this straight to Apple Talk.


WHAT NOW MUTHAFUCKAS? :ECH:

Only problem with that is that you'd be thinking FOR them.

I mean, it doesn't say "THINK FOR YOURSELF CORRECTLY", or anything.

(Personally, I still think we need a MAHJICKE subforum, for the same reason I need my own bathroom at work.)

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:08:59 PM
That aside, the occult is unadulterated bad signal, and as for the "mindhack" part of it, that's like saying you're smearing dog shit on your glasses so you can see more clearly.

Are you including meditation and hypnosis in this fecal optics system?

Quote from: Net on February 14, 2012, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:08:59 PM
That aside, the occult is unadulterated bad signal, and as for the "mindhack" part of it, that's like saying you're smearing dog shit on your glasses so you can see more clearly.

Are you including meditation and hypnosis in this fecal optics system?

If by meditation, you mean, "sitting down and thinking about shit", then no. 

And I don't see anything magickle about hypnosis.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 09:55:09 PM

Quote from: Net on February 14, 2012, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:08:59 PM
That aside, the occult is unadulterated bad signal, and as for the "mindhack" part of it, that's like saying you're smearing dog shit on your glasses so you can see more clearly.

Are you including meditation and hypnosis in this fecal optics system?

If by meditation, you mean, "sitting down and thinking about shit", then no. 

And I don't see anything magickle about hypnosis.

By meditation I mean I focus completely on my senses and cease all internal dialogue.

I've always approached occultism as various forms of self-hypnosis which is often mistaken for evidence of the supernatural.

However, that mistake isn't a necessary component of madgickque, just a popular one.

Quote from: Net on February 14, 2012, 10:52:42 PM


By meditation I mean I focus completely on my senses and cease all internal dialogue.

Out here in flyover land, we call that "relaxing".

And, as you say, none of it is magickle.  So why would anyone call it that?

Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

Quote from: LHX on December 20, 2006, 09:41:19 PM

existentialism seems to promote detachment while the mystique gives people a desire to be much more involved...

interesting interesting...

Very interesting:  there seems to be an Enlightenment current that would have detachment correlated with objective and rational thought, in turn believed to be more in accordance with what is true.  This would be something like Camu's vision of existential truth rooted in Platonic thought about ideal objects.  Then there is the German existentialism that advocates truth IS our human way of being involved in things.  I'm now more fond of the latter, although it's interesting to catch the reversals.  I figure, if the universe is one big computer, I don't want it to think human experience is redundant for calculations of any significance (I think that was one of the reversals)  :lol:

Quote from: LuciferX on February 15, 2012, 02:50:25 AM

Quote from: LHX on December 20, 2006, 09:41:19 PM

existentialism seems to promote detachment while the mystique gives people a desire to be much more involved...

interesting interesting...

Very interesting:  there seems to be an Enlightenment current that would have detachment correlated with objective and rational thought, in turn believed to be more in accordance with what is true.  This would be something like Camu's vision of existential truth rooted in Platonic thought about ideal objects.  Then there is the German existentialism that advocates truth IS our human way of being involved in things.  I'm now more fond of the latter, although it's interesting to catch the reversals.  I figure, if the universe is one big computer, I don't want it to think human experience is redundant for calculations of any significance (I think that was one of the reversals)  :lol:

NIGEL!  TRANSLATION, PLEASE?

Roger:  the assumption is that detached thinking will get you closer to the truth.  The challenge is to think about whether it makes sense to say that the truth is not necessarily arrived at by objective, rational and detached thought.  It's kinda like how the romantics believed in the supremacy of feeling and intuition over rationality.

Quote from: LuciferX on February 15, 2012, 03:10:12 AM
Roger:  the assumption is that detached thinking will get you closer to the truth.  The challenge is to think about whether it makes sense to say that the truth is not necessarily arrived at by objective, rational and detached thought.  It's kinda like how the romantics believed in the supremacy of feeling and intuition over rationality.

The romantics also believed if you bled a sick person half to death it would make them better.

So, you know.  Rationality > feelings in certain situations.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 15, 2012, 03:14:45 AM

Quote from: LuciferX on February 15, 2012, 03:10:12 AM
Roger:  the assumption is that detached thinking will get you closer to the truth.  The challenge is to think about whether it makes sense to say that the truth is not necessarily arrived at by objective, rational and detached thought.  It's kinda like how the romantics believed in the supremacy of feeling and intuition over rationality.

The romantics also believed if you bled a sick person half to death it would make them better.

So, you know.  Rationality > feelings in certain situations.

I agree.  The question is then about whether the truth is allowed to disagree with itself.  Reason seems to take the correspondence theory of truth.  German existentialism believes truth is more akin to disclosedness, like presocratic revelation.  Reason will tend to have a more exclusive view of it's own correspondence with the truth, via principle of identity, contradiction etc.  The German existentialist vill try and explain how correspondence is just part of revelation.  Flexibility between those two points is difficult to maintain (for mice elf, that is)

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 15, 2012, 03:14:45 AM

Quote from: LuciferX on February 15, 2012, 03:10:12 AM
Roger:  the assumption is that detached thinking will get you closer to the truth.  The challenge is to think about whether it makes sense to say that the truth is not necessarily arrived at by objective, rational and detached thought.  It's kinda like how the romantics believed in the supremacy of feeling and intuition over rationality.

The romantics also believed if you bled a sick person half to death it would make them better.

So, you know.  Rationality > feelings in certain situations.

This isn't the time to bring up the legitimate medical uses for leeches, is it?

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

I'm going to bump this every hour until someone gives me a satisfactory answer. This is, of course, the root problem of all this "occult" bullshit when otherwise intelligent people get sucked into it. "Occultism as a means of describing a process of self-hypnosis" is essentially this crowd's version of "I'm not a bigot, I just don't want them destroying the sanctity of traditional marriage".

I've got a large bet on the Vegas books against anyone being able to provide a satisfactory and empirically-based answer to the question.

Simple: it tends to be a reliable shortcut.

I mean, you COULD spend ten years learning Japanese, or you could just read the subtitles when you watch "Yojimbo".

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 04:05:07 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

I'm going to bump this every hour until someone gives me a satisfactory answer. This is, of course, the root problem of all this "occult" bullshit when otherwise intelligent people get sucked into it. "Occultism as a means of describing a process of self-hypnosis" is essentially this crowd's version of "I'm not a bigot, I just don't want them destroying the sanctity of traditional marriage".

I've got a large bet on the Vegas books against anyone being able to provide a satisfactory and empirically-based answer to the question.

I would not put anything down on en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)

I'm not going to address any of that other bullshit, but....

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 11:52:14 PM

Quote from: Net on February 14, 2012, 10:52:42 PM


By meditation I mean I focus completely on my senses and cease all internal dialogue.

Out here in flyover land, we call that "relaxing".

And, as you say, none of it is magickle.  So why would anyone call it that?

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

Both of these positions assume that everyone has equal mental facilities and willpower to bring to bear (I think this is because both of you have had very unique life experiences which cultivated extreme individualism, self reliance, quick thinking, and willpower).

And yet, we spend most of our time around here pointing out that a majority of the population simply do not express these traits. Mainly because they are being externally manipulated by culture, distracted, diffused, turned into 'consumers'.

It's good to have the wise dude who's laughing into the storm, crying out "It's Easy, just Do It."

Those dead Zen spags had loads of them, "Stop over complicating things. Just breathe (and notice what's not permanent)."

The mind is buffeted by internal and external forces (I thought Phil Farber's lime-disease story might get that across... he's a god damn "industry professional" and it still took him weeks to notice gradual negative change in his base-line mental state). Most people on this planet don't have the willpower to even notice what's going on internally, much less leverage some control over some of the feedback loops. They're too busy worrying about the power structures/organizations which have co-opted Roger's 5 basic stressors into methods of control.


When you make these comments, you sound like black-belts addressing a group of n00bs. "When he comes at you, you just break his hand, then punch him in the kidney. Simple, see?"

IMO, mental facility needs exercise just as much as the body does. Even Bruce fucking Lee said this.

(LuciferX is like the dude who wore the goth makeup to the dojo. I told you already, I'm not addressing that bullshit. I also hope I kept this humorous enough to keep this conversational.)

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 04:15:02 AM
Simple: it tends to be a reliable shortcut.

I mean, you COULD spend ten years learning Japanese, or you could just read the subtitles when you watch "Yojimbo".

you appear to have completely ignored the second line of my post.

As for the weak analogy, well, if you actually knew Japanese you'd know how much gets lost in the translation.

Thanks Telarus, that's an answer that makes enough sense to me that it only leaves me with a vague sense of disagreement that I can't quite articulate, which in this context is nearly a miracle. :lulz:

Quote from: Telarus on February 15, 2012, 04:18:07 AM
I'm not going to address any of that other bullshit, but....


(LuciferX is like the dude who wore the goth makeup to the dojo. I told you already, I'm not addressing that bullshit. I also hope I kept this humorous enough to keep this conversational.)

That was actually my own vomit.  But why really appears to be the problem  :?

Some people need a crutch. Some people were never taught to think for themselves or how to navigate real life. Some people were never taught to distinguish between wants and needs or fantasies and obtainable goals. And everyone wants to be a special snowflake.

ETA: "The discussion of this topic is made more difficult by the following factors:" was supposed to be the top line. In most of my discussions and experiences with any sort of magic(k), it has come down to people who want more fantasy and mystery and speshulness in their lives because they couldn't hack it otherwise . . . and people who just picked it up and used it as they would any other tool, the ability to read, the ability to make one's own clothing, etc . . . and incorporated it into their lives as something they could use to meet any challenge.

Don't know if that makes sense. You've got the crazy fucks who think if they cast a circle enough times, unicorns will grant their wishes and you've got the intelligent, curious sort who go around looking at anything remotely interesting and assimilate it.

Part of the problem is that the first group outnumbers the second and turns everything into a fucking circus.

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on February 15, 2012, 05:57:09 AM
Some people need a crutch. Some people were never taught to think for themselves or how to navigate real life. Some people were never taught to distinguish between wants and needs or fantasies and obtainable goals. And everyone wants to be a special snowflake.

ETA: "The discussion of this topic is made more difficult by the following factors:" was supposed to be the top line. In most of my discussions and experiences with any sort of magic(k), it has come down to people who want more fantasy and mystery and speshulness in their lives because they couldn't hack it otherwise . . . and people who just picked it up and used it as they would any other tool, the ability to read, the ability to make one's own clothing, etc . . . and incorporated it into their lives as something they could use to meet any challenge.

Don't know if that makes sense. You've got the crazy fucks who think if they cast a circle enough times, unicorns will grant their wishes and you've got the intelligent, curious sort who go around looking at anything remotely interesting and assimilate it.

Part of the problem is that the first group outnumbers the second and turns everything into a fucking circus.

The other part is when the later put on a circus to entertain the former...  Although the bread and wine is nice...

Quote from: Telarus on February 15, 2012, 04:18:07 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 11:52:14 PM

Quote from: Net on February 14, 2012, 10:52:42 PMBy meditation I mean I focus completely on my senses and cease all internal dialogue.

Out here in flyover land, we call that "relaxing".

And, as you say, none of it is magickle.  So why would anyone call it that?

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

Both of these positions assume that everyone has equal mental facilities and willpower to bring to bear (I think this is because both of you have had very unique life experiences which cultivated extreme individualism, self reliance, quick thinking, and willpower).

And yet, we spend most of our time around here pointing out that a majority of the population simply do not express these traits. Mainly because they are being externally manipulated by culture, distracted, diffused, turned into 'consumers'.

It's good to have the wise dude who's laughing into the storm, crying out "It's Easy, just Do It."

Those dead Zen spags had loads of them, "Stop over complicating things. Just breathe (and notice what's not permanent)."

The mind is buffeted by internal and external forces (I thought Phil Farber's lime-disease story might get that across... he's a god damn "industry professional" and it still took him weeks to notice gradual negative change in his base-line mental state). Most people on this planet don't have the willpower to even notice what's going on internally, much less leverage some control over some of the feedback loops. They're too busy worrying about the power structures/organizations which have co-opted Roger's 5 basic stressors into methods of control.


When you make these comments, you sound like black-belts addressing a group of n00bs. "When he comes at you, you just break his hand, then punch him in the kidney. Simple, see?"

I was going to say something like this.

I need a fuckton of "tricks" to keep myself going on a daily basis and it must be absolutely fucking wonderful for the lucky bastards to whom that shit comes natural. Now I get most of those from various non-occult sources such as GTD which has nothing to do with "magick"--but come to think of it, was denounced and looked down upon by ECH and Rog in pretty much the same manner when it was discussed a while back, in the sense of "if you need that kind of tricks you're weak, who needs a book to tell you what comes natural, it's common sense, just do it, I don't see what's so hard" or whatever.

Of course you wouldn't understand if you never require something extra to "just do" something that everybody seems to be doing effortlessly every day, if all that it ever took you is to put a bit (or a lot) of willpower or some knuckle into it. (you know where that got me?)

I tell you what is fucking magick. "Just do it" is fucking magick. How does that work? How do you "just do" something, huh? Tell me, because it utterly stupefies me, every single moment of the day. How does it work? QUANTUMZ?!

IT'S MAGIC, I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN SHIT

piss off.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 04:15:02 AM
Simple: it tends to be a reliable shortcut.

I mean, you COULD spend ten years learning Japanese, or you could just read the subtitles when you watch "Yojimbo".

Nonsense, the shortcut obviously is to just know Japanese. Only deluded fools and smelly pagans use "subtytles".

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 11:52:14 PM

Quote from: Net on February 14, 2012, 10:52:42 PMBy meditation I mean I focus completely on my senses and cease all internal dialogue.

Out here in flyover land, we call that "relaxing".

And, as you say, none of it is magickle.  So why would anyone call it that?

Well that must be fucking nice if you can "just do" that, eh?

Tell me then, why am I taking yoga/meditation classes? Why then, am I after a refresher of three lessons (I've been doing this shit for years, it's just been a while this time) already capable of a deeper relaxation than I was in the year before that when I hadn't been practising, with a noticeable effect in my own stress levels.

But what you're saying is I don't need that shit. I need to "just relax". Sounds great, tell me how to do it, if it's so fucking easy--gosh I must be really stupid if it's really that simple--why then am I paying good money to sit once a week in a quiet, nice smelling room, to have an absolutely adorable old yoga lady slowly talk us through nearly the exact same instructions of sitting, lying down, one posture, and sitting (that's one hour btw)? I mean, it works for me, and it's worth the money,

but apparently it must be a scam, because, apparently I need to "just relax" and I get exactly the same benefit, for free!

How do you do that? explain? how does it work, because I've tried this "relax" in the years I didn't practice yoga and it doesn't quite work. I must be missing something really obvious, if it's "just" that simple. How does it work? Explain to me how to do it.

IT'S MAGIC I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN SHIT

Dude, you're getting way too worked up about this. You need to relax.

Ech you just broke my brain. :lol:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

Since when do we give a fuck about being "really ready" for something? By that logic, no one should drink ever because you're tricking your brain with chemicals to get yourself into a different state of mind. Stop peeing in everyone's cheerios.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
Dude, you're getting way too worked up about this. You need to relax.

I hear meditation is good for that.

I need no tricks.  I just have rage, and hate, and I get full eating pills every night.

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 01:53:18 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

Since when do we give a fuck about being "really ready" for something? By that logic, no one should drink ever because you're tricking your brain with chemicals to get yourself into a different state of mind. Stop peeing in everyone's cheerios.

bad analogy. It would be more like you're paying someone to teach you how to simulate being drunk rather than just going out and getting drunk until you can handle your liquor.

A critical study of magic was an important part of me breaking free of the old system and expanding my understanding. I grew up being taught that demons were real and magic was demonism. Someone could have told me the science, but my brain hadn't been programmed with science... as I studied Farber, Carroll, Hine etc. I was able to understand a hell of a lot more about what was going on in my head, other peoples heads and it made dumping old superstitions easier.

Magic may be shit covered glasses, but even shit covered glasses help when you have no glasses.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 15, 2012, 02:03:58 PM
Magic may be shit covered glasses, but even shit covered glasses help when you have no glasses.

That's disputable.  If your worldview is grossly flawed, you dump it.  Even if you don't have another one ready. 

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:00:06 PM

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 01:53:18 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
Not only that, by why do people need to self-hypnotize to achieve results that can be achieved through cognizant effort?

I mean, if you have to trick yourself into a certain state of mind, it's probably a sign that you're not really ready to be in that state of mind.

Since when do we give a fuck about being "really ready" for something? By that logic, no one should drink ever because you're tricking your brain with chemicals to get yourself into a different state of mind. Stop peeing in everyone's cheerios.

bad analogy. It would be more like you're paying someone to teach you how to simulate being drunk rather than just going out and getting drunk until you can handle your liquor.

And what would the problem be with that? Hell, less health problems, you can turn it off whenever you want, and it's probably a lot less expensive in the long run. Sounds like a good investment to me.

Being fucked up is fun. Not all of us can flip a switch to get our brains there, so we have to learn stupid tricks to make it happen. Why do you hate fun?

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 01:53:18 PM
Since when do we give a fuck about being "really ready" for something? By that logic, no one should drink ever because you're tricking your brain with chemicals to get yourself into a different state of mind.

Difference:  Drinking is for FUN, not for using as a means of dealing with the world.  Unless you're Horab.

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 01:53:18 PM

Stop peeing in everyone's cheerios.

You have no idea where you are, do you?   :lulz:

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 02:06:25 PM
Being fucked up is fun. Not all of us can flip a switch to get our brains there, so we have to learn stupid tricks to make it happen. Why do you hate fun?

I call bullshit, at least for this crowd.  Nobody here is Forrest Gump, or even Newt Gingrich.  You don't have to fool yourself.  You've been taught that you do, which is another story entirely.

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 15, 2012, 09:51:19 AM
Well that must be fucking nice if you can "just do" that, eh?

Tell me then, why am I taking yoga/meditation classes? Why then, am I after a refresher of three lessons (I've been doing this shit for years, it's just been a while this time) already capable of a deeper relaxation than I was in the year before that when I hadn't been practising, with a noticeable effect in my own stress levels.

And how does that not agree with what I said?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 02:06:25 PM
Being fucked up is fun. Not all of us can flip a switch to get our brains there, so we have to learn stupid tricks to make it happen. Why do you hate fun?

I call bullshit, at least for this crowd.  Nobody here is Forrest Gump, or even Newt Gingrich.  You don't have to fool yourself.  You've been taught that you do, which is another story entirely.

Are you kidding? I have to trick myself to get the dishwasher unloaded.

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 02:11:33 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 02:06:25 PM
Being fucked up is fun. Not all of us can flip a switch to get our brains there, so we have to learn stupid tricks to make it happen. Why do you hate fun?

I call bullshit, at least for this crowd.  Nobody here is Forrest Gump, or even Newt Gingrich.  You don't have to fool yourself.  You've been taught that you do, which is another story entirely.

Are you kidding? I have to trick myself to get the dishwasher unloaded.

Sounds like your programming might have been done by the lowest bidder.  You should climb in there and see what's what.  Maybe redo the wiring some.  Don't get a guru to help you, though, those guys are nothing but trouble.  I can tell you about The Roger Way™, but you gotta do it yourself.

I'd like to expound on the "learning the language versus reading the subtitles" analogy, because I feel it's applicable to this line of conversation as a whole. Sure, you can read the subtitles and sort of get the gist of what's going on, but if you want to UNDERSTAND what's going on you need to learn the language and all of the subtleties and nuance contained within it. And there's a whole lot more value in that than in taking some cheapshit shortcut.

What gives myself (and Roger, though I'm not speaking for him) some MAGICAL ability to just fucking RELAX and not sweat the small shit, or to be confident in the ability to favorably change a situation via application of will, isn't some innate ability or mutant superpower, it's the perspective brought on by being willing to not be satisfied with a life of complacency and security.

When's the last time you did something dangerous?

Not like "I rode my bike in traffic without a helmet" dangerous. Like "I found myself in some fucked-up doll factory in a Panamanian jungle" dangerous. "I realized I was in the middle of a drug deal with methed-out machine gun-toting Yakuza lackeys" dangerous. "I collect debts for a 'corrupt' judge" dangerous.

This isn't some internet tough guy screed. I'm just pointing out that once you get comfortable with the idea that THIS SHIT MIGHT KILL YOU, the fact that someone on the internet is condescending to you suddenly stops being a reason to lose your shit. It's easy to "just relax" and "just do it" when you live a life that forces you to savor the opportunity to relax and makes being able to just do it less a magical mental trick and more a necessity for survival. But if all you eve do is find a comfortable routine and stick to it because it gets you through the day, what the fuck do you expect to happen when something upsets your routine? And whose fault do you think it is? I'll tell you, it's not the fault of whatever bunged up your trip to the supermarket, it's fucking YOU for thinking your comfortable daily routine is actually IMPORTANT or NECESSARY.

And frankly, if you're trying to trick yourself into that relaxed and confident mental state by paying a yoga teacher or NLPing yourself all day, you're missing the fucking point. Get off of your comfortable suburban ass and go LIVE LIFE.

If this sounds condescending and assholish to you, that doesn't make it wrong it just means you're probably one of the people it pertains to. Or, y'know, alternately I'm some fucking SUPERIOR BEING and you can PM me for the address to which my monthly tribute can be sent. But that's bullshit and we all know it, so go fucking EARN your relaxation and stop paying for false slack.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:16:14 PM
What gives myself (and Roger, though I'm not speaking for him) some MAGICAL ability to just fucking RELAX and not sweat the small shit, or to be confident in the ability to favorably change a situation via application of will, isn't some innate ability or mutant superpower, it's the perspective brought on by being willing to not be satisfied with a life of complacency and security.

This.  Imminent death or danger tends to focus the mind wonderfully.

But I'm gonna argue the Yoga thing, even though I don't know too much about it, simply because the people that stick with it seem to benefit from it.  Probably for the same reason that people who do other forms of exercise regularly benefit from it (though, again, that's a guess).

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
Sounds like your programming might have been done by the lowest bidder.  You should climb in there and see what's what.  Maybe redo the wiring some.  Don't get a guru to help you, though, those guys are nothing but trouble.  I can tell you about The Roger Way™, but you gotta do it yourself.

This is after several years of rewiring by qualified health professionals. It functions. It's not pretty or elegant or even terribly reliable, but it gets me from point A to point B with minimal housefires, so I think it works.

And frankly, even that is a lot better off than where a lot of folks are, so what's the big problem with letting people with normal human shitty wiring get their kicks where they can find them? It's all well and good to say "THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE IF NO ONE NEEDED A WHEELCHAIR" but the answer isn't to go out and steal everyone's wheelchairs in the night. Sure, some folks would have to walk instead of fucking around with their Hoverround, but that dude with no legs isn't any better off. And the lazy bastards who could walk if they just put years and years of effort into it? Probably not going to be able to make it to physical therapy now, so good luck ever getting better.

(yes, I know, I murder my metaphors, I don't care)

I dunno, that assumes that someone like Trip is "satisfied with a life of complacency and security", and I'm not sure if that is accurate.  He can obviously speak to that himself.

For me it just comes down to "different strokes for different folks".  Some people can "just relax".  I tend to be one of those people, though it doesn't come from being challenged by, nor even thinking about, imminent death or danger.

But I definitely see the benefit for others to use some kind of mental exercise or regimen to condition themselves to a place where they can be more at peace.  And I think this has some relation to the BIP.  I see it as a sort of mini-jailbreak.  Or maybe it's more of a regular stroll around the prison grounds.

Recognizing that there seem to be some bars, shrapnel, something that can make things a little cloudy or fuzzy from time to time.  And that it is helpful to go through an exercise that pushes them away for a little while, or at least, arrests their negative or confounding influence. 

I'm not really the meditating or yoga type, but I have tried it a couple of times.  Just sitting, kind of emptying my mind, existing in silence, and then actively trying to quiet the mind.  I can definitely see how that is helpful. 

More often than not, just throwing in a loud metal cd helps be quiet my brain. 

Anyway, I'm kind of meandering all over the place but again I think it is simply one of those "different strokes" things when it comes to this subject matter. 

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:16:14 PM
I'd like to expound on the "learning the language versus reading the subtitles" analogy, because I feel it's applicable to this line of conversation as a whole. Sure, you can read the subtitles and sort of get the gist of what's going on, but if you want to UNDERSTAND what's going on you need to learn the language and all of the subtleties and nuance contained within it. And there's a whole lot more value in that than in taking some cheapshit shortcut.

What gives myself (and Roger, though I'm not speaking for him) some MAGICAL ability to just fucking RELAX and not sweat the small shit, or to be confident in the ability to favorably change a situation via application of will, isn't some innate ability or mutant superpower, it's the perspective brought on by being willing to not be satisfied with a life of complacency and security.

When's the last time you did something dangerous?

Not like "I rode my bike in traffic without a helmet" dangerous. Like "I found myself in some fucked-up doll factory in a Panamanian jungle" dangerous. "I realized I was in the middle of a drug deal with methed-out machine gun-toting Yakuza lackeys" dangerous. "I collect debts for a 'corrupt' judge" dangerous.

This isn't some internet tough guy screed. I'm just pointing out that once you get comfortable with the idea that THIS SHIT MIGHT KILL YOU, the fact that someone on the internet is condescending to you suddenly stops being a reason to lose your shit. It's easy to "just relax" and "just do it" when you live a life that forces you to savor the opportunity to relax and makes being able to just do it less a magical mental trick and more a necessity for survival. But if all you eve do is find a comfortable routine and stick to it because it gets you through the day, what the fuck do you expect to happen when something upsets your routine? And whose fault do you think it is? I'll tell you, it's not the fault of whatever bunged up your trip to the supermarket, it's fucking YOU for thinking your comfortable daily routine is actually IMPORTANT or NECESSARY.

And frankly, if you're trying to trick yourself into that relaxed and confident mental state by paying a yoga teacher or NLPing yourself all day, you're missing the fucking point. Get off of your comfortable suburban ass and go LIVE LIFE.

If this sounds condescending and assholish to you, that doesn't make it wrong it just means you're probably one of the people it pertains to. Or, y'know, alternately I'm some fucking SUPERIOR BEING and you can PM me for the address to which my monthly tribute can be sent. But that's bullshit and we all know it, so go fucking EARN your relaxation and stop paying for false slack.

You do sound condescending and assholish. Not just in this post, but pretty much every post ITT.

Your basic position seems to be that you need to earn the right to be comfortable in your skin. You've done it through violence and danger, good for you. Other people do it by reminding themselves that it is okay to relax in other ways; including the ways you've targeted as being worthless.

What makes your way better than any other way? Why do your experiences have more validity than other people's?

From where I'm standing, you are no better than the gurus you are railing against except that you aren't trying to get anyone's money. It is the same basic end point, but the route some people take to get there requires less guns and more introspection.

Who cares about the route you choose to get somewhere, when it is the destination that is important?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 08:07:38 PM
But since you see fit to call me a liar, then you can go fuck yourself.

wait, what? where did I call you a liar??
we're discussing ideas, there's no reason to make this personal


ANYWAY

I thought there was some meat in LHX's OP. Nobody in this thread is saying they believe in mystical supernatural shite. LHX expressed interest in talking about "magic without the bullshit" - ie the stuff that could be carted away from the occult and discussed separately. LHX outlined a few of the ways of separating the useful parts from the non-useful parts. To me, the summary of the OP was "Isn't it frustrating that when we talk about esoteric stuff, morons think we're talking about something supernatural?" LHX's post was an attack on the "supernatural" elements of the discussion, so I'm still a little confused as to why it's bullshit?


To me, mythology is a good analogy for what we're talking about. We don't believe in Greek Gods, but there's still some value in mythology.

If you approach myth from a religious point of view (analogous to a True Believer in the occult), and the lesson you take from Greek Mythology is that you need to make these sacrifices to the gods all the time or fate will fuck you up, you're a spag and you totally missed the point.

Similarly, if you insist there's no value in myth, and anybody that's trying to discuss myth is wasting their time and deluding themselves, I think you're missing the point as well.

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 15, 2012, 02:28:52 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:16:14 PM
I'd like to expound on the "learning the language versus reading the subtitles" analogy, because I feel it's applicable to this line of conversation as a whole. Sure, you can read the subtitles and sort of get the gist of what's going on, but if you want to UNDERSTAND what's going on you need to learn the language and all of the subtleties and nuance contained within it. And there's a whole lot more value in that than in taking some cheapshit shortcut.

What gives myself (and Roger, though I'm not speaking for him) some MAGICAL ability to just fucking RELAX and not sweat the small shit, or to be confident in the ability to favorably change a situation via application of will, isn't some innate ability or mutant superpower, it's the perspective brought on by being willing to not be satisfied with a life of complacency and security.

When's the last time you did something dangerous?

Not like "I rode my bike in traffic without a helmet" dangerous. Like "I found myself in some fucked-up doll factory in a Panamanian jungle" dangerous. "I realized I was in the middle of a drug deal with methed-out machine gun-toting Yakuza lackeys" dangerous. "I collect debts for a 'corrupt' judge" dangerous.

This isn't some internet tough guy screed. I'm just pointing out that once you get comfortable with the idea that THIS SHIT MIGHT KILL YOU, the fact that someone on the internet is condescending to you suddenly stops being a reason to lose your shit. It's easy to "just relax" and "just do it" when you live a life that forces you to savor the opportunity to relax and makes being able to just do it less a magical mental trick and more a necessity for survival. But if all you eve do is find a comfortable routine and stick to it because it gets you through the day, what the fuck do you expect to happen when something upsets your routine? And whose fault do you think it is? I'll tell you, it's not the fault of whatever bunged up your trip to the supermarket, it's fucking YOU for thinking your comfortable daily routine is actually IMPORTANT or NECESSARY.

And frankly, if you're trying to trick yourself into that relaxed and confident mental state by paying a yoga teacher or NLPing yourself all day, you're missing the fucking point. Get off of your comfortable suburban ass and go LIVE LIFE.

If this sounds condescending and assholish to you, that doesn't make it wrong it just means you're probably one of the people it pertains to. Or, y'know, alternately I'm some fucking SUPERIOR BEING and you can PM me for the address to which my monthly tribute can be sent. But that's bullshit and we all know it, so go fucking EARN your relaxation and stop paying for false slack.

You do sound condescending and assholish. Not just in this post, but pretty much every post ITT.

Your basic position seems to be that you need to earn the right to be comfortable in your skin. You've done it through violence and danger, good for you. Other people do it by reminding themselves that it is okay to relax in other ways; including the ways you've targeted as being worthless.

What makes your way better than any other way? Why do your experiences have more validity than other people's?

From where I'm standing, you are no better than the gurus you are railing against except that you aren't trying to get anyone's money. It is the same basic end point, but the route some people take to get there requires less guns and more introspection.

Who cares about the route you choose to get somewhere, when it is the destination that is important?

:butthurt:

Last time I checked, all of life was a journey, not a destination. If you've stopped along the way, well, good for you but don't expect me to respect that. It's exactly the sort of complacency I was referring to. I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't be doing. Frankly, I don't give much of a fuck. I'm just explaining why using "occult" methods to reach a place of relaxation and confidence is false slack and why I personally have less than zero respect for it.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 15, 2012, 02:32:51 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 08:07:38 PM
But since you see fit to call me a liar, then you can go fuck yourself.

wait, what? where did I call you a liar??
we're discussing ideas, there's no reason to make this personal


ANYWAY

I thought there was some meat in LHX's OP. Nobody in this thread is saying they believe in mystical supernatural shite. LHX expressed interest in talking about "magic without the bullshit" - ie the stuff that could be carted away from the occult and discussed separately. LHX outlined a few of the ways of separating the useful parts from the non-useful parts. To me, the summary of the OP was "Isn't it frustrating that when we talk about esoteric stuff, morons think we're talking about something supernatural?" LHX's post was an attack on the "supernatural" elements of the discussion, so I'm still a little confused as to why it's bullshit?


To me, mythology is a good analogy for what we're talking about. We don't believe in Greek Gods, but there's still some value in mythology.

If you approach myth from a religious point of view (analogous to a True Believer in the occult), and the lesson you take from Greek Mythology is that you need to make these sacrifices to the gods all the time or fate will fuck you up, you're a spag and you totally missed the point.

Similarly, if you insist there's no value in myth, and anybody that's trying to discuss myth is wasting their time and deluding themselves, I think you're missing the point as well.

Explain what the value in myth is and why that same value can't be extracted from the empirical world.

something something golden apple something

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:34:06 PM

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 15, 2012, 02:28:52 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:16:14 PM
I'd like to expound on the "learning the language versus reading the subtitles" analogy, because I feel it's applicable to this line of conversation as a whole. Sure, you can read the subtitles and sort of get the gist of what's going on, but if you want to UNDERSTAND what's going on you need to learn the language and all of the subtleties and nuance contained within it. And there's a whole lot more value in that than in taking some cheapshit shortcut.

What gives myself (and Roger, though I'm not speaking for him) some MAGICAL ability to just fucking RELAX and not sweat the small shit, or to be confident in the ability to favorably change a situation via application of will, isn't some innate ability or mutant superpower, it's the perspective brought on by being willing to not be satisfied with a life of complacency and security.

When's the last time you did something dangerous?

Not like "I rode my bike in traffic without a helmet" dangerous. Like "I found myself in some fucked-up doll factory in a Panamanian jungle" dangerous. "I realized I was in the middle of a drug deal with methed-out machine gun-toting Yakuza lackeys" dangerous. "I collect debts for a 'corrupt' judge" dangerous.

This isn't some internet tough guy screed. I'm just pointing out that once you get comfortable with the idea that THIS SHIT MIGHT KILL YOU, the fact that someone on the internet is condescending to you suddenly stops being a reason to lose your shit. It's easy to "just relax" and "just do it" when you live a life that forces you to savor the opportunity to relax and makes being able to just do it less a magical mental trick and more a necessity for survival. But if all you eve do is find a comfortable routine and stick to it because it gets you through the day, what the fuck do you expect to happen when something upsets your routine? And whose fault do you think it is? I'll tell you, it's not the fault of whatever bunged up your trip to the supermarket, it's fucking YOU for thinking your comfortable daily routine is actually IMPORTANT or NECESSARY.

And frankly, if you're trying to trick yourself into that relaxed and confident mental state by paying a yoga teacher or NLPing yourself all day, you're missing the fucking point. Get off of your comfortable suburban ass and go LIVE LIFE.

If this sounds condescending and assholish to you, that doesn't make it wrong it just means you're probably one of the people it pertains to. Or, y'know, alternately I'm some fucking SUPERIOR BEING and you can PM me for the address to which my monthly tribute can be sent. But that's bullshit and we all know it, so go fucking EARN your relaxation and stop paying for false slack.

You do sound condescending and assholish. Not just in this post, but pretty much every post ITT.

Your basic position seems to be that you need to earn the right to be comfortable in your skin. You've done it through violence and danger, good for you. Other people do it by reminding themselves that it is okay to relax in other ways; including the ways you've targeted as being worthless.

What makes your way better than any other way? Why do your experiences have more validity than other people's?

From where I'm standing, you are no better than the gurus you are railing against except that you aren't trying to get anyone's money. It is the same basic end point, but the route some people take to get there requires less guns and more introspection.

Who cares about the route you choose to get somewhere, when it is the destination that is important?

:butthurt:

Last time I checked, all of life was a journey, not a destination. If you've stopped along the way, well, good for you but don't expect me to respect that. It's exactly the sort of complacency I was referring to. I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't be doing. Frankly, I don't give much of a fuck. I'm just explaining why using "occult" methods to reach a place of relaxation and confidence is false slack and why I personally have less than zero respect for it.

Right, so now the language is getting in the way.

The 'destination' is being comfortable in your skin and not caring if your day to day routine is getting disrupted; you are saying that this is what you've gained from your experiences, and your post above certainly made it sound like you are, in fact, saying other people 'should' do just that. If we're going to keep using this clumsy metaphor, then life may well be a journey, the attitude you take through it is the vehicle you use to make it. Does that clear anything up? You don't need to be complacent in this headspace any more than you are complacent now.

As for the butthurt thing, I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't believe in the occult, but I do believe that it is helpful to try and maintain a respectful tone. While I'm at it I'd like a pony and a million dollars.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:35:30 PM
Explain what the value in myth is and why that same value can't be extracted from the empirical world.

I would say because myth might be more helpful in triggering ideas and revelations in some people as opposed to empirical knowledge.  Indeed, if you aren't getting absorbed into the actual religion of a myth, the myth really is just a re framing of the empirical world.  Cram points out the obvious example. 

Ok, another metaphor:

You could do this:

Factor x4 – 2x2 – 8.
(x – 3)4 + 2(x – 3)2 – 8
    = ((x – 3)2)2 + 2(x – 3)2 – 8
    = y2 + 2y – 8
    = (y + 4)(y – 2)
    = ((x – 3)2 + 4)((x – 3)2 – 2)
    = ((x2 – 6x + 9) + 4)((x2 – 6x + 9) – 2)
    = (x2 – 6x + 13)(x2 – 6x + 7)

(x – 3)4 + 2(x – 3)2 – 8 = (x2 – 6x + 13)(x2 – 6x + 7)



Or you could use the quadratic equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/1/c/1/1c110885bd9155bea6b6630e7d24d6c4.png)

They both give you the right answer, but you have a lot more chance of fucking it up the first way.

Now, I'm sure you're going to say that you see it as exactly the opposite; that your way is the quadratic, and the other way is the factoring, but there you go.  A matter of perspective.

Let's put it this way: I do not believe in the woo-woo mystik energiez or gods or anything like that.  You should know this by now.  But I have found that if I do X with my body/environment, then I get Y mental result.  Then I see that a hell of a lot of people, for many, many years, have seen the same result.  Unfortunately, they have attached a lot of woo-woo to it. 

So if we look at something, and strip out the woo-woo, and it still works, why would you want to dismiss it?

Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 15, 2012, 02:26:46 PM
I dunno, that assumes that someone like Trip is "satisfied with a life of complacency and security", and I'm not sure if that is accurate.  He can obviously speak to that himself.

For me it just comes down to "different strokes for different folks".  Some people can "just relax".  I tend to be one of those people, though it doesn't come from being challenged by, nor even thinking about, imminent death or danger.

But I definitely see the benefit for others to use some kind of mental exercise or regimen to condition themselves to a place where they can be more at peace.  And I think this has some relation to the BIP.  I see it as a sort of mini-jailbreak.  Or maybe it's more of a regular stroll around the prison grounds.

Recognizing that there seem to be some bars, shrapnel, something that can make things a little cloudy or fuzzy from time to time.  And that it is helpful to go through an exercise that pushes them away for a little while, or at least, arrests their negative or confounding influence. 

I'm not really the meditating or yoga type, but I have tried it a couple of times.  Just sitting, kind of emptying my mind, existing in silence, and then actively trying to quiet the mind.  I can definitely see how that is helpful. 

More often than not, just throwing in a loud metal cd helps be quiet my brain. 

Anyway, I'm kind of meandering all over the place but again I think it is simply one of those "different strokes" things when it comes to this subject matter. 

I don't disagree with you, necessarily. I was using examples from myself and Roger because we were the ones being held up as some sort of example, but I wasn't trying to imply that was the only way to find real slack. The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 02:48:03 PM
Ok, another metaphor:

You could do this:

Factor x4 – 2x2 – 8.
(x – 3)4 + 2(x – 3)2 – 8
    = ((x – 3)2)2 + 2(x – 3)2 – 8
    = y2 + 2y – 8
    = (y + 4)(y – 2)
    = ((x – 3)2 + 4)((x – 3)2 – 2)
    = ((x2 – 6x + 9) + 4)((x2 – 6x + 9) – 2)
    = (x2 – 6x + 13)(x2 – 6x + 7)

(x – 3)4 + 2(x – 3)2 – 8 = (x2 – 6x + 13)(x2 – 6x + 7)



Or you could use the quadratic equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/1/c/1/1c110885bd9155bea6b6630e7d24d6c4.png)

They both give you the right answer, but you have a lot more chance of fucking it up the first way.

Now, I'm sure you're going to say that you see it as exactly the opposite; that your way is the quadratic, and the other way is the factoring, but there you go.  A matter of perspective.

Let's put it this way: I do not believe in the woo-woo mystik energiez or gods or anything like that.  You should know this by now.  But I have found that if I do X with my body/environment, then I get Y mental result.  Then I see that a hell of a lot of people, for many, many years, have seen the same result.  Unfortunately, they have attached a lot of woo-woo to it. 

So if we look at something, and strip out the woo-woo, and it still works, why would you want to dismiss it?

Actually I would say that I'd prefer to use the first, seemingly more complex equation, and that the "value" I'm talking about lies in reaching a place where you can do that longer equation without worrying about fucking it up instead of finding a shortcut.

Of course, life is not math so I'm not entirely convinced of the worth of the analogy. Life doesn't have right or wrong answers, and if it does the wrong answers are sometimes equally as valuable as the right ones, maybe sometimes even more so.

Regardless of our individual perspectives on this, I appreciate your last post a lot; it's less dismissive and engages the subject more actively.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 02:48:03 PM
Unfortunately, they have attached a lot of woo-woo to it. 

And that's my problem with the whole thing.  Yoga has a beneficial effect on many people.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  There are good reasons why this benefit occurs.  So why call it "occult" or "magick"?  It's unnecessary, and it's just plain incorrect.  Same thing goes with meditation, etc.  If you feel you HAVE to call it magickle for it to work, then you probably have a particular problem that's bigger than your need to relax.

Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 15, 2012, 03:49:53 AM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 15, 2012, 03:14:45 AM

Quote from: LuciferX on February 15, 2012, 03:10:12 AM
Roger:  the assumption is that detached thinking will get you closer to the truth.  The challenge is to think about whether it makes sense to say that the truth is not necessarily arrived at by objective, rational and detached thought.  It's kinda like how the romantics believed in the supremacy of feeling and intuition over rationality.

The romantics also believed if you bled a sick person half to death it would make them better.

So, you know.  Rationality > feelings in certain situations.

This isn't the time to bring up the legitimate medical uses for leeches, is it?

:lol: 

Leeches have their place.  But would you recommend them to someone whoh has the flu?

I have this big fucking hammer.  It has many legitimate uses.

Sawing a board in half isn't one of them.

Just saying.

TGRR,
Murdering metaphors with one punch.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

What do you suggest people with severe anxiety disorders do about their condition instead of meditation/hypnosis/occultism? Are they just not ready to feel okay enough to function?

Or how about people with severe pain from cancer complications? Drugs are clearly false slack and a shortcut. Occultism/hypnosis/meditation are already out. Are these people just unprepared for their normal state of mind to return?

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

What do you suggest people with severe anxiety disorders do about their condition instead of meditation/hypnosis/occultism?

I don't see any difference between that and giving them a big dose of Baby Jebus, to be honest.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

What do you suggest people with severe anxiety disorders do about their condition instead of meditation/hypnosis/occultism?

I don't see any difference between that and giving them a big dose of Baby Jebus, to be honest.

Here's the difference, Baby Jebus necessarily requires belief in supernatural processes.

Occultism does not.

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 04:14:13 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

What do you suggest people with severe anxiety disorders do about their condition instead of meditation/hypnosis/occultism?

I don't see any difference between that and giving them a big dose of Baby Jebus, to be honest.

Here's the difference, Baby Jebus necessarily requires belief in supernatural processes.

Occultism does not.

Here again, we're having difficulty with language.

Occult:

1.supernatural or magic: relating to, involving, or characteristic of magic, witchcraft, or supernatural phenomena
2.not understandable: not capable of being understood by ordinary human beings


Yoga fits neither of those descriptions. 

I agree. But this thread was supposed to be about looking at occultism and taking out the bullshit to see what's left, and if it's useful.

Wasn't it?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 04:17:14 PM
I agree. But this thread was supposed to be about looking at occultism and taking out the bullshit to see what's left, and if it's useful.

Wasn't it?

Don't know.  I thought it was about making it "more accessible".  What I DO know is that we're apparently not using the word correctly.  Why?  Well, we've seen this before, haven't we?  A belief (Magickle stuff) is successfully challenged.  The person whose intellectual "territory" feels threatened by this, and "sidesteps" by changing the definition of the word.

There's a term for Yoga already..."Yoga".  You don't have to call it something it isn't ("occult").  Same with meditation.  Both are exercises requiring practice and discipline.  Occult crap is wish-fulfillment or guru shit, at least as far as the dictionary is concerned.

For the sake of accuracy, I just found another definition:

secret: secret or known only to the initiated

Given the internet, etc, I don't think that one's the one we're after.

Yoga occasionally gets lumped in with this general category of stuff because of its original intended purpose- to unite you with the brahma. Yoga has the same indo-european word origin as our word yoke.

So there ends up being different kinds of yoga. Yoga that helps you become more relaxed and flexible. Fad yoga that silly rich people do. And the yoga (raja yoga iirc) that actually could be lumped in with "occult" practices in that it is mystical you need a guru and sometimes says gives you freaky powers.

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 15, 2012, 04:29:47 PM
Yoga occasionally gets lumped in with this general category of stuff because of its original intended purpose- to unite you with the brahma. Yoga has the same indo-european word origin as our word yoke.

So it's religious in origin.  Doesn't make it magickle.

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 15, 2012, 04:32:53 PM
And the yoga (raja yoga iirc) that actually could be lumped in with "occult" practices in that it is mystical you need a guru and sometimes says gives you freaky powers.

Yeah, like the freaky power to give gurus your money.

Sure. But that doesnt make it any less valid to refer to yoga as an occult practice (within its original context) that happens to have some actual benefits for the mind and body of the practitioner.

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 15, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Sure. But that doesnt make it any less valid to refer to yoga as an occult practice (within its original context) that happens to have some actual benefits for the mind and body of the practitioner.

Right, and I think the distinction LHX was making in the OP was basically the difference between actually buying into the religious/faith-based aspect of it and simply looking for the benefit of the utility of the practice.  So in his example, the tarot being a catalyst to insight on a situation, as opposed to putting blind faith that the cards are actually telling the person how things are going to be, without their participation. 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 04:36:21 PM

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 15, 2012, 04:29:47 PM
Yoga occasionally gets lumped in with this general category of stuff because of its original intended purpose- to unite you with the brahma. Yoga has the same indo-european word origin as our word yoke.

So it's religious in origin.  Doesn't make it magickle.

Well, no. But some yoga purports to give the ability to reach transcendental states not available to most people, states often associated with "enlightenment" and such; which means it begins to bump up against the woo.

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 15, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Sure. But that doesnt make it any less valid to refer to yoga as an occult practice (within its original context) that happens to have some actual benefits for the mind and body of the practitioner.

I think we were talking about the other kind of yoga.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 04:44:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 04:36:21 PM

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 15, 2012, 04:29:47 PM
Yoga occasionally gets lumped in with this general category of stuff because of its original intended purpose- to unite you with the brahma. Yoga has the same indo-european word origin as our word yoke.

So it's religious in origin.  Doesn't make it magickle.

Well, no. But some yoga purports to give the ability to reach transcendental states not available to most people, states often associated with "enlightenment" and such; which means it begins to bump up against the woo.

In other words, it releases all kinds of brain chemicals that make you feel good?

Yes, but we don't know why it would do that.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Yes, but we don't know why it would do that.

That's where you apply the scientific process.  After all, if it has a benefit, it should be studied.

Calling it woo doesn't accomplish anything but marginalizing a potentially helpful practice.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:15:38 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Yes, but we don't know why it would do that.

That's where you apply the scientific process.  After all, if it has a benefit, it should be studied.

Calling it woo doesn't accomplish anything but marginalizing a potentially helpful practice.

Agreed -- but it was originally discovered when the woo was everywhere.  We should not keep the woo, but we shouldn't reject it just because the woo was there when we found it.

Which means that sometimes, sometimes, we have to look at the woo a bit longer than may be comfortable, to see if there's anything there we can use once we clean the shit off of it.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:19:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:15:38 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Yes, but we don't know why it would do that.

That's where you apply the scientific process.  After all, if it has a benefit, it should be studied.

Calling it woo doesn't accomplish anything but marginalizing a potentially helpful practice.

Agreed -- but it was originally discovered when the woo was everywhere.  We should not keep the woo, but we shouldn't reject it just because the woo was there when we found it.

Which means that sometimes, sometimes, we have to look at the woo a bit longer than may be comfortable, to see if there's anything there we can use once we clean the shit off of it.

That's exactly my point.  If it works reliably, it isn't woo.  I am all about people using yoga, meditation, or Jack Daniels, if that's what helps them get through the night.  But there is no need to refer to it as woo, anymore, for the same reason that we don't refer to germs as demons, or the sun as some big fucker in a chariot. 

Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

How deep in woo are you when you're fully absorbed in a fiction novel?

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 05:46:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

How deep in woo are you when you're fully absorbed in a fiction novel?

Unless it's Mists of Avalon, not at all.   :lulz:

Not even a bit.  I'm not using it to help me think, or anything else.  It's entertainment.  If I pretended it was something else, then I'd be wandering into the woo.

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

What do you suggest people with severe anxiety disorders do about their condition instead of meditation/hypnosis/occultism? Are they just not ready to feel okay enough to function?

Or how about people with severe pain from cancer complications? Drugs are clearly false slack and a shortcut. Occultism/hypnosis/meditation are already out. Are these people just unprepared for their normal state of mind to return?

you've missed the point by a wide margin, and as I've explained it enough already I'm just going to leave you to your mistaken impression.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
The point I was trying to make was that a large part of the value of finding that slack lies in the journey (in whatever form someone chooses to manifest it in) and that using shortcuts to subvert that was a way to miss that inherent value. That's what I meant by "if you have to trick yourself into that state of mind, you may not be ready for that state of mind."

What do you suggest people with severe anxiety disorders do about their condition instead of meditation/hypnosis/occultism? Are they just not ready to feel okay enough to function?

Or how about people with severe pain from cancer complications? Drugs are clearly false slack and a shortcut. Occultism/hypnosis/meditation are already out. Are these people just unprepared for their normal state of mind to return?

you've missed the point by a wide margin, and as I've explained it enough already I'm just going to leave you to your mistaken impression.

Okay?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:56:47 PM

Quote from: Net on February 15, 2012, 05:46:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

How deep in woo are you when you're fully absorbed in a fiction novel?

Unless it's Mists of Avalon, not at all.   :lulz:

Not even a bit.  I'm not using it to help me think, or anything else.  It's entertainment.  If I pretended it was something else, then I'd be wandering into the woo.

"1984" and "Brave New World" are woo if I use them to help me think?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

Be that as it may, in my post I didn't make a single occult, religious, or mystical statement.  I described a model of cognition, and a method of how it can be examined.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 07:07:30 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

Be that as it may, in my post I didn't make a single occult, religious, or mystical statement.  I described a model of cognition, and a method of how it can be examined.

WARNING:  YOU ARE THREATENING MY IDEOLOGICAL TERRITORY.  PLEASE PUT ON YOUR SCREECH-RESISTANT EARPHONES AND YOUR POOP APRON.

Can you hear me, Doktor Woo?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 07:15:40 PM
Can you hear me, Doktor Woo?

Son of a bitch.  Now I'm naked in my office, screeching at Jeff.

Look what YOU made ME do.

ATTN PD.COM:

I HAVE MANAGED TO GAIN CONTROL OF ROGER'S MIND LAZORS. 

DEMANDS TO FOLLOW.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 07:22:41 PM
ATTN PD.COM:

I HAVE MANAGED TO GAIN CONTROL OF ROGER'S MIND LAZORS. 

DEMANDS TO FOLLOW.

This is all going to end in tears, I just know it.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-MlyJVlLmdTQ/TzwGzlFuwwI/AAAAAAAAAZg/aQjj3ksZAac/w529-h360-k/Ransom%2Bnote.JPG)

My brain has just, without my consent, provided me with an image of those two things used on conjunction.

I hate you all.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 07:27:09 PM
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-MlyJVlLmdTQ/TzwGzlFuwwI/AAAAAAAAAZg/aQjj3ksZAac/w529-h360-k/Ransom%2Bnote.JPG)

:lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:23:18 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:19:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:15:38 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Yes, but we don't know why it would do that.

That's where you apply the scientific process.  After all, if it has a benefit, it should be studied.

Calling it woo doesn't accomplish anything but marginalizing a potentially helpful practice.

Agreed -- but it was originally discovered when the woo was everywhere.  We should not keep the woo, but we shouldn't reject it just because the woo was there when we found it.

Which means that sometimes, sometimes, we have to look at the woo a bit longer than may be comfortable, to see if there's anything there we can use once we clean the shit off of it.

That's exactly my point.  If it works reliably, it isn't woo.  I am all about people using yoga, meditation, or Jack Daniels, if that's what helps them get through the night.  But there is no need to refer to it as woo, anymore, for the same reason that we don't refer to germs as demons, or the sun as some big fucker in a chariot.

THANK YOU, REVEREND!

See, I think the bulk of this whole argument is right fucking there. If it works, it's not magic. If it's not magic, occluding it with a bunch of obfuscating terminology is guru bullshit at best.

I use ritual to focus my mind. I have an altar and I burn candles and incense, which boosts my mood by creating a pleasant ambiance in my home. I write spells to help me keep track of goals or things I need to do, only I call the spell "a list". Sometimes I draw sigils, only I call them "doodles". I don't like obfuscating things with a bunch of occult trappings, so I just call them what they are using words nobody is going to be confused, spooked, impressed, or intimidated by.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:29:11 PM
Well, then wouldn't it depend on how one approaches it, then?

I mean, if I said that I "use psychological methods of pattern recognition and symbolic triggers to frame a meta cogntive process allowing me to self-analyze my decision making abilities," why would that be any different than "I use tarot to help me figure stuff out"?

Actually, at that point, I think you're out in the woo.  Call me a jackass, but I see no value in Tarot cards that can't be more reliably achieved using standard old problem-solving/troubleshooting practices.

I use Tarot, by which I mean I look at pictures and observe the conclusions I jump to about them.

Quote from: Nigel on February 15, 2012, 07:47:07 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:23:18 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:19:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 05:15:38 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Yes, but we don't know why it would do that.

That's where you apply the scientific process.  After all, if it has a benefit, it should be studied.

Calling it woo doesn't accomplish anything but marginalizing a potentially helpful practice.

Agreed -- but it was originally discovered when the woo was everywhere.  We should not keep the woo, but we shouldn't reject it just because the woo was there when we found it.

Which means that sometimes, sometimes, we have to look at the woo a bit longer than may be comfortable, to see if there's anything there we can use once we clean the shit off of it.

That's exactly my point.  If it works reliably, it isn't woo.  I am all about people using yoga, meditation, or Jack Daniels, if that's what helps them get through the night.  But there is no need to refer to it as woo, anymore, for the same reason that we don't refer to germs as demons, or the sun as some big fucker in a chariot.

THANK YOU, REVEREND!

See, I think the bulk of this whole argument is right fucking there. If it works, it's not magic. If it's not magic, occluding it with a bunch of obfuscating terminology is guru bullshit at best.

I use ritual to focus my mind. I have an altar and I burn candles and incense, which boosts my mood by creating a pleasant ambiance in my home. I write spells to help me keep track of goals or things I need to do, only I call the spell "a list". Sometimes I draw sigils, only I call them "doodles". I don't like obfuscating things with a bunch of occult trappings, so I just call them what they are using words nobody is going to be confused, spooked, impressed, or intimidated by.

Yes. YES YES YES.

USING OCCULT TERMINOLOGY TO DESCRIBE EMPIRICALLY-BASED PROCESSES IS JUST ABOUT THE SINGLE MOST FUCKING PRETENTIOUS AND TWATTY THING I CAN THINK OF.

The twattiest thing *I* can think of is that we're having this debate AGAIN.

:lulz:

TGRR,
Twat

I never get tired of poking idiots with sticks, even if those idiots are my otherwise intelligent friends.

hell, ESPECIALLY then.

I mean, they would (and do) do it for me, so it would be rude for me not to return the favor.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:56:22 PM
I mean, they would (and do) do it for me, so it would be rude for me not to return the favor.

They aren't your friends if they let you publicly humiliate yourself without at least trying to clue you in.

Quote from: ECHUSING OCCULT TERMINOLOGY TO DESCRIBE EMPIRICALLY-BASED PROCESSES IS JUST ABOUT THE SINGLE MOST FUCKING PRETENTIOUS AND TWATTY THING I CAN THINK OF.

WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE OCCULT TERMINOLOGY AND EXAMINE THE PROCESSES.


But you can't do that without starting with the woo, and reverse engineering until you get to the meat.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 08:18:05 PM

Quote from: ECHUSING OCCULT TERMINOLOGY TO DESCRIBE EMPIRICALLY-BASED PROCESSES IS JUST ABOUT THE SINGLE MOST FUCKING PRETENTIOUS AND TWATTY THING I CAN THINK OF.

WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE OCCULT TERMINOLOGY AND EXAMINE THE PROCESSES.


But you can't do that without starting with the woo, and reverse engineering until you get to the meat.

I think we all agree to THAT.

I just think there's some disagreement as to what consitutes "meat".

That sounds fair.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
That sounds fair.

Also, refusing to cut off the woo, or at least refusing to throw it away, is also a problem.

FOR EXAMPLE:  Still referring to it as "magick", when everyone knows damn well that it's not.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 08:30:22 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
That sounds fair.

Also, refusing to cut off the woo, or at least refusing to throw it away, is also a problem.

FOR EXAMPLE:  Still referring to it as "magick", when everyone knows damn well that it's not.

Point.

But who is doing that ITT?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 08:30:22 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
That sounds fair.

Also, refusing to cut off the woo, or at least refusing to throw it away, is also a problem.

FOR EXAMPLE:  Still referring to it as "magick", when everyone knows damn well that it's not.

Or even using the word "occult". As soon as I hear/read that, I instantly stop taking whoever said/typed it seriously for the duration of the conversation.

As far as the terminology goes I like to use some of the language (mainly the terms like sigils and servitors) because the magical terms have a lot of loaded meanings and associated jargon that kind of suits the subject better.

A trademark can be understood as a sigil, as can a logo, brand name or mascot. The term encompasses all those as well as the idea that they are charged (pumped full of meaning) in a way that's designed to manipulate people into making intuitive decisions that are meant to benefit someone else. I mean I could outline all that every fucking time I want to talk about that but why? If I say sigils and I know that it means and you know what it means it already has all that meaning attached to it.

It seems silly that intelligent people can read this and freak out and say holy shit this whole conversation is retarded because they're not using the same words I would use.

What seems silly is that intelligent people would use words that have an explicit supernatural meaning attached to them.

Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 15, 2012, 02:42:25 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 02:35:30 PM
Explain what the value in myth is and why that same value can't be extracted from the empirical world.

I would say because myth might be more helpful in triggering ideas and revelations in some people as opposed to empirical knowledge.  Indeed, if you aren't getting absorbed into the actual religion of a myth, the myth really is just a re framing of the empirical world.  Cram points out the obvious example.

Also, in the Campbell kind of zone we use myth to try to make sense of the human journey, who we are, what we do and where we are headed. It provides us allogories (sp?), value systems (for those who would like it) and ties in with elements if identity.

The golden apple is a good one. I would think there's a number of us who at sone point have had to 'throw something out there' and seen conceptual links with the apple of discord.

Also, the idea of the melding of myth with the empirical, best example I can think of being the "Evil Nazi Holocaust Narrative" vs  the historical holocaust, is a good basis for general skepticism about historical narratives.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 06:13:46 AM
What seems silly is that intelligent people would use words that have an explicit supernatural meaning attached to them.

I get that too. But you know, if you talk about seo I'm not going to force you to call it 'using cheap tricks to get Internet traffic' before I'm willing to talk to you about it. There's connotations attached to anything. If we're on the same page though, really, I can't see why we can't just agree to disagree on the terms.

Also, for clarity, are you saying ECH that putting yourself in life or death situations is the ideal way to find relaxation generally? Or that it's something everyone should do as part of their personal growth? Or :?

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, as far as word usage is concerned.

If words have specific meanings, as we are wont to say when we are ragging righteously on a newb, then we should accept that the jargon that we currently use is going to have to suffice for now. Our interpretations of the jargon may shift over time, but if it is a convenient shorthand, we shouldn't chuck it out based on the fact that there used to be superstition involved with it. To go back, the word yoga is a prime example of that. It used to be crazy swami shit, then it was a way to stretch in the hopes of extending your life span a couple of years, and then it was funny shit that rich people do naked in a room that's hotter than Tucson in July.

Sure, Magic/k may make you cringe because of all of the nonsense that a lot of people have attached to it over the years/centuries. If some spag manages to actually levitate at a thought, we're just going to have to call it Magic until we come up with a nifty name for the particle at work and the process involved.

When I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we? I remain agnostic about it. Maybe I used to take acid and don't remember that I did. But I'm pretty sure I never have, so something else must be at work. We need not be so wrapped up in technicalities that a perfectly good linguistic reference need be chucked out because it used to be all poppets and crows feathers.

Prevent used to mean go in front of. Just saying.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 16, 2012, 06:27:31 AM
Also, for clarity, are you saying ECH that putting yourself in life or death situations is the ideal way to find relaxation generally? Or that it's something everyone should do as part of their personal growth? Or :?

I'm just pointing it out as an example of something that forces you to focus on what's actually important in your life instead of getting hung up on and stressed out by what are, essentially, trivial things.

I think it absolutely CAN be an avenue towards personal growth, but it's certainly not the only one.

Now, for clarity, your previous post seems to come across as some form of implied holocaust denial. I'm asking for clarification because I can't picture you actually thinking that or meaning to have come across in a way that could be interpreted as that.

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, as far as word usage is concerned.

If words have specific meanings, as we are wont to say when we are ragging righteously on a newb, then we should accept that the jargon that we currently use is going to have to suffice for now. Our interpretations of the jargon may shift over time, but if it is a convenient shorthand, we shouldn't chuck it out based on the fact that there used to be superstition involved with it. To go back, the word yoga is a prime example of that. It used to be crazy swami shit, then it was a way to stretch in the hopes of extending your life span a couple of years, and then it was funny shit that rich people do naked in a room that's hotter than Tucson in July.

Sure, Magic/k may make you cringe because of all of the nonsense that a lot of people have attached to it over the years/centuries. If some spag manages to actually levitate at a thought, we're just going to have to call it Magic until we come up with a nifty name for the particle at work and the process involved.

When I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we? I remain agnostic about it. Maybe I used to take acid and don't remember that I did. But I'm pretty sure I never have, so something else must be at work. We need not be so wrapped up in technicalities that a perfectly good linguistic reference need be chucked out because it used to be all poppets and crows feathers.

Prevent used to mean go in front of. Just saying.

Well, that certainly warblesnarf minglefrig poopwattle, blurglevurp?

I mean, I don't understand quadratic equations. But I still refer to them as quadratic equations and not numerology sigils. I think you proved my point more than you proved yours. The answer to defining things you don't understand is not to couch them in terms that come pre-loaded with bad signal.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 06:41:22 AM

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, as far as word usage is concerned.

If words have specific meanings, as we are wont to say when we are ragging righteously on a newb, then we should accept that the jargon that we currently use is going to have to suffice for now. Our interpretations of the jargon may shift over time, but if it is a convenient shorthand, we shouldn't chuck it out based on the fact that there used to be superstition involved with it. To go back, the word yoga is a prime example of that. It used to be crazy swami shit, then it was a way to stretch in the hopes of extending your life span a couple of years, and then it was funny shit that rich people do naked in a room that's hotter than Tucson in July.

Sure, Magic/k may make you cringe because of all of the nonsense that a lot of people have attached to it over the years/centuries. If some spag manages to actually levitate at a thought, we're just going to have to call it Magic until we come up with a nifty name for the particle at work and the process involved.

When I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we? I remain agnostic about it. Maybe I used to take acid and don't remember that I did. But I'm pretty sure I never have, so something else must be at work. We need not be so wrapped up in technicalities that a perfectly good linguistic reference need be chucked out because it used to be all poppets and crows feathers.

Prevent used to mean go in front of. Just saying.

Well, that certainly warblesnarf minglefrig poopwattle, blurglevurp?

Except those don't actually have any meaning to them. They convey nothing.

But if my girlfriend and I are alone at her place watching a movie and we haven't made any significant movements in the past 30 minutes, and all previous major movements had no effect and her roommate's cello happens to fall over in an illogical direction for no apparent or logical reason, what are you going to call it? I'm ok with chuckling and saying poltergeist while i stand it back up. And it at least immediately conveys to another English (or German) speaker what I just experienced.

Words like ghost and spirit and magic are worse in my mind than lkjdsfjbdsfakj. As you say, they convey meaning. However, the application of meaning like your example is exactly why I treat them some hostility. I would think in such a scenario "Hey they cello fell over, that's weird." Nothing more. Because I don't have any info to go on. Meanwhile, is it a poltergeist? OR Are there things we can't pin down with a machine and rip into teeny pieces and study? I don't know. I don't want to rely on the word ghost for anything but fucking GHOSTS. Hovering and being all spookily and shit. I want to stomp that word and do what I can so that machine gets built and we can see what's what.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 06:41:22 AM

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, as far as word usage is concerned.

If words have specific meanings, as we are wont to say when we are ragging righteously on a newb, then we should accept that the jargon that we currently use is going to have to suffice for now. Our interpretations of the jargon may shift over time, but if it is a convenient shorthand, we shouldn't chuck it out based on the fact that there used to be superstition involved with it. To go back, the word yoga is a prime example of that. It used to be crazy swami shit, then it was a way to stretch in the hopes of extending your life span a couple of years, and then it was funny shit that rich people do naked in a room that's hotter than Tucson in July.

Sure, Magic/k may make you cringe because of all of the nonsense that a lot of people have attached to it over the years/centuries. If some spag manages to actually levitate at a thought, we're just going to have to call it Magic until we come up with a nifty name for the particle at work and the process involved.

When I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we? I remain agnostic about it. Maybe I used to take acid and don't remember that I did. But I'm pretty sure I never have, so something else must be at work. We need not be so wrapped up in technicalities that a perfectly good linguistic reference need be chucked out because it used to be all poppets and crows feathers.

Prevent used to mean go in front of. Just saying.

Well, that certainly warblesnarf minglefrig poopwattle, blurglevurp?

The more I think about this, the more it seems like intentional pineal fnord.

We all know what we're friggin' talking about here. We're all actually on the same goddamn page. And it seems like you don't want to logically engage something that might be nascent neuroscience because the only language we have available to us is wrapped up in the woo, as LMNO would put it. Well, until we find more comfortable words, who the fuck cares? And you know what? We're supposed to be goddamn Discordians and not looking at shit with our preconceived notions. So if you can't jump into an "occult" thread without looking past the word occult, if you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, maybe you should just stay out of the thread.

With all honest due respect, seriously,
Twid

Quote from: Alty on February 16, 2012, 08:11:22 AM
Words like ghost and spirit and magic are worse in my mind than lkjdsfjbdsfakj. As you say, they convey meaning. However, the application of meaning like your example is exactly why I treat them some hostility. I would think in such a scenario "Hey they cello fell over, that's weird." Nothing more. Because I don't have any info to go on. Meanwhile, is it a poltergeist? OR Are there things we can't pin down with a machine and rip into teeny pieces and study? I don't know. I don't want to rely on the word ghost for anything but fucking GHOSTS. Hovering and being all spookily and shit. I want to stomp that word and do what I can so that machine gets built and we can see what's what.

At the end of the day, the cello still fell down with no reasonable explanation.


I don't know what knocked over the cello. Like I said, I'm an agnostic as far as that goes and am willing to entertain all plausible explanations. Until I get one, poltergeist is a universal call sign to the phenomenon, whether caused by actual "noise ghosts" or not.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 06:40:22 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 16, 2012, 06:27:31 AM
Also, for clarity, are you saying ECH that putting yourself in life or death situations is the ideal way to find relaxation generally? Or that it's something everyone should do as part of their personal growth? Or :?

I'm just pointing it out as an example of something that forces you to focus on what's actually important in your life instead of getting hung up on and stressed out by what are, essentially, trivial things.

I think it absolutely CAN be an avenue towards personal growth, but it's certainly not the only one.

Now, for clarity, your previous post seems to come across as some form of implied holocaust denial. I'm asking for clarification because I can't picture you actually thinking that or meaning to have come across in a way that could be interpreted as that.

Awesome. Makes sense.

For my part I just mean that events get turned into narratives and it's important to remember that.

When I say the mythology of the holocaust I mean it in the sense that the reality has been boiled down to a simple narrative that fits neatly in people's heads as a kind of epic poem, rather than the complex messy truth.

So the mythology is "evil Hitler kills Jews and tries to take over the world with the evil Japanese."
The reality is of course, every single thing that happened across the holocaust and ww2 that isn't mentioned in the above simplification.

Same as the mythology that belongs to the left about Bush is "stupid president starts war for oil and ruins economy"
So there's truth in that but it's not the whole complex, messy intricate story.

The truth is wrapped up in there but by recognising that what we popularly refer back to in history (or everyday life) is a series of super complex events boiled down to simple narratives we can train ourself to be intuitively cautious of applying simple versions of events to real situations while still understanding the kind of symbolic or mainstream understanding.

In case Im still lacking clarity, my position is as you assume, that Holocaust denial is horseshit.

Actually the best way to express my position is to look at the 'Common Walls' thread and imagine if it has been derailed after Cram's Demons Are Everywhere thread by people going 'that's stupid demons aren't real! Why don't you just call them bad ideas!?' we all get it, we all know we get it and we all know we all know we get it.

To me starting a corporate sigils thread or an exploring the good bits of occult thread should be equally possible. Because we all know that's demons aren't physical evil manifestations and we all know sigils don't actually use magic to rewrite someone's brain.

Anyway. That's my ideal world. I'm not the one who cant stand the terminology and I can't make it any more palatable by saying it should be so I might pull away from arguing the point now.

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 06:41:22 AM

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, as far as word usage is concerned.

If words have specific meanings, as we are wont to say when we are ragging righteously on a newb, then we should accept that the jargon that we currently use is going to have to suffice for now. Our interpretations of the jargon may shift over time, but if it is a convenient shorthand, we shouldn't chuck it out based on the fact that there used to be superstition involved with it. To go back, the word yoga is a prime example of that. It used to be crazy swami shit, then it was a way to stretch in the hopes of extending your life span a couple of years, and then it was funny shit that rich people do naked in a room that's hotter than Tucson in July.

Sure, Magic/k may make you cringe because of all of the nonsense that a lot of people have attached to it over the years/centuries. If some spag manages to actually levitate at a thought, we're just going to have to call it Magic until we come up with a nifty name for the particle at work and the process involved.

When I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we? I remain agnostic about it. Maybe I used to take acid and don't remember that I did. But I'm pretty sure I never have, so something else must be at work. We need not be so wrapped up in technicalities that a perfectly good linguistic reference need be chucked out because it used to be all poppets and crows feathers.

Prevent used to mean go in front of. Just saying.

Well, that certainly warblesnarf minglefrig poopwattle, blurglevurp?

The more I think about this, the more it seems like intentional pineal fnord.

We all know what we're friggin' talking about here. We're all actually on the same goddamn page. And it seems like you don't want to logically engage something that might be nascent neuroscience because the only language we have available to us is wrapped up in the woo, as LMNO would put it. Well, until we find more comfortable words, who the fuck cares? And you know what? We're supposed to be goddamn Discordians and not looking at shit with our preconceived notions. So if you can't jump into an "occult" thread without looking past the word occult, if you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, maybe you should just stay out of the thread.

With all honest due respect, seriously,
Twid

I take back the bolded. Simply because I thought about how it sounded. My apologies.

:lulz:  <----at myself

Magic is real. Magic isn't real. Magic is useful. Magic isn't useful.

Stage magic, for example, is real. Teller, from Penn and Teller, claims that stage magic is the "unwilling(ish) suspension of disbelief". When an audience watches a play, they willingly suspend disbelief, because that's part of the social agreement. When they watch a magic show, they unwillingly suspend disbelief, they WANT to figure out the trick.

This is where Real Magic comes in to play. The hand is not faster than the eye, no matter how many times someone says that. Magic tricks don't work because the magician has fast hands. It works because they magician uses psychology, sociology etc to persuade, cajole and confuse the audience.

A con-man uses that same Real Magic. So does a spy.

Crowley, Hine, Farber, Wilson, Carroll etc ALSO use that same Real Magic. The audience is the conscious brain, the props (cards, wands, etc) are there for the same reason the stage magician uses props, to distract, confuse and misdirect the audience, while the magician completes the trick.

We can discuss a magic show in very specific terms. "Trick one is a card trick and the magician used card palming. Trick two is a ball and cup trick, the magician used everyday, uninteresting motions to slip balls out of his pockets, to place balls under the cups as he moved them etc."

However, that's not the same as watching the magic show, or performing the magic show. In fact, even if you understand exactly HOW the trick works, without lots of repetitive practice and a good foundation in deception and trickery (including some basic psychology and sociology), you won't be very successful with the magic.

The trick you talk about is not the trick performed.

We can say exactly the same about a magic ritual/meditation/etc. The magician is using stuff we can describe in specific terms, much of it involves tricking the conscious or subconscious mind. However, talking about the 'magic' is not the same as doing the magic.

I think everyone is capable of changing their beliefs, perceptions, ideals, programming. Magic is simply a set of processes/tools that have historically been useful to a number of people. If you don't want to use the tools, bully for you.

Personally, I use a sledge hammer to break rocks, not my face.

Douglas Rushkoff has some interesting things to say on this subject. Rushkoff's specialty field lies in information and internet technologies, but he's hung out with RAW and a few of the other "post-occultists". I'll get back to Rushkoff in a moment.

Now, Roger's right, in a way. Due to the information available on the internet, we live in the "post-occult" realm. And in some ways, it's worse than a constant barrage of post-modernism. Some of the information posted online about occult subjects is purposefully neutered (a key insight is missing, etc, etc). Some of it is absolute Woo crap (time-cube much?).

At other times, concepts are presented in ways that simply do not make intuitive sense to a member of our culture. This could be purposeful manipulation, or it could be accidental. An example:

I recently had a Satori experience (also called 'kensho'). It involved Musashi's Book of the 5 Rings, and a passage that I had given up on understanding a while ago (the ambiguity in the translations simply didn't convey enough context for me to understand wtf Musashi was talking about).

Wikipedia defines satori as "a Japanese Buddhist term for enlightenment, meaning "understanding". In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kensho. Kensho (Japanese) is a term used in Zen traditions meaning "seeing into one's true nature." Ken means "seeing," sho means "nature," "essence." Satori and kensho are commonly translated as enlightenment..."

Wikionary has an even simpler definition (which leaves out a metric fuck-ton of context): "(Zen Buddhism) A sudden inexpressible feeling of inner understanding or enlightenment."

Now, I don't mean that I have achieved some arch-Enlightenment, some End Goal, that I don't have to worry about anymore. This is exactly the "woo bullshit" which we need to cut out of discussions of these topics.

"You should have enlightenment experience again and again and support them with continuous practice." - Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro (1948), An Introduction to Zen Buddhism

But I know that I had a kenso/satori experience because the sensations which accompanied the flash of understanding fit with the records the Buddhists have kept on kensho/satori experiences. These include the sensation of heat emanating from my abdomen, nervous shaking/jittery feelings, a "floating" feeling, and a spontaneous activation of certain brain networks involved in processing bright light (this I have experience with due to sitting zazen and staring at a white walls, and seperately practicing a mental trick to activate my pineal gland by imagining white light flooding my head). The interesting thing is that scientific research has found these bodily sensations as well:
[Abstract: On the Emergence of Parinatal Symptons in Buddhist Mediations] http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386182

Because I'd done my research, I did not let these sensations trip me into an anxiety state. I had experienced a genuine insight about a topic I had a deep personal interest in, and my nervous system was re-organizing itself in order to make that realization useful. If I had given in to anxiety/fear related thoughts, I may have shut down that process entirely or trapped myself in Makyo (hallucinations) or some other mental crutch. It was serendipity that I didn't need an instructor to calm those feelings and that my nervous system was primed to make use of the random trigger. It was my Discordian mental training which let me recognize this event as a normal mundane consequence of this mental restructuring, and not something supernatural.

Now, I've purposefully left out the CONTENT/MEANING I acquired in this little kensho, so that I could talk a bit about the process. Still, without attempting to communicate my insight, the above sounds very much like woo BS. Just as Musashi recognized, this insight is only worth so much if it stays in my own head, but becomes extremely valuable if I can try to get the basics across to others.

Mushasi knew enough to try to cut the BS as well. Gorin no Sho was written in Hiragani (simplified Japanese). At the beginning of the work Musashi states, "In writing this work I will not borrow from Confucian or Buddhist precepts". The fact of the matter is, if he had used Kanji to write the works it would have immediately caused the reader to relate to either Chinese or Buddhist precepts (as each kanji has deep significant meanings both obvious and hidden and because the very core of education in Japan stems from Buddhism).

As such, I will attempt to lay out my insight in the most mundane terms possible. Maybe this will help some-one else with their kensho.

The specific passages from Musashi's Book of Five Rings comes in the Water and Wind Books. I have bolded the important bits (as I see them):

Quote from: translated by Victor Harris
BOOK OF WATER
The Gaze in Strategy

The gaze should be large and broad. This is the twofold gaze "Perception and Sight". Perception is strong and sight weak.

In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things. It is important in strategy to know the enemy's sword and not to be distracted by insignificant movements of his sword. You must study this. The gaze is the same for single combat and for large-scale combat.

It is necessary in strategy to be able to look to both sides without moving the eyeballs. You cannot master this ability quickly. Learn what is written here: use this gaze in everyday life and do not vary it whatever happens.

.....

BOOK OF WIND
Fixing the Eyes in Other Schools

Some schools maintain that the eyes should be fixed on the enemy's long sword. Some schools fix the eye on the hands. Some fix the eyes on the face, and some fix the eyes on the feet, and so on. If you fix the eyes on these places your spirit can become confused, and your strategy thwarted.

I will explain this in detail. Footballers** do not fix their eyes on the ball, but by good play on the field they can perform well. When you become accustomed to something, you are not limited to the use of your eyes. People such as master musicians have the music score in front of their nose, or flourish the sword in several ways when they have mastered the Way, but this does not mean that they fix their eyes on these things specifically, or that they make pointless movements of the sword. It means that they can see naturally.

In the Way of strategy, when you have fought many times you will easily be able to appraise the speed and position of the enemy's sword, and having mastery of the Way you will see the weight of his spirit. In strategy, fixing the eyes means gazing at the man's heart.

In large-scale strategy the area to watch is the enemy's strength. "Perception" and "sight" are the two methods of seeing. Perception consists of concentrating strongly on the enemy's spirit, observing the condition of the battle field, fixing the gaze strongly, seeing the progress of the fight and the changes of advantage. This is the sure way to win.

In single combat you must not fix the eyes on details. As I said before, if you fix your eyes on details and neglect important things, your spirit will become bewildered, and victory will escape you. Research this principle well and train diligently.

**Football was a court game in ancient Japan. There is a reference to it in Genji Monogatari.

Like I said, not the best translation. WTF does Musashi mean when he differentiates "Sight" from "Perception"? From my previous research, it involves the concept of Zanshin ("remaining or abiding mind/spirit" is a close translation). But WTF does that mean?

Here's how I pieced it together:

• I have practiced a meditation technique where I "shift" my point of attention away from visual space. Mostly this involved imagining a small ball of light (thus hijacking my visual processing away from my sight), and "moving it" through my body with the basic Zazen technique of observing what happens without clinging to or rejecting the sensations.
  
  


• Our bodily structure causes us to fix the center of our gaze on the things which grab our attention. The previous exercise, along with wall-staring Zazen, helps you realize that you mind's attention doesn't have to follow your gaze, and can be focused independently from your sight or any of your other senses. (This is one of the the pieces I didn't have language for before my kensho experience).
  
  


• I couldn't connect this to what Musashi was writing about in the Water Book until I saw a drawing tutorial that Mark Chong, one of master Glenn Vilppu's students posted on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfWt0t-ElcA). In this video, he's playing with various techniques, such as drawing while looking at the surface through a camera to match a certain perspective, and another which he calls "Offside Targeting". It was the few comments on Offside Targeting and practicing that technique which triggered the kensho experience. Mark describes a "method of attention" while drawing, in which you focus the center of your gaze on the tip of your pencil, but you focus your attention separately to a point in your peripheral vision you need as a reference. Your PERCEPTION can thus leverage all of your visual field, and your intuition will tell you when a perspective line or an object's scale "feels wrong", when the spacial relations you've put on paper don't match your source material.
  
  


• Thus, in order to draw a straight line, we need to mark 2 points. While marking that second point, you need to have a portion of your awareness fixed on the first dot while your center of gaze follows your pen/stylus. Make the second mark. Now "ghost the line" a few times to get the movement into your muscle memory. While "ghosting" the line (hovering over where you will draw), you MUST shift your peripheral awareness to the point furthest away from the tip of your stylus while keeping the center of the gaze on the tip. Now draw the line with one smooth motion.
  
  


• As I sat and actually did the drawing exercise, concepts began to bubble up. I felt the similarities to the "ball of light" exercise, I relived a few fights-in-the-park, I heard/saw the line from the WATER BOOK about Sight and Perception. Then I remembered a separate term from my Zen studies that I hadn't integrated yet... Zanshin is also refereed to as 'the two-fold gaze', or Ezan no Metsuke (lit, "looking at a far mountain", or directing mindfulness to the peripheral vision by gazing 'as if at a horizon/mountain'). . BOOM "Sight" (the central region of our gaze), which gives us fine-visual detail but is horrible at sensing spacial relationships, is weak. "Perception" (not getting lost in the details directly in-front of you, always keeping part of your mindfulness on your peripheral) is strong!!!!!
  
  
  


• The sudden realization that this 'method of awareness' can improve my skills as an artist AND as a swordsman caused the kensho symptoms to bubble up (I think Burns was in the chat when I started babbling about it). It was a genuine Satori/Kensho experience exactly because I internalized an understanding of how reality (the reality of part of my biology) works at a base level, which I can then apply in any situation.
  
  

-----------------------

Now, that was a lot to chew through, but I promised to get back to Douglass Rushkoff. Here's a great talk which explains the functions at work behind Brands/Sigils:

Douglass Rushkoff: Branding Doesn't Work, So Now What? (http://vimeo.com/19230678) (part of the "Program or Be Programmed" material)

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 06:41:22 AM

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 16, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, as far as word usage is concerned.

If words have specific meanings, as we are wont to say when we are ragging righteously on a newb, then we should accept that the jargon that we currently use is going to have to suffice for now. Our interpretations of the jargon may shift over time, but if it is a convenient shorthand, we shouldn't chuck it out based on the fact that there used to be superstition involved with it. To go back, the word yoga is a prime example of that. It used to be crazy swami shit, then it was a way to stretch in the hopes of extending your life span a couple of years, and then it was funny shit that rich people do naked in a room that's hotter than Tucson in July.

Sure, Magic/k may make you cringe because of all of the nonsense that a lot of people have attached to it over the years/centuries. If some spag manages to actually levitate at a thought, we're just going to have to call it Magic until we come up with a nifty name for the particle at work and the process involved.

When I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we? I remain agnostic about it. Maybe I used to take acid and don't remember that I did. But I'm pretty sure I never have, so something else must be at work. We need not be so wrapped up in technicalities that a perfectly good linguistic reference need be chucked out because it used to be all poppets and crows feathers.

Prevent used to mean go in front of. Just saying.

Well, that certainly warblesnarf minglefrig poopwattle, blurglevurp?

The more I think about this, the more it seems like intentional pineal fnord.

We all know what we're friggin' talking about here. We're all actually on the same goddamn page. And it seems like you don't want to logically engage something that might be nascent neuroscience because the only language we have available to us is wrapped up in the woo, as LMNO would put it. Well, until we find more comfortable words, who the fuck cares? And you know what? We're supposed to be goddamn Discordians and not looking at shit with our preconceived notions. So if you can't jump into an "occult" thread without looking past the word occult, if you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, maybe you should just stay out of the thread.

With all honest due respect, seriously,
Twid

Nope. I will continue to speak my mind in these ridiculous threads and will do so with all of the hostility towards the "occult" that it deserves. Other peoples' inability to let go of the woo and treat the unknown as just that without loading it up with stupid terminology that spits in the face of actual human knowledge is not my problem.

To reframe your cello story with another analogy:

I'm not a mechanic. I'm handy and somewhat mechanically inclined, but I'm woefully undereducated about the workings of internal combustion engines. If my car breaks down in a manner that doesn't make sense TO ME (that part is important), I don't feel the need to say that gremlins are in my engine. I just accept that whatever happened is beyond my experience and/or frame of reference and hope that someone with more knowledge will know how to fix it. And even if, in the end, it appears to be unfixable, I still don't go around saying that gremlins broke my engine because that is fucking ridiculous and makes me sound like a complete moron.

As I type this, it occurs to me that a whole lot of peoples' acceptance of idiocy like this stems from an innate discomfort with saying those three little words that go so far towards achieving biped-hood: I DON'T KNOW.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 16, 2012, 08:30:46 AM
Actually the best way to express my position is to look at the 'Common Walls' thread and imagine if it has been derailed after Cram's Demons Are Everywhere thread by people going 'that's stupid demons aren't real! Why don't you just call them bad ideas!?' we all get it, we all know we get it and we all know we all know we get it.

To me starting a corporate sigils thread or an exploring the good bits of occult thread should be equally possible. Because we all know that's demons aren't physical evil manifestations and we all know sigils don't actually use magic to rewrite someone's brain.

Anyway. That's my ideal world. I'm not the one who cant stand the terminology and I can't make it any more palatable by saying it should be so I might pull away from arguing the point now.

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with you about narratives tending to lose important nuance.

Now about the bolded bit: "We" may know that if "we" = most of the people at PD.com, but "we" most certainly do NOT know that if "we" = "most of the world". So if your intention is just to engage in mental masturbation on a small niche internet forum, then I will absolutely concede the point. But if the intent is to ever at any point take this dialogue out into the world at large, then using these terms that most of the world cannot separate from the woo inherent in their definitions is just going to obscure the dialogue and perpetuate dangerous superstitious nonsense.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 10:40:27 AM
Magic is real. Magic isn't real. Magic is useful. Magic isn't useful.

Stage magic, for example, is real. Teller, from Penn and Teller, claims that stage magic is the "unwilling(ish) suspension of disbelief". When an audience watches a play, they willingly suspend disbelief, because that's part of the social agreement. When they watch a magic show, they unwillingly suspend disbelief, they WANT to figure out the trick.

This is where Real Magic comes in to play. The hand is not faster than the eye, no matter how many times someone says that. Magic tricks don't work because the magician has fast hands. It works because they magician uses psychology, sociology etc to persuade, cajole and confuse the audience.

A con-man uses that same Real Magic. So does a spy.

Crowley, Hine, Farber, Wilson, Carroll etc ALSO use that same Real Magic. The audience is the conscious brain, the props (cards, wands, etc) are there for the same reason the stage magician uses props, to distract, confuse and misdirect the audience, while the magician completes the trick.

We can discuss a magic show in very specific terms. "Trick one is a card trick and the magician used card palming. Trick two is a ball and cup trick, the magician used everyday, uninteresting motions to slip balls out of his pockets, to place balls under the cups as he moved them etc."

However, that's not the same as watching the magic show, or performing the magic show. In fact, even if you understand exactly HOW the trick works, without lots of repetitive practice and a good foundation in deception and trickery (including some basic psychology and sociology), you won't be very successful with the magic.

The trick you talk about is not the trick performed.

We can say exactly the same about a magic ritual/meditation/etc. The magician is using stuff we can describe in specific terms, much of it involves tricking the conscious or subconscious mind. However, talking about the 'magic' is not the same as doing the magic.

I think everyone is capable of changing their beliefs, perceptions, ideals, programming. Magic is simply a set of processes/tools that have historically been useful to a number of people. If you don't want to use the tools, bully for you.

Personally, I use a sledge hammer to break rocks, not my face.

Thanks, this thread wouldn't have been complete without you muddling it up with your usual schtick. :lulz:

As for your lame attempt at snark, well, that's why my face is so much tougher than yours.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that there are gremlins... but rather that there are sometimes ways to figure out whats wrong with the engine (perhaps by listening to the sound it makes to see if a lifter needs adjusted) even if you don't have all the tools and training of a professional mechanic.

The wide category of 'magic' has a lot of useful information. Its often hidden like this:

"If there are Gremlins in your engine, they will tap the inside of the engine. To rid yourself, perform the Adjust the Lifter ritual."

What this thread was about, was not justifying gremlins, but rather getting rid of the gremlin woo and keeping the "listen for a ticking which might indicate a lifter needs adjusted."

I think I mauled that metaphor :-/

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 01:21:38 PM
But if the intent is to ever at any point take this dialogue out into the world at large, then using these terms that most of the world cannot separate from the woo inherent in their definitions is just going to obscure the dialogue and perpetuate dangerous superstitious nonsense.

This is an aspect I wasn't thinking of, and it really clarifies part of your position to me.  And I fully understand and agree.

I would suggest however, that this forum would be the best place to discuss the woo, in order to strip it out, and when we're left with the core mechanics, then we can bring it to other places in the world, with no woo.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 01:29:26 PM
I don't think anyone here is arguing that there are gremlins... but rather that there are sometimes ways to figure out whats wrong with the engine (perhaps by listening to the sound it makes to see if a lifter needs adjusted) even if you don't have all the tools and training of a professional mechanic.

The wide category of 'magic' has a lot of useful information. Its often hidden like this:

"If there are Gremlins in your engine, they will tap the inside of the engine. To rid yourself, perform the Adjust the Lifter ritual."

What this thread was about, was not justifying gremlins, but rather getting rid of the gremlin woo and keeping the "listen for a ticking which might indicate a lifter needs adjusted."

I think I mauled that metaphor :-/

"We must perform the sacred maintenance rituals, to appease the Machine God.  Consult thou the holy torque spec, and intone the proper prayers while checking the calibration seal on thy most puissiant torque wrench.  Administer the sacred oils.  And then ensure that the proper incantations to the spirit of the Immaculate 68 Chevy are spoken, to waken its glory."

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 16, 2012, 02:01:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 01:21:38 PM
But if the intent is to ever at any point take this dialogue out into the world at large, then using these terms that most of the world cannot separate from the woo inherent in their definitions is just going to obscure the dialogue and perpetuate dangerous superstitious nonsense.

This is an aspect I wasn't thinking of, and it really clarifies part of your position to me.  And I fully understand and agree.

I would suggest however, that this forum would be the best place to discuss the woo, in order to strip it out, and when we're left with the core mechanics, then we can bring it to other places in the world, with no woo.

Sure.  And we're discussing the woo, now that you mention it.

Should we be discussing it in a different way?

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 10:40:27 AM
Magic is real. Magic isn't real. Magic is useful. Magic isn't useful.

Stage magic, for example, is real. Teller, from Penn and Teller, claims that stage magic is the "unwilling(ish) suspension of disbelief". When an audience watches a play, they willingly suspend disbelief, because that's part of the social agreement. When they watch a magic show, they unwillingly suspend disbelief, they WANT to figure out the trick.

This is where Real Magic comes in to play. The hand is not faster than the eye, no matter how many times someone says that. Magic tricks don't work because the magician has fast hands. It works because they magician uses psychology, sociology etc to persuade, cajole and confuse the audience.

A con-man uses that same Real Magic. So does a spy.

This is what I've been talking about.  None of the sleight of hand tricks or mindgames used are in any way magickel.  Why call it that, when there's already words for what is actually going on?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 16, 2012, 02:01:33 PM

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 01:21:38 PM
But if the intent is to ever at any point take this dialogue out into the world at large, then using these terms that most of the world cannot separate from the woo inherent in their definitions is just going to obscure the dialogue and perpetuate dangerous superstitious nonsense.

This is an aspect I wasn't thinking of, and it really clarifies part of your position to me.  And I fully understand and agree.

I would suggest however, that this forum would be the best place to discuss the woo, in order to strip it out, and when we're left with the core mechanics, then we can bring it to other places in the world, with no woo.

Sure.  And we're discussing the woo, now that you mention it.

Should we be discussing it in a different way?

Nope.  That comment was directed towards ECH's post which seemed to indicate that using the words at all on this forum was a bad thing, even if the intent was to examine them what's really going on.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
"We must perform the sacred maintenance rituals, to appease the Machine God.  Consult thou the holy torque spec, and intone the proper prayers while checking the calibration seal on thy most puissiant torque wrench.  Administer the sacred oils.  And then ensure that the proper incantations to the spirit of the Immaculate 68 Chevy are spoken, to waken its glory."

"STAAART, YOU FUUUCKING BAAAASTAAAARD!"

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 10:40:27 AM
Magic is real. Magic isn't real. Magic is useful. Magic isn't useful.

Stage magic, for example, is real. Teller, from Penn and Teller, claims that stage magic is the "unwilling(ish) suspension of disbelief". When an audience watches a play, they willingly suspend disbelief, because that's part of the social agreement. When they watch a magic show, they unwillingly suspend disbelief, they WANT to figure out the trick.

This is where Real Magic comes in to play. The hand is not faster than the eye, no matter how many times someone says that. Magic tricks don't work because the magician has fast hands. It works because they magician uses psychology, sociology etc to persuade, cajole and confuse the audience.

A con-man uses that same Real Magic. So does a spy.

This is what I've been talking about.  None of the sleight of hand tricks or mindgames used are in any way magickel.  Why call it that, when there's already words for what is actually going on?

Because this thread is discussing the occult and how to extract the useful things that are useful.

If the thread were "How to discuss psycho self-therapy without the woo" then I wouldn't say Magic.

I really agree with LMNO's point. Discussing the useful stuff in the context of magic here, for the purpose of demystifying it, seems like a great idea. Getting hung up on the words, seems counterproductive.

If some people here were trying to claim that they could do something supernatural with Magic, then the argument you're making would would have strong merit.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 03:12:19 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 10:40:27 AM
Magic is real. Magic isn't real. Magic is useful. Magic isn't useful.

Stage magic, for example, is real. Teller, from Penn and Teller, claims that stage magic is the "unwilling(ish) suspension of disbelief". When an audience watches a play, they willingly suspend disbelief, because that's part of the social agreement. When they watch a magic show, they unwillingly suspend disbelief, they WANT to figure out the trick.

This is where Real Magic comes in to play. The hand is not faster than the eye, no matter how many times someone says that. Magic tricks don't work because the magician has fast hands. It works because they magician uses psychology, sociology etc to persuade, cajole and confuse the audience.

A con-man uses that same Real Magic. So does a spy.

This is what I've been talking about.  None of the sleight of hand tricks or mindgames used are in any way magickel.  Why call it that, when there's already words for what is actually going on?

Because this thread is discussing the occult and how to extract the useful things that are useful.

If the thread were "How to discuss psycho self-therapy without the woo" then I wouldn't say Magic.

I really agree with LMNO's point. Discussing the useful stuff in the context of magic here, for the purpose of demystifying it, seems like a great idea. Getting hung up on the words, seems counterproductive.

If some people here were trying to claim that they could do something supernatural with Magic, then the argument you're making would would have strong merit.

Again, we're coming down to definitions.

Quote from: Merriam Webster
1.conjuring tricks: conjuring tricks and illusions that make apparently impossible things seem to happen, usually performed as entertainment
2.inexplicable things: a special, mysterious, or inexplicable quality, talent, or skill
3.supposed supernatural power: a supposed supernatural power that makes impossible things happen or gives somebody control over the forces of nature.

Can we all agree to these three definitions of magic?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 03:42:46 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 03:12:19 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2012, 10:40:27 AM
Magic is real. Magic isn't real. Magic is useful. Magic isn't useful.

Stage magic, for example, is real. Teller, from Penn and Teller, claims that stage magic is the "unwilling(ish) suspension of disbelief". When an audience watches a play, they willingly suspend disbelief, because that's part of the social agreement. When they watch a magic show, they unwillingly suspend disbelief, they WANT to figure out the trick.

This is where Real Magic comes in to play. The hand is not faster than the eye, no matter how many times someone says that. Magic tricks don't work because the magician has fast hands. It works because they magician uses psychology, sociology etc to persuade, cajole and confuse the audience.

A con-man uses that same Real Magic. So does a spy.

This is what I've been talking about.  None of the sleight of hand tricks or mindgames used are in any way magickel.  Why call it that, when there's already words for what is actually going on?

Because this thread is discussing the occult and how to extract the useful things that are useful.

If the thread were "How to discuss psycho self-therapy without the woo" then I wouldn't say Magic.

I really agree with LMNO's point. Discussing the useful stuff in the context of magic here, for the purpose of demystifying it, seems like a great idea. Getting hung up on the words, seems counterproductive.

If some people here were trying to claim that they could do something supernatural with Magic, then the argument you're making would would have strong merit.

Again, we're coming down to definitions.

Quote from: Merriam Webster
1.conjuring tricks: conjuring tricks and illusions that make apparently impossible things seem to happen, usually performed as entertainment
2.inexplicable things: a special, mysterious, or inexplicable quality, talent, or skill
3.supposed supernatural power: a supposed supernatural power that makes impossible things happen or gives somebody control over the forces of nature.

Can we all agree to these three definitions of magic?

I can agree with those definitions. I think the intent of this thread was to disassemble the inexplicable, special, mysterious, supernatural bits from 2 and 3 and figure out what might be useful there.

What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Looking at the sales figures for mood-altering drugs, we'd better do something.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Well, yeah but others don't generally seem to be interested. Mainly because of the mystification thing. It's a chicken and egg conundrum  :lulz:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:43:45 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Well, yeah but others don't generally seem to be interested. Mainly because of the mystification thing. It's a chicken and egg conundrum  :lulz:

Oh, I'm interested, provided the actual mechanics can be demonstrated, minus the jargon and the woo.

I think a slightly better example than Twid's cello-tipping poltergeist is something like the expression "thank God," which I hear atheists/non-Christians of every stripe say all the time. They don't mean "good thing that magical invisible guy in the sky made it so," they mean something more like "I'm glad that circumstances that I cannot immediately quantify led to a favorable outcome." As long as the audience understands that you don't literally mean the former, it's convenient shorthand and makes you sound like much less of an jagoff than someone who says things like "I'm glad that circumstances that I cannot immediately quantify led to a favorable outcome."

In the case of the OP, I think most of us are smart enough to figure out that talk of making occult studies accessible was not intended to be taken literally because something that's occult is by definition inaccessible. If the OP were about a specific woo thing like yoga, then specific language along the lines of "making yoga more accessible" would have been much better. But since the OP is about finding the meat behind the woo in general, "occult studies" is a handy way of getting the point across. Replacing the word "occult studies" with a long list of things that may have some value when you strip away the woo would have just led to a long thread title and clunky, hard-to-read text and may have unnecessarily constricted the discussion*. Once a specific hunk of meat gets pulled out for discussion, anyone using woo terminology when non-woo terminology exists should, of course, be summarily executed.

*I'm assuming an alternate universe where there was an actual discussion on the topic rather than a multi-page battle over semantics.

Some thoughts on people making big $$$ on the woo.

Quote from: TGRRThose televangelists, if you think about it, are spending the money more wisely than Granny did when she cut them the cheques.  Granny spent it on the vanity of being told an Invisible Man in the Sky is taking care of business, whereas the televangelists spend it on practical things like hookers, liquor, yachts etc.  At least the money is kept circulating.  I can see how a person would be miffed at Granny for foolishly giving away to a bunch of charlatan preachers the family fortune that one might otherwise have inherited, but hey, all that means is that Granny liked what the preachers were telling her more than she liked what family members were telling her.  But you can hardly blame the lying, conniving, fraudulent televangelists.  They are doing exactly what people are gladly paying them to do. They're providing a psychological service to dumbasses, the deeply ignorant, and the truly desperate.

Quote from: Doktor HowlGreat.  We'll just punish Granny, too.  AND her fucking offspring.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 04:45:03 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:43:45 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Well, yeah but others don't generally seem to be interested. Mainly because of the mystification thing. It's a chicken and egg conundrum  :lulz:

Oh, I'm interested, provided the actual mechanics can be demonstrated, minus the jargon and the woo.

This reminds me of a Dara O'briain quote about alternative medicine

QuoteHerbal medicine has been around for hundreds of years. Sure it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became medicine!

Most of the stuff you'll find in Magic has found it's way into mainstream science but it's kinda fragmented. It's not a unified discipline anymore so, depending what you want to achieve, some of the more archaic systems have it all in one place if you can get around the semantic language. The cool kids use the old stuff and the new stuff as a starting point, synthesising their own system by building on these foundations.

Trying to strip as much bullshit from it as I possibly can I'd say that the objective is to come up with a subjective interface of language and symbols you can use to explore and direct parts of your mind that, for most people, go on "behind the scenes". You have an internal monologue which, for english people is generally the english language. Using this as a foundation you can learn to do maths or fly a plane or build a house or whatever but everything is internalised using plain old english language with the addition of some technical jargon which is, essentially just an extension of english, or an upgrade.

Sure, you could work out how to build a suspension bridge just by sitting down and working it out with a bit of trial and error but it's much easier if you know all sorts of engineering shit like tensile strength and the like.

Magic is a bunch of jargon for manipulating the bits of your brain that process language and concepts, moods, emotions and shit like that. the "behind the scenes" shit. It's not really a science, although most of it is described by straightforward science, it's more of an artform. Taking the raw materials of a human mind and rebuilding some parts, ironing out the kinks of others and polishing up the whole thing til it works the way you want it to. If you're good at it and/or you get lucky then you'll end up a vastly improved organism compared to when you started - for a given, and purely subjective, definition of improved (hence the "art" thing) If you suck at it you'll either accomplish nothing or reduce yourself to gibbering basket case in the eyes of your peers.

Just like in the world of non-occult art, most practitioners fall into the latter category.

Ponder also, if you are religious, or have occult leanings, the age-old question posed by Orton Nenslo to the believers:

"Why do the heathens laugh?"

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
Magic is a bunch of jargon for manipulating the bits of your brain that process language and concepts, moods, emotions and shit like that. the "behind the scenes" shit. It's not really a science, although most of it is described by straightforward science, it's more of an artform. Taking the raw materials of a human mind and rebuilding some parts, ironing out the kinks of others and polishing up the whole thing til it works the way you want it to. If you're good at it and/or you get lucky then you'll end up a vastly improved organism compared to when you started - for a given, and purely subjective, definition of improved (hence the "art" thing) If you suck at it you'll either accomplish nothing or reduce yourself to gibbering basket case in the eyes of your peers.

Just like in the world of non-occult art, most practitioners fall into the latter category.

Yeah, but since there's nothing supernatural involved, why call it magic?  Magic already has a definition.

Sorry if I can't get away from this...It's the main problem I have with the whole thing.

Because if you don't call it "magick" (or some other equally objectionable term laden with supernatural connotation) then how the hell are you supposed to get smelly pagan chicks to touch your penis?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 06:23:58 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
Magic is a bunch of jargon for manipulating the bits of your brain that process language and concepts, moods, emotions and shit like that. the "behind the scenes" shit. It's not really a science, although most of it is described by straightforward science, it's more of an artform. Taking the raw materials of a human mind and rebuilding some parts, ironing out the kinks of others and polishing up the whole thing til it works the way you want it to. If you're good at it and/or you get lucky then you'll end up a vastly improved organism compared to when you started - for a given, and purely subjective, definition of improved (hence the "art" thing) If you suck at it you'll either accomplish nothing or reduce yourself to gibbering basket case in the eyes of your peers.

Just like in the world of non-occult art, most practitioners fall into the latter category.

Yeah, but since there's nothing supernatural involved, why call it magic?  Magic already has a definition.

Sorry if I can't get away from this...It's the main problem I have with the whole thing.

I still agree with you. 

My intent is to say, "Magic says that if you do X, you get Y.  Is that true, and how does it work?"

I'm coming from a perspective of natural causes dressed up as woo.  If I can understand the natural causes, I can turn it to my advantage in a context that is more effective for me.

For example, I no longer use Tarot.  But I still use the idea of symbolic triggers and concious Lo5 manipulation to try to look at my brain in new ways.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 06:23:58 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
Magic is a bunch of jargon for manipulating the bits of your brain that process language and concepts, moods, emotions and shit like that. the "behind the scenes" shit. It's not really a science, although most of it is described by straightforward science, it's more of an artform. Taking the raw materials of a human mind and rebuilding some parts, ironing out the kinks of others and polishing up the whole thing til it works the way you want it to. If you're good at it and/or you get lucky then you'll end up a vastly improved organism compared to when you started - for a given, and purely subjective, definition of improved (hence the "art" thing) If you suck at it you'll either accomplish nothing or reduce yourself to gibbering basket case in the eyes of your peers.

Just like in the world of non-occult art, most practitioners fall into the latter category.

Yeah, but since there's nothing supernatural involved, why call it magic?  Magic already has a definition.

Sorry if I can't get away from this...It's the main problem I have with the whole thing.

If you don't like the word then pick another one. Coincidentally I'd never describe myself as a "magickian" for exactly the same reason. However, there's some stuff in some of those old books that I find useful and other shit that's interesting to me, purely from an historical viewpoint. When you have an interface built up in your mind sometimes it's more fun to use some archaic, angels-and-demons construct, rather than it's Tim Leary or Pete Carroll counterpart, given that they both achieve identical results if used effectively but that's purely personal taste - 59 chevy v's Nissan GTR, both will get you from point A to point B - how do you want to get there?

Of course maybe you're happy enough where you are, in which case why bother driving at all?

Okay, last thought on this, really...  Not saying I would be susceptible to this, however, practices that now seem commonplace may have seemed like magic in the past.  I mean, what about when mnemonics were considered occult arts?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
This reminds me of a Dara O'briain quote about alternative medicine

QuoteHerbal medicine has been around for hundreds of years. Sure it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became medicine!

Which in turn reminds me of Fort:

QuoteWitchcraft always has a hard time, until it becomes established and changes its name.

Okay, I think this thread's done.

Shall we actually start putting these conclusions into practice?

Woo!  I mean, Yes!

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 06:23:58 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
Magic is a bunch of jargon for manipulating the bits of your brain that process language and concepts, moods, emotions and shit like that. the "behind the scenes" shit. It's not really a science, although most of it is described by straightforward science, it's more of an artform. Taking the raw materials of a human mind and rebuilding some parts, ironing out the kinks of others and polishing up the whole thing til it works the way you want it to. If you're good at it and/or you get lucky then you'll end up a vastly improved organism compared to when you started - for a given, and purely subjective, definition of improved (hence the "art" thing) If you suck at it you'll either accomplish nothing or reduce yourself to gibbering basket case in the eyes of your peers.

Just like in the world of non-occult art, most practitioners fall into the latter category.

Yeah, but since there's nothing supernatural involved, why call it magic?  Magic already has a definition.

Sorry if I can't get away from this...It's the main problem I have with the whole thing.

This seems more like a long running semantics troll than a genuine issue with people using words that generally refer to some kind of woo. It has been pretty clear the point of this thread was to strip out the useful parts from occult practices for clarity and wider appeal. No one claimed to believe in the supernatural nor did they argue for it.

Look, if you want to shit on occultists, GO FIND SOME FUCKING OCCULTISTS. AND TAKE A SHIT.

THERE AREN'T ANY ITT.

This thing about using the word "occult" or "magic" sounds like woo to me. Like people are going to start believing in fairies and unicorns merely because the unholy word has been uttered. Oh shit, I said the words, "fairies" and "unicorns"!

:omg:

JESUS CHRIST! WHAT HAVE I DONE!

Quote from: kingyak on February 16, 2012, 05:33:47 PM
I think a slightly better example than Twid's cello-tipping poltergeist is something like the expression "thank God," which I hear atheists/non-Christians of every stripe say all the time. They don't mean "good thing that magical invisible guy in the sky made it so," they mean something more like "I'm glad that circumstances that I cannot immediately quantify led to a favorable outcome." As long as the audience understands that you don't literally mean the former, it's convenient shorthand and makes you sound like much less of an jagoff than someone who says things like "I'm glad that circumstances that I cannot immediately quantify led to a favorable outcome."

In the case of the OP, I think most of us are smart enough to figure out that talk of making occult studies accessible was not intended to be taken literally because something that's occult is by definition inaccessible. If the OP were about a specific woo thing like yoga, then specific language along the lines of "making yoga more accessible" would have been much better. But since the OP is about finding the meat behind the woo in general, "occult studies" is a handy way of getting the point across. Replacing the word "occult studies" with a long list of things that may have some value when you strip away the woo would have just led to a long thread title and clunky, hard-to-read text and may have unnecessarily constricted the discussion*. Once a specific hunk of meat gets pulled out for discussion, anyone using woo terminology when non-woo terminology exists should, of course, be summarily executed.

*I'm assuming an alternate universe where there was an actual discussion on the topic rather than a multi-page battle over semantics.

Of course, which is why I think the purpose of taking the word literally and anal-retentively is more to get people wound up and wreck the thread.

Yep, because there are totally not still people in the world who believe in that sort of crap, no way, nuh uh.

I mean, I understand you don't have a personal stake in it, but I'll be goddamned if people come to my website and see crap like this and think we believe in the occult because some people are too stubborn/lazy/hung up on sounding special to call this stuff what it really is without me putting my two cents in enough so that my two cents can't possibly be missed by outsiders reading these threads.

So, if you don't like that, you know what to do.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 09:30:55 PM
Yep, because there are totally not still people in the world who believe in that sort of crap, no way, nuh uh.

I mean, I understand you don't have a personal stake in it, but I'll be goddamned if people come to my website and see crap like this and think we believe in the occult because some people are too stubborn/lazy/hung up on sounding special to call this stuff what it really is without me putting my two cents in enough so that my two cents can't possibly be missed by outsiders reading these threads.

If someone is going to come to this site and decide we're all into the woo-woo based off of a thread title, they're probably coming to all sorts of idiotic conclusions based on other thread titles too. All they would need to do is read a few pages of the thread to realize we're interested stealing their good stuff after we brush the bullshit off of it, not indulging in supernatural wankery.

Changing the thread title so that it reads "Making Woo Studies more Accessible" could attract atheist wankers, who are just as bad as people riddled with woo. It seems odd that this new policy of avoiding thread titles that could attract the wrong kind of people or be subject to continuous thread derailling was rolled out now, in the context of this thread.

I don't understand how you could be so concerned about what a bunch of smelly pagans think about you or your site. Suppose they DO think we're big occultists and tell all their friends, what's going to happen? Are we going to be flooded with occult-tards that leave every thread smelling like ass-sweat and sage? Are they going to DDOS the site? Since when were we so afraid of what occultists think of us?

In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

Also, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I am going to start calling dogs "werewolves", deer "unicorns", and robins "fairies".

Okay here's a stab at an introduction.

What is 'occult'? It means, literally, hidden or concealed. In practice it refers to stuff that is normally hidden or concealed. More specifically, it's mechanisms that underpin 'normal' conscious thought. Ever had a thought or idea that seemed to just 'pop into your head'? Well  the truth is is didn't "just pop". What actually happened is that shit you weren't aware of happened in your head and the flash of inspiration was a result of it.

It's in the act of paying attention to these underlying 'mechanisms' that the stuff which is normally 'occult' becomes revealed. Genuine occult study is quite the opposite of the occult that hokey, mysterious, voodoo-mongers would have you believe in. Genuine occult study is a process of stripping away the mystery behind why you have such and such a thought or idea and bringing it out into the open where it can be examined and manipulated.

To put it in simple terms, the human mind is like an onion, there's the "me" on the surface - the bit that everyone is aware of but, beneath this there's another layer, and another and so on. If you were inclined to change your "me", your personality, your ego, you could probably do it all by concentrating on the surface alone but it'd be a hell of an uphill struggle. If, however, you could dig a bit deeper and really fuck about with the guts of the machine, you could accomplish much more, much more efficiently.

You could also fuck things up on a much more dramatic scale. The mind machine can be totally wrecked to the point of non-functional by this kind of fucking about. I'll testify to this. If left alone you might get lucky and it'll sort itself out over time, it's wired that way but why take the risk? You're not the first person in history to do this. You're not the Wright Brothers, hurtling down a runway, hoping you've got all your calculations right. Nowadays we have flight manuals.

Here's where it gets a bit sticky. You read one of these flight manuals and what do you find? Most of the time it's ghoulies and ghosties and things that go bump in the night, right? Thing is, when you're in the field of manipulating those hidden parts of your mind, one of the most effective tools you have available to you is imagination. And that's what very few of the manuals mention or stress enough. Your imagination is the faculty that is employed to create the interface with which you interact with the deeper layers of your consciousness.

The deeper layers are real. Science is pretty much happy with this but the interface is imaginary so it's not really provable. The results, also, are mostly subjective, aside from anything obvious that an outside observer might notice.

"how come you're suddenly so much more confident in such and such a situation, you used to go to shit?"

"well, you see, I invoked an entity that protects me from negative shit that might influence my ability to deal"

"Bullshit. You're imagining it."

"Yes."

the entity is immaterial. Could be an angel, could be a huge fucking bear, could be the ghost of John Wayne. It's your imagination. Make it whatever takes your fancy. It doesn't exist but there's a part of your brain that thinks it does. The part that usually responds to such and such a situation by freaking out and flooding your internal dialogue with all sorts of panic stricken shit that clouds your ability to react effectively. That part has been trained to feel reassured whenever the angel/bear/duke appears.

The thing is, it works exactly the same way if, instead of invoking this external angel/bear/duke, you use the same general techniques to instill in yourself the belief that YOU are strong and capable of protecting yourself. If you do this for long enough, you eventually totally internalize the belief. Of course, rather than "magic" or "wizardry" we usually call this "therapy", so it's not as appealing for guys who wear black sneakers and want to seem cool to high school girls.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 01:21:38 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 16, 2012, 08:30:46 AM
Actually the best way to express my position is to look at the 'Common Walls' thread and imagine if it has been derailed after Cram's Demons Are Everywhere thread by people going 'that's stupid demons aren't real! Why don't you just call them bad ideas!?' we all get it, we all know we get it and we all know we all know we get it.

To me starting a corporate sigils thread or an exploring the good bits of occult thread should be equally possible. Because we all know that's demons aren't physical evil manifestations and we all know sigils don't actually use magic to rewrite someone's brain.

Anyway. That's my ideal world. I'm not the one who cant stand the terminology and I can't make it any more palatable by saying it should be so I might pull away from arguing the point now.

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with you about narratives tending to lose important nuance.

Now about the bolded bit: "We" may know that if "we" = most of the people at PD.com, but "we" most certainly do NOT know that if "we" = "most of the world". So if your intention is just to engage in mental masturbation on a small niche internet forum, then I will absolutely concede the point. But if the intent is to ever at any point take this dialogue out into the world at large, then using these terms that most of the world cannot separate from the woo inherent in their definitions is just going to obscure the dialogue and perpetuate dangerous superstitious nonsense.

Stand back; I'm going to use metaphors!

So sometimes I use this place like a factory showroom but more often than not I use it as a workshop. Things here are not in a form that i plan to offer to the public but in tinkering mode.

The jargon here is meant, for me, to be useful not perfect. When I talk to a parent (as in a parent of my students at school) I don't tell them I've developed scaffolding that will help negotiate a differentiated outcome. I use that jargon to assist me in my work not to communicate with the public. 

Likewise I don't talk sigils with people, but I do use that language to refine my ideas of effective visual language in order to develop something that I can share or use in public context.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:14:48 PM
The thing is, it works exactly the same way if, instead of invoking this external angel/bear/duke, you use the same general techniques to instill in yourself the belief that YOU are strong and capable of protecting yourself. If you do this for long enough, you eventually totally internalize the belief. Of course, rather than "magic" or "wizardry" we usually call this "therapy", so it's not as appealing for guys who wear black sneakers and want to seem cool to high school girls.

In the introduction to the Middle Pillar system, Israel Regardie recommends a course of therapy as a precursor to the exercise. As for guys with black sneakers? Not my bitch. You want me to change my life around because of some guy in black sneakers? Truth is the fact that 99.99% of pagans are shit eating hippie retards with little to no grasp of reality is hilarious to me. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

I missed the part where I enacted a policy about thread titles? Someone remind me when my personal objections became board policy rather than just, you know, my personal objections.

Or am I not free to post in any damn thread I want to, just like everyone else is?

But hey, I'm really sorry that a little criticism of your occult wankfest results in

:butthurt:

:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 16, 2012, 02:38:46 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
"We must perform the sacred maintenance rituals, to appease the Machine God.  Consult thou the holy torque spec, and intone the proper prayers while checking the calibration seal on thy most puissiant torque wrench.  Administer the sacred oils.  And then ensure that the proper incantations to the spirit of the Immaculate 68 Chevy are spoken, to waken its glory."

"STAAART, YOU FUUUCKING BAAAASTAAAARD!"

Why, LMNO, I did not know you were Of The Faith.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 11:04:56 PM
But hey, I'm really sorry that a little criticism of your occult wankfest results in

:butthurt:

:lulz:

As a complete aside, I think that's the very best emote I've added to this board.   :lulz:

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 11:03:51 PM
I missed the part where I enacted a policy about thread titles? Someone remind me when my personal objections became board policy rather than just, you know, my personal objections.

Or am I not free to post in any damn thread I want to, just like everyone else is?

Policy wasn't an accurate way to put it. I cede that point.

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 11:04:56 PM
But hey, I'm really sorry that a little criticism of your occult wankfest results in

:butthurt:

:lulz:

I'm not butthurt about shitting on occultism.

I'm butthurt that apparently the word "occult" is justification for shitting on a quality thread and alienating contributing members.

I'm also amused at the irony: a thread about the non-supernatural parts of occultism is derailed and shat upon because, this is rich, occultism MUST mean supernatural!

:lulz:

I think you guys didn't even read the thread, submitted to your kneejerk reaction about "occultism", and are too proud to admit it. It's probably a combination of digging in your heels and Roger's paranoid hatred of Cram and LHX.

Why not just start your own thread about how foolish it is to use words that aren't shrouded in woo?

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

And then at some point I aired my opinions about demystifying the useful elements of occultism by unoccluding them, which apparently is an "Aspergers trip" and a "kneejerk reaction". I am not at all sure you read my posts about it at all, although you do seem to be referring to them.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:05:35 PM
Also, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I am going to start calling dogs "werewolves", deer "unicorns", and robins "fairies".

This genuinely made me laugh, which startled the werewolf outside my door.  :lulz:

They are surprisingly gentle creatures. Have you looked into the eyes of a werewolf? It is a life changing experience.

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 12:11:20 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

And then at some point I aired my opinions about demystifying the useful elements of occultism by unoccluding them, which apparently is an "Aspergers trip" and a "kneejerk reaction". I am not at all sure you read my posts about it at all, although you do seem to be referring to them.

I think you're conflating an idea you posted in another thread with Roger's distortion of that idea in order to shit on Cram and LHX.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 16, 2012, 08:38:23 PM
Okay, I think this thread's done.

Shall we actually start putting these conclusions into practice?

Perhaps some may have thought directly outing themselves on this board to be unwise?  Or is this the secret forum (Nigel had my ex's evil twin chore my decoder ring)? :lulz:

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 01:04:54 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 12:11:20 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

And then at some point I aired my opinions about demystifying the useful elements of occultism by unoccluding them, which apparently is an "Aspergers trip" and a "kneejerk reaction". I am not at all sure you read my posts about it at all, although you do seem to be referring to them.

I think you're conflating an idea you posted in another thread with Roger's distortion of that idea in order to shit on Cram and LHX.

You mean this post: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,11209.135/msg,1147838.html in this thread, yesterday?

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on February 17, 2012, 12:48:24 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:05:35 PM
Also, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I am going to start calling dogs "werewolves", deer "unicorns", and robins "fairies".

This genuinely made me laugh, which startled the werewolf outside my door.  :lulz:

They are surprisingly gentle creatures. Have you looked into the eyes of a werewolf? It is a life changing experience.

:lulz:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:43:45 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Well, yeah but others don't generally seem to be interested. Mainly because of the mystification thing. It's a chicken and egg conundrum  :lulz:

A lot of these techniques are variations on tremendously popular and widely available (and completely nonmystical) cognitive behavioral therapy.

I just don't see much value in playing make-believe about the nature or even the esotericness (now there's a questionable word) of these practices. It seems terribly similar to bureaucrat-speak to me; making perfectly ordinary processes sound hopelessly complicated and specialized.

No offense intended, Nigel, but your presumption that the western/scientific version of these processes are 'perfectly ordinary' and 'widely available' sounds like a 1st world techno-phile speaking.

Which method would you teach to a nomadic tribal hunter from Paupa New Guinea? To a stressed out business man from Nashville? To a grandmother from rural Nicaragua? To a suicidal factory worker from China? To a young Islamic Afghan kid who watched his family get blown to pieces? To a pseudo-zen dharma-bum surfer from Baja?


"Lie down on the couch...."

"Wha What does that mean?"

"FRONTIER PSYCHIATRIST!"
---------------------------------

Also,

Was my previous wall of text intimidating? Useful? Boring?

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 03:51:56 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 01:04:54 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 12:11:20 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

And then at some point I aired my opinions about demystifying the useful elements of occultism by unoccluding them, which apparently is an "Aspergers trip" and a "kneejerk reaction". I am not at all sure you read my posts about it at all, although you do seem to be referring to them.

I think you're conflating an idea you posted in another thread with Roger's distortion of that idea in order to shit on Cram and LHX.

You mean this post: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,11209.135/msg,1147838.html in this thread, yesterday?

My bad.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM
A lot of these techniques are variations on tremendously popular and widely available (and completely nonmystical) cognitive behavioral therapy.

I just don't see much value in playing make-believe about the nature or even the esotericness (now there's a questionable word) of these practices. It seems terribly similar to bureaucrat-speak to me; making perfectly ordinary processes sound hopelessly complicated and specialized.

I completely agree and that was the point of this thread.

What I took issue with was the trolling people about not using that obfuscating terminology in the process of putting occultist practices into plain terms. If you're going to demystify something, you have to identify it using the obfuscating term. In order to say "most of occultism is horse shit," I need to use the word "occultism".

PDer's know most of occultism isn't worth demystifying because it's based in woo-woo. If I wish hard enough in the right way with the right things, it will magically happen via extradimensional quantums and shit. That stuff is irrelevant to this thread. Roger, being the asshole that he is, brought that irrelevant woo-woo shit back into the discussion and shoved it into all our faces with a semantic troll because we dared to identify the things to be unoccluded.

---

Good job Roger, you sure showed us the folly of occultism. I'm totally convinced that there is nothing of value in occultism because the word "occult" means superstitious in the dictionary and is like smearing feces on my sunglasses. We already attract idiots to the site because the Principia Discordia tends to do that, but that's another story. If there is anything in occultism that is useful to us empiricists it must be non-occult in origin. Looking for valuable things in occultism was a fool's errand because by definition it is all completely rooted in superstitious belief and incompatible with my psychological ecosystem, thanks for saving me from ruining my life.

Your doting pupil,
Net

Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2012, 05:08:50 AM
No offense intended, Nigel, but your presumption that the western/scientific version of these processes are 'perfectly ordinary' and 'widely available' sounds like a 1st world techno-phile speaking.

Which method would you teach to a nomadic tribal hunter from Paupa New Guinea? To a stressed out business man from Nashville? To a grandmother from rural Nicaragua? To a suicidal factory worker from China? To a young Islamic Afghan kid who watched his family get blown to pieces? To a pseudo-zen dharma-bum surfer from Baja?


"Lie down on the couch...."

"Wha What does that mean?"

"FRONTIER PSYCHIATRIST!"
---------------------------------

Also,

Was my previous wall of text intimidating? Useful? Boring?

I didn't really get it 100%. I get the vibe if I thought for a long time about it I might understand but I didn't put the mental work in, partly because I'm braintired and partly because I'm not sure specifically what the value is in having a clear distinction between seeing and perceiving.

ETA; that is to say, if you be happy to explain, I'd like to hear it.

Actually, I am fairly sure that I was the person who brought the semantic argument into the thread this go-round, in the process of disagreeing with Roger and everyone else I possibly could in one post. Roger, as far as I can tell, was just being his usual funny and over-the-top self, bumping a six-year-old occultism thread. It always mystifies me when people decide to take obvious over-the-top posts as serious attempts at insult. I mean, really?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 06:32:01 PM
This was a retaliatory strike.  Cramulus pushed the button.

And Cram, don't think I'm afraid to go totally nuclear and start bumping EvT/Prince Tao Jones threads.

I'll do it, man.

LOOK AT THE HARDCORE VENOM THERE, MAN.  :lol:

Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2012, 05:08:50 AM
No offense intended, Nigel, but your presumption that the western/scientific version of these processes are 'perfectly ordinary' and 'widely available' sounds like a 1st world techno-phile speaking.

Which method would you teach to a nomadic tribal hunter from Paupa New Guinea? To a stressed out business man from Nashville? To a grandmother from rural Nicaragua? To a suicidal factory worker from China? To a young Islamic Afghan kid who watched his family get blown to pieces? To a pseudo-zen dharma-bum surfer from Baja?


"Lie down on the couch...."

"Wha What does that mean?"

"FRONTIER PSYCHIATRIST!"
---------------------------------

Also,

Was my previous wall of text intimidating? Useful? Boring?

Wow, I didn't realize the readership of PD.com was so diverse! My bad.

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 05:54:40 AM
Wow, I didn't realize the readership of PD.com was so diverse! My bad.

I apologize for any snark from my previous post being ignored bleeding through... I didn't like that post 2 minutes after I posted it, myself.

I have missed a lot of posts because I often read and comment in the morning before leaving for school, and again briefly in the afternoon after returning. Apologies if I have missed relevant posts of yours.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 16, 2012, 04:37:53 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 16, 2012, 04:24:26 PM
What's the point of using a system to mess about with your own head, maquyixe, nlp, meditation, hipnosis etc..?

it's a system. Most systems (even the crap ones) are better than no system

no system = "I'm depressed - need pills - no pills available - break out the razor blades"

system = "I'm depressed - let's see why - hmm couple of negative feedback loops stemming from this and that event / lower astral entity / wonky chakras - apply solution x - sorted!"

Doesn't matter how hokey your system is, Lo5 doesn't give a fuck but if you don't got a system then, I dunno, hope for the best I guess.

If it works, then there's value in demystifying it to make it more accessible to others.

Looking at the sales figures for mood-altering drugs, we'd better do something.

Since depression and anxiety are normal responses to untenable realities, I would suggest we have a whole hell of a lot more work on our hands than just demystifying useful occult techniques.

Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2012, 05:08:50 AM
Was my previous wall of text intimidating? Useful? Boring?

A little bit, very, and no.

I thought the point that some of the confusion that occurs with occult practices could be due to unknown combinations of intentional obfuscation and unintentional cultural mismatches was pretty insightful.

The part about "perception leveraging your entire visual field" kicked ass too. I've experimented with a meditation that traces my peripheral vision and found that it seems to increase my alertness, as though someone was going to throw something at me and I needed to be on guard. Useful for extreme fatigue, I thought, and stopped there. After reading about your experience I'm inspired to think of other ways to apply my peripheral vision.

Your post hit me on many levels, more than I have time to enumerate here. Thanks for posting it.

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 05:53:04 AM
Actually, I am fairly sure that I was the person who brought the semantic argument into the thread this go-round, in the process of disagreeing with Roger and everyone else I possibly could in one post. Roger, as far as I can tell, was just being his usual funny and over-the-top self, bumping a six-year-old occultism thread. It always mystifies me when people decide to take obvious over-the-top posts as serious attempts at insult. I mean, really?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 06:32:01 PM
This was a retaliatory strike.  Cramulus pushed the button.

And Cram, don't think I'm afraid to go totally nuclear and start bumping EvT/Prince Tao Jones threads.

I'll do it, man.

LOOK AT THE HARDCORE VENOM THERE, MAN.  :lol:

I thought that part was funny too.

If you think I took that as an insult towards anyone, you're mistaken.

To move this thread on and help prevent it devolving into meta-wank (seriously, parts of this remind me of the times our boss declares we are having a meeting to decide the agenda for the next meeting, which we are having a separate meeting about) I just want to declare I have material relevant to this re: the CIA's forays into the occult for "psychological warfare" purposes.

The problem with this is a) America is a very religious society still, so people immediately associate a CIA interest in the occult with Satanism, and thus start spinning paranoid conspiracy theories concerning, often with their own bullshit into the mix, and b) the people who not not are almost always occultists themselves, and so take the view that "magick is real", for a given value of real, and so import their beliefs concerning that into the scenario, which leads us to "Nylarathotep is a CIA asset" territory.  Also c) many of the people tasked with such investigations worked on MK-Ultra style projects, which are kinda the opposite direction in which we want to go.

Therefore sorting this into useful, reverse-engineerable techniques is not easy.  However, given the CIA and other agencies interest in such apparently esoteric methods (Naval Intelligence ran many similar exercises, the DIA used remote viewing, MI6 of course had Crowley as a consultant, and Himmler's SS ran the Ahnenerbe "think-tank", not to mention the KGB's alleged interest in "alternative science") and the crossover of these techniques by practitioners of psychological or political warfare, there is almost certainly something here that is a) worthy of study and b) useful.

Still, sorting the material will take time, and my two best sources on this kind of topic are kinda compromised by falling into the "occultist" territory on the issue (Jeff Wells and Peter Levenda for those wondering), so it will not be a quick process.

Quote from: LuciferX on February 17, 2012, 01:19:40 AM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 16, 2012, 08:38:23 PM
Okay, I think this thread's done.

Shall we actually start putting these conclusions into practice?

Perhaps some may have thought directly outing themselves on this board to be unwise?  Or is this the secret forum (Nigel had my ex's evil twin chore my decoder ring)? :lulz:

Nigel!  Translation, please?

Quote from: Cain on February 17, 2012, 10:36:12 AM
To move this thread on and help prevent it devolving into meta-wank (seriously, parts of this remind me of the times our boss declares we are having a meeting to decide the agenda for the next meeting, which we are having a separate meeting about) I just want to declare I have material relevant to this re: the CIA's forays into the occult for "psychological warfare" purposes.

The problem with this is a) America is a very religious society still, so people immediately associate a CIA interest in the occult with Satanism, and thus start spinning paranoid conspiracy theories concerning, often with their own bullshit into the mix, and b) the people who not not are almost always occultists themselves, and so take the view that "magick is real", for a given value of real, and so import their beliefs concerning that into the scenario, which leads us to "Nylarathotep is a CIA asset" territory.  Also c) many of the people tasked with such investigations worked on MK-Ultra style projects, which are kinda the opposite direction in which we want to go.

Therefore sorting this into useful, reverse-engineerable techniques is not easy.  However, given the CIA and other agencies interest in such apparently esoteric methods (Naval Intelligence ran many similar exercises, the DIA used remote viewing, MI6 of course had Crowley as a consultant, and Himmler's SS ran the Ahnenerbe "think-tank", not to mention the KGB's alleged interest in "alternative science") and the crossover of these techniques by practitioners of psychological or political warfare, there is almost certainly something here that is a) worthy of study and b) useful.

Still, sorting the material will take time, and my two best sources on this kind of topic are kinda compromised by falling into the "occultist" territory on the issue (Jeff Wells and Peter Levenda for those wondering), so it will not be a quick process.

That is relevant to my interests.  I suggest a new thread, to get out of this mire. It's full of werewolves, and unicorns, and rabbis.

Quote from: Cain on February 17, 2012, 10:36:12 AM
To move this thread on and help prevent it devolving into meta-wank (seriously, parts of this remind me of the times our boss declares we are having a meeting to decide the agenda for the next meeting, which we are having a separate meeting about) I just want to declare I have material relevant to this re: the CIA's forays into the occult for "psychological warfare" purposes.

The problem with this is a) America is a very religious society still, so people immediately associate a CIA interest in the occult with Satanism, and thus start spinning paranoid conspiracy theories concerning, often with their own bullshit into the mix, and b) the people who not not are almost always occultists themselves, and so take the view that "magick is real", for a given value of real, and so import their beliefs concerning that into the scenario, which leads us to "Nylarathotep is a CIA asset" territory.  Also c) many of the people tasked with such investigations worked on MK-Ultra style projects, which are kinda the opposite direction in which we want to go.

Therefore sorting this into useful, reverse-engineerable techniques is not easy.  However, given the CIA and other agencies interest in such apparently esoteric methods (Naval Intelligence ran many similar exercises, the DIA used remote viewing, MI6 of course had Crowley as a consultant, and Himmler's SS ran the Ahnenerbe "think-tank", not to mention the KGB's alleged interest in "alternative science") and the crossover of these techniques by practitioners of psychological or political warfare, there is almost certainly something here that is a) worthy of study and b) useful.

Still, sorting the material will take time, and my two best sources on this kind of topic are kinda compromised by falling into the "occultist" territory on the issue (Jeff Wells and Peter Levenda for those wondering), so it will not be a quick process.

I have to admit, I never really got my head around the "remote viewing" thing. I'd never rule out the possibility completely but it strikes me as so ridiculously unlikely that I've never really investigated it. Occult stuff has two broad fields of potential practical application the way I see it:

1) Exerting influence over individuals and/or groups. I'm pretty sure everything you could learn about this by studying dusty old tomes is available in much less esoteric format, under such headings as NLP, hypnosis, cold-reading, psychoanalysis and the like

2) Metaprogramming the self. There's a lot of information available in this sphere also but I've never encountered anything that provides as complete a framework as some of the more established occult systems. I wouldn't discount the possibility that I've just never read the right books but anytime I've looked at established theories, I've been struck by how rudimentary it is in comparison.

I'm with Jung in thinking that, aside from the hokey aesthetic, one of the major stumbling blocks is the whole stigma of using imagination as a tool. The whole, diluted "visualisation" thing seems to be scratching the surface with regards to the potential this faculty presents.

Psychology coupled with neuroscience does a good enough job of describing many of the mechanisms but they seem to be missing a lot of tricks when it comes to interfacing with these. IMO that's a huge blank that hocus pocus goes a long way towards filling in.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 17, 2012, 01:48:49 PM

Quote from: Cain on February 17, 2012, 10:36:12 AM
To move this thread on and help prevent it devolving into meta-wank (seriously, parts of this remind me of the times our boss declares we are having a meeting to decide the agenda for the next meeting, which we are having a separate meeting about) I just want to declare I have material relevant to this re: the CIA's forays into the occult for "psychological warfare" purposes.

The problem with this is a) America is a very religious society still, so people immediately associate a CIA interest in the occult with Satanism, and thus start spinning paranoid conspiracy theories concerning, often with their own bullshit into the mix, and b) the people who not not are almost always occultists themselves, and so take the view that "magick is real", for a given value of real, and so import their beliefs concerning that into the scenario, which leads us to "Nylarathotep is a CIA asset" territory.  Also c) many of the people tasked with such investigations worked on MK-Ultra style projects, which are kinda the opposite direction in which we want to go.

Therefore sorting this into useful, reverse-engineerable techniques is not easy.  However, given the CIA and other agencies interest in such apparently esoteric methods (Naval Intelligence ran many similar exercises, the DIA used remote viewing, MI6 of course had Crowley as a consultant, and Himmler's SS ran the Ahnenerbe "think-tank", not to mention the KGB's alleged interest in "alternative science") and the crossover of these techniques by practitioners of psychological or political warfare, there is almost certainly something here that is a) worthy of study and b) useful.

Still, sorting the material will take time, and my two best sources on this kind of topic are kinda compromised by falling into the "occultist" territory on the issue (Jeff Wells and Peter Levenda for those wondering), so it will not be a quick process.

I have to admit, I never really got my head around the "remote viewing" thing. I'd never rule out the possibility completely but it strikes me as so ridiculously unlikely that I've never really investigated it. Occult stuff has two broad fields of potential practical application the way I see it:

1) Exerting influence over individuals and/or groups. I'm pretty sure everything you could learn about this by studying dusty old tomes is available in much less esoteric format, under such headings as NLP, hypnosis, cold-reading, psychoanalysis and the like

2) Metaprogramming the self. There's a lot of information available in this sphere also but I've never encountered anything that provides as complete a framework as some of the more established occult systems. I wouldn't discount the possibility that I've just never read the right books but anytime I've looked at established theories, I've been struck by how rudimentary it is in comparison.

I'm with Jung in thinking that, aside from the hokey aesthetic, one of the major stumbling blocks is the whole stigma of using imagination as a tool. The whole, diluted "visualisation" thing seems to be scratching the surface with regards to the potential this faculty presents.

Psychology coupled with neuroscience does a good enough job of describing many of the mechanisms but they seem to be missing a lot of tricks when it comes to interfacing with these. IMO that's a huge blank that hocus pocus goes a long way towards filling in.

I agree P3nT. Understanding the scientific WHY, doesn't always make it easy to work the HOW. It's a bit like Antero's "archeology of the Soul" where he studied ritual and then tried to build 'ritual' without the 'woo'... his paratheatrics was one of the outcomes of that project.

I also like Cain's perspective. One recent book I read was "The Official CIA manual of Trickery and Deception" which was written by a stage magician focused on application for the CIA. This was also part of MKULTRA and discusses (in brief) the Cold War era research that went on between the Russians and US... each one trying to figure out what the other was researching and then to research it better themselves.

I'll try to write something up which summarizes a few of the applicable bits.

To strip away the bullshit as much as I can. What I think would have been useful to me, back at the start would have been twofold.

1) The art of imagination

Exercises and methods to strengthen and focus the faculty.
A semantic language of symbols and attachments, basic building blocks


2) Multiple Personality Disorder

Some useful templates with which to build 'agents'* to facillitate interfacing with below the surface cognitive function

Most of part one is covered succinctly in Crowley's Book 4 but, by the second part, it's chock a block full of gobshite mumbo jumbo.

Part 2 is covered very well, here there and everywhere but, once again, there's a fuckload of spookey bullshit built in and reading between the lines is practically impossible until you understand enough to render it virtually useless, other than for the odd tidbit of an idea. Of course, by the time you get to this stage, the hokey shit is kind of fun. It's like, how do you like your roleplaying, dungeons and dragons or tax accountant adventures in the staff canteen?

*there's probably a better word for this - characters, environments, programs ... I dunno

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2012, 01:42:54 PM

Nigel!  Translation, please?

This is a tough one, but I believe it says:

Quote from: LuciferX on February 17, 2012, 01:19:40 AM

Bunnies bunnies bunnies bunnies bunnies bunnies bunnies wearing tinfoil hats unjust persecution complex because it makes me feel so special just like the burning times, Pention? (Mom makes me do the dishes before I can have my allowance).  :tinfoilhat:

Time to shave my head again.

Twid
gets the urge to tear his hair out when the phrase "burning times" is used. :lulz:

Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 17, 2012, 03:50:22 PM
Time to shave my head again.

Twid
gets the urge to tear his hair out when the phrase "burning times" is used. :lulz:

I do believe that the "burning times" actually refers to some manner of infectious disease that infests large numbers of pagans.

When will they learn that you gotta keep the athame sheathed when you dip it into the ritual chalice?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2012, 01:42:54 PM
That is relevant to my interests.  I suggest a new thread, to get out of this mire. It's full of werewolves, and unicorns, and rabbis.

If you start it, I'll bring the material, when I have it.

I have fairly decent information on stuff dating back to around WWII...but anything earlier than that is going to be mostly conjecture and guesswork.  I may include some information on the Nizari Assassin sect, for example...but it would be mostly to elucidate more recent innovations based on their model of operation, for example.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 17, 2012, 01:48:49 PM
I have to admit, I never really got my head around the "remote viewing" thing. I'd never rule out the possibility completely but it strikes me as so ridiculously unlikely that I've never really investigated it. Occult stuff has two broad fields of potential practical application the way I see it:

1) Exerting influence over individuals and/or groups. I'm pretty sure everything you could learn about this by studying dusty old tomes is available in much less esoteric format, under such headings as NLP, hypnosis, cold-reading, psychoanalysis and the like

2) Metaprogramming the self. There's a lot of information available in this sphere also but I've never encountered anything that provides as complete a framework as some of the more established occult systems. I wouldn't discount the possibility that I've just never read the right books but anytime I've looked at established theories, I've been struck by how rudimentary it is in comparison.

I'm pretty suspicious about the validity of remote viewing as well.  However, the intelligence agencies seem obsessed by it.  Ingo Swann worked for the CIA on Project Stargate, for example, after working at the Stanford Research Institute (a very strange and highly financed think-tank and contract research agency with massive political clout), and there were rumours of people involved in such programs being reactivated in the wake of 9/11 to help hunt down terrorists.  Allegedly.

Most of the material I've got will probably relate to section 1.  While it seems quite likely that some of the CIA interest in the occult was transmitted via the Project Paperclip Nazis recruited for the Cold War, and thus there was always that tendency within the agency, it really took off when researching ways to combat Communist insurgencies in the Third World, and thus necessitated manipulation of foreign populations via psychological operations.  For instance, one plan against Castro was to fake the Second Coming of Jesus, in hope of sparking a revolt in Cuba.  My suspicion is that somewhere inbetween mucking around with mind-control, interrogation drugs, religious research and psychological warfare, the CIA stumbled across some basic keys and drivers of personal and social psychology, and used that knowledge to manipulate domestic groups according to their own agenda, which as anyone familiar with Cold War history knows, was highly right-wing at points, with more than a whiff of fascism.

I vaguely recall watching some documentary or reading an article that suggested that a large factor in the  psychic spys thing was a result of cold war dis or mis-information. Basically the US got wind that the russians had managed to do something or were conducting experiments and the yanks decided they had to investigate just to make sure the ruskies weren't onto something. It isn't hard to imagine a feedback loop once the filthy commies found out for reals that the Us were training people to see through walls and kill with a dirty look and shit.

I mean, lets face it, we're talking about guys who believed they had a real-life giant invisible deity on their side. Probably wasn't too much of a leap of faith for them :lulz:

Depending on who you speak to, the idea that the Russians forced America's hand into researching it in the first place is disinformation to deny the CIA's very real interest in more esoteric methods of intelligence gathering.  There is also a lot of disinformation about the effectiveness about said program, on every side.  I don't have the sources to hand, unfortunately, but it's fair to say pretty much anyone could go looking and find "evidence" for the position they wished to take.

Well its a little stranger with the soviets since communism tends to be emphatically atheist. Though we are talking about a country that only recently admitted that beer isnt food.

The Soviets never had an especially good relationship with science though.  Remember Lysenkoism?  The Soviets also considered certain aspects of scientific research to be "bourgeoise pseudoscience" and so had to develop some pretty out-there theories to account for existing phenomena.

In addition to that, the Soviets also scored a decent amount of Nazi personnel and research at the end of WWII, just like America did.  Though not as compliant as the Project Paperclip scientists, they likely planted the seeds of more occult theories in the minds of Soviet intelligence officers and researchers.

I'm gonna turn all you fucking hippies in to frogs.

*invokes the wiccan law and turns Charley into three frogs*

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 17, 2012, 09:06:35 PM
*invokes the wiccan law and turns Charley into three frogs*

(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu264/HawkShadowsoul/magicwand.jpg)

:lol:

 :lol:



Seriously, this is good shit Cain. And the sort of stuff that makes it extremely clear why the word 'Occult' has stuck around.



The word itself is a weaponized meme aimed at a certain segment of the population... let's call them "The Audience". It's there to serve as a screen, to stir up misinformation, to "blur" reality so that you can manipulate the Audience's expectations (per Teller of Pen & Teller), and as a spiked lined pit-trap for those you'd want to mislead into dangerous territory.

Let's recognize, as well, that in any application of occult processes to an organization or structure (like the  mentioned CIA activities), there are members of "The Audience" within your own organization.

I think this Frank Luntz-like meta-manipulation may be something that turns Rog/ECH/etc off from the term (& related thought structures). That's conjecture,. tho. Not sure if they're still paying attention to this thread....

Quote from: Telarus on February 18, 2012, 04:07:25 AM
:lol:



Seriously, this is good shit Cain. And the sort of stuff that makes it extremely clear why the word 'Occult' has stuck around.



The word itself is a weaponized meme aimed at a certain segment of the population... let's call them "The Audience". It's there to serve as a screen, to stir up misinformation, to "blur" reality so that you can manipulate the Audience's expectations (per Teller of Pen & Teller), and as a spiked lined pit-trap for those you'd want to mislead into dangerous territory.

Let's recognize, as well, that in any application of occult processes to an organization or structure (like the  mentioned CIA activities), there are members of "The Audience" within your own organization.

I think this Frank Luntz-like meta-manipulation may be something that turns Rog/ECH/etc off from the term (& related thought structures). That's conjecture,. tho. Not sure if they're still paying attention to this thread....

I think you're exactly right.

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 01:04:54 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 12:11:20 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

And then at some point I aired my opinions about demystifying the useful elements of occultism by unoccluding them, which apparently is an "Aspergers trip" and a "kneejerk reaction". I am not at all sure you read my posts about it at all, although you do seem to be referring to them.

I think you're conflating an idea you posted in another thread with Roger's distortion of that idea in order to shit on Cram and LHX.

Hey, I think you can just fuck right off, Twitchy.

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 05:24:42 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 03:51:56 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 01:04:54 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 17, 2012, 12:11:20 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 11:49:18 PM

Quote from: Net on February 16, 2012, 10:45:16 PM

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:04:30 PM
In what way does his statement about "putting his two cents in" about something he thinks is stupid have anything whatsoever to do with "being afraid of smelly Pagans"?

There's a difference between letting people know where you stand and purposefully derailling any discussion of the idea. Even when that discussion is about appropriating useful, non-woo ideas out of it.

I'm sorry, but this Aspergers trip about using the word "woo" instead of "occult" is ridiculous. And it doesn't even work:
occult = a large range of spiritual practices that often include supernatural beliefs
woo = supernatural belief

This thread WAS about filtering out the woo and examining the parts of occultism with value to people who find supernatural belief repugnant, such as myself. Now it's more a temper tantrum over semantics.

The thread was old, dead, and cold before Roger bumped it as a joke.

And then Cram and Telarus brought it back to life.

And then at some point I aired my opinions about demystifying the useful elements of occultism by unoccluding them, which apparently is an "Aspergers trip" and a "kneejerk reaction". I am not at all sure you read my posts about it at all, although you do seem to be referring to them.

I think you're conflating an idea you posted in another thread with Roger's distortion of that idea in order to shit on Cram and LHX.

You mean this post: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,11209.135/msg,1147838.html in this thread, yesterday?

My bad.

Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:32:54 PM
A lot of these techniques are variations on tremendously popular and widely available (and completely nonmystical) cognitive behavioral therapy.

I just don't see much value in playing make-believe about the nature or even the esotericness (now there's a questionable word) of these practices. It seems terribly similar to bureaucrat-speak to me; making perfectly ordinary processes sound hopelessly complicated and specialized.

I completely agree and that was the point of this thread.

What I took issue with was the trolling people about not using that obfuscating terminology in the process of putting occultist practices into plain terms. If you're going to demystify something, you have to identify it using the obfuscating term. In order to say "most of occultism is horse shit," I need to use the word "occultism".

PDer's know most of occultism isn't worth demystifying because it's based in woo-woo. If I wish hard enough in the right way with the right things, it will magically happen via extradimensional quantums and shit. That stuff is irrelevant to this thread. Roger, being the asshole that he is, brought that irrelevant woo-woo shit back into the discussion and shoved it into all our faces with a semantic troll because we dared to identify the things to be unoccluded.

---

Good job Roger, you sure showed us the folly of occultism. I'm totally convinced that there is nothing of value in occultism because the word "occult" means superstitious in the dictionary and is like smearing feces on my sunglasses. We already attract idiots to the site because the Principia Discordia tends to do that, but that's another story. If there is anything in occultism that is useful to us empiricists it must be non-occult in origin. Looking for valuable things in occultism was a fool's errand because by definition it is all completely rooted in superstitious belief and incompatible with my psychological ecosystem, thanks for saving me from ruining my life.

Your doting pupil,
Net

Yes, yes, choke on a dick made out of shit, you deranged fuckbat.

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:05:42 AM


I think you guys didn't even read the thread, submitted to your kneejerk reaction about "occultism", and are too proud to admit it. It's probably a combination of digging in your heels and Roger's paranoid hatred of Cram and LHX.

Or you could just admit that I broke your Harry Potter dreams and made you cry, you neurotic sack of shit.   :lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2012, 05:27:33 AM

Quote from: Net on February 17, 2012, 12:05:42 AM


I think you guys didn't even read the thread, submitted to your kneejerk reaction about "occultism", and are too proud to admit it. It's probably a combination of digging in your heels and Roger's paranoid hatred of Cram and LHX.

Or you could just admit that I broke your Harry Potter dreams and made you cry, you neurotic sack of shit.   :lulz:

Yes of course, that's exactly what I was advocating, genius.

How about you go fuck up some more threads that you didn't read.

Quote from: Net on February 18, 2012, 06:44:59 AM


Yes of course, that's exactly what I was advocating, genius.

So I saw.   :lulz:

---

---

re: my outburst previously in this thread.

I didn't realize it yet on that wednesday morning, but I'm seriously walking on my last legs regarding stress and energy. So my apologies if I offended anyone, but I was really just expressing my dissatisfaction and disappointment with myself rather than with anyone or anything else. Sorry about that.

I'm not better yet, I didn't read the rest of the thread--or any other threads for that matter--in the past couple of days. And I think I'll be away for some more days, because right now everything is too much for me. I'll try to respond to PMs maybe and otherwise there's email or texts (unsure who has my main email address, but I'll check the one in my profile too).

Right now I just need some quiet and real-life meat friends contact.

See you around, I'll be back soon.

Feel better, Trip!

Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2012, 05:08:50 AM
Was my previous wall of text intimidating? Useful? Boring?

Another thought. I find it interesting that the work was written in hiragana. While technically it's correct to call hiragana 'simplified japanese' it's actually harder to read works in hiragana than in kanji, provided you can read kanji. In the sentence 'in the house lies a bird' can also be read as 'house chicken' in hiragana. Because kanji imposes specific values on certain words, it is impossible to make this mistake.

So the reason I guess of writing it in hiragana really is to free the mind to explore words meanings as they are in the context delivered without imposing all the values that might be caught up in kanji, for example, the values imposed by visualising 'upper hand' when reading 'good at' or the way in which the kanji for 'east' might hold associations with Tokyo (being probably the most common word using that kanji- this is just an example as I think Tokyo was probably Edo when the book was made).

I've been meaning to pick up some Japanese tutorials/language programs, and actually start learning the language as a system.

Those are great insights!

Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 19, 2012, 05:33:07 AM
In the sentence 'in the house lies a bird' can also be read as 'house chicken' in hiragana. Because kanji imposes specific values on certain words, it is impossible to make this mistake.

While a phonetic syllabet makes ambiguous homonyms possible, kanji do indeed have different readings depending on context -- themselves doubly ambiguous since they could be pronounced differently as well as meaning different things. I would by no means call kanji significantly less ambiguous than hirigana.

That said, kanji have all sorts of semantic assumptions. The character for 'ninja' is the character for 'knife' over the character for 'heart'. If I recall, three copies of the character for 'woman' in a triangular shape means something like 'irritating' (I'll double-check as soon as I can find my kanji dictionary, which has walked off somewhere). A phonetic writing system lacks such things, which could be seen as locking one into a particular way of looking at a situation.

I could see the use of phonetic writing systems in Japanese as a kind of gematria, then -- replacing the 'normal' ambiguities with 'unusual' ambiguities the same way someone using the NAEQ would identify words as being meaningfully connected just because their letters add up to the same number.

Without wanting to threadjack too badly, I'm familiar with how the language works. I mean to say that kanji mean specific things in one character. Ninja is a good example because to write it in hiragana takes away the enotional values associated with the whole knife heart thing (the knife-heart character is actually a character meaning a few things related to spyin and concealment; when added to 'person' it becomes 'ninja'.)

Good point with something else I didn't talk about; that kanji images are made of other images (called radicals). So every character, as seen above, embodies a few things. Likeable is made of 'woman' and  'child', fear is 'heart' 'work' and 'mediocre'.

I'm not clear on that las paragraph. Could you please clear up what you mean?

Research continues.  Have a highly tenative thesis, but will need to consult my psychology library for further citations before presenting it.

For someone accustomed to an ideographic writing system, phonetic puns would be unusual whereas ideographic puns would be more common. The kinds of connections made through homophony would therefore be 'unexpected' in the context of writing*. Systems of gematria attempt to do the same thing for people who use phonetic writing systems: by considering letters to be numbers and then claiming that patterns in these numbers have deep meaning, they force the person practicing gematria to make otherwise alien connections and then rationalize them. The NAEQ (New Aeon English Quaballah) is the system of gematria used by english-speaking thelemites, and is not entirely unlike rot11. Other systems of gematria work just as well, because the numbers don't matter; the only thing that matters is thinking that the numbers matter.

* assuming McLuhan is right and the behaviors of writing and speech are fairly isolated from one another in certain circumstances. Specifically: ideographic writing is 'purely' semantic and bypasses the phonetic layer, so reading something ideographic does not lead one to consider homophones, and ideographic writing is not optimized for phonetic rendering.

I knew I saw Rushkoff writing about this very thing.

The following is from: http://www.realitysandwich.com/achieving_new_states_consciousness_through_nlp_neuroscience_and_ritual

Foreword

by Douglas Rushkoff

I DON'T BELIEVE IN TRADITIONAL MAGICK. Nor should you -- especially if you want to learn to practice it.

No, it's probably easier just to get everyone else to believe in it. Then just proceed according to plan and watch the rest of the world conform to your intention.

Of course, that's just fine for the independent wizard looking to manipulate his way to sex, power, and cash, but what about the person who sincerely means to make the world a better, more just, and pleasurable place for everybody? What about the magician who doesn't simply want to gain a disproportionate share of existing stuff, but wants instead to change the very relationship of matter, energy, and abundance?

That's the kind of person who should turn away from traditional ceremonial magick and turn instead to the work of Philip Farber.

Too many novice magicians explore the possibilities of their craft from the hopelessly closed mindset attending the zero-sum game. For them, magick is something one does all alone, for the purposes of improving, changing, or expanding the self. It's no wonder. Like every other mind technology, from the Torah to neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), chaos magick has been co-opted by the self-help movement. As a result, instead of destroying the "self" so that the person can be liberated, most magick practices only reconfirm the specious boundaries defining selfhood, further trapping the magician in the realm of the already possible -- and further isolating all magicians from one another.

As I've come to understand it, the intent of Farber's ongoing literary sigil is to move his readers beyond the practice of individual magicks into the shared space of collective, consensual hallucination. Beginning with the invocation of a known and accepted personage, Atem, Farber quickly branches out in new directions, casting a visionary world picture as if it were a guidebook -- a description and instruction manual to a realm that is quite literally created in the process of its depiction and subsequent imagination.

But Farber's world picture is not a specific map of forces. Rather, it is a place where his readers are free to develop their own. It is a meta-landscape -- a series of laws that are each invitations to create new ones. The only terra firma is the guarantee of access to this collective act of ongoing creation.

In this sense, Meta-Magick is truly a "meta" magick -- a menu-to-menu creation, an open-source approach to magick that puts each participant in the role of contributor and propagandist.

Meta-Magick is an invitation to participate in several levels of practice: the remapping of one's own mind, the development of memes that can be transmitted to others, the use of media, and the implementation of social change. It is a picture of a world in which we all contribute to the landscape and its bylaws. It is the world in which we live.

The rest of the article is a selection of techniques that Phil Farber shares from his book: http://www.realitysandwich.com/achieving_new_states_consciousness_through_nlp_neuroscience_and_ritual

On that note, I hope someone in the thread has already mentioned the excellent Art of Memetics (and if they haven't, well, I have now).

Quote from: Phosphatidylserine on February 20, 2012, 12:58:54 AM
On that note, I hope someone in the thread has already mentioned the excellent Art of Memetics (and if they haven't, well, I have now).

On a related note, someone dropped a great Italian meme at lunch today:

Facebook, pronounced in Italian (as is) turns out "fesse book" : "idiot book"  :lulz:

Related because I then regurgitated your previous post about how the joke would not work at all without phonetic language, say in Chinese ( my indulgences...)  8)

Quote from: Cramulus on February 14, 2012, 07:11:06 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
This thread makes Occult Jesus cry.

sorry? I felt like there was some good juice in the OP, but if you only bumped this so you could shit in it, I'll just back out of the thread and leave you to your work

neat

this place is great -

Vimeo.com/31092733 (http://vimeo.com/31092733) - Jurgen Habermas on Magic

Starts at 9.30 (it kind of makes me a little claustrophobic)

Agility as skillful means in magic to effect things before the causal mechanisms are fully understood...

Symbols and ritual as representations of this unclear knowledge...

I can't listen to this anymore...

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
Dude, you're getting way too worked up about this. You need to relax.

ECH totally called it BTW :lulz:

---

Anyway, I want to say a bit more about the Yoga I do. Some of which probably echoes what's been said before.

First, Roger said it might have merit because people obviously benefit from it. That's pretty much my take on it too. In fact I didn't so much look at other people as just try it out and found that it benefits me. First tangible improvement already occurred after 6 weekly lessons, I found I improved my posture (back straight, shoulders not slumping, etc) in daily life, an improvement that'll probably benefit me for the rest of my life.

---

It was also said it's probably because people doing regular exercise also benefit from that. Which is kind of true, but it's important to note that different types of exercise give different kinds of benefit. Although most types of physical exercise, whether you run or lift weights, they may train different muscles but both will give you a general sense of well-being just from getting physical exercise. However, the kind of Yoga I do is hardly physical exercise. It's kind of different from the stereotypical way in that sense. You could describe it as meditation, except you do it not just sitting, but also lying on the floor and in one posture, each lesson. But the postures aren't really difficult and it's continuously stressed that you should never force yourself, rather do an easier alternative then.

My point with this is that I also do physical exercise (currently gym, but as my knee heals I'll start running again cause it's cheaper), from which I enjoy a lot of benefits. But the Yoga I do targets a different kind of thing, mostly my mental state, mostly about awareness, in fact this should be a thing people would agree is good, here, because unlike physical exercise, the whole point is not to do the movements, but to focus on not going through them like a robot, but to pay attention to as much internal detail as possible, every muscle movement, weight, pressure changing, etc.

---

Okay, now about the occult and the woo. I believe the particular Yoga class/teacher I found is the best one I could found to have the minimum amount of woo, yet provides the traditional benefits expected from Yoga, unlike the gym Yoga teacher making their students knot themselves up in impossible contortions.

Still, this teacher talks about "energies" and sometimes "chakras" when explaining what specific things we should pay attention to. Fortunately I can nearly always translate those into a more "real" concept that they in fact are a metaphor for. And if not, I ask a few questions and it usually becomes clear. This "translating" is actually something I learned from exactly these discussions on PD (also from my own smarts). And to be frank, sometimes the terms "energy" and "chakra" (specifically those two, btw) capture what is meant as a "real" concept way more easily than explaining this in a scientific manner. I believe you should learn both though, you need to know what they stand for. For clarification when my teacher says "chakra" I understand it to mean "one of seven rough locations in the body, as a point to focus your attention on" and for "energy" I understand "something that you can feel, probably caused by how the posture made your blood flow, bones and tissue stretch, nerves move and activate and unblock, things like that" (the feeling can be anything from warmth, prickling or general awareness).

Let's take the "energy" bit. Fortunately she hardly ever talks about energy in a sense other than my above interpretation. It has other interpretations, I could also make a personal "translation" for "emotional energy" in a room, as "a function of body language of others, sounds, facial expression, etc" (or something). I'm glad she usually sticks with the "inside body energy" because doing otherwise would conflate the two, and personally I don't have any "real" justification for doing that.

I think it would be really interesting if I could find a Yoga class/teacher that would use the "real" concepts to explain all the same things. Because that way you can take things forward, scientifically. Like "maybe you can feel your lymph flowing"--no that wouldn't work because it's bullshit you don't feel that. But you can feel the effects of such a thing happening. Better would probably still be to wrap it up as "energy" during the exercise, so the student can just pay attention to as much feelings as possible without having to wonder about exactly how or why, and then after the exercise discuss what it could have been. We do that with my Yoga as well. The teacher in fact has a solid background in physiotherapy so she knows what muscles and organs go where and what they can do. It's just that sometimes she mixes in some woo, and it would be really interesting to substitute that for a more scientific discussion. Her "woo" never contradicts human physiology btw, that would be dangerous and wrong.

---

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2012, 08:20:42 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 15, 2012, 08:18:05 PM

Quote from: ECHUSING OCCULT TERMINOLOGY TO DESCRIBE EMPIRICALLY-BASED PROCESSES IS JUST ABOUT THE SINGLE MOST FUCKING PRETENTIOUS AND TWATTY THING I CAN THINK OF.

WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE OCCULT TERMINOLOGY AND EXAMINE THE PROCESSES.

But you can't do that without starting with the woo, and reverse engineering until you get to the meat.

I think we all agree to THAT.

I just think there's some disagreement as to what consitutes "meat".

This is pretty much exactly what I'd like to get from these discussions.

And the disagreement as to what constitutes "meat" is exactly where these discussions often go horribly wrong.

But it's one thing when you call someone on implying something is "meat" when you believe it's really still "woo".

It's another thing when the "meat" turns out to be something that to others is really obvious or comes more natural to them, without relying on the "tricks".

But really everybody has their own bag of tricks. Roger sometimes gets a real bad bout of paranoia and he probably has some "tricks" to deal with that. Stepping away from the computer for a while is one of them I believe, but there's probably more. I would never say "paranoia? well just stop being paranoid then, why would you need a trick for that?" -- of course the "trick" of stepping away from the computer is not occult or woo or anything so maybe it's a dumb example. But Yoga is one of my "tricks" to deal with some similar personal problems when my head won't cooperate with me.

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 16, 2012, 06:37:49 AMWhen I see weird unexplainable shit happening, I'm not afraid to call it a ghost. Does that mean it's a dead soul playing tricks on me? No. It's just a short hand that encompasses a couple of weird unexplainable events that people can immediately relate to. And I've seen/heard really weird shit that I can't explain. We all have, haven't we?

Actually, I haven't. And I've been looking real hard.

IMO, the word "ghost" has nothing but a supernatural meaning, and without ever having experiences anything supernatural, I do not use it to describe my experiences.

ECH also summed it up:

Quote from: ECHAs I type this, it occurs to me that a whole lot of peoples' acceptance of idiocy like this stems from an innate discomfort with saying those three little words that go so far towards achieving biped-hood: I DON'T KNOW.

I have no problems whatsoever saying "I DONT KNOW", fortunately :) It may bug me that I don't, but when I don't, I don't.

I'm much more in favour of occasionally using terms that (probably) do have a scientific explanation, but used to be "magical" in some contexts, as a shorthand for pointing at some rather complex (but mostly scientifically understood) concept, and explicitly eschewing the "magical" connotations that go with it. "Energy" in the non-physics meaning of the word is a prime example of that. IMO it's fine to use it in that sense, as a shorthand, as long as it's clear what's meant (not magical) and you can preferably give some scientific explanation of what's really going on. It's a real problem when these meanings do not align, of course.

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 16, 2012, 08:18:50 AMAt the end of the day, the cello still fell down with no reasonable explanation.

I don't know what knocked over the cello. Like I said, I'm an agnostic as far as that goes and am willing to entertain all plausible explanations. Until I get one, poltergeist is a universal call sign to the phenomenon, whether caused by actual "noise ghosts" or not.

See this is when the meanings don't align. When something falls over for no reason, I might get spooked, I might even joke about a ghost, but in the end I'm going to assume there was some physical explanation for what happened. If you call that "poltergeist", then to me that implies that you're at least definitely contemplating a possible supernatural explanation.

See I think that's different. Say you come home after a real busy day and you plunk down on the couch, close your eyes and relax but stay aware to not doze off (aka almost-meditation-kind-of). If you pay attention you can feel "energy" winding down as you become calmer. And you can talk about that (afterwards), but we all know you aren't talking about some ethereal substance leaving your body, but rather a description of changes in your physical and mental state.

And even then I have no problems saying I don't actually know exactly what's going on, but something is (and that bugs me, so I investigate more).

Coming back to a different topic, and this is where things get kind of convoluted, and I'd like to hear the "skeptics" opinion on this. Empirically, if you do this sort of yoga/meditation type of exercise a lot, you find that as you picture this "energy" to leave through your feet and any body parts that are resting on something solid, it works a lot better than if you just wait until it's all calmed down. Such an exercise is called "grounding" in yoga, meditation, also pagan rituals afaik.

Now the thing is, this "energy" is not real, it's not leaving your body, especially not specifically through your feet into the earth. But if you ignore the lack of science for it and try to feel with your eyes closed, it's real easy to imagine that it does. And when you do so, it works better. (and there are scientific/physiological explanations for that, I'm certain, though I don't know what they are)

Now what?

Is this woo, or occult? Can we translate this into a more "real" description of what to do?

If not, you are fooling your mind, temporarily, and the end result is the exercise works better.

Is it enough just that you in the back of your mind know that it's some physiological process, even if you don't know exactly how it works? Because as you practice that exercise, you're going to get better at fooling yourself. IMO this is alright, as long as after the exercise you know what really happened. But this is of course a dangerous path.

P3NT also made a statement worth repeating: That science hasn't really scratched the surface yet of using imagination as a tool. Fortunately, they are working on it :)

---

About the terminology of using terms "occult" or "magick".

Let's compare to Alchemy and Chemistry. Not a really good comparison because Alchemy has been entirely and completely superseded by Chemistry. But Magick has not YET been entirely superseded by the combined sciences of psychology, physiology and medicine. Pretty much all of it can be explained by those sciences, but they don't pursue it in the same manner, because of all sorts of reasons. One of which is of course that cheap cures that can be done by "just sitting" aren't exactly popular by whoever funds the research.

Anyway what I wanted to say is, personally I only use the terms "occult" or "magick" in a historical sense.

Like "I read this technique in a book about the occult" and I want to experiment and try it out, see what works. Doesn't mean I'm going to call it an "occult technique", in fact I'd rather not. Still I might need to borrow some of the terminology.

For Alchemy it doesn't really work like that because anything truly interesting about Alchemy, you can get better explained from a real Chemistry book. With certain techniques explained in literature about "Magick", that's sometimes harder. Although the scientific research is out there, too. It's just kind of hard to find, you should try to find it, but maybe not right away because it's a lot of work.

I really like how Telarus called them "weaponized memes", too.

Just to point out: alchemy means two entirely different things, wrapped up in the same kind of hermetic language. One is proto-chemistry and the other is proto-psychology. (I blame the failure of both on the confusion between them and the fact that neither was ever really particularly clear, but that's for political reasons)

Oh, I was under the impression it was mostly proto-chemistry. But I'm probably wrong.

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 12:42:17 AM
Oh, I was under the impression it was mostly proto-chemistry. But I'm probably wrong.

It was proto-chemistry right up to the point where it developed into actual chemistry, and what was left over was assimilated by magicktards who wanted to play wizard because science is too hard.

Quote from: Phosphatidylserine on February 22, 2012, 11:14:43 AM
Just to point out: alchemy means two entirely different things, wrapped up in the same kind of hermetic language. One is proto-chemistry and the other is proto-psychology. (I blame the failure of both on the confusion between them and the fact that neither was ever really particularly clear, but that's for political reasons)

I think that the key recognition here is that, again, we see that language connotates into two 'name-spaces' (the border being our 'self-illusion', separating neuro-somatics from neuro-physics, study of the body-mind vs study of the universe). It all does, all the time and much of the descriptions mirror each other. Functionally there is no border, but in order for 'us' to use language, we seem to require the two realms. I have a theory this is (partly) because the mind already forms an imperfect model of the outside environment, so any model of that environment must contain a model of the imperfect model, and the fiction of an ego is (partially) a safe-catch to avoid madness due to infinite regress (oh, those Bedlam boys are bonny! they all go bare, they live by the air, they want no drink nor money!).

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 12:42:17 AM
Oh, I was under the impression it was mostly proto-chemistry. But I'm probably wrong.

I think the proto-chemistry bit (called 'physical alchemy') came first. The proto-psychology bit ('spiritual alchemy') mimiced the language. Both were incredibly unclear, because the attempted synthesis of gold *and* practicing any kind of mind hacking other than mainline catholicism would both get you killed in medieval europe. The 'salve et coagule' formula comes from spiritual alchemy rather than physical alchemy, clearly, but the rest of it is very unclear -- the spiritual alchemists and the physical alchemists for the most part both thought they were the only kind, so physical alchemists killed themselves trying to repeat experiments described by spiritual alchemists while spiritual alchemists drove themselves nuts trying to repeat experiments written by physical alchemists.

I hear a lot of "spiritual alchemy never existed!", but I think that's because chemistry teachers (and a handful of other parties) have a vested interest in thinking of alchemy as a failed proto-chemistry. Mind you, as a proto-psychology it isn't all that great either, for more or less the same reasons. Being unclear isn't generally a good idea in science (and both of these, given that they were based on attempting very close observation of repeatable experiments by large numbers of people, can at least be loosely categorized as attempted science).

4 2 42 33 PST

Quote from: hirley0 on February 23, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
4 2 42 33 PST

Oh my fuck!  That is magickal jibber-jabber if I ever saw it!

Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 23, 2012, 01:29:18 PM

Quote from: hirley0 on February 23, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
4 2 42 33 PST

Oh my fuck!  That is magickal jibber-jabber if I ever saw it!

4 8

4 8 what? 

48 6, I guess.

It's bits of notes and code he leaves for himself to keep track of what discussions he's taking part in. It's some sort of a mental breadcrumb trail, if you like.But it might not always be relevant to the context it's being posted either.

This one looks like a time stamp, 4:02:33 PST, which is the time stamp of the post itself. Which is kinda hard because you can't see the time stamp until after you've made the post. So I think that Hirley0 guessed the timestamp would be 4:02:42 PST, but he was a few seconds off and edited the post to reflect this.

Or it's launch codes.

I prefer to think that hirley0 has ancient secrets and he wants us to find out about them by deciphering the clues. Dan brown and nicholas cage told me so.

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 05:07:20 PM
Or it's launch codes.

That just made me happy...Thinking that somewhere in the last MX missile silo, Hirley0 is methodically punching in code after code, trying to get lucky.

I just wanted to see if I could get hirley0 to pun.

Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 23, 2012, 05:13:18 PM
I just wanted to see if I could get hirley0 to pun.

That would be comparable to reciting the entire Tetragrammaton.  Nothing good would come of it.

But it would be at least interesting.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 05:12:21 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 05:07:20 PM
Or it's launch codes.

Somewhere in the last MX missile silo, Hirley0 is methodically punching in code after code, trying to get lucky.

Can I use this as marginalia?

Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Whaaaaat are you talking about?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 05:12:21 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 05:07:20 PM
Or it's launch codes.

That just made me happy...Thinking that somewhere in the last MX missile silo, Hirley0 is methodically punching in code after code, trying to get lucky.

I'm just happy that according to the other thread, we're important enough to get an opinion about whether it's okay with us to end the world or not.

That's just thoughtful, that is.

Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 01:45:59 AM

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Whaaaaat are you talking about?

Is from the "TV Show" known as Lost.

3:33&1/3  the best explanation of this entry i can think up at this time(AM)
Reply #34: January 22, 2011, 06:14:40 PM (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,27760.30/msg,998032.html)
Looking South in the williamette River at the Northern Tip of the "ISland"
just beyond (under} the Ross island bridge : Portland Oregon
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2ngu22o.jpg)
the waters in Question are South in a man made lagoon?




2 CAUAC
.1 Portland is the island? (this
2: (this island is Portland
3? IT HAS: several names Sand, toe, Ross, East, & HARDTACK

THERE eXist another one too i think ASK Nigal
"HARDTACK" is also code for newclear waist?
Reall to complex for words from me | see photo TBe

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 02:31:44 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 01:45:59 AM

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Whaaaaat are you talking about?

Is from the "TV Show" known as Lost.

1 there are probably mistakes in subtractions
2 there do not appear to me to be any 8 o'clocks
3 your "TIME" numbers probably are not psT ?/?
Reply #293: Yesterday at 06:31:44 PM 0:40:37
Reply #292: Yesterday at 05:51:07 PM 0:05:08
Reply #291: Yesterday at 05:45:59 PM 5:32:01
Reply #290: Yesterday at 12:13:58 PM 0:05:18
Reply #289: Yesterday at 12:08:40 PM 2:53:33
Reply #288: Yesterday at 09:15:07 AM 0:01:45 **
Reply #287: Yesterday at 09:13:18 AM 0:00:57 ??
Reply #286: Yesterday at 09:12:21 AM 0:01:51 **
Reply #285: Yesterday at 09:10:30 AM 0:03:10
Reply #284: Yesterday at 09:07:20 AM 3:15:-1
Reply #283: Yesterday at 05:52:21 AM _:04:15
Reply #282: Yesterday at 05:48:06 AM 0:18:44
Reply #281: Yesterday at 05:29:18 AM 1:26:45
Reply #280: Yesterday at 04:02:33 AM 0:22:14
Reply #279: Yesterday at 03:40:19 AM
.1 the production? i think?/? NBC pdx.CH8  is called SheReck ?/?/?
2: anyway some S word? {Maybe  | spoon bending is my goal .
3? No: Not a Friendly type person. | probably the opposite

Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 23, 2012, 05:13:18 PM
I just wanted to see if I could get hirley0 to pun.

Puntuation, in Question; among other things
the photo above? about the North end of the ISland?
is no doubt incorrect? What ever the facts are i've 4gotten
the Bridge is probably Ross Island, the Water is Williamette
Well if it's spelled correctly | indications are its Wrong
it makes more sence to go to the link
scroll down to the Lagoon & have a drink Or Two
to calm the situation as best as possible
REMembering all the while
THAT i do Really try to bend spoons at a distance
with no appearent PHYSICAL  connections
THUS if you like : find a spoon : examine it closely
so your sure its firmeliar enough, I prefer solid metal
however the choice is up to you. & do not expect instant
results. Tk takes time, thats my guess the desired angle
is about lik _/ so there cant be any doubt if it does BEND /-/
4:07:??am {PST {{Maybe

Hirley Geller? 

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Who is number one?

You are number 6

twid
never watched the show but is a huge iron maiden fan

You should watch the show while listening to Iron Maiden.  Backwards.

Watch the show backwards or listen to maiden backwards?

Watch the show with your back to the TV; duct tape the stereo to the ceiling.

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 24, 2012, 01:33:28 PM
Watch the show backwards or listen to maiden backwards?

"Run From the Hills!"

That's gonna get them eaten by the tropical polar bear. 

Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 24, 2012, 01:09:28 PM
Hirley Geller?

yes: 6:24-
& yours is spoon #1 to be bent:
details Please
24

the one on top of you
&you would be # two for spoon
bending if interested
&YOU really should pick a good spoon to know very well

Quote from: Phosphatidylserine on February 24, 2012, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Who is number one?

1 Reply #296: Today at 05:09:28 A
2 Reply #297: Today at 05:19:30 AM 10min 2sec
Lookii i'z more than delighted to try to bend spoon
even though i doubt i can do this. Worth a try is my
best guess. Now as far as getting draged into this
other than spoon'N its rathere doubtfull as come March
1 my guess is i will no longer be trying to do this
as the escalation of conflict in this building will
be at such a level as to make keeping current questionable
thanks for WHATEVER  i do appriciate it Lots /=/

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 24, 2012, 01:51:07 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 05:12:21 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 23, 2012, 05:07:20 PM
Or it's launch codes.

That just made me happy...Thinking that somewhere in the last MX missile silo, Hirley0 is methodically punching in code after code, trying to get lucky.

I'm just happy that according to the other thread, we're important enough to get an opinion about whether it's okay with us to end the world or not.

That's just thoughtful, that is.

Which other thread?

Quote from: hirley0 on February 24, 2012, 11:08:27 AM
3:33&1/3  the best explanation of this entry i can think up at this time(AM)
Reply #34: January 22, 2011, 06:14:40 PM (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,27760.30/msg,998032.html)
Looking South in the williamette River at the Northern Tip of the "ISland"
just beyond (under} the Ross island bridge : Portland Oregon
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2ngu22o.jpg)
the waters in Question are South in a man made lagoon?




2 CAUAC
.1 Portland is the island? (this
2: (this island is Portland
3? IT HAS: several names Sand, toe, Ross, East, & HARDTACK

THERE eXist another one too i think ASK Nigal
"HARDTACK" is also code for newclear waist?
Reall to complex for words from me | see photo TBe

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 02:31:44 AM

Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 01:45:59 AM

Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Wait. Hirley and numbers? HURLEY AND THE NUMBERS. Portland is the island! (this actually makes some sense) :aaa:

Whaaaaat are you talking about?

Is from the "TV Show" known as Lost.

1 there are probably mistakes in subtractions
2 there do not appear to me to be any 8 o'clocks
3 your "TIME" numbers probably are not psT ?/?
Reply #293: Yesterday at 06:31:44 PM 0:40:37
Reply #292: Yesterday at 05:51:07 PM 0:05:08
Reply #291: Yesterday at 05:45:59 PM 5:32:01
Reply #290: Yesterday at 12:13:58 PM 0:05:18
Reply #289: Yesterday at 12:08:40 PM 2:53:33
Reply #288: Yesterday at 09:15:07 AM 0:01:45 **
Reply #287: Yesterday at 09:13:18 AM 0:00:57 ??
Reply #286: Yesterday at 09:12:21 AM 0:01:51 **
Reply #285: Yesterday at 09:10:30 AM 0:03:10
Reply #284: Yesterday at 09:07:20 AM 3:15:-1
Reply #283: Yesterday at 05:52:21 AM _:04:15
Reply #282: Yesterday at 05:48:06 AM 0:18:44
Reply #281: Yesterday at 05:29:18 AM 1:26:45
Reply #280: Yesterday at 04:02:33 AM 0:22:14
Reply #279: Yesterday at 03:40:19 AM
.1 the production? i think?/? NBC pdx.CH8  is called SheReck ?/?/?
2: anyway some S word? {Maybe  | spoon bending is my goal .
3? No: Not a Friendly type person. | probably the opposite

Yes, it was originally four islands and the lagoon was formed by an artificial levee between the two largest islands. Did you know that 45 acres were donated to the City a few years ago? I'm really intrigued to explore it, I should take my little kayak out there.

If you haven't already explored them, you might also be intrigued by Johnson Lake Property and Elk Rock Island.

3ebruary 20, 2012, 03:26:50 PM
February 20, 2012, 03:24:04 PM 2:46
February 22, 2012, 06:50:07 PM
February 22, 2012, 06:47:13 PM 2:54
      Yesterday at 11:36:58 AM
      Yesterday at 11:35:19 AM 1:39
February 08, 2012, 01:38:31 PM
February 08, 2012, 01:37:29 PM 1:02
      Yesterday at 02:31:07 PM
      Yesterday at 02:30:21 PM 0:46
                   11:16:40 AM
                   11:20:40 AM 4
                   05:09:12 PM
1                  05:06:41 PM 2:31


5 IK {WIND