It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Science and Occultism
page: 1share:
Is anyone here remotely interested in subjecting the claims or phenomena of occultism (i.e. ceremonial magic, channeling, etc) to reasoned i.e.
objective, scientific inquiry?
In the worldview of Charles Sanders Peirce, reality is understood as "objective idealism", which is to say, the external (objective) and internal (subjective) world form one continuum, with the 'internal' subjective perspective being formed by interactions with the external 'objective' world outside of us.
With complex adaptive systems theory, general systems theory, chaos theory, dissipative structure theory and non-linear mathematics, it's become more and more apparent to scientists and philosophers that the existing reductionistic paradigm simply can't make sense of how the "top", or the emergent property of a system, itself constitutes a real higher level property that functions as an "interface" with something else. For example, dogs look to pee where other dogs have pee'd, as part of a general communication system between dogs. The 'higher level' is the dogs behavior, but that doesn't at all imply that basic-systems in the dogs brain aren't tracking and then "filtering upwards" important and significant info to the dogs perceptual and cognitive systems. Indeed, knowing things from just the "top" can be just as reductive as knowing things from just the bottom (physics). One could argue that materialist scientists and occultists are guilty of the same offense: trying to make sense of reality from a single perspective - the bottom, or the top, and not the "bottom-top" continuum.
Of course, primitive civilizations simply lack the means to know "what" the bottom even means, or of what ultimate significance, ontologically, and epistemologically, bottom-up processes can have for human understanding. This is why, as you look at and study the history of philosophy through each successive generation of human beings, ideas become modified by what has 'emerged' within a culture as a function of the laborious efforts of human scientific inquiry. Comtes "positivism", especially in the way he imagined it to exist, is no longer tenable. Similarly, Hegel's philosophizing - or "speculative philosophy", which he imagined to be a "science", is itself an oxymoron: you can't speculate in a scientific way without sufficient knowledge. Since the best knowledge itself derives from empirical scientific evidence, Hegel was merely indulging himself - and in the process - spreading the fantasy to others.
Bottom up processes are dynamical: when quarks come together in 3 types, they give rise to either protons or neutrons. Protons and neutrons, when the come together become a nucleus, and when electrons get "captured", an atom is formed. It is through dynamical processes like these which accrete in specific ways that best describe "bottom-up" processes.
We can go further. We can see how molecules form from certain atomic arrangements; we can see how cells emerge through what Francisco Varela terms "autopoietic' processes, where specific molecules get 'entrained' into an autocatalytic, or self-reproducing, dynamic. The biologist Lynn Margulis and her son Dorion Sagan have similarly extended this process into a theory of symbiosis, where cells "merge" to become a larger structure.
The story gets far more interesting when reptiles emerge, because this is the beginning of the development of the amygdala, which is involved in detecting threats coming in from the environment, or conversely, from within the organisms own system.
Threat is not anything that can be changed or made different. Threat is fundamentally contiguous with physics, which is to say, with maintaining those processes that sustain the organisms "coherency" or symmetry. Symmetry is what makes the organism "real", or allows it to survive, so that whenever the process becomes threatened, the animal, in this case, the reptile, will experience an affective-change that motivates it to pursue its next meal. This "internal threat" is not anything the crocodile can 'recognize'; its just what it needs to do when its energy/structure begins to deplete. This is an example of a "bottom-up" threat arrow that derives from the systems own dissipative processes.
Another bottom-up process comes from the environment, which is mostly a learning process, as the finches on the Galapagos islands, for instance, had no reason to fear Darwin or other humans, simply because they hadn't had sufficient contact with humans to form a memory-trace within their structure about this particular object.
In any case, the amygdala - or the neurons which make up this structure - map both internal and external processes that pose a threat to the organisms survival, but from very different angles: when from within, its about the dissipation of the organisms structure; when from without, its about what a particular object "means" for the wellbeing of the organisms survival. The former is mostly a chemical/structural process, whereas the latter is mostly the mapping of a large entity, or event, which 'means' something negative for the organism.
With the emergence of self-awareness comes knowledge of "internal objects": knowledge of self experience, knowledge of 'names' for external processes. These knowledge's build upon earlier evolutionary developments, so that the aforementioned "inner" and "outer" modes of activating the amygdala become refined by the brains increasing processing power. Sensitivity to the "other", or the body, or the objects of the world, increases, so that subtler properties of external things become "real".
In developmental psychology, attachment theory has discerned three abnormal modes of relation whereby the primary caregiving adult 'entrains' the developing infant to a mode-of-being that is basically symmetrical to the adults. So, an "anxious" child will become a 'preoccupied' adult, which means, instead of paying attention to the needs of the experiencing child, the adult will habitually project their needs onto the child, so that the relationship becomes bogged by a mixture of coherent and incoherent representations of reality.
While the "ambiguously" attached child tends to become nervous easily, the "avoidant" child grows up to become an emotionally withdrawn and disconnected adult, so that when they have children, the relational interaction will be marked by chronic interruptions in "being recognized", so that the infant begins to 'shut-down' recognition of particular cues from the other, which, in effect, structures later brain-development so that they too become withdrawn-disconnected parents. Again: symmetry underlies the process, albeit, a suboptimal kind which results in a lifetime of feeling "unknown", either by others, or by ones own self.
The most extreme and by far the most dangerous form of interaction is "disorganized attachment", which describes either abusive interactions between parent and infant, or, as is also common, between a parent with unresolved trauma, chronic dissociation/derealisation, and an infant.
In the worldview of Charles Sanders Peirce, reality is understood as "objective idealism", which is to say, the external (objective) and internal (subjective) world form one continuum, with the 'internal' subjective perspective being formed by interactions with the external 'objective' world outside of us.
With complex adaptive systems theory, general systems theory, chaos theory, dissipative structure theory and non-linear mathematics, it's become more and more apparent to scientists and philosophers that the existing reductionistic paradigm simply can't make sense of how the "top", or the emergent property of a system, itself constitutes a real higher level property that functions as an "interface" with something else. For example, dogs look to pee where other dogs have pee'd, as part of a general communication system between dogs. The 'higher level' is the dogs behavior, but that doesn't at all imply that basic-systems in the dogs brain aren't tracking and then "filtering upwards" important and significant info to the dogs perceptual and cognitive systems. Indeed, knowing things from just the "top" can be just as reductive as knowing things from just the bottom (physics). One could argue that materialist scientists and occultists are guilty of the same offense: trying to make sense of reality from a single perspective - the bottom, or the top, and not the "bottom-top" continuum.
Of course, primitive civilizations simply lack the means to know "what" the bottom even means, or of what ultimate significance, ontologically, and epistemologically, bottom-up processes can have for human understanding. This is why, as you look at and study the history of philosophy through each successive generation of human beings, ideas become modified by what has 'emerged' within a culture as a function of the laborious efforts of human scientific inquiry. Comtes "positivism", especially in the way he imagined it to exist, is no longer tenable. Similarly, Hegel's philosophizing - or "speculative philosophy", which he imagined to be a "science", is itself an oxymoron: you can't speculate in a scientific way without sufficient knowledge. Since the best knowledge itself derives from empirical scientific evidence, Hegel was merely indulging himself - and in the process - spreading the fantasy to others.
Bottom up processes are dynamical: when quarks come together in 3 types, they give rise to either protons or neutrons. Protons and neutrons, when the come together become a nucleus, and when electrons get "captured", an atom is formed. It is through dynamical processes like these which accrete in specific ways that best describe "bottom-up" processes.
We can go further. We can see how molecules form from certain atomic arrangements; we can see how cells emerge through what Francisco Varela terms "autopoietic' processes, where specific molecules get 'entrained' into an autocatalytic, or self-reproducing, dynamic. The biologist Lynn Margulis and her son Dorion Sagan have similarly extended this process into a theory of symbiosis, where cells "merge" to become a larger structure.
The story gets far more interesting when reptiles emerge, because this is the beginning of the development of the amygdala, which is involved in detecting threats coming in from the environment, or conversely, from within the organisms own system.
What is threat?
Threat is not anything that can be changed or made different. Threat is fundamentally contiguous with physics, which is to say, with maintaining those processes that sustain the organisms "coherency" or symmetry. Symmetry is what makes the organism "real", or allows it to survive, so that whenever the process becomes threatened, the animal, in this case, the reptile, will experience an affective-change that motivates it to pursue its next meal. This "internal threat" is not anything the crocodile can 'recognize'; its just what it needs to do when its energy/structure begins to deplete. This is an example of a "bottom-up" threat arrow that derives from the systems own dissipative processes.
Another bottom-up process comes from the environment, which is mostly a learning process, as the finches on the Galapagos islands, for instance, had no reason to fear Darwin or other humans, simply because they hadn't had sufficient contact with humans to form a memory-trace within their structure about this particular object.
In any case, the amygdala - or the neurons which make up this structure - map both internal and external processes that pose a threat to the organisms survival, but from very different angles: when from within, its about the dissipation of the organisms structure; when from without, its about what a particular object "means" for the wellbeing of the organisms survival. The former is mostly a chemical/structural process, whereas the latter is mostly the mapping of a large entity, or event, which 'means' something negative for the organism.
The Amygdala and Knowledge
With the emergence of self-awareness comes knowledge of "internal objects": knowledge of self experience, knowledge of 'names' for external processes. These knowledge's build upon earlier evolutionary developments, so that the aforementioned "inner" and "outer" modes of activating the amygdala become refined by the brains increasing processing power. Sensitivity to the "other", or the body, or the objects of the world, increases, so that subtler properties of external things become "real".
In developmental psychology, attachment theory has discerned three abnormal modes of relation whereby the primary caregiving adult 'entrains' the developing infant to a mode-of-being that is basically symmetrical to the adults. So, an "anxious" child will become a 'preoccupied' adult, which means, instead of paying attention to the needs of the experiencing child, the adult will habitually project their needs onto the child, so that the relationship becomes bogged by a mixture of coherent and incoherent representations of reality.
While the "ambiguously" attached child tends to become nervous easily, the "avoidant" child grows up to become an emotionally withdrawn and disconnected adult, so that when they have children, the relational interaction will be marked by chronic interruptions in "being recognized", so that the infant begins to 'shut-down' recognition of particular cues from the other, which, in effect, structures later brain-development so that they too become withdrawn-disconnected parents. Again: symmetry underlies the process, albeit, a suboptimal kind which results in a lifetime of feeling "unknown", either by others, or by ones own self.
The most extreme and by far the most dangerous form of interaction is "disorganized attachment", which describes either abusive interactions between parent and infant, or, as is also common, between a parent with unresolved trauma, chronic dissociation/derealisation, and an infant.
The fact that trauma is communicated through facial, vocal, and bodily cues puts lie to the histrionic belief in "genes", since, as is well known,
intervention at an early enough time can prevent much damage, which basically says that the organic bodily system and the communicational process with
others form one continuum – problems can exist at a ‘genetic level’, but these genetic processes are indeed malleable and so subject to
environmental modifications. Nobody is evil. Evil exists – but it “captures humans”, rather than humans being the true “containers” of evil.
The arrow is always outside-in; whatever can be said to be going inside-out seems more robotic i.e. probabilistically biased by energetic experiences,
than anything else.
Because trauma is the experience of extreme asymmetry, and is recorded/held within the hundreds of millions of neurons that structure our feelings of embodiment in the world (embodied self), the narrative self which forms atop the disorder of interpersonal disconnection necessarily becomes biased by past-experiences to represent the world in such a way so that it doesn’t take on any significant meaning – and for good and justifiable reason.
The traumatized mind is justified in saying “existence is a farce”. I say this – and can hear the truth in my saying this – because I have been traumatized by life, and when I think about life in any theological terms, I get downright angry: what kind of #ing God would subject his creatures to such a ridiculous game where one side “wins” at being careless, nihilistic, hedonistic and violent against others, while another group, forced by the pangs of trauma, turns to “God”, the very-being who created this state of affairs to begin with.
It’s because this situation seems so ludicrous from a bottom-up perspective that I personally do not care to interface with any concept of God – as the very notion of such ultimate-meaning, from the perspective of human-life, is surreally out of touch with the contiguous dynamics of physics – of the chance interactions that take, say, one person into connection with another person, and via these interactions, transforms a person from being kind, loving and social, into a narcissist who comes to take on the myths of others.
To me, the events of the “top-down” perspective our completely under the control of brain processes that record, structure and canalize the flow of meaning, which is to say, that basically “gives” whatever it is that the wisher – the person – needs to be the case. Top-down processes, even if they are able to predict future events, or allow ‘remote viewing’, or astral travel’, nevertheless operate according to the same self-organizing dynamics of everything else that exists, which gives these processes the quality of being more physical (or subject to cause/effect) than ‘spiritual’. Indeed, science can literally encompass ‘spirituality’ in such a way as to force it to reveal how it generates meaning for the subject.
Whenever ultimate meaning is touched, or interfaced with, and particularly when this ultimate meaning is presented to the face/minds of others who cannot tolerate it, I ask myself, what kind of stupid God creates a world, only to pit one creature against another creature in a battle-royale built upon “not paying attention to the needs of the Other”.
My answer: God is made in MANS image. The ultimate meaning lies ultimately beyond us – but that we can form some ‘visage’ of the ultimate in our human way, based upon the conditions that act upon human relations, speaks to something so much more important: we can spare ourselves so much suffering by caring about one another, and throwing away the God concept, given it seems to cause way more damage/trauma/suffering than it resolves.
Existence is a Farce
Because trauma is the experience of extreme asymmetry, and is recorded/held within the hundreds of millions of neurons that structure our feelings of embodiment in the world (embodied self), the narrative self which forms atop the disorder of interpersonal disconnection necessarily becomes biased by past-experiences to represent the world in such a way so that it doesn’t take on any significant meaning – and for good and justifiable reason.
The traumatized mind is justified in saying “existence is a farce”. I say this – and can hear the truth in my saying this – because I have been traumatized by life, and when I think about life in any theological terms, I get downright angry: what kind of #ing God would subject his creatures to such a ridiculous game where one side “wins” at being careless, nihilistic, hedonistic and violent against others, while another group, forced by the pangs of trauma, turns to “God”, the very-being who created this state of affairs to begin with.
It’s because this situation seems so ludicrous from a bottom-up perspective that I personally do not care to interface with any concept of God – as the very notion of such ultimate-meaning, from the perspective of human-life, is surreally out of touch with the contiguous dynamics of physics – of the chance interactions that take, say, one person into connection with another person, and via these interactions, transforms a person from being kind, loving and social, into a narcissist who comes to take on the myths of others.
To me, the events of the “top-down” perspective our completely under the control of brain processes that record, structure and canalize the flow of meaning, which is to say, that basically “gives” whatever it is that the wisher – the person – needs to be the case. Top-down processes, even if they are able to predict future events, or allow ‘remote viewing’, or astral travel’, nevertheless operate according to the same self-organizing dynamics of everything else that exists, which gives these processes the quality of being more physical (or subject to cause/effect) than ‘spiritual’. Indeed, science can literally encompass ‘spirituality’ in such a way as to force it to reveal how it generates meaning for the subject.
Whenever ultimate meaning is touched, or interfaced with, and particularly when this ultimate meaning is presented to the face/minds of others who cannot tolerate it, I ask myself, what kind of stupid God creates a world, only to pit one creature against another creature in a battle-royale built upon “not paying attention to the needs of the Other”.
My answer: God is made in MANS image. The ultimate meaning lies ultimately beyond us – but that we can form some ‘visage’ of the ultimate in our human way, based upon the conditions that act upon human relations, speaks to something so much more important: we can spare ourselves so much suffering by caring about one another, and throwing away the God concept, given it seems to cause way more damage/trauma/suffering than it resolves.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
I get downright angry: what kind of #ing God would subject his creatures to such a ridiculous game where one side “wins” at being careless, nihilistic, hedonistic and violent against others, while another group, forced by the pangs of trauma, turns to “God”, the very-being who created this state of affairs to begin with.
Test zone.
What better way to get new recruits for Heaven than to allow Lucifer to crap on all mortals 24/7. There is a sin that is deep within you and that is why you are here on Earth. Once you learn your previous mistake committed in your past life, then its time to progress up the Tree of Wisdom.
We all have a major sin within us. It is what makes us fallen from Gods Grace.
Those who get grumpy and blame God, stay in Lucifers hell-hole and suffer again via reincarnation.
Those who want out accept the 'Get-out-of-Jail-Free' card that Jesus gives us. Once a sinner accepts that Jesus is the ultimate Blood Atonement Sacrificial Lamb, their name is written back into the Book of Life and their spirits go to Heaven.
Lucifer is supposedly a rebel; yet he obeys every Word in the Bible like a good little errand boy.
As far as I know science and occultism was once one and the same as most phenomena was mysterious enough to merit being labelled as "occult"
As much as it's reviled by modern Christians, science's occult origins such as alchemy or kabbalah were attempts of understanding God and His creation.
Science's purpose is communion through understanding.
But science has grown conservative and power-friendly and will never risk anything, that's why it's almost collapsing.
Every time I try to explain this to my fellow academics I get all the funny looks
As much as it's reviled by modern Christians, science's occult origins such as alchemy or kabbalah were attempts of understanding God and His creation.
Science's purpose is communion through understanding.
But science has grown conservative and power-friendly and will never risk anything, that's why it's almost collapsing.
Every time I try to explain this to my fellow academics I get all the funny looks
a reply to: Astrocyte
Ask me questions if you like; proving to a scientific absolute might be difficult.
I only know what I know, I don't know everything.
(Edit)
After getting through your opening, I would suggest that one difficulty is that "up" "down", "higher" "lower", "top" "bottom" are all arbitrary constructs of the intellect and have no real correlation with what is. Those terms simply disect and arrange. Now the problem with higher and lower is that it is relative positioning which can put what we wish to observe out of reach.
Even the terms "subjective" and "objective" are simply a form of self-disecting. If you want to know or observe; look between two thoughts. It is all right there.
Is anyone here remotely interested in subjecting the claims or phenomena of occultism (i.e. ceremonial magic, channeling, etc) to reasoned i.e. objective, scientific inquiry?
Ask me questions if you like; proving to a scientific absolute might be difficult.
I only know what I know, I don't know everything.
(Edit)
After getting through your opening, I would suggest that one difficulty is that "up" "down", "higher" "lower", "top" "bottom" are all arbitrary constructs of the intellect and have no real correlation with what is. Those terms simply disect and arrange. Now the problem with higher and lower is that it is relative positioning which can put what we wish to observe out of reach.
Even the terms "subjective" and "objective" are simply a form of self-disecting. If you want to know or observe; look between two thoughts. It is all right there.
edit on 14-8-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: added an (edit)
a reply to: Rapha
Yawn.
This is the sort of $hit you can keep to yourself, please.
If you can't speak philosophically, but only "magically", don't bother posting in my threads. I detest this retarded nonsense. Nobody does this willingly and knowingly. The human "shared-mind", if such a thing exists, evidently creates people who get pulled "poles apart" - you can call them people like you, and Jews/Christians/Holy people. You cannot think without trauma and fear poking its head in.
Do you think I'm ignorant of this tripe? I know the kabbalah quite well. The Hebrew bible - can read it. The problem is: ITS SELECTIVE WISHFULNESS. There is no one-to-one correspondence between this and that.
People like you are good at invoking mysticism/religion/spirituality, but so poor at reasoned-thinking. Why? Is it ignorance? Do you think you're neo from the matrix - can just "dial up" knowledge, and bam, have it appear on this board?
Whatever BS
Aye. Such dissociative thinking. Is it hard for you to interface with my world? How come I can enter yours i.e. the world of mystical fantasy, but you not mine i.e. reasoned thinking - science? Here's a potential answer: you didn't understand what I wrote, hence your fairy-tale requital.
I swear to God (which it is too frustrating to pretend is relevant in this issue) I seriously wonder what persay possesses people to be this insufferably dissociative. Is it the lifetime of religiosity? Do you think the reality of the mental necessarily makes Jesus, Moses, etc, any truer than Krishna, Buddha, etc?
Will you admit to this: you're an ignorant creature growing up in an ignorant world? Can you accept that you pretense at knowledge is mostly based in self-defence? Can you agree that your attempt at regurgitating occult/mystical lore is just the way you make sense of what you hear from other people?
Probably not. You're still interfacing with middle-age philosophy.
What better way to get new recruits for Heaven than to allow Lucifer to crap on all mortals 24/7. There is a sin that is deep within you and that is why you are here on Earth. Once you learn your previous mistake committed in your past life, then its time to progress up the Tree of Wisdom.
Yawn.
This is the sort of $hit you can keep to yourself, please.
If you can't speak philosophically, but only "magically", don't bother posting in my threads. I detest this retarded nonsense. Nobody does this willingly and knowingly. The human "shared-mind", if such a thing exists, evidently creates people who get pulled "poles apart" - you can call them people like you, and Jews/Christians/Holy people. You cannot think without trauma and fear poking its head in.
Those who get grumpy and blame God, stay in Lucifers hell-hole and suffer again via reincarnation.
Do you think I'm ignorant of this tripe? I know the kabbalah quite well. The Hebrew bible - can read it. The problem is: ITS SELECTIVE WISHFULNESS. There is no one-to-one correspondence between this and that.
People like you are good at invoking mysticism/religion/spirituality, but so poor at reasoned-thinking. Why? Is it ignorance? Do you think you're neo from the matrix - can just "dial up" knowledge, and bam, have it appear on this board?
Whatever BS
Those who want out accept the 'Get-out-of-Jail-Free' card that Jesus gives us. Once a sinner accepts that Jesus is the ultimate Blood Atonement Sacrificial Lamb, their name is written back into the Book of Life and their spirits go to Heaven.
Aye. Such dissociative thinking. Is it hard for you to interface with my world? How come I can enter yours i.e. the world of mystical fantasy, but you not mine i.e. reasoned thinking - science? Here's a potential answer: you didn't understand what I wrote, hence your fairy-tale requital.
I swear to God (which it is too frustrating to pretend is relevant in this issue) I seriously wonder what persay possesses people to be this insufferably dissociative. Is it the lifetime of religiosity? Do you think the reality of the mental necessarily makes Jesus, Moses, etc, any truer than Krishna, Buddha, etc?
Will you admit to this: you're an ignorant creature growing up in an ignorant world? Can you accept that you pretense at knowledge is mostly based in self-defence? Can you agree that your attempt at regurgitating occult/mystical lore is just the way you make sense of what you hear from other people?
Probably not. You're still interfacing with middle-age philosophy.
a reply to: Whatsthisthen
Bottom up is referring to small-grained matter. I am referring to how the habits of self-organization from atoms/molecules/cells upward operate. This is the sort of angle which sheds knowledge on how people acquire information. In fact - it plays - or should play - a fundamental role in dispelling delusional thinking.
Do you believe in delusion?
Bottom up is referring to small-grained matter. I am referring to how the habits of self-organization from atoms/molecules/cells upward operate. This is the sort of angle which sheds knowledge on how people acquire information. In fact - it plays - or should play - a fundamental role in dispelling delusional thinking.
Do you believe in delusion?
a reply to: Astrocyte
I am going to choose my words carefully, my apologies in advance for my brutal honesty.
Even so, it is still an exercise in disection. I won't be the first person to suggest that science's quest for the smallest particle is on a par with Don Quixote chasing windmills. Disection is like that; half of a half of a half of a half ad nausium.
The shedding of "knowledge" where theory and actuality collide can be said to simply be a co-incidence between a concept and how things work. That is the process of discovery.
The acquisition of knowlege . . . Well, what is knowledge? For myself; knowledge is my own personal experience. For myself; that which is not knowledge is everything else. To coin a term; that which is not derived from personal experience is pseudo knowledge. Book-learning, hear-say and so forth. That is simply a basic philosophy of self-discipline.
I wonder if delusion is an appropriate word. But error in belief is okay.
I don't believe in delusion but I can see for myself in myself, errors in belief. I do try to discipline myself in the manner of knowledge vs pseudo-knowledge as much as possible.
A note on knowledge.
When I was young I had a huge library of occult and philosophical works big enough where I needed a small room to put it in. I had read them all.
Then one day, I looked at myself and realised something. So I decided to separate everything I knew into true knowledge and pseudo-knowledge. After tossing everything I "knew" out the window there wasn't much left of my "self".
Deep depression followed with this blow to my self image.
Then, it was simply a matter of re-learning everything according to the discipline of personal experience.
But that does not mean I don't think about things and listen to the Beings out there and see through their eyes, taste what they taste, etc..
The decider for me is if something is said to be so, then I go look for myself if I can find it.
But that is just me, I wouldn't expect anyone else to follow such a discipline. It serves me well though.
One might say that thoughts are pictures that we paste on our window of perception. Too many thoughts will eventually cover our window and we will no longer see the world around us directly.
Though, a thoughtform can make a useful interactive interface between Beings who cannot or don't want to communicate directly or know each other directly.
However, if one does not understand one is dealing with a thoughtform interface, delusional states can arise through not understanding what is happening.
Even then, one must learn the language of appearence in order to understand what your dealing with, otherwise it just seems to be illusionary. It is not illusion if you understand the language.
I am going to choose my words carefully, my apologies in advance for my brutal honesty.
Bottom up is referring to small-grained matter. I am referring to how the habits of self-organization from atoms/molecules/cells upward operate. This is the sort of angle which sheds knowledge on how people acquire information.
Even so, it is still an exercise in disection. I won't be the first person to suggest that science's quest for the smallest particle is on a par with Don Quixote chasing windmills. Disection is like that; half of a half of a half of a half ad nausium.
The shedding of "knowledge" where theory and actuality collide can be said to simply be a co-incidence between a concept and how things work. That is the process of discovery.
The acquisition of knowlege . . . Well, what is knowledge? For myself; knowledge is my own personal experience. For myself; that which is not knowledge is everything else. To coin a term; that which is not derived from personal experience is pseudo knowledge. Book-learning, hear-say and so forth. That is simply a basic philosophy of self-discipline.
Delusion
De*lu"sion (?) n. [L. delusio, fr. deludere. See Delude.] 1. The act of deluding; deception; a misleading of the mind. Pope.
2. The state of being deluded or misled.
3. That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.
--Source: Webster's 1913 dictionary.
I wonder if delusion is an appropriate word. But error in belief is okay.
Do you believe in delusion?
I don't believe in delusion but I can see for myself in myself, errors in belief. I do try to discipline myself in the manner of knowledge vs pseudo-knowledge as much as possible.
A note on knowledge.
When I was young I had a huge library of occult and philosophical works big enough where I needed a small room to put it in. I had read them all.
Then one day, I looked at myself and realised something. So I decided to separate everything I knew into true knowledge and pseudo-knowledge. After tossing everything I "knew" out the window there wasn't much left of my "self".
Deep depression followed with this blow to my self image.
Then, it was simply a matter of re-learning everything according to the discipline of personal experience.
But that does not mean I don't think about things and listen to the Beings out there and see through their eyes, taste what they taste, etc..
The decider for me is if something is said to be so, then I go look for myself if I can find it.
But that is just me, I wouldn't expect anyone else to follow such a discipline. It serves me well though.
One might say that thoughts are pictures that we paste on our window of perception. Too many thoughts will eventually cover our window and we will no longer see the world around us directly.
Though, a thoughtform can make a useful interactive interface between Beings who cannot or don't want to communicate directly or know each other directly.
However, if one does not understand one is dealing with a thoughtform interface, delusional states can arise through not understanding what is happening.
Even then, one must learn the language of appearence in order to understand what your dealing with, otherwise it just seems to be illusionary. It is not illusion if you understand the language.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: clarity and typo
a reply to: Astrocyte
Why are we in the habit of wearing clothes? Is it a product of some trauma that is now past on to each of us. or is it a product of natural selection?
he fact that trauma is communicated through facial, vocal, and bodily cues puts lie to the histrionic belief in "genes", since, as is well known, intervention at an early enough time can prevent much damage, which basically says that the organic bodily system and the communicational process with others form one continuum – problems can exist at a ‘genetic level’, but these genetic processes are indeed malleable and so subject to environmental modifications. Nobody is evil. Evil exists – but it “captures humans”, rather than humans being the true “containers” of evil. The arrow is always outside-in; whatever can be said to be going inside-out seems more robotic i.e. probabilistically biased by energetic experiences, than anything e
Why are we in the habit of wearing clothes? Is it a product of some trauma that is now past on to each of us. or is it a product of natural selection?
originally posted by: Astrocyte
This is the sort of $hit you can keep to yourself, please.
Can you agree that your attempt at regurgitating occult/mystical lore is just the way you make sense of what you hear from other people?
You need to read up about 'electric universe'. From that understanding all occult channeling falls into place.
Electric Universe shows how some dreams are visions of the future. Many dreams are in contact with God hence God knows all, which is why the dreams become reality.
A thought about a person from the heart travels the world, gets picked up by the person. Then the person phones the thinker where the thinker says 'wow, I was just thinking of you'. Crumbs, this is basic knowledge.
This is why daemons intervene in the channeling because they do not want the real future to be known by the peasants.
If this angers you, then it is because the little childish grumpy demon that controls your mind via suggestion hates followers of Yahushua.
The globalists and Pope are about to ram their Bible down your throat. If the Bible is lies, then why do TPTB obey the Book, word for word ?
Revelation 8:11 became reality when TPTB used scalar weaponry close to Fukushima. A 3rd of World water (Pacific) turns bitter (radioactive) and kills everything (cancer).
Look at the 'whirl-pool' near the coast that day. Errrr, where is its vortex ? Oh unless the swirl was created from scalar weaponry in orbit, beaming down a ray to cause eruptions on the ocean floor.
The Pope is forcing a 1 world religion onto everyone. Hell, what rock have you been hiding under for the past 20 years ?
edit on 15-8-2017 by
Rapha because: Grumpy demon insert
On channeling and hearing voices in general . . .
caveat emptor
I hear (normal everyday people's) voices while walking down the street, radio, TV, etc., in daily life.
I don't pay much heed to those, they could be selling used cars. Same with unseen voices, what are they selling?
No different to everyday life, you have to pick your friends and ignore the psychos.
caveat emptor
I hear (normal everyday people's) voices while walking down the street, radio, TV, etc., in daily life.
I don't pay much heed to those, they could be selling used cars. Same with unseen voices, what are they selling?
No different to everyday life, you have to pick your friends and ignore the psychos.
a reply to: Whatsthisthen
A point beyond the scientific conservative jargon is that life after death is life.
We are discussing such a point.
A point beyond the scientific conservative jargon is that life after death is life.
We are discussing such a point.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
Is anyone here remotely interested in subjecting the claims or phenomena of occultism (i.e. ceremonial magic, channeling, etc) to reasoned i.e. objective, scientific inquiry?
Is anybody remotely interested in explaining to a new born child (a scientist) the true workings of universal manifestation ?
new topics
-
135 an Hour
Rant: 41 minutes ago -
Possible flying saucers transported in public
Aliens and UFOs: 1 hours ago -
Mysterious Soldier Encounters in Afghanistan and Vietnam
Paranormal Studies: 3 hours ago -
2 Corinthians Part 10 (Formidable in his letters)
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 4 hours ago -
Curiosity Mars Rover Reaches Gediz Vallis Ridge (360 View)
Space Exploration: 4 hours ago -
Senator Menendez's wife of three years at center of bribery allegations
Mainstream News: 4 hours ago -
Connection.
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 4 hours ago -
What’s the worst possible reality of what’s actually happening in the world
Other Current Events: 4 hours ago -
The Moon Was Full the Night I Went Astray
Short Stories: 5 hours ago -
Advice needed. I'm stressed out
Rant: 5 hours ago
top topics
-
Is DNA of vaccinated people contaminated?
Diseases and Pandemics: 10 hours ago, 29 flags -
Advice needed. I'm stressed out
Rant: 5 hours ago, 15 flags -
Kamala Harris to Run the First Ever Federal Gun Violence Prevention Office
US Political Madness: 8 hours ago, 12 flags -
Leaked images show Biden admin's planned ICE ID card for illegal immigrants
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 12 hours ago, 11 flags -
A crazy American trans woman is a spokesperson for the Ukranian military?
Politicians & People: 10 hours ago, 10 flags -
Big Pharma's most resent billion dollar scam.
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 10 flags -
Bob Menendez and His Wife, Nadine, Indicted on Bribery Charges
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago, 9 flags -
Curiosity Mars Rover Reaches Gediz Vallis Ridge (360 View)
Space Exploration: 4 hours ago, 8 flags -
Report: George Soros Is Funding Joe Biden’s ‘TikTok Army’ to Promote Leftist Propaganda
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 9 hours ago, 8 flags -
What’s the worst possible reality of what’s actually happening in the world
Other Current Events: 4 hours ago, 7 flags
active topics
-
Neuralink and the mark of the beast
Conspiracies in Religions • 40 • : eManym -
135 an Hour
Rant • 2 • : EternalShadow -
Mysterious Soldier Encounters in Afghanistan and Vietnam
Paranormal Studies • 2 • : davegazi2 -
Possible flying saucers transported in public
Aliens and UFOs • 2 • : Raggedyman -
Man Ticketed 7 Times for Flying Anti-Biden Flag Scores Huge Victory Over Town
Other Current Events • 11 • : midicon -
Is this really another sad truth: Orgonite.
Deepwater Disaster • 10 • : Guyfriday -
What am I seeing in the sky? They look like bright stars flying around.
Aliens and UFOs • 24 • : Zanti Misfit -
What’s the worst possible reality of what’s actually happening in the world
Other Current Events • 12 • : Zanti Misfit -
The Anunnaki and the Matrix of Lies. The Missing Links.
Ancient & Lost Civilizations • 574 • : Zanti Misfit -
Starfield - 4 Days to Lift Off !
Video Games • 69 • : pianopraze