If you believe in magic...

[BobbyS]

I'm with MikeWulf here - the whole points of myths is that they are tales of things (usually extraordinary) that didn't happen. Therefore if there is a myth that something happened in the past there is, if anything, LESS of a chance of it happening today.

[sandy82]

.
Certain words have popular meanings, and they also have specialized meanings.

Political science has its own group of specialized words. One is reification. That means that people tend to think of a word as a "thing" and then argue about the word. What's the point of arguing about the nine letters the make up the word "democracy"? Does the word mean a procedural, free democracy like the ones in North America and western Europe? Or does it mean a pre-1989 "people's democracy" like Ceaucescu's Rumania? In the end, it makes more sense to argue about the substance of the systems themselves than about the "reified" word, democracy.

In addition to its popular meaning, the word "myth" also has a specialized meaning. It is a report, account, rendering, written/oral communication that has explanatory power. Columbus's daybooks on his voyages have explanatory power. Oral histories about the American Indians walking from Siberia across the Bering land bridge have explanatory power. Some myths may be true; some may be false; some may be a mixture.

In some cases, the truth or falsity of the myth is much less important than the explanatory power that the myth contains. Look at the Ten Commandments. I don't care whether Moses looked like Charlton Heston or whether lightning bolts etched the commandments into tablets of stone. But it is important, in terms of histoy, to notice that only one commandment protects human life in general, but two commandments protect the personal property of others. That tells you something about the people, regardless of where the commandments came from. The emphasis on property, by the way, was not confined to the Middle East. Early Germanic tribes also protected personal property over human life.

Myths can be important whether or not true. In many cases they are true--especially when using the specialized meaning.

And now, in contrast, for a genuinely dangerous thought:

"I really think you need to ignore things from the past that have no relevance to things in the present."

Read that statement closely. (For the sake of clarity, let's call it the "ignore" statement.) Unless one knows everything possible about the present, how can one know what elements of the past are irrelevant and can be discarded? In plain language, the "ignore" statement seems to say that the less a person knows about the present, the less he needs (or wants) to know about the past.

Like the Ten Commandments, the "ignore" statement is a myth. It may be true, or it may be false. That issue is relatively unimportant. Here's what is important: the "ignore" statement contains tremendous explanatory power about the person who believes it, says it, writes it.
.

[BobbyS]

I'd have said that the reason for just one commandment about human life is because 'Thou shalt not kill' is so simple, not because it's less important. Sorry, I digress. :)

[sandy82]

I'd have said that the reason for just one commandment about human life is because 'Thou shalt not kill' is so simple, not because it's less important. Sorry, I digress. :)

Good point, Bobby. In the case of the property, "Thou shalt not steal" is pretty direct, too. And it's reinforced by another commandment that forbids even an inordinate or wrongful desire for the property of others: "Thou shalt not covet."

I emphasize that I am not advocating any precepts for anyone. I am saying that the things people say, do, and believe reveal a lot about them--whether we're talking about people today or more than 2,000 years ago.

Interesting sidelight. In the older translations from Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek-Latin (whatever English-speaking scholars were using), "Thou shalt not kill" is rendered as "Thou shalt do no murder." A big difference in time of war, if one is dropping bombs from planes or throwing grenades on a battlefield.

[primaelgen]

Interesting sidelight. In the older translations from Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek-Latin (whatever English-speaking scholars were using), "Thou shalt not kill" is rendered as "Thou shalt do no murder." A big difference in time of war, if one is dropping bombs from planes or throwing grenades on a battlefield.

That suggests to me that the commadant for doing no murder is meant to protect the property of the community -- human life. But that is way off topic.

PrimaelGen Project

[sandy82]

Interesting sidelight. In the older translations from Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek-Latin (whatever English-speaking scholars were using), "Thou shalt not kill" is rendered as "Thou shalt do no murder." A big difference in time of war, if one is dropping bombs from planes or throwing grenades on a battlefield.

That suggests to me that the commadant for doing no murder is meant to protect the property of the community -- human life. But that is way off topic.

PrimaelGen Project

Interesting idea, primaelgen. Actually, the use of "murder" instead of "kill" greatly restricts the application of the commandment. Murder is a killing that is committed with malice aforethought or with a specifically formed intent directed toward a particular victim or victims. Murder does not include self-defense, acting in a blind rage, or proceeding under a disability that prevents one from forming specific intent.

"Thou shalt do no murder" has a rather narrow focus and does not protect human life so broadly as a prohibition against killing. One example: the outraged husband who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man. The result may well be a dead adulterer, but the chances are great that the husband acted out of rage, and not from a thought-out desire to kill.

You are right on the general point that the commandments are heavily weighted toward protection of what an individual person considers to be his own: property (8 and 10), life (6), exclusive attentions of a spouse (7), personal reputation (9), weekly day off (4), justification to call on children for help in old age (5). The first three are a pre-emptive strike against that continuing human question: Who the hell thinks they've got the authority to tell me what to do?

I'm not looking at these as religious rules. I'm interested in what they say about the people to whom they made sense and who passed them down. I doubt that anything so individualistic appeared in Babylonia/Iraq, or Persia/Iran. Still hasn't.

[MikeWulf]

You emphasised the Ignore more than the true intent which was the RELEVANCE.

[sandy82]

You emphasised the Ignore more than the true intent which was the RELEVANCE.

Mike, I assume your comment is addressed to me.

My use of the word "ignore" had nothing to do with your intent, which I often find difficult to fathom. I used the word "ignore" to refer to a specific statement. I had tried "that statement", but the reference wasn't specific enough.

I wanted to be clear about what I was saying.

Here's my point again, in very clear English.

<<No single individual, or group of individuals, knows enough about the present to be able to state with certainty what can be safely discarded, as irrelevant, from our store of knowledge about the past.>>

I make the foregoing "store" statement safely, without even addressing the construct of your original proposition.

The "store" statement puts the issue of "relevance" right up front.

There I go again.

I have already indulged my predisposition to be helpful. You see, when one has genuinely decided that someone has no "redeeming social value" (part of the Supreme Court's definition of pornography), one doesn't correct the person. One encourages his present course of conduct.

So, Mike, please disregard everything I've said above.

Keep it up. You're doing a great job. Winning friends and influencing people. Expressing worthwhile ideas.

Who could ask for more?

[MikeWulf]

I can understand your angle. I do. But I think there is a point in which you draw the line.

[primaelgen]

Interesting idea, primaelgen. Actually, the use of "murder" instead of "kill" greatly restricts the application of the commandment. Murder is a killing that is committed with malice aforethought or with a specifically formed intent directed toward a particular victim or victims. Murder does not include self-defense, acting in a blind rage, or proceeding under a disability that prevents one from forming specific intent.

"Thou shalt do no murder" has a rather narrow focus and does not protect human life so broadly as a prohibition against killing. One example: the outraged husband who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man. The result may well be a dead adulterer, but the chances are great that the husband acted out of rage, and not from a thought-out desire to kill.

I meant that, the original was probably "though shalt not do murder" because back then, human life is the property of the community, not the property of the individual. The adulterer is dead. However, it can be argued that the adulterer has violated social order, therefore his life is forfeit to the community, and the blind act of rage from the husband was righteous. I speak of the much more violent and brutal (I assume this, of course) times when these commadants were created. However, the same theory seems still to be pervasive today. An execution of a criminal is not considered murder, and in some countries, state-sponsored terrorism is not a crime -- it is not a violation of the community who sponsored it in the first place. Killing in war is approved as long as it is not the killing within the community that instigated it.

Hence, the preservation of human life because it is property of the community, not out of respect for life.

PrimaelGen Project

[sandy82]

Interesting idea, primaelgen. Actually, the use of "murder" instead of "kill" greatly restricts the application of the commandment. Murder is a killing that is committed with malice aforethought or with a specifically formed intent directed toward a particular victim or victims. Murder does not include self-defense, acting in a blind rage, or proceeding under a disability that prevents one from forming specific intent.

"Thou shalt do no murder" has a rather narrow focus and does not protect human life so broadly as a prohibition against killing. One example: the outraged husband who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man. The result may well be a dead adulterer, but the chances are great that the husband acted out of rage, and not from a thought-out desire to kill.

I meant that, the original was probably "though shalt not do murder" because back then, human life is the property of the community, not the property of the individual. The adulterer is dead. However, it can be argued that the adulterer has violated social order, therefore his life is forfeit to the community, and the blind act of rage from the husband was righteous. I speak of the much more violent and brutal (I assume this, of course) times when these commadants were created. However, the same theory seems still to be pervasive today. An execution of a criminal is not considered murder, and in some countries, state-sponsored terrorism is not a crime -- it is not a violation of the community who sponsored it in the first place. Killing in war is approved as long as it is not the killing within the community that instigated it.

Hence, the preservation of human life because it is property of the community, not out of respect for life. PrimaelGen Project

Interesting post. I tend to look first at the premise/a priori proposition because the rest of a construct tends to proceed from there. What sources do you use for your starting point that, universally, human life "back then" was considered the property of the community?

A minor point. You have used the spelling "commadants" in two separate posts (August 27 and August 30). I am thus led to believe that the spelling is intentional. I don't find the word in Webster's Unabridged, and it doesn't come from the same Latin root as "command" and "mandate". In fact, the closest Latin root would be the verb meaning "to be wet, to be moist." I don't think you had such a derivation in mind. Is this a neologism?

[primaelgen]

Interesting post. I tend to look first at the premise/a priori proposition because the rest of a construct tends to proceed from there. What sources do you use for your starting point that, universally, human life "back then" was considered the property of the community?

A minor point. You have used the spelling "commadants" in two separate posts (August 27 and August 30). I am thus led to believe that the spelling is intentional. I don't find the word in Webster's Unabridged, and it doesn't come from the same Latin root as "command" and "mandate". In fact, the closest Latin root would be the verb meaning "to be wet, to be moist." I don't think you had such a derivation in mind. Is this a neologism?

I have been sloppy with what I wrote.

I don't have a source to back up the "back then" comment. It was an off-the-cuff speculation, something to stimulate the mind in an non-obvious way even if the whole line of reasoning is ultimately rejected.

I spelled "commadants" that way because I thought that was how it is spelled. Apparently I have been mispelling it. That's an interesting etymology you posted about it. I never thought a mispelling can generate from "command" and "mandate". I think when I wrote that, my mind kept pronouncing it "Commadant" -- as in the military title -- but I meant "commandant".

PrimaelGen

[primaelgen]

For those skilled in the occult, I have posted up a new technique at http://www.geocities.com/primaelgen/ladymoon.htm

It is powerful and should not be taken lightly. It requires skill in an earlier technique I had posted up there. It takes advantage of the full or near-full moon, so those so skilled should take advantage of the full moon, or wait another month.

People here tend to have an innate hostility or skepticism. Ignore what I say here and pretend I never posted anything about it. Treat the energy with respect, or you will go crazy. Like any woman, love her, woo her, and she will be a wonderful friend.

PrimaelGen Project[/b]

[patti]

dear makidias, thank you so much for posting the links! magick is a much misunderstood thing perhaps. i had felt there must be taoist techniques for effecting gender change and then there it was. blessings dear.

[patti]

and i apologize to primealgen, who seems to understant the technique. i admit i wearied of the sniping before i reached your posts. -- pattl

[nuit09]

I am a practicing ceremonial magician. I have experienced changes in reality in conformance with my will. I have moved objects with my mind. I have divined information that my mind even my subconscious mind could have no way of knowing or guessing. I have had congress with spiritual entities. I have scryed. i have done these things and i have experienced their reality.

By and large what we call magick works through ordinary means and takes the path of least resistance so that only rarely does some working clearly shows itself as working outside of known science. magick is also often irreproducible and no easily revealed to the scientific method. magick that really strays from the domain of ordinary probability needs the principle of silence to have any chance of working at all. the principle of silence means the magician must not attract the attention of the profane to his magical operation before he obtains results. There can be no "vulgar display of power."

And i read here the skeptic referring to the JREF and James Randi as if invoking that fraud lends credibility to his opinion. that in itself is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Since i personally have experienced magick i know randi's claims are false. i need no authority other than my own knowledge to realize this. Randi has indeed exposed many frauds. but randi has also refused to pay people who have indeed provided evidence of magical causation.

I suggest instead of relying upon Randi, a course of experimentation. you can readily find out for yourself whether magick is real or not. if you are sincerely trying and if you research likely techniques to exclude new age fluff, if you persist you will get results. each result will butress your certitutde and increase your efficiency. i recommend keeping a careful journal of your efforts. you can in your preparation and after your experiment be as skeptical as you like. it is recommended because this sort of endeavor is easy to lead into delusion and error. But during your magical operation you must be able to nullify any doubt, any skepticism, no matter how absurd it may seem to your everyday common sense, you must believe. for the duration of the operation you must not only no doubt you must see the operation as doing exactly what you want it to do. you must desire it, you must see it happening, it must arouse you. you must in as many ways as possible reinforce for that time your knowledge and certitude that magick is happening. then you must break off from that mode of consciousness and return to your mundane state.

hopefully if you are a skeptic then the magical operation you chose toexperiment with is one where the results are instantaneous. the reason is if it was not then your natural skepticism will "out magick" your operation and nullify any hope that the operation will work. this kind of negation is also why you should work in secret. if you tell friends then not only are you trying to swim against the current of physical law and against your own doubt but against the doubt of all your confidantes as well.

Good experimental subjects are kriya yoga (try the ham sa or swan excercise) , telekinesis, dowsing or other non interpretaive divination, scrying, aura reading. things you can say it worked or not right away. not things that require an on going process while you chip away at it with doubt.

the protocol is to over a series of experiments as you practice one of these with all will and with suspension of disbelief in effect at the appropriate time your subconcious figure out what you want to do, you build mental "circuitry" to handle the request. you believe while trying but coldly and scientifically analize the result of each trial. no matter initial failures you presevere believing with all your heart and soul during and being skeptical in your later analysis. it is very important to compartmentalize your belief and your skepticism. there is a time for absolute faith with no doubt possible and a time for cold harsh truthful analysis. experiment. analyse. experiment. analyze. but do not do it at the same instant. for the time of the experiment you are almighty God and the univese bends itself to your whims. no only is this so but you must willfully overide evidence to the contrary in your early failures. you go so far as to see something happening when to a mudane observer it is not.

In the beginning of any course of magical practice it is permissible to cheat. the reason is to illustrate to your symbolic subconcious mind (which theory says has access to magical force) what it is that you desire. this part of your mind does not speak in verbal language but in symbols.

An example is in my experiments with telekinesis. in additions to the many ways i prepped and the many ways i reinforced and focused my will and desire initially i would command motion and then move the target with my fingers or with air. only the first few times. after than not only would i not do that but i introduced controls to prevent any cheating intenional or unintentional. I even visualized to the point of hallucinating that the target moved as i commanded. technically that too is a sort of cheating. though again i did it for a purpose and only at the beginning.

after each run i would sit and write what i did how i felt, what i saw and so on. i would try to think of null hypothesis factors and things that could be fooling me. BTW, my telekinesis experiments were sucessful. However my results were puny. if there is a way to render it worthwhile to pursue beyond proving that it works to myself i have not figured it out. it's worth to me was to greatly magnify my certitude that magick is real. beyond that i have no use for it and i quit.

[nuit09]

i might add that if you try the ham sa kriya yoga technique it will anihilate your belief in "non belief" with a quickness. it may also simutaneously give you a completely hands off orgasm. it is an exercise that while it works on visualization and on simple, easy to do breathing techniques does not take much skill at holding a stable image at all. it takes only 10 minutes to twenty minutes per try. the bad news it it is most effective as a beginner and then after you are proficient the effect goes away due to the causation of kriyas. also due to the causation of kriyas someone who practices yoga is likely not going to feel the kriya as much or at all. :(

[nuit09]

This is a paper from a series of postings to a neophyte or beginners level
discussion group. It details the technique as published in Donald Micheal
Kraig's Modern Magick, chapter 10, though the exercise is perhaps 1000s of years old. In addition, it details my experience with the technique.
Hopefully, other people who have done this or similar techniques will
comment. My primary question about the technique is why do the "symptoms" diminish over time. Suggestions are welcome.

Note: The answer i later found out is that kriyas are triggered by blockages of kundalini energy in the esoteric energy channels in the body. Since practice kriya yoga is supposed to remove those blockages some one who does this or other similar yogic or other esoteric energy manipulation exercises a lot will remove the blockage that causes this sensational phenomenon in the first place.

There is a Tantric ( actually it is Kriya Yoga) technique called "Ham Sa" which is a breathing and visualization exercise. For more precise data on how to do it read Donald Micheal Kraig's Modern Magick, chapter ten. However the following instructions will be enough to allow you to duplicate it. Do this while laying down and relaxed and while wearing loose clothing. Begin slow rhythmic breathing and listen to the sound your breathing makes.

When you breath in slowly and deeply, it should sound sort of like a drawn
out "Hahhhhhm". When you breath out it should sort of sound like a drawn out "Saaaahhhhhh". Regulate your breath so that it sounds more like that but do not vocalize the syllables "ham" or "sah". Once you have done this, on the in-drawing of breath visualize your breath (as a fog perhaps) going through your nostrils through an imaginary route up to the top of your skull, down the back of the head, and down the spine to the tip of the tailbone. Hold your breath as long as comfortable then exhale in the following manner:

visualize during the entire exhale, the breath going back up the spine up
the back of the neck down to the nostrils and out the nose. The imaginary
route should be just inside the skull and along the spine. On the inhale
remember to hear the "hahhhhm" for it's entire duration, and the
"saaaahhhhhh" for the entire exhale. Do this for about twenty minutes. Then on the completion of the inhalation(s) don’t hold your breath -just pause for a second. Now use your stomach muscles to help give you several short exhalations. During these, you should hear "Sah, sah, sah, etc.". Keep the visualizations up during this time and do the contractions-exhalations until you need to inhale. do this for up to twenty minutes.
You will have an experience which is unlike anything you have probably
experienced before. However, if you have a heart condition, do not do this
exercise. You may hurt yourself.

Note: The Tachycardia feeling though extremely realistic is, according to those more expert at it than I, hallcinatory in nature and is harmless despite my former warning.


Just doing this once is enough to cause some effects in most people. But in case you are different, try it for a week. One final thing, don't eat a meal within two hours (at least) prior to doing this exercise.


This exercise will probably give you good effects the very first time you
try it. If you want proof that magick is real and a physical phenomenon,
this should be one you try. The effects may be very intense. I've fully
described my results else where, but here are some things to look for.
Kriyas, a type of jerking about of various parts of the body. An intense
erotic feeling for no particular reason -excluding the chakras you've
stimulated (Remember this exercise has no physical stimulation involved at all). Feeling sensations I can only describe as like a real live snake were bumping about frantically on the inside of your trunk, urgently trying to ascend and escape through your head (weird). Later your body sort of becomes the "snake" and sways side to side like a cobra. There is also the sensation of expansion like the hood of a cobra about the head and neck. A feeling of nearly ultimate bliss permeates the whole experience. Also a feeling of floating or levitation though you will not actually have left the surface you were on. Odd feelings at various points along the imaginary path of your visualized breath. For me it helped validate the reality of many yogic claims such as kundalini and magick in general. It is a powerful boost to your confidence in magick.

Note: It does not matter if you believe in esoteric energy or anatomy. it does not matter if you believe in chakras. in fact let me just say that the chackra system appears to be a largely synthetic construct. in tibet there are hundreds of different and contradictory chakra arrangements one for each and every diety and some of these are below the feet and above the head. chakra systems like all forms of magickal system are synthetic constructs that never the less work for those that know how to use the and especially if they believe thiers is the only legitimate system.

Note: There is evidently a native american (Cherokee) practice that is similar to this one and is reputed to cause intensive all over the body orgasms. that technique is called the fire breath orgasm.

Note: It is odd that these exercise seem to in a repeatable manner independant of the experimenter generate the same results. this sort of repeatability is a requisite of the scientific method. if you do process "A" you will get result "B."

Note: the notes in this post are information i added at posting that indicate my evolving understanding of this sort of thing.

[nuit09]

Addendum: I might add to the above that your visualization skill can be very poor and you can still perform the exercise to good results. if your visualization falters just reform the image as often as necessary. if you cannot get more than a flicker of an image just persist in doing what you can. also augment your focus by "feeling" the fog traveling in the imaginary tube from nose to tail bone. every way that you can reinforce your intent adds force to the final experience.

[CuriousG]

Well, I'm going to lay out on the line that I don't believe in magic in the sense of something beyond definition and analysis by empirical methods.

Specifically: maybe there are some funky yoga tricks out there, but nobody can levitate, or shoot fireballs from their ass. It just doesn't work that way.

[nuit09]

i disagree. i have moved objects with my mind. sure they were only a miniscule wieght and it was not very practical but it happened at my will whenever i initiated it. i controlled for any possible mundane expanation and started from the null hypothesis. I isolated the target from external forces and experimented with each possible mundane physical explanation to verify it was not involved. I dispassionately analyzed the result of trial after trial, failures at first but not later. i modified my methodology, my preparations my mental gymnastics of visualization and reinforcement of intent and will; in the end i succeeded. Then i abandoned it. i knew what i needed to know. I moved on to ther areas of study. it seems odd but i simply lost the desire to do it.

[CuriousG]

i disagree. i have moved objects with my mind. sure they were only a miniscule wieght and it was not very practical but it happened at my will whenever i initiated it. i controlled for any possible mundane expanation and started from the null hypothesis. I isolated the target from external forces and experimented with each possible mundane physical explanation to verify it was not involved. I dispassionately analyzed the result of trial after trial, failures at first but not later. i modified my methodology, my preparations my mental gymnastics of visualization and reinforcement of intent and will; in the end i succeeded. Then i abandoned it. i knew what i needed to know. I moved on to ther areas of study. it seems odd but i simply lost the desire to do it.

You're either lying or crazy.

[nuit09]

you are entitled to your opinion. but your opinion is of no more importance than anyone else's. you could experiment yourself and see if you can do it. i believe everyone can. or you could continue to hold an uninformed negative opinion of me. whichever you choose is of no real import. If it were i would have followed the magician's credo of being silent so as to avoid any possibility of such "criticism."

[nuit09]

You're either lying or crazy.

Hey wait-a-minute! You're this dude telling this other dude he's crazy on a forum about guys who want to be transformed into women. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mr_pink]

You shouldn't be so dismissive of this kind of stuff. I scared someone in work when I did a little trick I saw on psipogs. You basically get a square piece of paper, fold it so it can balance on top of a pin set in blutack, and then put a glass over it (big enough to let the paper spin on the pin).

Move your hand above the glass, and sure enough the damn thing starts to spin around if you concentrate. It's clearly not air currents and can't be static.. but something's making it move around! Little things like this cement the belief that just because our so-called 'modern' science can't explain it does -not- mean that it can't happen.

Open minds for a happier life is best all round :)

Btw.. re. the breathing exercises mentioned above.. I think 20 minutes is too long to carry out the short sharp breathing exercise, as this could potentially induce hypoxia and involuntary hyperventilation in the inexperienced individual. Don't force yourself to do it for longer than you feel comfortable. If you do feel bad, just go back to deep breaths and visualising the 'air snake'.

[nuit09]

the amount of time is flexible and based on your endurance or ability. I set the limit on 20 minutes becausei did not know how long or how many iterations would be necessary for every individual reading my topic. i did not want them to give up based on possible initial failure.


As regards your telekinesis device: my aparatus was a lightwieght aluminum rotor balanced on a rounded needle which fit into a endent on the rotor. the needle was plumbed and stuck into a cork base. i used a domed display case with a base to avoid air currents low level eddy currents or convection. I even used candles flashlights and laser pointers to rule out heat and photon pressure like in a photometer. i used a rubbed balloon to see if static electricity had anything to do with it. i isolated the base from vibration as best i could. i noted when heavy traffic was near by and did it in silence to avoid harmonic resonance effects.

just about everyone can not only make it rotate and change direction at a range of a few inches. i know, i drafted a series of bemused friends to try it. my experiment was unique in that at full charge i could do all that and more from across the room.

Baseed upon my results i would say telekinesis is the best fit. though it is possible i did not control for some mundane explanation and got fooled. For now though i must conclude it was telekinesis. I'm sure william of Ockham would approve despite what Mr. critic says.

[nuit09]

the oddity that really got me was i was suspicious of some sort of aerodynamic force based upon the rotor surface area and shape so i attempted to wobble the rotor out of it's plane of rotation. i met with failure for a few days. but after that i actually got it to wobble. weakly at first but at time so strong i thought it was going to fall off the needle.

but the most odd is the fact that i just quit being interested. it boggles the mind. i still have the rotor in my library on a book shelf. but i don't touch it. haven't for over five years.

[primaelgen]

Hey wait-a-minute! You're this dude telling this other dude he's crazy on a forum about guys who want to be transformed into women. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol:

Thanks for posting the above, I'll have to try this for myself. The comment about the logical fallacy of the Randi foundation cracked me up.

For others: effects of Kriya being the results of blockages is very much real. I can personally attest to this ... but really, if there's going to be a logical fallacy of "appealing to authority" I should at least appeal to the authority of me.

I don't know if nuit09 has noticed this -- there is also considerable skepticism among the occult/mystic/weird crowd about using these kinds of techniques to affect physical changes. The reactions are just as hostile as the skeptics here.

What's so cosmically funny is that for people who are not seeking gender change as hallucinations, entertainment, or gender dystrophy ... these practioners eventually have to pass through a point of mystical androgyny.

PrimaelGen Project

[nuit09]

I used to frequent alt.out-of-body on USENET. the place was swarmed with a herd of dicks from skeptic groups. every damned one of them would cite Randi, challenge every regular and newby to present themselves for the 1M JREF challenge and demand proof that " OBE was anything but lies, hallucinations or delusions" and generally make asses out of themselves. the group basically died. no one dared post about their activities. so i researched JREF's history. it turned out they had refused several legitimate demonstrations of paranormal activity on contrived grounds. I hate JREF. I hate Randi. and I am extremely suspicious of anyone who suggests anything pertaining to them or their challenge.

As you probably know true astral projection is a tricky path to follow. it is very easy to goe into a lucid dream or effect the local environemnt with your mind. it twists itself to conform to your beliefs, wishes, fears. time has no real meaning there. to gather accurate intelligence concerning the material world from the astral requires very specific precautions that most people simply do not know how to do. It can be done but the average newb joining a group to learn to project or to share their stories is unlikely to be able to distingush thought forms from real world visual data. and even real data can come from the wrong time period. a building can be present that was destroyed long ago or has not been built yet. and if it is someone's strong desire to build something there you could be looking at someone's desire driven thought form cluttering up the landscape and that might never be built.

At any rate; i look forward to reading about your progress. i have considered the idea of melding some of your techniques with that of magick with hypnosis to see if i can speed such shapeshifting up a bit. Goetic spirits like Ose say it takes many years to learn how to physically shapeshift but there are some pictures of a shaman doing a partial shapechange into a wolf out on the net. it strikes me that such a change has to be relatively rapid.

PS: i think the occult types you mention (I know a few) fear ridicule if they present too physical a definition of magick. I could not even get one to admit poltergeist activity he says his working group was subjected too when a summoning went awry was evidence that magick produces direct objective phenomenon. A blatantly contradictory and irrational position that is logically inconsistant. Since he is not a mystic like you he cannot be forgiven for not pursuing physical phenomenon as a primary objective of his art. most mystics will allow that PK and other phenomenon are possible but are a distraction from the true goal of their work.

And this was a practicing ceremonial magician with 40 years experience and at least 4 books and two videos on the magical workings of his particular order. His group specializes in Goetic evocation, pagan rites, angelic invocation. the evocation uses the facial reflection in a dark mirror technique. his group celebrates rites of Baal and Astarte.

[primaelgen]

At any rate; i look forward to reading about your progress. i have considered the idea of melding some of your techniques with that of magick with hypnosis to see if i can speed such shapeshifting up a bit. Goetic spirits like Ose say it takes many years to learn how to physically shapeshift but there are some pictures of a shaman doing a partial shapechange into a wolf out on the net. it strikes me that such a change has to be relatively rapid.

I've always considered hypnosis and magick being related. I don't see hypnosis as a way to explain away phenomena, so much as a bridge between body and mind. Psycho-somatic. Hypnosis certainly works as a tool for magick. There's also a significant body of magickal workings related to social consciousness: for those who are seeking something beyond entertainment or adventure, I've noticed what keeps people from being able to transform has much to do with transforming in a way dissonant to the social consciousness.

This social consciousness that draws so much hostility from regular folks, skeptics, hypnosis ... and occultists ... to me, the occultsists who seek liberation really have no excuse.

In my current framework of understanding, shamans deliberately seek the dissonance between self and social consciousness in order to create a sort of rift. They are generally agents of change, definately much feared. I see mentions of transgendered shamans appear time and time again, along side with shapeshifting into other animal forms. The bringing forth of the suppressed shadow in people; I mean, that is what the original term "fetish" refers to -- a focal point for a shaman. Deeping deep into the Dreamtime and getting in touch with the rejected shadow of the self -- I have this vague notion that is what Goetic spirit means, but I never really studied that jargon in depth.

I am, though, very much a supporter of helping people survive this dissonance. Though the people who come here largely are not transgendered, there's some who do show up here... the reproductive imperative from the social consciousness strongly discourages infertility. Yet that is one of the primary chains a human liberates himself from in order to individuate ...

Let's talk elsewhere before we totally freak everyone out here :-)

PrimaelGen Project

[nuit09]

At any rate; i look forward to reading about your progress. i have considered the idea of melding some of your techniques with that of magick with hypnosis to see if i can speed such shapeshifting up a bit. Goetic spirits like Ose say it takes many years to learn how to physically shapeshift but there are some pictures of a shaman doing a partial shapechange into a wolf out on the net. it strikes me that such a change has to be relatively rapid.

I've always considered hypnosis and magick being related. I don't see hypnosis as a way to explain away phenomena, so much as a bridge between body and mind. Psycho-somatic. Hypnosis certainly works as a tool for magick. There's also a significant body of magickal workings related to social consciousness: for those who are seeking something beyond entertainment or adventure, I've noticed what keeps people from being able to transform has much to do with transforming in a way dissonant to the social consciousness.

This social consciousness that draws so much hostility from regular folks, skeptics, hypnosis ... and occultists ... to me, the occultsists who seek liberation really have no excuse.

In my current framework of understanding, shamans deliberately seek the dissonance between self and social consciousness in order to create a sort of rift. They are generally agents of change, definately much feared. I see mentions of transgendered shamans appear time and time again, along side with shapeshifting into other animal forms. The bringing forth of the suppressed shadow in people; I mean, that is what the original term "fetish" refers to -- a focal point for a shaman. Deeping deep into the Dreamtime and getting in touch with the rejected shadow of the self -- I have this vague notion that is what Goetic spirit means, but I never really studied that jargon in depth.

I am, though, very much a supporter of helping people survive this dissonance. Though the people who come here largely are not transgendered, there's some who do show up here... the reproductive imperative from the social consciousness strongly discourages infertility. Yet that is one of the primary chains a human liberates himself from in order to individuate ...

Let's talk elsewhere before we totally freak everyone out here :-)

PrimaelGen Project

Goetic Spirits derive from a rennassaince magickal Grimoire of the same name. pronounced Go eet see ah; the name reportedly means the howling. which refers both to the "barbarous names of power" used to ramp up the magicians psyche as he attempts to summon them and from their wild demonic nature.

The barbarous names of power are mostly nonsensical syllibles strung together that never-the-less using or hearing has a striking effect on the mental state. I assume that these work because the mind cannot analyze them while using them. they have no verbal meaning.

Barring the religious view; There are two ways of looking at goetic spirits for those that have personal knowledge of them; at one level they are a 72 pack of personal demons; a set of semi-autonomous parts of one's own subconscious that if mastered make the magician psychologically unified and whole and very powerful because he can access thier abilities at will; "they" are him and visa versa. at another level they are at the very least archetypes shared by all humanity, independent in a way from any given magician because they also reside in the consciousness of everyone else ( a shared superconsciousness ) and will survive the demise of the magician. in this vein they are often referred to in the jargon of Carl Gustav Jung. Also in this view they have been known to try to kill the magician. in legend at least, they have torn magicians into shreds physically.

[CuriousG]

Ever Read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, Nuit?

You remind me of those guys.

[nuit09]

Can't say i have. oddly it seems like a classic sci fi title and i have read many many many of them. I have definitely heard the title before.

[nuit09]

Interesting post. I tend to look first at the premise/a priori proposition because the rest of a construct tends to proceed from there. What sources do you use for your starting point that, universally, human life "back then" was considered the property of the community?

A minor point. You have used the spelling "commadants" in two separate posts (August 27 and August 30). I am thus led to believe that the spelling is intentional. I don't find the word in Webster's Unabridged, and it doesn't come from the same Latin root as "command" and "mandate". In fact, the closest Latin root would be the verb meaning "to be wet, to be moist." I don't think you had such a derivation in mind. Is this a neologism?

I have been sloppy with what I wrote.

I don't have a source to back up the "back then" comment. It was an off-the-cuff speculation, something to stimulate the mind in an non-obvious way even if the whole line of reasoning is ultimately rejected.

I spelled "commadants" that way because I thought that was how it is spelled. Apparently I have been mispelling it. That's an interesting etymology you posted about it. I never thought a mispelling can generate from "command" and "mandate". I think when I wrote that, my mind kept pronouncing it "Commadant" -- as in the military title -- but I meant "commandant".

PrimaelGen

THe source is any good concordance, There are many available on line if you would like to check. The original hebrew word means to murder; by lying in wait. in other words premeditated murder. it excludes other forms of kiilling especially killing in an act of defense or in war.

[anto]

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

[Kalendaine]

Dear lord, what a flame war : 8O I have a question for all those skeptics out there - of which i am one, true, but at least i keep an open mind.

Q: When a baby is just born, an infant, gooey and with placenta and all sorts of amniotic fluids spattered about him/her, do you ask that new life to eat by itself? To feed itself? to go out, get a job, and support itself?

Unless you're heartlessly cruel or sadistic, no. Yet this is what most people do - the thought is, "if these powers exist, why aren't they readily provable?" The answer to that question? Everyone, every single person on the planet, are, just like in the question, infants in the study or application of this (psychic powers/magick/etc). There are a few, yes, who might be able to crawl - perhaps walk! - but the rest? They insist that walking isn't possible when they can barely see with their eyes open - and some intentionally close their eyes anyway.

I'd say that - if we had any knowledge of it to begin with - it's all been sacrificed on the bonfire of materialist thinking - i.e. if it isn't tangible, then it doesn't exist. What a pity, no?

Just adding my two cents to the bank :p

[Bluetoad27]

"On one occasion, I took him [Harry Houdini] to a magicians' meeting in my car,
which that season was a Ford Model T coupe with a front seat of only two-person
width and with the doorcatches inconveniently placed behind a person's elbow.
When he tried to twist around and work the catch, Houdini found it stuck and in
all seriousness, he demanded, "Say -- how do you get out of this thing?" It
wasn't until I had reached across and pulled the knob for him that he began
laughing, because he, of all people, couldn't get out of a Ford coupe."
-- Walter B. Gibson, in _Houdini on Magic_

I've finished reading this very long discussion, and have to both agree and disagree with both sides. I could involve a discussion about self-fulfilling prophecies, the psychology of sleep, etc. But, I could also involve the conversation of Philosophers, like Aquinas or Anselm, who have discussed the existence of a greater being which cannot be posted because of the rules. The involvement of the latter, of course, deals more with miracles, or magic. Once again, however, chemistry could also attempt to answer those statements. You see, ladies and gentlemen, magic and hypnosis can not truly fit together. It is like discussing free will, in philosophy, and then discussing how God knows everything. I really hope I don't get in trouble for that statement, I'm not trying to debate religion or mortality. Anywho, I post this because, like the irony of Houdini's situation above (the world's greatest illusionist and escape artists) there seems to be a comical paradox that exists here. Good reading though everyone.

Cheers Everyone
8)

[VeryGnawty]

It is like discussing free will, in philosophy, and then discussing how God knows everything.

Actually, those two ideas are not a paradox, but that would be getting off topic. It would also involve an extremely lengthy discussion. And I do mean lengthy.

On a related note, magick and hypnosis are perfectly justifiable. All that it requires is for hypnosis to have a magickal effect, and for magick to be linked with a process of hypnosis. Plenty of people already use such a paradigm. In fact there are groups of people using various "gnosis" techniques to reach a state of mind where they can cast magick. Such people have already blended hypnosis (or at least, gnosis) with magick. You should do a little research. I think you'll find their trance techniques to be not entirely unlike those commonly used here.

Of course, those people are probably all crackpots. But aren't we all?

[Kalendaine]

Your last comment reminds me of a quote i once heard, Gnawty: "Everyone is a heretic [or in this case, crackpot] until he is proven right."

Think about that. Not *one* major cornorstone of science was believed at its conception. The concept of gravity? nope. The non-heliocentric view of the universe? nope. Evolution? nope. Atomic theory? no. Quantum mechanics? Wrong again. Even the 'father of Western philosphy' himself, Socrates, was sentanced by the state to take a hemlock cocktail for 'corrupting young minds.'

In my view, it would be best not to disbelieve anything - no matter what it is. You never know what new principle of science might come along and prove *you* wrong, instead. Granted, i don't mean to say "believe in everything" - i mean, keep an open mind. don't discount it because you think it's 'impossible' - which is, i believe, the worst mistake in some people's scientific reasoning. They take the stance of 'this can't be' - consciously or unconsciously - and then work facts around until they have the evidence they need.

Instead, in true scientific thought, you would start from a 'null' point - neither belief nor disbelief - and then work to accumulate as much evidence as possible until it is uniequivocally on one side or the other. Very few people can manage that type of 'null' point when the subject matter hits close to the heart - i.e. religion, magic, science, etc.

Now, from that basis, what evidence can we accumulate for - or against - the existence of magic? Experiment, folks. Share stories. Every story for or against is another jot on the record books. But *don't* comment negatively on the experiences of others - you haven't had them, have you, so how can you discount thier validity?

Ack. Sorry, everyone - I went on a rant.

[Bethmattsix33]

Definition of Magick & Will by Aleister Crowley from the introduction to Magick in Theory & Practice.

I) DEFINITION. Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. (Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.) In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar.Definition of Magick & Will by Aleister Crowley from the introduction to Magick in Theory & Practice.

[VeryGnawty]

Think about that. Not *one* major cornorstone of science was believed at its conception.

There is a very intelligent man who explained this point in a certain way:

"Those who see the light before others are cursed to pursue that light in spite of others." - Christopher Colombus

[PS360]

haha oh wow.

[diapers_forever]

This is a lovely fight page.

PEOPLE WOULD YOU KINDLY LEAVE THE TOPIC ALONE.

Just get into the religion or whatever forum if you want to bother with this fight.

That said, magic... I think it's another way into the subconscious. Works like hypnosis.

And as far as the magic teleporting pager... I got nothing. Hell, I know I'll never understand everything about magic, odd things, religion, magic, and etc. I just really have lost care on it. And, as such, I treat the pager story as everything at once. Magic, not magic, and everything.

It's a glorious way of looking at things.

[sabrinaselentra]

don't fight over it. Its just as real as you make it just like the rest of life. with a few exceptions. Magic just means mystery. Once you solve the mystery its no longer magic its technology. For enchantment join me in the whispering wood. whispernymph.com. smoochies!

[diapers_forever]

don't fight over it. Its just as real as you make it just like the rest of life. with a few exceptions. Magic just means mystery. Once you solve the mystery its no longer magic its technology. For enchantment join me in the whispering wood. whispernymph.com. smoochies!

...Wow that's... so thick with advertisement.

[Hurrr]

don't fight over it. Its just as real as you make it just like the rest of life. with a few exceptions. Magic just means mystery. Once you solve the mystery its no longer magic its technology. For enchantment join me in the whispering wood. whispernymph.com. smoochies!

Stop advertising your site.

[WitchCraftSpells]

Well if you need love spells or witchcraft spells, trust the experts! Check out
http://www.lovestreethearts.com/how-and-when-to-make-use-of-witchcraft-spells-with-regard-to-adore/

[Leeiah]

Why is this in the feminization forum? This should be in the Philosophy, Religion & Politics over on that "side" of the fence. This has nothing to do with this forum, yes I clicked the links just to make sure.. Move or transfer thread.