posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:25 PM
The theory behind "mega-rituals" still baffles me a bit. My understanding (and lemme know if I'm off-target as many of my perceptions have been hit
or miss lately), is that within the confines of a ritual act, the observer is a participant.
Which is to say, that the act of seeing creates a link, or conduit between the observer and the thing seen. That conduit directs the mental
energies toward the locus of the ritual. I suppose, at an even weirder level, that the act of seeing creates the thing seen.
So, extrapolated to a mass-scale, an actual "ritual" wouldn't be strictly necessary. All that is needed is a narrative, and it need not be
factually true, so long as the correct symbols and numerical associations are incorporated into the narrative.
Is this about right?