[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chaos / cute / delete / hrvatska / imouto / misr / tes / ttgg ]

/fringe/ - Fringe

Esoteric Wizardry

Catalog

Email
Comment *
File
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


RulesModerator LogLibraryArchivesFAQFringe GuideRanksCSS/fringe//asatru//4chon//ask/#looshFringechan

The rules are simple and mostly apply to the creation of threads on /fringe/:
1. No duplicate threads of topics that already exist unless the previous thread has hit the bump limit
2. No making threads just to ask questions, actually present substantial information if you're going to make a thread
3. No creating new threads purely to no-effort shitpost (you will be forgiven if it's a major GET)
4. Post threads that fall under the subject matter of /fringe/ (creepypasta is not allowed here, take that to /x/)
5. No identifying posts / namefag drama
6. Do not sit on the default flag or post with no flag all the time.
If the board goes up for claim and the board owner can't be found anywhere, please contact live:chanseywrites on Skype to give the board to her.

File: 776e5d46f8e53f0⋯.jpg (159.04 KB, 640x640, 1:1, summoning circle.jpg)

 No.98749

A ritual, by itself, is nothing magical at all, just like a body, by itself, is nothing but a corpse. Like a body so is a ritual only the vessel for the will of the soul. But just like a soul can not make just anything its body and still function as a being with its own will, so does a ritual have to be worthy of the intent behind it. In order for a ritual to function, the soul needs a connection to it, a bond.

This bond can be many things, but usually faith in the ritual is at its core, even if the motivation as a whole might instead be hope, fear, rage, love or anything else, it all must have at its core the faith in the rituals reality, or its 'realness'. Because of this it is important that the ritual becomes believable, it has to 'make sense'. That is why people come up with complex systems behind it in order to explain it and thus turn it into their reality.

By making sense of something you make it believeable. By believing something you can make it real. For example, the mandela effect has had very believeable effects. Even though the majority of people thinks that darth vader says 'Luke, I am your father' it is very easy to believe that this is just an mistake people make, because by including the name you give the quote a better context and thus everyone knows what exactly you are quoting, even though in reality vader says "No, I am your father." (or whatever it might have been changed to by the time you read this, in the future). Same with the Berenstein bears, the mistake is easy to believe. What is believed - or at least 'believeable enough', depending on it's scale - becomes reality.

Let me give you a much more extreme example, for the sake of making this understandable: How can you proof that the world did not adapt to our believes when we "discovered", for example, the periodic system of elements? After all, at first, it was just a theory that made a massive amount of sense - and then we found out it was true. How do you know that the system did not become real BECAUSE of how much sense it made, because everyone believed it?

You see, every ritual - and thus all "magic" - is based on this phenomenon. You come up with a 'lie' so believeable that you can more or less scientifically explain why the 'impossible' thing you just did actually worked. And the second it happens it becomes its own proof of existence (which I personally find both equally beautiful and mindblowingly fucked up). That means that if your ritual doesn't work the solution, at least conceptually, is simple (not necessarily 'easy' though):

You either need to aim at something smaller or you make your ritual bigger. Or longer. Or add something to it that makes it more special. But most importantly you want to have a system behind it. You want to be able to believe it - unless you are somehow mad enough to believe in the impossible without any help, which, by the way, is an amazing gift but can also be a massive curse.

Because of this so many books about magic explain to you their very own system. If you follow the steps you slooowly get trained to believe the system works. And in the end you yourself actually make it work. You are fighting against your own idea of what is possible. Win this fight and you become capable of the impossible. However, against you specifically, there is no stronger opponent than yourself. One way or another you have to earn this power by facing yourself.

(Sorry in advance if the text may come out silly looking or if there are some other mistakes, I do not post too often and sometimes have trouble putting those things into words - especially since it's not in my native language.)

 No.98772

>>98749

This is a very interesting post and I highly appreciate it. My only question is, just how solipsistic is the universe? For instance, Franz Bardon talks about estabilishing contact with external consciousness, but are those only manifested belief too to some extent? I get that the macrocosm technically "imagined" everything into being, but how does "I", the microcosm fit into that?


 No.98775

>>98772

Read Practice of Magical Evocation


 No.98782

>>98772

That is a very good question. My first impulse was that I believe conciousness is not created by being "imagined", so to speak, by other conciousness. Then again almost all species on our entire planet reproduce conciousness actively by creating new bodies for conciousness to inhabit. That is still different from completely "summoning" an entire external conciousness out of your imagination, but it's close enough for me to wonder.

So yeah, how does the indivudal fit into a reality created by many? Now if a lot of other people would, for example, believe you to be jesus and have his magical powers, you, as the individual, if you too believed, would probably be able to turn water into wine or whatever. Quantity of concioussness plays a fair role and the more you are the easier it will be to manifest the magic - but it can, theoretically, be manifested within one single microcosm. However, I imagine that is not quite what you were wondering about, but instead what one microcosm by itself can affect. I'd like to say "if you believe it strongly enough you can do literally anything" but that sounds very anime and also makes it sound way easier as it is. Also, for something to be changed, conciousness has to percieve it - thus the range of your magical ability is limited to what you can percieve around you, though of course an "imagied system" can help you a lot with this perception, just like the periodic system helps us percieve atoms we cannot even see. I hope you understand what I mean by this.

Conciousness and perception are strongly connected anyway, one could argue that something is only truly concious if it can percieve itself or at least its own existance. Though to be fair, this - like many other discussions on this board - boils down to terminology and what you define as "counciousness". For example, when a person is asleep and dreaming he is not concious. Yet inside of his head, in his dream, a whole lot of conciousness is going on. It as a matter of perception and it also is a question of how far and where conciousness can reach (if you are a believer in the phenomenon of astral projection, for example, you'd believe the range of conciousness is quite huge).

Sorry that my answer became so long, it is just a very interesting question to wonder about.


 No.98787

>>98772

I suspect this is one of those situations in which two apparently contradictory things are simultaneously true.


 No.99211

This deserves a bump.


 No.99256

>>98749

>>98749

>But just like a soul can not make just anything its body and still function as a being with its own will

>(or whatever it might have been changed to by the time you read this, in the future). Same with the Berenstein bears, the mistake is easy to believe.

>implying


 No.99258

yea yea, your belief creates reality yadda yadda. More specifically, it's your subconscious beliefs. As you implied, it's impossible to directly change your subconscious beliefs, so prayer/ritual/sigil/affirmation and other religious/mystic/occultic/etc practices are all just proxies for indirectly changing your subconscious beliefs. Even the maddest person has an ideology or is victim to others; what you described is essentially god mode but god does not have ego/personality/subconscious, since that is what is required to have existence and God does not exist in the way we do. Basically incarnating on this realm means having certain beliefs locked in. Madness is not the key to unlock them.

If one wants a thorough explanation of this phenomenon read some Montalk stuff

http://montalk.net/metaphys/68/true-reality-creation-part-i

But don't go near the alien stuff though. He goes OFF about alien abductions and other phenomena of insanity. Alex Jones got nothing on this guy lol

As a side note, anyone who seriously believes in that stupid Mandela effect theory is absolutely retarded, especially if you already figured out that belief creates reality. If you can choose your beliefs, then why would you choose a belief that has no benefits to you? This is worse than a limiting belief, this is just inviting more and more uncontrollable volatile phenomena into your reality.


 No.99284

>>98772

>solipsistic

You read all that and concluded that the universe is solipsistic? What the hell lol. I mean if solipsism says that all that exists is the result of one mind, then all of our minds are only parts, and connected to one mind.

It's your subconscious beliefs that create reality, and as Jungian psychology explains, there is personal unconscious (aka subconscious) and collective unconscious (hivemind shit)

If you added up all the microcosms (personal unconscious of everyone) you would get the macrocosm (collective unconscious). And when I say everyone, I mean all entities including the nonphysical ones.

>>98782

When you say consciousness, you mean beings. Pure consciousness is useless without subconscious and cannot interact or make any action whatsoever without a vessel of some sort. Consciousness does not need to be able to "perceive itself" (because first of all, consciousness alone does not have a 'self' that exists in the subconscious). As far as I know, Consciousness only has two attributes. The ability to perceive and the ability to make decisions. It is the subconscious that does everything else (which all amounts to feeding information to consciousness, and getting fed decisions). Without subconscious, consciousness cannot perceive anything let alone make decisions, because Not to mention that, well, without subconscious there is no input and no vessel to process input.

>For example, when a person is asleep and dreaming he is not concious. Yet inside of his head, in his dream, a whole lot of conciousness is going on.

Dude what. If you are perceiving, you are conscious. Physical reality is a shared dream (and it is not the only one, but the only physical one). In a personal (lucid) dream one simply creates thought and it manifests into (dream) reality. The shared dream of physical reality requires all people (relatively speaking, in an environment) to have the same "thoughts" to manifest this shared thought into reality. So in a way, the subconscious beliefs are like "subconscious thoughts" that correlate and resonate with physical reality at different levels (with the level of thought correlating to the physical scale that is effected in (or rather effects) physical reality).

>(if you are a believer in the phenomenon of astral projection, for example, you'd believe the range of conciousness is quite huge).

This is a silly statement. I was wondering what you considered of astral phenomena (which is the same thing as saying nonphysical phenomena). The astral realm has different levels of 'astral realities' and all of them are, in a sense, separate shared dreams.

And there is no 'not believing in astral projection' because if you have dreams you are technically in an astral state, and visualizing and such are all astral phenomena. Remember, thinking and conscoiusness and subconsious and concepts and etc… ALL the nonpysical phenomea are technically astral phenomana (actually the energy that connects the astral realm and physical realm is referred to as etheric energy resulting in etheric constructs and such, but that is not relevant to the discussion presently) .

Anyways, being able to astral project is more of a skill; and skill has nothing to do with beliefs. At least not in the manifestation sort of way (but manifestation can be a part of it, can be a huge catalyst once there is thorough knowledge and understanding of the skill).

Actually, the skill for astral projection and lucid dreaming are the same; an interesting phenomena can happen. There is an important role of beliefs in the case of when you are able to have some control of the dream/astral state, but you are still unable to astral project; it's your absolute refusal to believe in collective astral realities that will make only lucid dreaming possible (this of course stems from your ideology aka belief system). It is not at all a locked belief, at least not on incarnating. Indoctrination of materialism (and some other ideologies) is what locks it in due to selfpropagating human cultures.

And yes, discussions rely on terminology and semantics. So agreeing on definitions before starting a discussion is very helpful. In your own discussion you never clarified a definition so what your saying, can sound quite silly (which it did to me and I pointed it out explaining why by sharing my understandings of definitions).


 No.99285

Just in case someone takes semantics incredibly seriously, I used the terms 'beings' and 'entities' synonymously. I can't think of any reason to not consider them identical terms, but maybe there are some nuanced differences I haven't realized yet.


 No.99286

This applies only when the terms are used as nouns.


 No.99293

File: 4737f0b7c728e01⋯.png (28.45 KB, 197x197, 1:1, 07c660fa0e460c33d6d31b4cee….png)

>>98772

All things Exist, just not specifically Here.

What you can do about it depends entirely on circumstance.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chaos / cute / delete / hrvatska / imouto / misr / tes / ttgg ]