Evoking to Manifestation
nocTifer
"Frater_vom" <Frate...@yahoo.com>:
#># Does anybody here has experience with Enochian or
#># Goetian evocations on physical plane?
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>
#> Sure. Quite a few of us.
#> Why do you ask?
Gnome...@unowhere.com (Gnome d Plume):
# Whoa thar, pardner! First let's git that thar "physical"
# horse-pucky dee-fined 'afore we gits too far down the trail on this
# one. If this tenderfoot means we calls 'um up in photographable,
# bite-you-in-the-leg real "physical" reality, then he's barkin' up the
# wrong tree, 'cause even thems that say they do don't, and never did.
# Visible appearance, shore enuff---but that "physical plane" idea got
# no place in real Magick. It's all in your noggin, kid. Get used to
# it.
my friend Ebony Anpu claimed that he had a goetic demon attack him
when the sigils in rite were accidentally disrupted, ripping his
clothes. do you think he was lying, Poke? or had an active and
fabricating imagination? or did he evoke to manifest appearance
and interaction?
nocTifer
naga...@luckymojo.com
Sun Wu-K'ung
>>
> my friend Ebony Anpu claimed that he had a goetic demon attack him
> when the sigils in rite were accidentally disrupted, ripping his
> clothes. do you think he was lying, Poke? or had an active and
> fabricating imagination? or did he evoke to manifest appearance
You're such a nitwit, tyagi.
Worst, you don't seem to mind.
-Pilgrim
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
**** Nagasiva:
In my 30 years of doing Goetia and other magical operations I've
experienced several events I would call "supernatural" phenomena.
We even got one on video with the Vassago prophecy. I've also seen
poltergeist activity of a very intense and physical nature generated
by emotion. However, it is apparent that extreme cases of demonic
possession and demonic attack are suffered by very repressed religious
people, the mentally ill and, more recently, the meth-freaks. Your
friend, in my opinion, ripped his own clothes in a fit not unlike a
Hatian "Horse of the Ogun" (See some films of violent Voudoun trance
episodes). He probably isn't lying, he simply doesn't realize that he
did it to himself----but then we have to ask ourselves: if the demon
gets us to rip our clothes, then, in a genuinely magical sense, the
demon has accomplished it.
In my opinion, there is little practical difference in the
effect, but there is a vast difference in intelligence and maturity
between the two points of view. And lest you think I am looking down
on so-called "primitive" magic, let me assure you that most shamans
would agree with me (Don Juan, did I really fly?) I sometimes think
that there are greater numbers of literate urbanites who "believe in
six impossible things before breakfast" than we would find in any
jungle. Let's not have one of your endless discussions on this. I've
made my point clear and my experience in these operations is more
extensive than just about anybody on this side of the pond. ****
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
Jason
"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@unowhere.com> wrote:
> Let's not have one of your endless discussions on this. I've
> made my point clear and my experience in these operations is more
> extensive than just about anybody on this side of the pond.
The above albeit was written by one of Poke's demons, which demon had a hand
in writing the above is for Poke to find out. The message from the demon is
loud and clear and is as follows: "You challenging my authority gives me
pain. Please stop. BUT I BEG YOU TO ALLOW ME TO PROVE MY EXPERTISE IN THESE
MATTERS WON'T YOU." Contradictory. Pathetic. Demonic message crept in
unaware by an operator who begs repeatedly from his audience to believe him
capable to know how to reign over the demons. Don't believe him? Buy one of
his books.
*booooooo hisssssss*
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003
Tom
"nocTifer" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:8VYjb.32910$dk4.8...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> when the sigils in rite were accidentally disrupted, ripping his
> clothes. do you think he was lying, Poke? or had an active and
> fabricating imagination? or did he evoke to manifest appearance
> and interaction?
All of those might be viable explanations for the story. In order to verify
it, we'd need to replicate it in front of independent witnesses and with
adequate experimental controls.
Until then, it remains an anecdote to be accepted or rejected arbitrarily.
Sun Wu-K'ung
> "Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@unowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's not have one of your endless discussions on this. I've
> > made my point clear and my experience in these operations is more
> > extensive than just about anybody on this side of the pond.
>
> The above albeit was written by one of Poke's demons, which demon had a hand
> in writing the above is for Poke to find out. The message from the demon is
> loud and clear and is as follows: "You challenging my authority gives me
> pain. Please stop. BUT I BEG YOU TO ALLOW ME TO PROVE MY EXPERTISE IN THESE
> MATTERS WON'T YOU." Contradictory. Pathetic. Demonic message crept in
> unaware by an operator who begs repeatedly from his audience to believe him
> capable to know how to reign over the demons. Don't believe him? Buy one of
> his books.
>
> *booooooo hisssssss*
Oh shut up.
If there is someone in North America who does more work than Poke in
the Goetia, s/he certaintly hasn't come public about it.
-Pilgrim
Gnome d Plume
>
>"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@unowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's not have one of your endless discussions on this. I've
>> made my point clear and my experience in these operations is more
>> extensive than just about anybody on this side of the pond.
>
>The above albeit was written by one of Poke's demons, which demon had a hand
>in writing the above is for Poke to find out. The message from the demon is
>loud and clear and is as follows: "You challenging my authority gives me
>pain. Please stop. BUT I BEG YOU TO ALLOW ME TO PROVE MY EXPERTISE IN THESE
>MATTERS WON'T YOU." Contradictory. Pathetic. Demonic message crept in
>unaware by an operator who begs repeatedly from his audience to believe him
>capable to know how to reign over the demons. Don't believe him? Buy one of
>his books.
>
>*booooooo hisssssss*
>
**** Thanks for the plug. You can find them on amazon ---look for *The
Book of Solomon's Magick* and *Secrets of the Golden Dawn Cypher
Manuscript,* www.barnesandnoble.com carries *The Seventh Ray, Books I
& II,* My demons are always on the look out for any promotional
opportunity. ****
catherine yronwode
> possession and demonic attack are suffered by very repressed religious
> people, the mentally ill and, more recently, the meth-freaks. Your
> friend, in my opinion, ripped his own clothes in a fit not unlike a
> Hatian "Horse of the Ogun" (See some films of violent Voudoun trance
> episodes). He probably isn't lying, he simply doesn't realize that he
> gets us to rip our clothes, then, in a genuinely magical sense, the
> demon has accomplished it.
> In my opinion, there is little practical difference in the
> effect, but there is a vast difference in intelligence and maturity
> between the two points of view.
This is an interesting perspective, Gnome. It has the ring
of realist / empiricist thought and yet perfectly serves the
cause of magic(k).
My question to Ebony Anpu (which, alas, cannot be asked,
since he died a couple of years ago from complications of
asthma) would have been, "Were you on drugs when this
happened, and if so, which ones?" I think he would have
given an honest answer, as he was known to be a mature and
upright person.
I would have asked this because i am interested in logging
the differences (if any) between trances that are induced
through dance / movement / meditation / psychological
methods (e.g. Voodoo or Santeria or Buddhist trance states)
and those that are induced through drugs -- and, if the
latter, which drugs were used, as i have long felt that,
depending on the drugs, one will relate to / encounter
different demons and / or angels and /or spirits.
cat yronwode
Herb and Root Magic --- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodooherbmagic.html
nocTifer
"Frater_vom" <Frate...@yahoo.com>:
#>#># Does anybody here has experience with Enochian or
#>#># Goetian evocations on physical plane?
I would like to qualify my own posts by saying that I have never
done *anything more than study* Enochian materials to get some
idea what they included and to learn about Enochian Chess. I've
enjoyed with some relish the expressions of people like Ben Rowe
(pbuh) and others to this and similar forums, and tentatively
explored my own solitary trajectory of quasi-goetic workings.
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>
#>#> Sure. Quite a few of us. Why do you ask?
Gnome...@unowhere.com (Gnome d Plume):
#># Whoa thar, pardner! First let's git that thar "physical"
#># horse-pucky dee-fined 'afore we gits too far down the trail on this
#># one. If this tenderfoot means we calls 'um up in photographable,
#># bite-you-in-the-leg real "physical" reality, then he's barkin' up the
#># wrong tree, 'cause even thems that say they do don't, and never did.
usually the words get in the way. that's why I focus on 'photographable'
vs. 'nonphotographable': because 'physical manifestations' are sometimes
interpreted to mean 'manifesting through a physical mechanism like my
sensory organs' (perception).
#># Visible appearance, shore enuff
even here you are talking about someone's perceptions.
by 'visible appearance' you do NOT mean photographable.
typically and historically those who spoke of 'evoking
to visible appearance' were talking about what each of
us is denying is possible: external manifestations that
can be seen by interested observers.
#># ---but that "physical plane" idea got no place in
#># real Magick.
perhaps with Magick-with-a-K it'a all in your noggin,
but generally (as with Natural Magic described by such
traditionals as Agrippa), it is supposed to have
effects in the world at large also.
#># It's all in your noggin, kid. Get used to it.
that's the Weak Magic Hypothesis (psychological), yes.
it has application in mystical activities which it is
supposed to facilitate. I haven't seen too many positive
confirming databits indicating that many have perfected
this mysticism -- very many magicians I've met who had
this mystical effect in mind were what I would call
mystically/spiritually/emotionally immature. for this
reason I'm trying to reform ceremonialism toward
more reliable and naturalistic parameters and welcome
all the coordinated data-collection that we can muster.
nocTifer:
#> my friend Ebony Anpu claimed that he had a goetic demon attack him
#> when the sigils in rite were accidentally disrupted, ripping his
#> clothes. do you think he was lying, Poke? or had an active and
#> fabricating imagination? or did he evoke to manifest appearance
#> and interaction?
Gnome...@unowhere.com (Gnome d Plume):
# In my 30 years of doing Goetia and other magical operations
# I've experienced several events I would call "supernatural"
# phenomena....
I doubt you and he used the same procedures, but there
may have been some similarities. I doubt that he used
the mirror technique you invented, for example.
# ...it is apparent that extreme cases of demonic
# possession and demonic attack are suffered by very repressed religious
# people, the mentally ill and, more recently, the meth-freaks. Your
# friend, in my opinion, ripped his own clothes in a fit not unlike a
# Hatian "Horse of the Ogun" (See some films of violent Voudoun trance
# episodes).
that's kinda what I figured, at best.
# He probably isn't lying, he simply doesn't realize that he
# did it to himself----but then we have to ask ourselves: if the demon
# gets us to rip our clothes, then, in a genuinely magical sense, the
# demon has accomplished it.
the issue wasn't whether the demon accomplished it but whether
the demon had some kind of physical manifestation *aside* from
the bodies they may have wished to or been invited to possess.
you are saying 'no' here and I tend to agree.
# In my opinion, there is little practical difference in the effect,
if one is attempting to discern ontological status of manifestation,
then effect is just an indicator.
# but there is a vast difference in intelligence and maturity
# between the two points of view....
I tend to agree. my hit on 'goetia' and demon-summoning in
general is as a psycho-integrative mystical practice, potentially
resolving personal *and* societal fragmentation. what you've
said on this score conforms by and large with my results to date.
when Ebony made the claim, I listened and then remembered it very
carefully for later association with his other claims, some of
which were in sympathy with my own (still very imaginative) and
some of which seemed to be very outrageous to me (including such
things as time-travel, etc.).
that said, I don't think that the mental *set* of such stark
and critical scrutiny is necessarily helpful to the practice
of demon-summoning. your mention of 'practical difference in
the effect' extends beyond the capacity of some magicians to
imagine or to make manifest to perception, and those such as
I who have been *heavily conditioned toward materialist and
rational perspectives (reductionist! skeptical! sometimes
even too cynical!!)* may have to take measures to temporarily
break DOWN these prohibitive perspectives in order to engage
what we might call the magical imagination, reify psychic
components as intelligences, and interact with them in a
sincere way. the extended challenge, of course, is how to do
that without *fragmenting them into disuse and instability*.
how someone describes their experience to me is usually
taken in the context of what kind of person they tend to be;
whether they have skeptical capacity; whether they live in
a shamanic drama, completely indwelling to their inner
symbolic and largely imaginative life; what authority they
tend to give (what I can only assess as) their interior
allies; etc. I usually allow for a variability and then
translate across the breadth of perspectives I've
accumulated in a kind of anthropological collection
(presuming most to be symbolic, however they may be
understood by the religiomagical individual).
your contention about the effects and the rationality is good
for those who are attempting to analyze the events from the
*outside*, and is likely to help the more delusory remain
grounded. some are likely to find the attitude prohibitively-
rational and deconstructing, but I totally understand what
you're getting at.
over time I've noticed that a goodly number of occult folks
thought highy of Ebony as a magician, and so occasionally
I've relayed his testimonies to others with some experience
for consideration and review. thanks for your feedback. :>
nocTifer
naga...@luckymojo.com
nocTifer
nocTifer:
#> my friend Ebony Anpu claimed that he had a goetic demon attack him
#> when the sigils in rite were accidentally disrupted, ripping his
#> clothes. do you think he was lying, Poke? or had an active and
#> fabricating imagination? or did he evoke to manifest appearance
#> and interaction?
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>:
# All of those might be viable explanations for the story.
yup, I was getting a sounding of opinion.
# In order to verify it,
not something that is possible with Ebony at this time, peace be
upon him.
# we'd need to replicate it in front of independent witnesses
# and with adequate experimental controls.
of course. my understanding is that it would probably yield a
negative in such experiments. Poke seems to concord here.
# Until then, it remains an anecdote to be accepted or
# rejected arbitrarily.
precisely the fishing I was doing (getting reactions to such
anecdotes -- care to provide yours? what do you think is
most likely?).
nocTifer
naga...@luckymojo.com
Tom
"nocTifer" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
>
> precisely the fishing I was doing (getting reactions to such
> anecdotes -- care to provide yours? what do you think is
> most likely?).
Goetia employs techniques which could allow internal imagery to be projected
onto an ambiguous physical sensation. Once this process begins, it can
snowball into all sorts of sensations and events being interpreted
accordingly. However, when examined critically, they all fade back into
ambiguity again.
Octavia Occult Publishing
clear and my experience in these operations is more extensive than just
about anybody on this side of the pond."
The Tulpa Thoughtform (As noted in "The Secret Silence" , Frater Ego Esse,
SOTA) is a manifestation which can be shown to others. Whether you think its
a shared hallucination, a thought-projection via ESP, or if you choose to
disbelieve it all-together, do what thou wilt. I have watched people who did
not believe in magick reply and respond to a thought form "Tulpa" as if it
were a real person, without ever considering that it is a projection of my
mind, and that their very interaction with it gave it a broader definition
in the shared experience. But it is not real, and has no life of its own -
no consciousness except that which it is "programmed" with.
If used in accordance with other evokatory magicks, it will produce some
very interesting effects, but can be dangerous to the minds of the
magickians who choose to dabble in such experiments. The choice is your own,
I take no responsibility for your actions.
The White Baboon
Gnome d Plume
**** This is "interesting" to say the least. The lead quote is lifted
from a long-passed exchange between myself (Gnome) and nagasiva.
In this case I was cutting him short before running on and on about
the operational possibilities of "evocation to physical appearance"
(by this we mean teleportation as in 'beam me up, Scotty') which is
frankly a superstition that so-called primitive shamans don't even
swallow. Of course he knows better but I suppose the credulous buy
more hoodoo kits and need to be pampered in their delusions.
Sure, you can project a thought form, you can practice
Throng-jug Yoga and a number of other mind bending techniques, but
you seem to agree with me that the spirits we "evoke" are disembodied,
no matter how "real" they may appear to be. And they've always been
"disembodied" except in the urban legends of trailer park druids.****
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/temple.html
Octavia Occult Publishing
NEXT!
The White Baboon
"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@unowhere.com> wrote in message
news:p7hl90pcbtplrga4l...@4ax.com...
MDHJWH
This is an interesting perspective, Gnome. It has the ring
of realist / empiricist thought and yet perfectly serves the
cause of magic(k).
Snip<......
I would have asked this because i am interested in logging
the differences (if any) between trances that are induced
through dance / movement / meditation / psychological
methods (e.g. Voodoo or Santeria or Buddhist trance states)
and those that are induced through drugs -- and, if the
latter, which drugs were used, as i have long felt that,
depending on the drugs, one will relate to / encounter
different demons and / or angels and /or spirits.
From my somewhat sceptical perspective this discussion is
the most fascinating that has appeared on this little electronic
coven in a long time.
How can 'realist / empiricist thought serve the cause of magic(k)?
What is this 'cause' of magic(k)?
Ayn Marx
Gnome d Plume
****Sorry about that. This news group was always a Wild West Show
but we did have some good discussions and a few heavy hitters.
Now we have mostly porno, trolls and dweebs. I lurk here mainly to
monitor announcements. ****
G.
MDHJWH
> from a long-passed exchange between myself (Gnome) and nagasiva.
> In this case I was cutting him short before running on and on about
> the operational possibilities of "evocation to physical appearance"
> (by this we mean teleportation as in 'beam me up, Scotty') which is
> frankly a superstition that so-called primitive shamans don't even
> swallow.
Paramahansa Yogananda did.
P 31 Ayn Marx
Joseph Bearwalker Wilson
Yogananda swallowed?
-
Live in harmony,
Joseph Bearwalker Wilson
http://www.toteg.com
'Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.'
Matsuo Basho (1644-1694)
Gnome d Plume
**** So-called primitive shamans do not hold that everything,
with the exception of Brahman, is Maya (illusion). Within this
conception "anything" is possible,"(especially when training chelas)
---but even so, there are major charlatans in the Yogi world. One very
famous guru teleports little souvenir button pictures of himself from
"thousands of miles away" and sells them to his devotees.....and if
you believe he really does then I can sell you controlling interest in
a certain bridge that spans the Hudson River......****
Gnome
Nihilist
>
> This is an interesting perspective, Gnome. It has the ring
> of realist / empiricist thought and yet perfectly serves the
> cause of magic(k).
>
> What is this 'cause' of magic(k)?
It seems to me that in occult philosophy, anything goes. Your guesses
are probably as good as anyone else's.
"Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!"
"Yes it does!" No it doesn't!" "Yes it does!" "No it doesn't!"
There is no scientific evidence of anyone evoking a spirit to visible
appearance, and in the little time I've spent here, I don't recall
anyone claiming to be able to do so. (By visible appearance, I mean
that which can be recorded with a video camera.)
On the other hand, through personal experience in the last 30+ days,
I've learnt that it's possible to see spirits by using hypnotic
techniques. I have not been able to get any extraordinary information
from these spirits or to convince them to perform any extraordinary
deeds. Nevertheless, it's possible that a research psychologist or
someone may be able to find some practical value in magical exercises
of the sort.
MDHJWH
>
> **** So-called primitive shamans do not hold that everything,
> with the exception of Brahman, is Maya (illusion). Within this
> conception "anything" is possible,"(especially when training chelas)
> ---but even so, there are major charlatans in the Yogi world. One very
> famous guru teleports little souvenir button pictures of himself from
> "thousands of miles away" and sells them to his devotees.....and if
> you believe he really does then I can sell you controlling interest in
> a certain bridge that spans the Hudson River......****
>
AM
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD: speaking of porno:)
As for hitting? I always liked the bunt:)
Hi ya Gnomey:)
Blazin' Tommy D.
"MDHJWH" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:808df0f8.04050...@posting.google.com...
BTD: It's all in your head:)
Blazin' Tommy D.
"Nihilist" <e_nih...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d9826c7.04050...@posting.google.com...
BTD: Like facing with and dealing with your "dark side"?
Nihilist
> > Nevertheless, it's possible that a research psychologist or
> > someone may be able to find some practical value in magical exercises
> > of the sort.
>
> BTD: Like facing with and dealing with your "dark side"?
Probably something like that. What little knowledge of psychology I
have has come from the chats with and books recommended by a friend
who's majoring in the subject.
Does this have anything to do with "individualization"?
Are there dangers with self-hypnosis that I should know about?
Nihilist
wonder I couldn't find anything.
Tom
Evoking to visible appearance does have something like a correlate in
gestalt psychology. The "empty chair" exercise involves vividly imagining a
person (or other entity) as occupying an empty chair, then having a
conversation with that person (or entity). The person (or entity) may be a
living person or a dream image. Often, unarticulated information lurking
deep beneath waking consciousness can be accessed this way.
However, the way evocation to visible appearance is often handled by
occultists makes actually getting useful information difficult, buried as it
is among all the occulty superstitions about demons and supernatural powers.
As for the "dangers' of self-hypnosis, it's mostly harmless. At worst, it
could reinforce one's delusional thinking.
Nihilist
>
> Evoking to visible appearance does have something like a correlate in
> gestalt psychology. The "empty chair" exercise involves vividly imagining a
> person (or other entity) as occupying an empty chair, then having a
> conversation with that person (or entity). The person (or entity) may be a
> living person or a dream image. Often, unarticulated information lurking
> deep beneath waking consciousness can be accessed this way.
That sounds like something I should look into.
Lucius
> news:8d9826c7.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<xXYnc.236037$e17.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > > > Nevertheless, it's possible that a research psychologist or
> > > > someone may be able to find some practical value in magical exercises
> > > > of the sort.
> > >
> > > BTD: Like facing with and dealing with your "dark side"?
> >
> > Probably something like that. What little knowledge of psychology I
> > have has come from the chats with and books recommended by a friend
> > who's majoring in the subject.
> >
> > Does this have anything to do with "individualization"?
> > Are there dangers with self-hypnosis that I should know about?
>
> Evoking to visible appearance does have something like a correlate in
> gestalt psychology. The "empty chair" exercise involves vividly imagining a
> person (or other entity) as occupying an empty chair, then having a
> conversation with that person (or entity). The person (or entity) may be a
> living person or a dream image. Often, unarticulated information lurking
> deep beneath waking consciousness can be accessed this way.
There is another facet of Gestalt Fantasy Journeying called "mirror"
suitable for evocative magic(k). I'll paraphrase with more detail than
you had "empty chair" because with a little ingenuity, the technique I
describe can be adapted to fit near every dynamic in this thread thus
far.
"Mirror"
"Imagine you are in a very dark room. You can't see anything yet, but
there is a large mirror in front of you. As the room gradually becomes
lighter, you will be able to see an image of yourself reflected in the
mirror. Notice the reflection's posture, its facial expressions. Note
how you feel upon seeing these things. Talk silently to the image. Ask
questions of it. Notice how you feel both asking and receiving answers
from the image. Next become the image in the mirror, and note your
experiences."
H.G.A. paralells are striking. The excercise also can be can be
carried out to extremes and made fit for evocative ceremonialism.
Instead of imagining the mirror, manifest it with the eyes open over
the Triangle. In the other extreme the room once dark made gradually
lighter can be willed to emit the Light of Soul to the point of
willing 6=5 without using the imagination.
"Awareness: Exploring, Experimenting & Experiencing" by John O.
Stevens [circa 1971].
> However, the way evocation to visible appearance is often handled by
> occultists makes actually getting useful information difficult, buried as it
> is among all the occulty superstitions about demons and supernatural powers.
>
> As for the "dangers' of self-hypnosis, it's mostly harmless. At worst, it
> could reinforce one's delusional thinking.
Quid pro quo: can't the process of thinking in itself be considered to
illicit delusion. What then of existing.
So long as it's understood by the conversant that low magics are just
that and nothing more, self-hypnosis is relatively harmless, yes, I'll
agree; however consciously interacting with the subconscious in an
arena not quite the astral and not entirely the mundane, I'd warn two
things: First: be careful what you wish for. Next: there's relative
degrees of control. The subconscious acts as a servant but the role is
deceptively illusionary. I read it once stated that the sole
difference between one suffering from psychosis and a magician is that
the former lacks control. The stakes in dealing in self-hypnosis
professionally untrained are much more severe than you and others here
with something to sell allude. One can unwittingly and systematically
become psychotic (moreso than the "everyday mind" already is)
hapharzardly dabbling in it; which is why the G.'.D.'. and all other
major (and otherwise) metaphysical religions forbids its use.
Lucius
Tom
"Lucius" <luc...@mac.hush.com> wrote in message
news:727b9e47.0405...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<lAqoc.17280$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
it
> > could reinforce one's delusional thinking.
>
> Quid pro quo: can't the process of thinking in itself be considered to
> illicit delusion. What then of existing.
The process of thinking is the process of creating an image of the world we
experience and interpreting that image so that we can extrapolate what we
might experience next and prepare for it. Of course, simply because we
don't know everything, that image is going to be inaccurate in many respects
and will require virtually constant revisions to improve its verisimilitude.
BTW, how would an illicit delusion differ from a legitimate one?
> So long as it's understood by the conversant that low magics are just
> that and nothing more, self-hypnosis is relatively harmless, yes, I'll
> agree; however consciously interacting with the subconscious in an
> arena not quite the astral and not entirely the mundane, I'd warn two
> things: First: be careful what you wish for. Next: there's relative
> degrees of control. The subconscious acts as a servant but the role is
> deceptively illusionary.
It may be a servant, but it's not necessarily *your* servant, eh?
> I read it once stated that the sole
> difference between one suffering from psychosis and a magician is that
> the former lacks control.
Or at least a functional perspective.
> The stakes in dealing in self-hypnosis
> professionally untrained are much more severe than you and others here
> with something to sell allude. One can unwittingly and systematically
> become psychotic (moreso than the "everyday mind" already is)
> hapharzardly dabbling in it; which is why the G.'.D.'. and all other
> major (and otherwise) metaphysical religions forbids its use.
I don't think they forbid its use altogether. They simply forbid its use
for certain kinds of effects as opposed to others. A prayer service is an
exercise in autosuggestion. So is a ritual. If any religion allows prayer
or ritual, it allows autosuggestion.
Autosuggestion is one of the most potent tools we have for the intentional
transformation of consciousness, and one of the safest. Other tools, like
trauma or ingesting psychoactive substances, are much more perilous.
Rick
You can find variations on this technique in many places, packaged for
selected audiences: "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill, "Beyond
Hypnosis" by William Hewitt, and "Urban Shaman" by Serge Kahili King, to
name but three.
The "empty chair technique" used by some clinical psychologists
produces, for the most part, a far more mild experience than what
evocative magick by a well-trained practitioner can produce. That, I
think, is not so much a function of differences between the techniques
themselves, but is more to do with the usual amount of time and effort
put into doing them by their respective users.
Empty chair is a moderately effective approach in initiating some
desired changes (and appears to work best in conjunction with standard
hypnotic techniques), which in my books puts it in the same league with
most other magical techniques. An advantage of the gestalt or other
alternative packaging is accessibility to, and acceptability by, the non
magically inclined. It's all aimed at the same things though: being better.
Rick
Gnome d Plume
(Big snip)
>
>So long as it's understood by the conversant that low magics are just
>that and nothing more, self-hypnosis is relatively harmless,
**** Are you a philosophical dualist ala Steiner? If you are
NeoPlatonic /Hermetic you would not hold this "low magic"view of the
individual subconscious; as above,so below; as within so without. We
relate this to Jung's collective unconsciousness--not "low magic."
****
>yes, I'll agree; however consciously interacting with the subconscious in an
>arena not quite the astral and not entirely the mundane,
**** Not quite Steiner and not quite Jung....???****
>I'd warn two things: First: be careful what you wish for.
**** Absolutely! The little universe gets much larger the deeper you
go into it. ("Its all in your head but you have no idea how BIG your
head is!" -- Lon DuQuette ****
>Next: there's relative
>degrees of control. The subconscious acts as a servant but the role is
>deceptively illusionary. I read it once stated that the sole
>difference between one suffering from psychosis and a magician is that
>the former lacks control. The stakes in dealing in self-hypnosis
>professionally untrained are much more severe than you and others here
>with something to sell allude.
**** Actually most magical "sellers" avoid the mention of hypnosis and
self-hypnosis in their presentations. Llewellyn and other spook-book
publishers have long been aware that the average buyer of books on
"Magick" number (1) seldom finishes the book, (2) Is more credulous
than a so-called primitive shaman when it comes to magical philosophy,
(3) Wants to believe six impossible things before breakfast, and (4)
Is incapable of any disciplined program of concentration....This all
being true (and unfortunately it is) the few people who might be hurt
by perfecting self-hypnosis will never get the chance. Successful
self-hypnosis ability takes a certain amount of concentration,
discipline and intelligence. Such people are the stronger and saner
among the occult community. ****
>One can unwittingly and systematically
>become psychotic (moreso than the "everyday mind" already is)
>hapharzardly dabbling in it;
**** It is virtually impossible to haphazardly dabble in
self-hypnosis. Hypnosis yes---there I will agree with you and I stated
such a warning in *Magick and Hypnosis* which is still the landmark
paper on the subject----but self-hypnosis is the systematic
establishment of control of the subconsciousness by the conscious.
Psychosis is exactley the opposite. Self-Hypnosis is the first step
toward total sanity. ****
>which is why the G.'.D.'. and all other
>major (and otherwise) metaphysical religions forbids its use.
**** You are way off the mark here. The G.D. forbade "hypnosis" (not
self-hypnosis) because spiritualism and various mesmeristic stage and
salon "swamis" were enjoying notorious public notoriety in the
Victorian era. Unfortunately the G.D.'s ban extended to the use of
crystal orbs and dark mirrors as well because they were "hypnotic"
and popular with the "evil" drawing room swamis (Svengali, remember?)
This served to castrate G.D.magick in the areas of invocation and
evocation (fortunately we've outgrown it!) Crystal orbs and dark
mirrors were the major conjuration devices of choice in Renaissance
High magick as any serious student of the Art well knows. There are
some ritualistic hangovers in the old obligations against hypnosis,
but it is no longer considered forbidden by those who seriously
practice the Magical Art----in fact hypnosis, in its various forms, is
what makes the Magical Art actually work.
And thanks for your opinion on this issue---as wrong as I think it
is! This is a much more productive discussion than the Kansan's
endless droolings over Heidi Klum.****
Good Magick!
Gnome d' Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/temple.html
Good Magick
Tom
"Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c80and$41k$1...@daisy.noc.ucla.edu...
>
> The "empty chair technique" used by some clinical psychologists
> produces, for the most part, a far more mild experience than what
> evocative magick by a well-trained practitioner can produce. That, I
> think, is not so much a function of differences between the techniques
> themselves, but is more to do with the usual amount of time and effort
> put into doing them by their respective users.
I agree.
Usually, people doing the "empty chair" exercise in therapy are using the
technique for the very first time ever. It's somewhat unfair to compare the
results obtained by such novices with those obtainable by someone who has
been doing something similar for a long time. One's first results with
goetic evocation are usually quite mild, too.
You gotta get to more hypnotherapy and gestalt workshops, Rick. See the
pros in action.
Check this guy out. http://www.stephengilligan.com/
> An advantage of the gestalt or other
> alternative packaging is accessibility to, and acceptability by, the non
> magically inclined. It's all aimed at the same things though: being
better.
Would you say it's a secular approach rather than a religious one?
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD: Well first of all my personal belief/experience about visualization
isn't supposed to be divulged because it's part of the discipline an adept
goes through
It sounds to me like you're a pretty young fella and maybe ought to read a
little more and dare I say purify your thoughts before getting in to this
sort of thing, if at all.
As far as individualization goes, no, because in Goetia you're essentially
learning a form of classification that will be the same for everyone who
uses it; your own development and point in time however determines what
aspects of yourself you'd be exploring. If you read the earlier works you'll
notice that most of the purposes and aspects one evokes appear to be for bad
purposes - killing, causing shipwrecks, stealing things - that a Mage would
perhaps show a King how to work before setting out on war or some
clandestine operation. Gnome would be the one to ask in these regards, he's
the resident Goetic expert.
If you're merely looking for a means to discover yourself, or perhaps
"deconstruct" your ego (a complex subject in itself discussed here many
times) there are other ways of achieving this and IMO it's what you
experience a long the way rather than any sort of conclusion so don't miss
the sites when you're doing the ride, leave the blinders for the horse
In that regard the various Oriental occult practices provide the key, which
in a way, is what the O stands for in OTO but a lot of this stuff are things
that you have to learn for yourself, otherwise you begin living someone
else's life and perceptions and work the opposite of discovering yourself
and essentially might even lose yourselves even if for a transitory time -
e.g., 20 years
However other persons that have traveled this path can more readily
correspond about aspects of it because they've already experienced it. There
are of course different degrees. For example, someone develops some goal and
believes they're headed for that goal and ignores all that's going by them -
i.e., the substance of life and all there is to life and consciousness - and
thus naturally become disillusioned, depressed maybe even kill themselves or
simply abandon the course. Then on the other hand there are those that have
discovered the purpose of life -- which you cannot convince yourself of but
can only experience by personal revelation or perhaps (as I believe,
intellectually) that life is to have fun -- and be able to live it as freely
as possible with a clear conscience and without any hindrance whatsoever
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD: I couldn't agree more Gnomey
Personally
I love Alessandra Ambrosio
She is perfect
mwah!
Lucius
> "Lucius" <luc...@mac.hush.com> wrote in message
> news:727b9e47.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<lAqoc.17280$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > > As for the "dangers" of self-hypnosis, it's mostly harmless. At worst,
> > > it could reinforce one's delusional thinking.
> >
> > Quid pro quo: can't the process of thinking in itself be considered to
> > illicit delusion. What then of existing.
>
> The process of thinking is the process of creating an image of the world we
> experience and interpreting that image so that we can extrapolate what we
> might experience next and prepare for it.
In other words: thoughts are structured beliefs; formed oft by
information we process from experiencing combinations of sense data --
seeing and hearing mostly.
> Of course, simply because we
> don't know everything, that image is going to be inaccurate in many respects
> and will require virtually constant revisions to improve its verisimilitude.
Amid the process of constant revisionioning to mold an image or a
belief to any given situation one is deluded before, during and after
the image or belief is thus formed, because change is impermenant
reality's way of appearing to turn pages, as it were. Most are always
having to adapt to the way they think or believe their environments
exist in relation to how they think or believe generally; how they
think or believe they should think or believe in any situation based
on societal and family upbringing, or lack thereof; and from sense
data being relayed to the Central Nervous System dictating thoughts,
and beliefs therefrom. My point being: in one fashion or another we as
humans are manipulated to respond to conditions set by either the
illusionary sense world itself, or others' views of the sense world.
No matter how I slice it and dice it, all thoughts and beliefs appear
to me to be delusional (and yes I am aware of the irony of my last
statement).
> BTW, how would an illicit delusion differ from a legitimate one?
First, define, based on your thoughts and beliefs, non-delusional
thinking based on "it [self-hypnosis] could reinforce one's delusional
thinking".
Poke seems to think that self-hypnosis liberates one from the
subconscious, setting the meditator in some fashion beyond the state,
using unconscious (stated or otherwise) egomaniacal buzz-words such as
"control", "right" and "wrong", and "self-styled authority",
nonetheless. You on the other hand seem to be stating quite the
opposite. Knowing how looks can and oft are deceiving in this forum,
however, let's hash it out. If sense data is formed based on sense
recognition of conditions set by impermanent existence, how, in your
opinion, is it rational to concede experiencing sense data personified
(subconsciousness) being more vaild experience rooted in
non-delusional thinking than is raw sense data?
Lucius
Tom
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<r9Moc.18599$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
we
> > experience and interpreting that image so that we can extrapolate what
we
> > might experience next and prepare for it.
>
> In other words: thoughts are structured beliefs; formed oft by
> information we process from experiencing combinations of sense data --
> seeing and hearing mostly.
They are all based, with various degrees of looseness, on our experiences,
but they're not necessarily structured beliefs. You can have thoughts you
don't believe to be true. Fantasies, for example, aren't necessarily
believed to be true, but are thoughts nonetheless. Thoughts can also be
disjointed and disorganized, so they're not necessarily structured.
However, thoughts can be piled on other thoughts such that it becomes very
difficult to identify just what direct experiences they may be based upon.
> My point being: in one fashion or another we as
> humans are manipulated to respond to conditions set by either the
> illusionary sense world itself, or others' views of the sense world.
We're manipulated by the world? What do you mean?
> No matter how I slice it and dice it, all thoughts and beliefs appear
> to me to be delusional (and yes I am aware of the irony of my last
> statement).
It appears to me that no thought is without the possibility of error.
However, some thoughts are more erroneous than others.
> > BTW, how would an illicit delusion differ from a legitimate one?
>
> First, define, based on your thoughts and beliefs, non-delusional
> thinking based on "it [self-hypnosis] could reinforce one's delusional
> thinking".
A delusion is a belief which consistently conflicts significantly with
independent observations. A thought which is not believed is not a
delusion. I have no objection to the assertion that beliefs are all, to
some degree or another, delusional. However, I do object to the assertion
that all thoughts are delusions.
> Poke seems to think that self-hypnosis liberates one from the
> subconscious, setting the meditator in some fashion beyond the state,
> using unconscious (stated or otherwise) egomaniacal buzz-words such as
> "control", "right" and "wrong", and "self-styled authority",
> nonetheless.
Among those who practice the kind of magick Poke does, isn't control the
whole point?
> You on the other hand seem to be stating quite the
> opposite.
Self-hypnosis may produce insightful realizations, but it also may produce
beliefs that ain't necessarily so.
> Knowing how looks can and oft are deceiving in this forum,
> however, let's hash it out. If sense data is formed based on sense
> recognition of conditions set by impermanent existence, how, in your
> opinion, is it rational to concede experiencing sense data personified
> (subconsciousness) being more vaild experience rooted in
> non-delusional thinking than is raw sense data?
All experience is valid. All interpretations of that experience are not.
The experience of a goetic evocation is a real experience. However, what we
conclude from it may be false.
Your question was stated in a rather convoluted way, so I'm not sure I
answered it adequately. If I didn't, can you clarify it a bit?
Old Coyote
> "Lucius" <luc...@mac.hush.com> wrote in message
> news:727b9e47.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<lAqoc.17280$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
<snip>
> Of course, simply because we
> don't know everything,
bad paradigm, bad paradigm.
Difference of static vs. dynamic. What we learn today may be correct,
today, but we may find something has changed tomorrow. We do change,
but so does 'the world' completely independently of us.
That's how old people lose relevancy. Know what I mean? ;) Also
why young people have 'the edge'.
I know those are stereotypes but that's the currency.
It's not dependent on our knowledge, is my point, but rather
our current perspective, position, point of view, call it what
you like it's all the same, it is a time sensitive think.
IOW 'knowing everything' is not a statement that makes any
sense whatsoever, it is built on far too many shaky assumptions,
fact is the whole train is rocking continous, 'knowing the right
stuff' is what counts.
Rick
>> Rick wrote:
> Usually, people doing the "empty chair" exercise in therapy are using the
> technique for the very first time ever. It's somewhat unfair to compare the
> results obtained by such novices with those obtainable by someone who has
> been doing something similar for a long time. One's first results with
> goetic evocation are usually quite mild, too.
> You gotta get to more hypnotherapy and gestalt workshops, Rick. See the
> pros in action.
Yeah, well... the clinical people around here are all weird and smell funny.
>> An advantage of the gestalt or other
>> alternative packaging is accessibility to, and acceptability by, the non
>> magically inclined. It's all aimed at the same things though: being
>> better.
> Would you say it's a secular approach rather than a religious one?
Perhaps. It's difficult to assess the impact of concern for ones "soul"
(or some similar concept), but intuitively, and especially if the
personal cosmology holds that the "soul" construct is immortal, it's got
to matter a lot. So a religious drive may have more oomph to it than a
simple rational desire to address a problem. Of course, seeking
professional help for a problem would suggest a high level of oomph too.
Motivation appears to be a key for success, in both magick and therapy,
so your question is not at all trivial.
However, people with no consciously acknowledged problem are very
unlikely to find their way to a gestalt therapist for an empty chair
session or two. Even though very few are choosing it these days,
evocative magick remains an open option to anyone.
On a related note, I read a study recently suggesting that seretonin
receptor density is negatively correlated with religious tendencies. I'm
not entirely convinced of how practical the finding is because of the
questionable measures they used for both religiosity and receptor
density. That aside for the sake of discussion, the finding suggests a
possible biological/genetic basis for religious tendencies, which could
at some point explain why some people reach for a grimiore or a bible
while others more readily go to the therapist section of the yellow pages.
Rick
Tom
"Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:bacaf0e0.04051...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<r9Moc.18599$V97....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> > Of course, simply because we
> > don't know everything,
>
> bad paradigm, bad paradigm.
>
> Difference of static vs. dynamic. What we learn today may be correct,
> today, but we may find something has changed tomorrow. We do change,
> but so does 'the world' completely independently of us.
Some things change so slowly that the change is undetectable. What's the
difference between undetectable change and stasis? Bad paradigm, bad
paradigm...
> That's how old people lose relevancy. Know what I mean? ;) Also
> why young people have 'the edge'.
It's the people who changed. The world goes on just about the same.
Undetectable change, ya know?
> I know those are stereotypes but that's the currency.
Currencies, like stereotypes, are conventions. They, too, change, and not
undetectably.
> It's not dependent on our knowledge, is my point, but rather
> our current perspective, position, point of view, call it what
> you like it's all the same, it is a time sensitive think.
One form of knowledge is the recognition of the differences between
perspectives.
> IOW 'knowing everything' is not a statement that makes any
> sense whatsoever, it is built on far too many shaky assumptions,
> fact is the whole train is rocking continous, 'knowing the right
> stuff' is what counts.
Which is exactly why any image built on that assumption cannot be depended
upon.
When you choose to argue with me about something I said, it's best to argue
about the whole sentence I wrote rather than just pulling one clause out of
context.
"Of course, simply because we don't know everything, that image is going to
be inaccurate in many respects and will require virtually constant revisions
to improve its verisimilitude."
Nothing in that sentence should suggest to you that I think knowing
everything is possible. In fact, once you read it in the context of the
discussion, it is pretty clear that I do *not* consider omniscience to be
attainable.
Tom
> > From: Tom (danto...@earthlink.net)
>
> > You gotta get to more hypnotherapy and gestalt workshops, Rick. See the
> > pros in action.
>
> Yeah, well... the clinical people around here are all weird and smell
funny.
Clinical people usually do.
> > Would you say it's a secular approach rather than a religious one?
>
> Perhaps. It's difficult to assess the impact of concern for ones "soul"
> (or some similar concept), but intuitively, and especially if the
> personal cosmology holds that the "soul" construct is immortal, it's got
> to matter a lot. So a religious drive may have more oomph to it than a
> simple rational desire to address a problem. Of course, seeking
> professional help for a problem would suggest a high level of oomph too.
> Motivation appears to be a key for success, in both magick and therapy,
> so your question is not at all trivial.
Secular approaches often have more oomph for secular folks. People for whom
a magical amulet won't have any effect will find a homeopathic remedy, which
is the same thing in a secular guise, to be effective.
> However, people with no consciously acknowledged problem are very
> unlikely to find their way to a gestalt therapist for an empty chair
> session or two.
It is sometimes inserted into corporate training sessions, too.
> Even though very few are choosing it these days,
> evocative magick remains an open option to anyone.
Fashions change.
> On a related note, I read a study recently suggesting that seretonin
> receptor density is negatively correlated with religious tendencies. I'm
> not entirely convinced of how practical the finding is because of the
> questionable measures they used for both religiosity and receptor
> density. That aside for the sake of discussion, the finding suggests a
> possible biological/genetic basis for religious tendencies, which could
> at some point explain why some people reach for a grimiore or a bible
> while others more readily go to the therapist section of the yellow pages.
Do you know offhand what the researchers defined as "religious tendencies"?
Rick
>>On a related note, I read a study recently suggesting that seretonin
>>receptor density is negatively correlated with religious tendencies. I'm
>>not entirely convinced of how practical the finding is because of the
>>questionable measures they used for both religiosity and receptor
>>density. That aside for the sake of discussion, the finding suggests a
>>possible biological/genetic basis for religious tendencies, which could
>>at some point explain why some people reach for a grimiore or a bible
>>while others more readily go to the therapist section of the yellow pages.
> Do you know offhand what the researchers defined as "religious tendencies"?
They used the Swedish version of the "Temperament and Character
Inventory," which has 3 subscales consisting of several forced choice
questions each that are supposed to get at religiosity:
"self-transcendence," "transpersonal identification vs. self-conscious
experience," and "spiritual acceptance vs. material rationalism."
I find the entire instrument highly questionable. Recent factor analysis
studies of the inventory paint a very unfavorable picture.
Rick
Gnome d Plume
**** Lucius:
I believe you should be given some kind of award for this sentence:
>If sense data is formed based on sense
>>recognition of conditions set by impermanent existence, how, in your
>>opinion, is it rational to concede experiencing sense data personified
>>(subconsciousness) being more vaild experience rooted in
>>non-delusional thinking than is raw sense data?
Possibly from the Institute for Applied Philosophical Semantics?
Allow me to attempt a translation into common terms (conceding
oversimplification, generalization, etc., etc. )
What you are saying is: How is it rational to concede the information,
vision, oracle, and so forth, received from an intentionally
personified entity in the subconscious as being more valid than
something received in a conscious, rational state of mind?
The simple answer is that it is not.
The even simpler answer is that you have missed the point.
The subconscious is certainly not in competition with the sensory
world. Why should it be? The information contained in the subconscious
has its own value in its own context. Magick uses the Left Brain
(rational) to control the Right Brain (intuitive). Hypnosis and
self-hypnosis are the methods we use. We ALL use these methods
whether we admit it or not. Those of us who admit it are more
effective. ****
Gnome
Tom
I thought that might be the case. But then what *are* they measuring?
I like Persinger's work with electromagnetic brain stimulation to induce
states usually associated with mystical experiences. Why bother with a
religion, when you can just plug God in?
Tom
> On 14 May 2004 03:13:35 -0700, luc...@mac.hush.com (Lucius) wrote:
> >
> >Poke seems to think that self-hypnosis liberates one from the
> >subconscious, setting the meditator in some fashion beyond the state,
> >using unconscious (stated or otherwise) egomaniacal buzz-words such as
> >"control", "right" and "wrong", and "self-styled authority",
> >nonetheless. You on the other hand seem to be stating quite the
> >opposite. Knowing how looks can and oft are deceiving in this forum,
> >however, let's hash it out. If sense data is formed based on sense
> >recognition of conditions set by impermanent existence, how, in your
> >opinion, is it rational to concede experiencing sense data personified
> >(subconsciousness) being more vaild experience rooted in
> >non-delusional thinking than is raw sense data?
> >
> >Lucius
>
> **** Lucius:
>
> I believe you should be given some kind of award for this sentence:
The A.E. Waite prize for Impenetrable Prose?
Meltdarok
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:N_gpc.1014$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Then maybe thanks to him we'll have more than just three people laying
in isolation tanks in D.C. having premonitions of murders.
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
"Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:JMhpc.6506$hH.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:N_gpc.1014$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > states usually associated with mystical experiences. Why bother with a
> > religion, when you can just plug God in?
>
> Then maybe thanks to him we'll have more than just three people laying
> in isolation tanks in D.C. having premonitions of murders.
Which three people are those and what do they have to do with Persinger? Do
tell!
MDHJWH
Should be 11 if they are to get anywhere significant.
A M
Nihilist
> >
> > states usually associated with mystical experiences. Why bother with a
> > religion, when you can just plug God in?
> >
>
> Then maybe thanks to him we'll have more than just three people laying
> in isolation tanks in D.C. having premonitions of murders.
I wouldn't exactly call them premonitions of murders, but there was a
high degree of prescience involved. You're thinking of the wrong
tanks, though.
Lhung
>
> **** So-called primitive shamans do not hold that everything,
> with the exception of Brahman, is Maya (illusion). Within this
> conception "anything" is possible,"(especially when training chelas)
> ---but even so, there are major charlatans in the Yogi world. One very
> famous guru teleports little souvenir button pictures of himself from
> "thousands of miles away" and sells them to his devotees.....and if
> you believe he really does then I can sell you controlling interest in
> a certain bridge that spans the Hudson River......****
>
> Gnome
What you're saying is true, but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
actually exist and wreak physical damage. They're just slightly more
organized pseudo-physical entities.
The problem isn't so much generating one it's doing anything useful
with it.
-------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3479203.stm
Theories of demonic intervention are rife in a Sicilian coastal
village where mysterious fires have driven people from their homes.
Since mid-January dozens of domestic items have spontaneously burst
into flames, badly damaging houses and spreading panic in Canneto di
Caronia.
Police evacuated some residents and there have been calls for an
exorcism.
Experts on electricity, magnetic fields, telephones and geology are
baffled by the phenomenon.
Lhung
Tom
"Lhung" <lastdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3207d1d3.04051...@posting.google.com...
>
> What you're saying is true, but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
> actually exist and wreak physical damage. They're just slightly more
> organized pseudo-physical entities.
So you say. Have you any evidence beyond unsubstantiated anecdotes?
Can you demonstrate your demon?
Meltdarok
"Lhung" <lastdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3207d1d3.04051...@posting.google.com...
> Gnome d Plume <Gnome...@unowhere.com> wrote ...
> >
> > **** So-called primitive shamans do not hold that everything,
> > with the exception of Brahman, is Maya (illusion). Within this
> > conception "anything" is possible,"(especially when training chelas)
> > ---but even so, there are major charlatans in the Yogi world. One very
> > famous guru teleports little souvenir button pictures of himself from
> > "thousands of miles away" and sells them to his devotees.....and if
> > you believe he really does then I can sell you controlling interest in
> > a certain bridge that spans the Hudson River......****
> >
> > Gnome
>
> What you're saying is true, but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
> actually exist and wreak physical damage. They're just slightly more
> organized pseudo-physical entities.
>
My family has had a poltergeist since before I was born, his name
is George. I was present as a child in my father's house when he
supposedly manifested. We were having a family gathering and were
all in the dining room eating dinner, and the dogs were laying down in
the living room. There was a crash in the kitchen, and Peppy the older
female dog leaped to her feet and ran into the kitchen barking up a storm!
My older relatives all laughed and said, "There goes George again!"
> The problem isn't so much generating one it's doing anything useful
> with it.
>
> -------
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Gnome d Plume
**** We are both right. I've personally witnessed examples of
poltergeist phenomena that were frankly astounding--but it is still
true that if it looks like a trick, if it is staged like a trick, and
especially if it has a price tag on it, you can bet that it is a
trick. ****
Gnome
Nihilist
> My family has had a poltergeist since before I was born, his name
> is George. [...] My older relatives all laughed and said, "There
> goes George again!"
George is one of the people lying in D.C.
"Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<JMhpc.6506$hH.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
Lhung
> >What you're saying is true, but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
> >actually exist and wreak physical damage. They're just slightly more
> >organized pseudo-physical entities.
> >
> >The problem isn't so much generating one it's doing anything useful
> >with it.
> >
[snip]
>
> **** We are both right. I've personally witnessed examples of
> poltergeist phenomena that were frankly astounding--but it is still
> true that if it looks like a trick, if it is staged like a trick, and
> especially if it has a price tag on it, you can bet that it is a
> trick. ****
>
> Gnome
That's true enough. The fundamentally scary thing about elemental
spirits - forest, metal, flame, stone, or earth - is that they're
almost completely uncontrollable in the usual sense. They truly are
wild and intense manifestations of pure nature and as such are only
barely influenced by men. If something is clean and "safe" enough to
look like a trick, it's probably not real.
Once a boy asked me to make a light for him, I laughed in his face -
because in order to unleash that much animated energy would result in
either the house being burned down or lightning striking it. Then
later on of course, I did something like that. A house did end up
getting burned down. It's hard to control those little buggers.
The process is very much not additive.
Lhung
You had a news report from the BBC and were free to track it down and
verify to what degree physical experts had investigated the situation.
It's not as if this is a peer-reviewed journal setting. It's an
informal place to talk about magick.
I've already provided more evidence than 99% of all assertions
including most of the bogus pop-psychological bullshit that goes on.
> Can you demonstrate your demon?
Daemon not demon. There's a difference, both etymologically,
theoretically, and in field conditions.
http://www.kl.oakland.edu/kraemer/edcm/contents.html
As a matter of fact, I don't have a daemon. That term would be
appropriate to the practioners of Western Mystery Tradition Platonic,
Neoplatonic, or Classical Greek Theurgy.
I have a dragon, or rather am a dragon, in the parlance of the orient.
As for whether others have seen it - sure, several times. According to
their descriptions it's big, shadowy, cold, about the size of house,
has glaring eyes, and causes terrifying fear in people with its
predatory demeanour.
In western parlance one could consider it a massive thought-form
projection.
It is kind of a little unsettling to work with, especially when it
litters large amounts of corpses around like a cat dropping trophies
by its owners doorstep.
I'm sure you're capable of coming up with some sort of rationalistic
explanation - hallucination, suggestion, etc.
That really doesn't concern me. What concerns me is that it runs my
errands, doesn't eat the neighbors, and has proven a very effective
guard dog against some very hostile and dangerous individuals both
close by and far away from my proximate location.
If your question is whether or not anyone else can see it, the answer
is yes - and that some have them have even survived doing so. If your
question is does it have a measurable mass - I'm not sure - but even
an electromagnetic hologram technically has energy and mass but not
rest mass. It never occurred to me to inquire. I was too busy keeping
it from knocking me over or eating the neighbor's cat ... or the
neighbor themselves.
Lhung
>
> My family has had a poltergeist since before I was born, his name
> is George. I was present as a child in my father's house when he
> supposedly manifested. We were having a family gathering and were
> all in the dining room eating dinner, and the dogs were laying down in
> the living room. There was a crash in the kitchen, and Peppy the older
> female dog leaped to her feet and ran into the kitchen barking up a storm!
> My older relatives all laughed and said, "There goes George again!"
>
I'm not surprised. It's just that this sort of thing is, you know, not
very controllable. That's the real trick with evocation. It's not
scaring up something like this. It's teaching it to do "tricks". Or
perhaps it's the other way around. Sometimes you have to be careful
when you assume who is in charge.
That's the real difference between someone who knows what they're
doing, and someone who just runs into this sort of thing.
There is a middle ground of course, where some people can get results
some of the time under certain conditions and that's where most people
who try their hand at this sort of thing fall.
Meltdarok
> >
> > My family has had a poltergeist since before I was born, his name
> > is George. I was present as a child in my father's house when he
> > supposedly manifested. We were having a family gathering and were
> > all in the dining room eating dinner, and the dogs were laying down in
> > the living room. There was a crash in the kitchen, and Peppy the older
> > female dog leaped to her feet and ran into the kitchen barking up a
storm!
> > My older relatives all laughed and said, "There goes George again!"
> >
>
> I'm not surprised. It's just that this sort of thing is, you know, not
> very controllable. That's the real trick with evocation. It's not
> scaring up something like this. It's teaching it to do "tricks". Or
> perhaps it's the other way around. Sometimes you have to be careful
> when you assume who is in charge.
>
I've already was warned on Samain 1995.
> That's the real difference between someone who knows what they're
> doing, and someone who just runs into this sort of thing.
>
> There is a middle ground of course, where some people can get results
> some of the time under certain conditions and that's where most people
> who try their hand at this sort of thing fall.
>
> ------
> http://dragonking.blogspot.com/
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Meltdarok
I was refering to "Minority Report," Persinger is "keeping them honest."
As you may recall, I hold that with sufficient technology we should be able
to detect God's communication with man. My favorite scenario is that
everyone
who can afford it will have a "Walkman" type device of their very own;
however,
"Minority Report" is another one where such a thing is too expensive for
individuals.
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
MDHJWH
> Experts on electricity, magnetic fields, telephones and geology are
> baffled by the phenomenon.
.........................................bet the local real-estate agents aren't.
Tom
"Lhung" <lastdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3207d1d3.04051...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<BS3qc.3585$H_3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Lhung" <lastdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3207d1d3.04051...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > What you're saying is true, but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
> > > actually exist and wreak physical damage. They're just slightly more
> > > organized pseudo-physical entities.
> >
> > So you say. Have you any evidence beyond unsubstantiated anecdotes?
>
> You had a news report from the BBC
It was not a report on demonic poltergeist demons. It was a report on an
unexplained rash of fires. They have not ruled out arson or a faulty
electrical grid. And a couple of religious kooks have sugggesrted it was
Satan. Stop jumping to conclusions.
> and were free to track it down and
> verify to what degree physical experts had investigated the situation.
I read the story. It contains no demonstration of the existence of
"poltergeist demons".
> It's not as if this is a peer-reviewed journal setting. It's an
> informal place to talk about magick.
It is also a place where silly claims like yours are open to challenge.
> I've already provided more evidence than 99% of all assertions
> including most of the bogus pop-psychological bullshit that goes on.
I bet you can't support *that* assertion with any verifiable evidence
either.
> > Can you demonstrate your demon?
>
> Daemon not demon.
A variation in spelling won't bolster your claim.
> There's a difference, both etymologically,
There is no etymological difference between demon and daemon.
> theoretically, and in field conditions.
Get out in the field and catch me a daemon, if you're such an expert.
> As a matter of fact, I don't have a daemon.
Or a poltergeist. Or any serious evidence in support of your claims.
> I have a dragon, or rather am a dragon, in the parlance of the orient.
Big deal. I'm a Dragon myself, in the parlance of the "orient". There's
absolutely nothing unusual about that.
> As for whether others have seen it - sure, several times.
I didn't ask you if other people tell stories about seeing strange things.
Of course they do. That's lousy evidence, though. That's why I didn't ask
for it.
> According to
> their descriptions it's big, shadowy, cold, about the size of house,
> has glaring eyes, and causes terrifying fear in people with its
> predatory demeanour.
>
> In western parlance one could consider it a massive thought-form
> projection.
Or a just another bullshit story.
> I'm sure you're capable of coming up with some sort of rationalistic
> explanation - hallucination, suggestion, etc.
Coming up with explanations is easy. Coming up with solid evidence to
support your claim is the hard part. That's the part you're not up to.
> If your question is whether or not anyone else can see it, the answer
> is yes - and that some have them have even survived doing so.
Pardon me while I laugh in your face. I'll be brief.
Ha, ha.
Tom
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:oCppc.1310$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:JMhpc.6506$hH.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > in isolation tanks in D.C. having premonitions of murders.
> >
> > Which three people are those and what do they have to do with Persinger?
> > Do tell!
>
> I was refering to "Minority Report," Persinger is "keeping them honest."
Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
science and science fiction.
Dagon Productions
Tom wrote:
Yes, there appears to be a difference but has not what was once
considered science fiction
manifested in reality and science? JG Ballards "Running Wild" or "High
Rise" for that matter
seem to be science fiction that has become reality in many senses... as
well as William Burroughs
predicting the onset of Aids decades ago? Though these examples may
not be technological
science fiction but rather sociological... doesn't lessen the fact that
both have crossed
paths many times over the years and manifested in reality... against
what the scientific establishment
has laughed off as nonsense previously... hell this even happens in the
scientific world. I'd say
science over the last hundred years has shown itself to be quite fallible
-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
in...@dagonproductions.com
Alexander Mulligan
Look at your history, Tom.
Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Tom
"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40A98138...@earthlink.net...
>
> Tom wrote:
> >
> >Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
> >science and science fiction.
>
> Yes, there appears to be a difference but has not what was once
> considered science fiction manifested in reality and science?
Not all that often, actually.
> JG Ballards "Running Wild" or "High Rise" for that matter
> seem to be science fiction that has become reality in many
> senses... as well as William Burroughs predicting the onset
> of Aids decades ago?
What of Edgar Rice Burroughs Pellucidar? Ray Bradbury's Mars?
Have they predicted the future?
Like I say, some day I'm going to have to explain the difference.
Tom
"Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
> > science and science fiction.
>
> Look at your history, Tom.
>
> Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science fact.
You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate ones.
There have been a handful of authors who have, on occasion, anticipated new
discoveries, but none of them claimed the power of prophecy. They were just
making guesses (sometimes highly educated ones) and happened to be right
once in a while.
However, I understand that the process of interpreting prophecy is almst
entirely a matter of reinterpreting the prophetic pronouncement after the
fact so that it seems to be predicting something.
Rick
> "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>On a related note, I read a study recently suggesting that seretonin
>>>>receptor density is negatively correlated with religious tendencies...
>>>Do you know offhand what the researchers defined as "religious
>>>tendencies"?
>>They used the Swedish version of the "Temperament and Character
>>Inventory," which has 3 subscales consisting of several forced choice
>>questions each that are supposed to get at religiosity:
>>"self-transcendence," "transpersonal identification vs. self-conscious
>>experience," and "spiritual acceptance vs. material rationalism."
>>I find the entire instrument highly questionable. Recent factor analysis
>>studies of the inventory paint a very unfavorable picture.
> I thought that might be the case. But then what *are* they measuring?
I wonder about that too.
Here's a link to the paper if you want to look it over for yourself:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/11/1965
The subscales in question could certainly be revised and improved, or
perhaps other scales could be incororated (e.g. the sheep-goat scale
and/or Tobacyk's revised paranormal belief scale).
It's possible that the observed effects would diminish with better
measurements, but my intuition tells me they won't. Other studies I'm
aware of suggest some linkage between the seretonin system and general
cognitive function, and belief systems specifically. For example, people
with pathological depression show marked cognitive differences from
non-depressed people, especially in the domains of causal inference and
attributional biases. The link between depression and seretonin isn't
fully understood, but we know for sure that adding seretonin to the
system can change the expression of the pathology.
I vote for further study before drawing any conclusions.
Rick
Alexander Mulligan
>
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
>> > science and science fiction.
>>
>> Look at your history, Tom.
>>
>> Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
>
> No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science fact.
> You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
> There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate ones.
>
There's a lot more to it than straightforward visions of the future. It's
a complex genre of literature.
> There have been a handful of authors who have, on occasion, anticipated new
> discoveries, but none of them claimed the power of prophecy. They were just
> making guesses (sometimes highly educated ones) and happened to be right
> once in a while.
>
*You* say they were "making guesses". You don't don't *know* that. It's
just the only thing your limited conceptions of the nature of reality will
allow.
Nor am I just talking about technological discoveries. There's a lot more
to it than that.
> However, I understand that the process of interpreting prophecy is almst
> entirely a matter of reinterpreting the prophetic pronouncement after the
> fact so that it seems to be predicting something.
>
>
>
I'm not talking about what *you* think is prophecy. It is obvious to me that
many of the 'science fiction' authors glimpsed the future.
Whether you can see this or not is *your* problem.
"But a man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest." -Paul Simon
You can keep your mind closed if you wish. But you can't make me or anyone
else close theirs.
Which, I gather from reading many of your posts here, just drives you crazy.
Tom
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> > news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
> >> > science and science fiction.
> >>
> >> Look at your history, Tom.
> >>
> >> Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
> >
> > No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science
fact.
> > You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
> > There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate
ones.
> >
>
> There's a lot more to it than straightforward visions of the future. It's
> a complex genre of literature.
And it's not paranormal prescience.
> > There have been a handful of authors who have, on occasion, anticipated
new
> > discoveries, but none of them claimed the power of prophecy. They were
just
> > making guesses (sometimes highly educated ones) and happened to be right
> > once in a while.
>
> *You* say they were "making guesses". You don't don't *know* that.
Yes I do. Ask 'em yourself. Do you really think Isaac Asimov, Arthur C.
Clarke, and Robert Heinlein claimed divine inspiration or a paranormal
ability to see the future?
> It's just the only thing your limited conceptions of the nature
> of reality will allow.
Like I say, ask 'em yourself.
> > However, I understand that the process of interpreting prophecy is almst
> > entirely a matter of reinterpreting the prophetic pronouncement after
the
> > fact so that it seems to be predicting something.
>
> I'm not talking about what *you* think is prophecy. It is obvious to me
that
> many of the 'science fiction' authors glimpsed the future.
Ask 'em yourself. Then, name five major science fiction writers who claim
that their work is based on their psychic glimpses of the future.
> You can keep your mind closed if you wish. But you can't make me
> or anyone else close theirs.
>
> Which, I gather from reading many of your posts here, just drives you
crazy.
You completely and utterly misunderstand my purpose. This is probably due to
the fact that your own mind is so tightly closed.
Alexander Mulligan
>
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2gv1fjF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
>> >> > science and science fiction.
>> >>
>> >> Look at your history, Tom.
>> >>
>> >> Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
>> >
>> > No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science
> fact.
>> > You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
>> > There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate
> ones.
>> >
>>
>> There's a lot more to it than straightforward visions of the future. It's
>> a complex genre of literature.
>
> And it's not paranormal prescience.
>
You are the one here that thinks prescience is "paranormal", not I.
[...]
Lhung
> > I'm not surprised. It's just that this sort of thing is, you know, not
> > very controllable. That's the real trick with evocation. It's not
> > scaring up something like this. It's teaching it to do "tricks". Or
> > perhaps it's the other way around. Sometimes you have to be careful
> > when you assume who is in charge.
> >
>
> I've already was warned on Samain 1995.
>
>
My how dire sounding. As a matter of fact most entities of "spirit"
have at best a warped and tangential perception of the "earthly
plane".
Bruce's writing is probably the best lower astral field guide out
there, his "Psychic Self-Defense" is a work detailing most of the
"lower astral" buggers out there.
Of course there is no such thing as the astral plane, spirit world,
etc. There's just reality, and reality simply isn't as "flat" or
"smooth" as people think it is.
No big surprise there.
Lhung
> > > So you say. Have you any evidence beyond unsubstantiated anecdotes?
> >
> > You had a news report from the BBC
>
> It was not a report on demonic poltergeist demons. It was a report on an
> unexplained rash of fires. They have not ruled out arson or a faulty
> electrical grid. And a couple of religious kooks have sugggesrted it was
> Satan. Stop jumping to conclusions.
>
[snip]
> > It's not as if this is a peer-reviewed journal setting. It's an
> > informal place to talk about magick.
>
> It is also a place where silly claims like yours are open to challenge.
>
> > I've already provided more evidence than 99% of all assertions
> > including most of the bogus pop-psychological bullshit that goes on.
>
> I bet you can't support *that* assertion with any verifiable evidence
> either.
>
> > > Can you demonstrate your demon?
> >
> > Daemon not demon.
>
> A variation in spelling won't bolster your claim.
>
> > There's a difference, both etymologically,
>
> There is no etymological difference between demon and daemon.
>
Sigh, talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
As you can see the word 'demon' clearly derives from the word 'daemon'
but they differ etymologically in cultural usage and time-line.
Demon is the Middle-English derivation from the Latin vulgate that
used 'daemon' as an 'evil spirit' but 'daimon' is the earlier usage
from the greek meaning an attendant spirit or a divine intermediary
with men - actually closer to the meaning of 'angel' currently.
So you see, the usage of words is just dependent upon context.
Similarly the BBC article doesn't use the same terms as I do, but
that's because they don't view things the same way.
"Pota-toe, Po-ta-toe let's call the whole thing off!"
As for your rather silly line about "verifiable evidence" why don't
you provide "verifiable evidence" that you exist?
As you can imagine, the very format of alt.magick is not conducive to
such aims. Otherwise people might actually bother to ask Kansan to
submit DNA evidence that he is the progenitor of Heidi Klum's child.
;-)
The day you see 'proof' of real magick it'll probably be your last.
It's easier to bottle lightning than to tame magick.
So why hurry such a thing?
Kick back and relax Tom, it's a nice day and proof is for lawyers not
magicians.
---------
http://dragonking.blogspot.com
_________
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=demon
Main Entry: de搶on
Variant(s): or dae搶on /'dE-m&n/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English demon, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin
daemon evil spirit, from Latin, divinity, spirit, from Greek daimOn,
probably from daiesthai to distribute -- more at TIDE
1 a : an evil spirit b : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or
ruin
2 usually daemon : an attendant power or spirit : GENIUS
3 usually daemon : a supernatural being of Greek mythology
intermediate between gods and men
4 : one that has exceptional enthusiasm, drive, or effectiveness <a
demon for work>
Tom
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > And it's not paranormal prescience.
>
> You are the one here that thinks prescience is "paranormal", not I.
OK, give me an example of normal prescience.
Alexander Mulligan
Right. You and your endless word games that do nothing but leave you
ignorant.
You would come up with what *you* call a 'rational explanation' for any
example that anyone came up with.
The past and the future all exist *now* in what you could call 'other
dimensions'. They are constantly changing.
This makes for an infinite number of time-lines. You think that there
is only one, and that the past is fixed, but it isn't. No more than
the future is.
You think that you have only the physical senses to perceive with, yet
what is thinking itself but the perception of ideas and images that
cannot be detected with the physical senses?
You confuse your beliefs with reality, when they are not *necessarily*
the same thing.
"But a man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest."
"None are so blind as those who refuse to see."
Tom
>
"Lhung" wrote:
> >
> > > There's a difference, both etymologically,
> >
> > There is no etymological difference between demon and daemon.
>
> Sigh, talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
>
> As you can see the word 'demon' clearly derives from the word 'daemon'
> but they differ etymologically in cultural usage and time-line.
No, they don't. They are alternative spellings of the same word, you dunce.
> Demon is the Middle-English derivation from the Latin vulgate that
> used 'daemon' as an 'evil spirit' but 'daimon' is the earlier usage
> from the greek meaning an attendant spirit or a divine intermediary
> with men - actually closer to the meaning of 'angel' currently.
And you used the Latin term "daemon", which is an evil spirit and
indistinguishable from "demon". You did *not* use the Greek word "daimon".
Here, let's rub your nose in it so you won't forget again.
"Lhung" <lastdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3207d1d3.04051...@posting.google.com...
>
> but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
> actually exist and wreak physical damage.
Do you see the word "daimon"? No? How about "daemon"? Why, yes, there it
is! "Poltergeist daemons"!
Look again, just to be sure. See the "daimon"? Nope. See the "daemon?"
Yes, indeed!
> So you see, the usage of words is just dependent upon context.
When you talk about "poltergeist demons" that wreak physical damage,
virtually no one is going to assume you're talking about angels or
indwelling spirits that function as divine messengers.
> As for your rather silly line about "verifiable evidence" why don't
> you provide "verifiable evidence" that you exist?
Sure. The message itself is evidence of the existence of an author. Have
several other people read this thread and see if they can see my posts. If
they can, then they have verified the evidence of my existence. See? It's
easy to find evidence for things that do exist. However, in your case,
since "poltergeist daemons" don't actually exist, it's much harder to find
verifiable evidence. All you can do is tell stories and that just doesn't
cut it as verifiable evidence.
> As you can imagine, the very format of alt.magick is not conducive to
> such aims.
You can't provide what you don't have. It's as simple as that.
> The day you see 'proof' of real magick it'll probably be your last.
What you're calling "real magick" isn't real magick. Therein lies your
problem.
You are incorrect in thinking that I asked you for "proof". I never ask
anyone for "proof". I asked for verifiable evidence other than anecdotes.
You don't have any, so you are trying to change the subject in the hopes
that no one will notice that you're talking through your hat.
Old Coyote
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> > news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
> >> > science and science fiction.
> >>
> >> Look at your history, Tom.
> >>
> >> Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
> >
> > No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science fact.
> > You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
> > There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate ones.
> >
>
> There's a lot more to it than straightforward visions of the future. It's
> a complex genre of literature.
Indeed. For the benefit of others reading, the genre in fact has
aproximately 0 to do with prophesy, & everything to do with social
commentary.
Alexander Mulligan
> Alexander Mulligan <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message news:<2gv1fjF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
>> >> > science and science fiction.
>> >>
>> >> Look at your history, Tom.
>> >>
>> >> Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
>> >
>> > No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science fact.
>> > You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
>> > There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate ones.
>> >
>>
>> There's a lot more to it than straightforward visions of the future. It's
>> a complex genre of literature.
>
> Indeed. For the benefit of others reading, the genre in fact has
> aproximately 0 to do with prophesy, & everything to do with social
> commentary.
>
in fact, involved peering into possible futures.
Some of which were manifested in this time-line and some of which were not.
You seem to think that you can seperate the mental states of people in a
given present from the futures they experience, but you cannot.
Social commentary IS a look into the future, and more than mere speculation
is often involved.
Dagon Productions
Tom wrote:
>"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:40A98138...@earthlink.net...
>
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
>>>science and science fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, there appears to be a difference but has not what was once
>>considered science fiction manifested in reality and science?
>>
>>
>
>Not all that often, actually.
>
What facts do you base this opinion on?
>
>
>
>>JG Ballards "Running Wild" or "High Rise" for that matter
>>seem to be science fiction that has become reality in many
>>senses... as well as William Burroughs predicting the onset
>>of Aids decades ago?
>>
>>
>
>What of Edgar Rice Burroughs Pellucidar? Ray Bradbury's Mars?
>
>Have they predicted the future?
>
I've not read either book so I am not qualified to comment.
>
>Like I say, some day I'm going to have to explain the difference.
>
>
>
>
Well, maybe some day you will... why the reluctance to do so now?
Dagon Productions
Tom wrote:
>"Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
>news:2gtej0F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>>In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some day I must explain to some of these folks the difference between
>>>science and science fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>Look at your history, Tom.
>>
>>Much of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact.
>>
>>
>
>No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science fact.
>You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
>There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate ones.
>
>There have been a handful of authors who have, on occasion, anticipated new
>discoveries, but none of them claimed the power of prophecy. They were just
>making guesses (sometimes highly educated ones) and happened to be right
>once in a while.
>
>
Well, cannot genius, intuitiveness and a differing insight than the
population at large be
due to this. Many thought Feynman a crackpot, but he generally had many
amazing
ideas, theories and approachs that changed science... at least as far as
I am familiar
with the subject... not being a student of hard science I will admit I
may not be
qualified to pontificate on the subject. Some of the Sci Fi authors were
more
right on than others... eliminate the dross from those that had original
thoughts,
ideas and theories and how do the statistics add up... and where do you
find
such statistics... I'm asking out of curiosity.
>However, I understand that the process of interpreting prophecy is almst
>entirely a matter of reinterpreting the prophetic pronouncement after the
>fact so that it seems to be predicting something.
>
>
>
>
>
I'm not looking at this as authors being prophetic... but that they
imagine or foresaw
what was to come... they read society and the future better than most...
even more
than their own peers.
Lhung
> > As you can see the word 'demon' clearly derives from the word 'daemon'
> > but they differ etymologically in cultural usage and time-line.
>
> No, they don't. They are alternative spellings of the same word, you dunce.
>
>
> And you used the Latin term "daemon", which is an evil spirit and
> indistinguishable from "demon". You did *not* use the Greek word "daimon".
>
> Here, let's rub your nose in it so you won't forget again.
>
> "Lhung" <lastdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3207d1d3.04051...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > but poltergeist daemons while uncommon can
> > actually exist and wreak physical damage.
>
> Do you see the word "daimon"? No? How about "daemon"? Why, yes, there it
> is! "Poltergeist daemons"!
>
> Look again, just to be sure. See the "daimon"? Nope. See the "daemon?"
> Yes, indeed!
>
<smile>
Look Tom, if I'm a dunce then so is Bill Heidricks.
http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/abramel.htm
Look under the "Bumpy road" section. He clearly uses the "Daemon"
spelling to refer to the "daimon" in Greek theurgy, and which is
validated by the Mirriam Webster dictionary reference:
"3 usually daemon : a supernatural being of Greek mythology
intermediate between gods and men"
So I guess me, Bill Heidricks, AND the Mirriam-Webster dictionary are
all dunces!
lol.
Look Tom, you're not only making a mountain out of a mole-hill but
you're doing it badly. As it turns out, "daemon" in the Middle-English
from late Latin did mean evil spirit. Etymologically in a different
culture, it's a perfectly valid phonetization of the Greek letters
meaning the 'angelic' interpretation.
As it turns out either 'daemon' nor 'daimon' is used depending on the
source for the phonetization from the original greek - which didn't
look like either.
So I'm not sure what you *think* you found here, but what you've
managed to so brilliantly discover is just what people in the real
world have known all along - that spelling changes culture to culture.
> > So you see, the usage of words is just dependent upon context.
>
> When you talk about "poltergeist demons" that wreak physical damage,
> virtually no one is going to assume you're talking about angels or
> indwelling spirits that function as divine messengers.
>
See above. You're really hashing this one out badly.
> > As for your rather silly line about "verifiable evidence" why don't
> > you provide "verifiable evidence" that you exist?
>
> Sure. The message itself is evidence of the existence of an author. Have
> several other people read this thread and see if they can see my posts. If
> they can, then they have verified the evidence of my existence. See? It's
> easy to find evidence for things that do exist. However, in your case,
> since "poltergeist daemons" don't actually exist, it's much harder to find
> verifiable evidence. All you can do is tell stories and that just doesn't
> cut it as verifiable evidence.
>
I suppose that's a valid objection, I'm sure SOMEBODY is entering
these words even if we don't know for sure if "Tom Schuler" exists per
se.
But what about your claims here?
> From: Tom (danto...@earthlink.net)
> Subject: Re: Practical magick question
> Newsgroups: alt.magick
> Date: 2004-05-06 22:16:43 PST
>
>
> "----------" <-...@---.com> wrote in message
> news:ghtl90tipkc93gn8b...@4ax.com...
>
> > I've been reading caballa, about the Golden Dawn, Regardie ,
> > Blavatsky, Ophiel and several such theoretical magickal books. My
> > question is: Where is the practical stuff?
>
> That *is* the practical stuff. (Well, maybe not the Blavatsky) Telepathy,
> telekinesis, and that kind of stuff is completely impractical. No one has
> ever managed to get it to work reliably or to accomplish anything
> significant
>
> > ( Ophiel was the most practical so far)
>
> Yes, his book on astral projection is a good place to start. Once you have
> mastered all four methods he describes, you have developed many of the
> necessary basic skills of magick.
>
> > But suppose you study the caballa, ....then what do you
> > do with that knowlege?
>
> Use it to intentionally transform your consciousness.
****
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=3207d1d3.0405171513.ce127bc%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlhung%2520alt.magick%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg
****
Well do you have evidence, verifiable evidence, that you can use
caballa to 'intentionally transform your consciousness'.
It would seem to me that memorizing letter permutations and chanting
does have medical evidence that it can *temporarily* change your state
of mind - much the same way as memorizing multiplication tables and
chanting them will do so. If you chant anything long enough you'll get
semi-hypnotized and zonk out.
However I don't think that's what you mean by 'intentionally transform
your consciousness'.
So do you have evidence of that? Or is that an "unsubstantiated"
anecdotal claim?
> > As you can imagine, the very format of alt.magick is not conducive to
> > such aims.
>
> You can't provide what you don't have. It's as simple as that.
>
I would say that the same is true for your claims.
> > The day you see 'proof' of real magick it'll probably be your last.
>
> What you're calling "real magick" isn't real magick. Therein lies your
> problem.
>
From the point of view of science, there is no more evidence that
theurgy is any more useful than thaumaturgy besides whatever trivial
benefits that focus, concentration, or improved confidence might be
obtained in attempting to practice either.
> You are incorrect in thinking that I asked you for "proof". I never ask
> anyone for "proof". I asked for verifiable evidence other than anecdotes.
> You don't have any, so you are trying to change the subject in the hopes
> that no one will notice that you're talking through your hat.
Fair enough, you asked for evidence - beyond anecdotal affirmations -
right?
Well I still haven't seen any 'verifiable evidence' that your idea of
magick has any more practical benefits than thaumaturgy straight out
of the books and classically practiced.
I mean besides your anecdotal statements with regards to it.
Face it - anyone who has anything to do with magick is considered an
absolute nutter. That includes you as much as anyone here - including
Brother Blue or Kansan. Scientists aren't going to respect you more
because you make claims about some sort of bullshit pop-psychological
transformation of consciousness.
They probably just see some guy who obsessively dresses up in robes,
chants, memorizes weird tables of associations, etc.
In fact, many would claim that it's perverse and psychologically
hazardous or at best an 'alternative' primitive religion. At that
point, everyone here might as well give it up and become a born again
Xtian because memorizing bible texts, preaching, and witnessing to the
Lord would be about as useful.
Unfortunately from the point of scientific validation, it's all pretty
much kooks who get involved - so why not go for the gold?
Tom
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> > news:2gv751F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And it's not paranormal prescience.
> >>
> >> You are the one here that thinks prescience is "paranormal", not I.
> >
> > OK, give me an example of normal prescience.
>
> Right. You and your endless word games that do nothing but leave you
> ignorant.
Hey, you're the one who claimed prescience isn't paranormal. I merely asked
for an example of normal prescience.
If anyone is playing word games here, it's you. If prescience isn't
paranormal, what is it?
> You would come up with what *you* call a 'rational explanation'
> for any example that anyone came up with.
I wouldn't have to grope for a rational explanation for a normal
occurrence.
> The past and the future all exist *now* in what you could call 'other
> dimensions'. They are constantly changing.
The past and the future are terms we use to describe our memories and our
sense of anticipation. Explanations of past and future in "other
dimensions" is just pseudoscientific babble.
> This makes for an infinite number of time-lines. You think that there
> is only one, and that the past is fixed, but it isn't. No more than
> the future is.
You're the one claiming that science fiction writers are glimpsing "the
future" (as if there was only one) and then writing about it.
BTW, have you come up with any major science fiction writers who claim their
stories are based on prescient glimpses of the future yet?
> You think that you have only the physical senses to perceive with, yet
> what is thinking itself but the perception of ideas and images that
> cannot be detected with the physical senses?
It is the processing of sensory data.
> You confuse your beliefs with reality, when they are not *necessarily*
> the same thing.
Neither are yours. For instance, your claim that many science fiction
writers are prescient isn't necessarily true, but look how vehemently you
defend it even though you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence in
its support.
Tom
Entirely possible.
> http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/abramel.htm
>
> Look under the "Bumpy road" section. He clearly uses the "Daemon"
> spelling to refer to the "daimon" in Greek theurgy, and which is
> validated by the Mirriam Webster dictionary reference:
>
> "3 usually daemon : a supernatural being of Greek mythology
> intermediate between gods and men"
>
> So I guess me, Bill Heidricks, AND the Mirriam-Webster dictionary are
> all dunces!
Thou hast said it.
> Look Tom, you're not only making a mountain out of a mole-hill but
> you're doing it badly.
No, I'm making you look like an idiot, which isn't all that difficult.
> As it turns out, "daemon" in the Middle-English
> from late Latin did mean evil spirit.
See?
> > > As for your rather silly line about "verifiable evidence" why don't
> > > you provide "verifiable evidence" that you exist?
> >
> > Sure. The message itself is evidence of the existence of an author.
Have
> > several other people read this thread and see if they can see my posts.
If
> > they can, then they have verified the evidence of my existence. See?
It's
> > easy to find evidence for things that do exist. However, in your case,
> > since "poltergeist daemons" don't actually exist, it's much harder to
find
> > verifiable evidence. All you can do is tell stories and that just
doesn't
> > cut it as verifiable evidence.
>
> I suppose that's a valid objection, I'm sure SOMEBODY is entering
> these words even if we don't know for sure if "Tom Schuler" exists per
> se.
That's just a label. Those can change. Don't confuse names with things.
That's one of the big flaws in occultism. It's the confusion of the map
with the territory.
> But what about your claims here?
>
> > From: Tom (danto...@earthlink.net)
> > Subject: Re: Practical magick question
> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
> > Date: 2004-05-06 22:16:43 PST
> >
> >
> > "----------" <-...@---.com> wrote in message
> > news:ghtl90tipkc93gn8b...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > I've been reading caballa, about the Golden Dawn, Regardie ,
> > > Blavatsky, Ophiel and several such theoretical magickal books. My
> > > question is: Where is the practical stuff?
> >
> > That *is* the practical stuff. (Well, maybe not the Blavatsky)
Telepathy,
> > telekinesis, and that kind of stuff is completely impractical. No one
has
> > ever managed to get it to work reliably or to accomplish anything
> > significant
I think the evidence is with me on this one. Name one person who can
reliably demonstrate telepathy or telekinesis. Name any accomplishment that
can clearly and unambiguously be attributed to the reliable use of telepathy
or telekinesis. Name one practical application of telepathy or telekinesis
currently in regular usage that can be verified. Remember, I am not
impressed by unverifiable or ambiguous claims.
> > Yes, his book on astral projection is a good place to start. Once you
have
> > mastered all four methods he describes, you have developed many of the
> > necessary basic skills of magick.
The basic skills of magick are visualization, concentration, and
autosuggestion. Ophiel's book provides good exercises for each of these.
> > > But suppose you study the caballa, ....then what do you
> > > do with that knowlege?
> >
> > Use it to intentionally transform your consciousness.
>
> Well do you have evidence, verifiable evidence, that you can use
> caballa to 'intentionally transform your consciousness'.
Yes. It's called "auto-suggestion". I can point you to a large body of
research on that psychological process. Do you want references?
> It would seem to me that memorizing letter permutations and chanting
> does have medical evidence that it can *temporarily* change your state
> of mind -
Then you're already aware of the evidence for my claim.
You should realize, though that all states of mind are temporary. The
intentional transformation of consciousness does not have to be permanent to
be either intentional or a transformation.
> If you chant anything long enough you'll get
> semi-hypnotized and zonk out.
>
> However I don't think that's what you mean by 'intentionally transform
> your consciousness'.
What do you imagine I meant?
> So do you have evidence of that? Or is that an "unsubstantiated"
> anecdotal claim?
I am not accountable for what you imagine.
> > You can't provide what you don't have. It's as simple as that.
>
> I would say that the same is true for your claims.
Wrong again. QED.
> > > The day you see 'proof' of real magick it'll probably be your last.
> >
> > What you're calling "real magick" isn't real magick. Therein lies your
> > problem.
>
> From the point of view of science, there is no more evidence that
> theurgy is any more useful than thaumaturgy besides whatever trivial
> benefits that focus, concentration, or improved confidence might be
> obtained in attempting to practice either.
I frankly doubt you know enough about science to be able to say with any
reasonable degree of accuracy what the scientific point of view is.
> > You are incorrect in thinking that I asked you for "proof". I never ask
> > anyone for "proof". I asked for verifiable evidence other than
anecdotes.
> > You don't have any, so you are trying to change the subject in the hopes
> > that no one will notice that you're talking through your hat.
>
> Fair enough, you asked for evidence - beyond anecdotal affirmations -
> right?
>
> Well I still haven't seen any 'verifiable evidence' that your idea of
> magick has any more practical benefits than thaumaturgy straight out
> of the books and classically practiced.
You don't even know what my idea of magick is.
> Face it - anyone who has anything to do with magick is considered an
> absolute nutter.
By whom? You? I don't.
> That includes you as much as anyone here - including
> Brother Blue or Kansan. Scientists aren't going to respect you more
> because you make claims about some sort of bullshit pop-psychological
> transformation of consciousness.
Since you have only imagined what I mean by "intentional transformation of
consciousness", you're talking through your hat again.
> They probably just see some guy who obsessively dresses up in robes,
> chants, memorizes weird tables of associations, etc.
That would describe most university professors, actually.
> In fact, many would claim that it's perverse and psychologically
> hazardous or at best an 'alternative' primitive religion.
And many would not. You're caught up in your own stereotypes. Maybe you
ought to broaden your horizons a bit.
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/
http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html
Tom
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> >"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:40A98138...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >>>
> >>considered science fiction manifested in reality and science?
> >
> >Not all that often, actually.
>
> What facts do you base this opinion on?
The large number of science fiction stories and novels that did not
accurately predict any of our current technologies or which just plain got
it wrong.
> >>JG Ballards "Running Wild" or "High Rise" for that matter
> >>seem to be science fiction that has become reality in many
> >>senses... as well as William Burroughs predicting the onset
> >>of Aids decades ago?
> >
> >What of Edgar Rice Burroughs Pellucidar? Ray Bradbury's Mars?
> >
> >Have they predicted the future?
>
> I've not read either book so I am not qualified to comment.
Oh, my. Those are classics. "The Martian Chronicles", by Ray Bradbury.
"At the Earth's Core", by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
I highly recommend them, not for their prophetic power but for their
literary beauty. I note that "At the Earth's Core" is available free from
Project Gutenberg. Read and enjoy.
> >Like I say, some day I'm going to have to explain the difference.
>
> Well, maybe some day you will... why the reluctance to do so now?
Too many words.
Tom
>
> Tom wrote:
> >
> >No, in actuality, very little of science fiction is today's science fact.
> >You have to look at the whole genre, not just a few selected examples.
> >There are far more preposterous visions of the future than accurate ones.
> >
> >There have been a handful of authors who have, on occasion, anticipated
new
> >discoveries, but none of them claimed the power of prophecy. They were
just
> >making guesses (sometimes highly educated ones) and happened to be right
> >once in a while.
>
> Well, cannot genius, intuitiveness and a differing insight than the
> population at large be due to this.
Sometimes. We shouldn't neglect the fact that many science fiction writers
know more about science and its trends than the average person does, and
thus may be able to make better educated guesses about what technologies are
likely to come into being. However, there have been no authors of science
fiction whose ideas about future technology have been invariably reproduced
now, so luck played its part, too.
Like we see with the National Inquirer psychics, if you predict enough
stuff, eventually some of it will come close to being true by sheer chance
alone. A whole novel set in a future time will involve hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of items that could be interpreted as predictions. It would be
very odd indeed if none of them at all came into being in later times.
I just read a fun little novel by John Varley, called "Red Thunder". In it,
he refers to a former president of the United States as "President Ventura".
Now there's an unsettling prediction.
> Many thought Feynman a crackpot, but he generally had many
> amazing ideas, theories and approachs that changed science...
Feynmann didn't claim prescience either.
> Some of the Sci Fi authors were more right on than others...
> eliminate the dross from those that had original thoughts,
> ideas and theories and how do the statistics add up...
Eliminate all the wrong guesses and you're left with all the right ones.
Does that mean that those wrong guesses don't exist?
> and where do you find such statistics... I'm asking out of curiosity.
I don't think anyone has seriously tried to find out exactly how many
accurate predictions of modern technologyu were made in early science
fiction.
However, the Internet Speculative Fiction Database will give you some info
about just how much science fiction has been written. Compare the number of
accurate predictions you can find with that total number of works. See how
small the fraction is.
> >However, I understand that the process of interpreting prophecy is almst
> >entirely a matter of reinterpreting the prophetic pronouncement after the
> >fact so that it seems to be predicting something.
>
> I'm not looking at this as authors being prophetic... but that they
> imagine or foresaw what was to come... they read society and the future
> better than most... even more than their own peers.
You mean writers of other genres? Well, since science fiction is usually
set in the future, unlike any other genre, that severely limits the number
of predictions about future events that other genres will produce by
comparison.
What makes you think that any given science fiction writer produces a higher
percentage of accurate hits from their predictions that anybody else would,
given the same level of education and interests?
Meltdarok
I think I'm begining to get you in that the other time-lines are only
*sensed.*
The way I see it (Which is why I mentioned "Minority Report") is that we
can sense both the past and the future through the Collective Unconscious.
Thus, using high tech equipment that has yet to be invented, the ultra
sensitive
may be employed by the government to stop muders by scanning the future as
it is already recorded in the Collective.
> Social commentary IS a look into the future, and more than mere
speculation
> is often involved.
>
> <+>
>
> --
> Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Alexander Mulligan
>
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2gvddsF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2gv751F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > And it's not paranormal prescience.
>> >>
>> >> You are the one here that thinks prescience is "paranormal", not I.
>> >
>> > OK, give me an example of normal prescience.
>>
>> Right. You and your endless word games that do nothing but leave you
>> ignorant.
>
> Hey, you're the one who claimed prescience isn't paranormal. I merely asked
> for an example of normal prescience.
>
> If anyone is playing word games here, it's you. If prescience isn't
> paranormal, what is it?
>
In *my* life and experience, prescience is a normal thing.
If it isn't in yours, then it isn't.
You obviously don't believe that prescience exists, and that's fine.
All sorts of people believe all sorts of weird things. This is a fact
of life one learns to accept and not to lose any sleep over.
[...]
Dagon Productions
Tom wrote:
>"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:40AAC16E...@earthlink.net...
>
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Dagon Productions" <da...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:40A98138...@earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, there appears to be a difference but has not what was once
>>>>considered science fiction manifested in reality and science?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not all that often, actually.
>>>
>>>
>>What facts do you base this opinion on?
>>
>>
>
>The large number of science fiction stories and novels that did not
>accurately predict any of our current technologies or which just plain got
>it wrong.
>
This can be countered with the arguement that many scientists theories
have not accurately
predicted our current technologies. Your point is moot as it applies to
both sides.
>
>
>
>>>>JG Ballards "Running Wild" or "High Rise" for that matter
>>>>seem to be science fiction that has become reality in many
>>>>senses... as well as William Burroughs predicting the onset
>>>>of Aids decades ago?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What of Edgar Rice Burroughs Pellucidar? Ray Bradbury's Mars?
>>>
>>>Have they predicted the future?
>>>
>>>
>>I've not read either book so I am not qualified to comment.
>>
>>
>
>Oh, my. Those are classics. "The Martian Chronicles", by Ray Bradbury.
>"At the Earth's Core", by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
>
>I highly recommend them, not for their prophetic power but for their
>literary beauty. I note that "At the Earth's Core" is available free from
>Project Gutenberg. Read and enjoy.
>
>
>
>>>Like I say, some day I'm going to have to explain the difference.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, maybe some day you will... why the reluctance to do so now?
>>
>>
>
>Too many words.
>
>
>
>
Why don't you write a condensed version?
=Douglas
Tom
>
> Tom wrote:
> >
> >The large number of science fiction stories and novels that did not
> >accurately predict any of our current technologies or which just plain
got
> >it wrong.
> >
>
> This can be countered with the arguement that many scientists theories
> have not accurately predicted our current technologies. Your point is
> moot as it applies to both sides.
Then you must have missed my point, which is that science fiction writer are
no more prescient than anybody else.
I don't see how noting that scientists are no more prescient than science
fiction writers counters that. In fact, it supports it. Now, if I had
claimed that scientists were more prescient than science fiction writers,
then your statement would be relevant. Since I didn't say anything like
that, your statement is irrelevant.
> >>Well, maybe some day you will... why the reluctance to do so now?
> >
> >Too many words.
>
> Why don't you write a condensed version?
Look how long it took just to get it through to you that science fiction
writers are not more prescient than anybody else, which should be pretty
obvious. Imagine how long it would take to get it through to you the
Tom
>
> The way I see it (Which is why I mentioned "Minority Report") is that we
> can sense both the past and the future through the Collective Unconscious.
> Thus, using high tech equipment that has yet to be invented, the ultra
> sensitive may be employed by the government to stop muders by scanning
> the future as it is already recorded in the Collective.
The ultimate in prejudice. A person is judged not on what he or she does
but on what he or she is predicted to do in a predestined future.
Bye-bye "free will"! Bye-bye "innocent until proven guilty"!
Welcome to the machine.
Tom
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > Hey, you're the one who claimed prescience isn't paranormal. I merely
asked
> > for an example of normal prescience.
> >
> > If anyone is playing word games here, it's you. If prescience isn't
> > paranormal, what is it?
>
> In *my* life and experience, prescience is a normal thing.
Is it? Wanna win a million bucks? If you are normally prescient, you
should have no trouble at all.
Of course, you're probably above such mundane things as making money. Or
you don't want the fame. Or you've got some other bullshit excuse that gets
you out of having to demonstrate your claim.
> If it isn't in yours, then it isn't.
Hey, I'm not prescient but I can still predict the future. I predict that
you will not demonstrate that you are prescient, because you're not.
> All sorts of people believe all sorts of weird things. This is a fact
> of life one learns to accept and not to lose any sleep over.
Nobody's losing sleep, braggart. Your unsupported claims are as common as
dirt, and even less valuable. At least you can do something constructive
with dirt. There's not a single constructive thing you can do with a brag
about having sooper powers that nobody but you can ever see.
The Natural Philosopher
> Nobody's losing sleep, braggart. Your unsupported claims are as common as
> dirt, and even less valuable. At least you can do something constructive
> with dirt. There's not a single constructive thing you can do with a brag
> about having sooper powers that nobody but you can ever see.
>
Precisely. If you have super powers, use them. And keep your mouth shut.
No one will thank you for rocking their mental boats, and if they don't
choose to believe you they will piss all over you, and if they do,
they will try and take you down anyway they can.
>
>
Meltdarok
news:7cKqc.1362$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why don't you just give it a try?
Start with John Varley and his clones.
Will you say something like, "You really
think it would be that easy to copy people's memory?"
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Alexander Mulligan
>
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2h0c2tF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey, you're the one who claimed prescience isn't paranormal. I merely
> asked
>> > for an example of normal prescience.
>> >
>> > If anyone is playing word games here, it's you. If prescience isn't
>> > paranormal, what is it?
>>
>> In *my* life and experience, prescience is a normal thing.
>
> Is it? Wanna win a million bucks?
No.
> If you are normally prescient, you
> should have no trouble at all.
I don't think you even know what it is. Just sounds like something
Carl Sagan would frown on, so you're against it.
> Of course, you're probably above such mundane things as making money. Or
> you don't want the fame. Or you've got some other bullshit excuse that gets
> you out of having to demonstrate your claim.
>
Ahh. You must be referring to the part of you article that I snipped.
I didn't read it. Reams of bullshit do not interest me.
As for proving it to you or anyone like you? Not possible.
Your mind is closed and I have no power to open it.
You cannot see what you firmly disbelieve in. That's a simle fact.
Nor do I care whether you believe me or not.
Why would you imagine I would? Your mind belongs to you. You can believe
anything you want.
Alexander Mulligan
No superpowers.
And as for the rest of that bullshit: Get a life, you clown.
I'll post what I want here, and you'll live with. Keep up this
sort of drivel and I'll just ignore your posts.
Alexander Mulligan
>
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2h0c2tF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey, you're the one who claimed prescience isn't paranormal. I merely
> asked
>> > for an example of normal prescience.
>> >
>> > If anyone is playing word games here, it's you. If prescience isn't
>> > paranormal, what is it?
>>
>> In *my* life and experience, prescience is a normal thing.
>
> Is it? Wanna win a million bucks? If you are normally prescient, you
> should have no trouble at all.
>
It would help if you would actually *read* the posts you respond to, Tom.
I didn't say that *I* was 'prescient'. I said it is a part of my normal
life experience.
So is excellent violin music, but I can't play the violin.
[...]
Why are you on a magickal discussion group if you are so desperate
to reject anything that smacks of magick?
Tom
> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >
> > "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> > news:2h0c2tF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> In alt.magick, Tom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hey, you're the one who claimed prescience isn't paranormal. I
merely
> > asked
> >> > for an example of normal prescience.
> >> >
> >> > If anyone is playing word games here, it's you. If prescience isn't
> >> > paranormal, what is it?
> >>
> >> In *my* life and experience, prescience is a normal thing.
> >
> > Is it? Wanna win a million bucks?
>
> No.
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qsKqc.1375$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Hey, I'm not prescient but I can still predict the future. I predict that
> you will not demonstrate that you are prescient.
See? I was right again! I strongly suspect that I can predict the future
just as well as (if not far better than) the guy who claims he's "normally
prescient".
> I don't think you even know what it is. Just sounds like something
> Carl Sagan would frown on, so you're against it.
Prescience is knowing what's going to happen in the future. Not guessing,
knowing. Is that right? Or do you mean something else?
> Ahh. You must be referring to the part of you article that I snipped.
> I didn't read it. Reams of bullshit do not interest me.
Unless, of course, they're *your* reams of bullshit. *Your* reams of
bullshit are sacred and must never be challenged. Any inconvenient facts or
evidence that might dispute your claims must be ignored. Don't read them,
no matter what.
> As for proving it to you or anyone like you? Not possible.
I'll explain it to you once again, since you seem to have a faulty memory.
I didn;t ask for proof. I asked for evidence. You have provided nothing
but a tangental newspaper puff piece and even that didn't actually support
your claim.
> Nor do I care whether you believe me or not.
Look how much time and effort you've put into complaining because I didn't
believe you and said so. It's just plain sour grapes to claim that you
don't care whether you're believed or not. If you didn't care whether
anybody believed you or not, why did you post your claims in the first
place?
Tom
>
> It would help if you would actually *read* the posts you respond to, Tom.
Why should I? You don't.
"Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
news:2h1ompF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Ahh. You must be referring to the part of you article that I snipped.
> I didn't read it.
Apparently, you don;t practice what you preach.
So...
What facts have we observed about you so far? First, you claim that
prescience is part of your normal life and experience but refuse to
demonstrate it. You brag about this prescience but then you say you don't
care if anyone believes you. Then you chide someone for supposedly not
reading an article that they were responding to just after having admitted
that you didn't read the article you were responding to.
And what should a reasonable person conclude about you from this evidence?
I don't think the answer will flatter you, Al.
> I didn't say that *I* was 'prescient'. I said it is a part of my normal
> life experience.
Are you now claiming that you're actually *not* prescient?
> Why are you on a magickal discussion group if you are so desperate
> to reject anything that smacks of magick?
I'm discussing magick. How about you? If you can't handle a little
skepticism, what are you doing discussing magick in public? Did you expect
nothing but self-congratulatory bragging and mutual reinforcement of
self-flattery?
Alexander Mulligan
It's looking at the field of probable futures, literally perceiving glimpses
of them, and being able to locate the strongest ones, the ones most likely
to occur in this time line.
Those futures exist right now, and *all* of them come to pass on one parallel
time line or another.
It's *never* a sure thing.
The farther away in time, the less certain.
I have no doubt that you can predict the future. What I doubt is your
explanation of the mechanics of what you've done. You'd probably say
it was 'just reason', but it probably isn't, and anyway, defining what
reason is is problematic in itself.
<snip>
Alexander Mulligan
>
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2h1sg5F...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> It would help if you would actually *read* the posts you respond to, Tom.
>
> Why should I? You don't.
>
Yes I do. I read the parts I respond to.
> "Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
> news:2h1ompF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Ahh. You must be referring to the part of you article that I snipped.
>> I didn't read it.
>
> Apparently, you don;t practice what you preach.
>
> So...
>
> What facts have we observed about you so far?
I have shocking news for you: I don't care what you think.
I care about the opinion of people I respect, and I don't respect
verbal bullies who are incapable of honesty and clear thought.
Your bullying has failed miserably because I'm not going to listen
to any more of your bullshit.
Get lost.