Support our Kickstarter

Gods, Demons and Imaginary Friends

RSblend.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I first began my study of magick, almost thirty years ago, I was fascinated and bewildered by the numerous, often conflicting, systems for cataloging entities. Every school of thought and every religion offered a pantheon of entities, avatars, teachers, and earthly representatives. There were catalogs filled with icons, pantheons crowded with gods and goddesses, angels organized in hierarchies more complex than government offices, and demons lined up behind their bigger, badder brethren. Even the most ostensibly monotheistic religions still had lists of saints, prophets, teachers, legendary characters, and further subdivisions of their One True, yet nonetheless divisible, God.

All these systems were fascinating, of course, and I spent many days, weeks, months and years focused upon exploring them. I studied Jung’s Man and His Symbols, pored over Crowley’s 777, spread tarot cards on my living room floor, tossed coins among the piles of tarot cards, and created magic marker enneagrams, veves, and hieroglyphs. I soon found that a few of these entities had the ability to affect me in surprising ways. Some I found I was inexplicably drawn to – I wrote short stories and created tarot cards for the god Pan for many years, performed rituals involving Aleister Crowley’s triumvirate of Nuit, Hadit, and Ra-Hoor-Khuit and placed candy, rum and cigars on altars for Voodoo loas, for instance. Similarly some entities repelled me--although most simply did not touch me in any immediately significant way. But ultimately my question about all of these was, “Why this stuff?” The teaching was that these entities were symbols, archetypes from the collective unconscious--from a Platonic dreamworld in which the proper shapes of all things were stored.

I'm fine with the idea that our unconscious minds intersect someplace and that we share the common implicit information that is the world beyond our immediate awareness. It makes sense to me on a very practical level – that everything in the universe influences everything else, no matter how slightly or significantly and that information about everything is available everywhere, if we have the ability to decode it. That still doesn’t offer an answer as to how we came up with this particular stuff from among all the potential shapes and forms, gods, angels, demons and symbols of the unperceived world. What is it about that memetic complex that we call a god that makes it a god? How was this stuff first derived? I wanted to understand the nature of the gods and goddesses from books and esoteric lore that I had come to love – ultimately, I wanted to find a pantheon within my own life and experience.

After some years of contemplating this issue of the origin of archetypes, I decided that the emphasis on the "stuff" was only half the equation. The stuff – the names, shapes, clothing and bedroom habits of the gods – represents the content, the collection of ideas and perceptions that we circle in a metaphysical Venn diagram to delineate exactly what constitutes a particular entity. The answer to my question lay as much within the circle as in the hand that pushes the pen to draw it – or rather in the mind that guides that hand.

The question became, “What is it about a particular collection of stuff that fires off the part of my brain that recognizes it as something meaningful?” What makes the character of Ganesh recognizable to worshipers as a god, for instance? It’s a more complex question than it might appear on the surface.

The first level to be peeled back deals with how we recognize anything as conscious, as something with which we can communicate. An intuitive Turing Test performed by the unconsciousness mind seems to immediately categorize things into “conscious entity” and “inanimate lump.” We look at each other and, hopefully, we recognize one another as human and conscious and at least reasonably intelligent. Some very simple visual patterns, for instance, seem to fire off this sense of recognition – a smiley face, have-a-nice day symbol is recognizable to us as a human face; a South Park cartoon character can be identified with--for a half hour at a time--as a conscious entity with the ability to communicate, make decisions, and act-- however stupidly--upon the world.

Linguistic patterns also seem to have a similar ability to reveal the conscious state of an entity. A sentence formed with proper syntax suggests that its writer or speaker is possessed of some measure of intelligence. Based on such unconscious intuitions, we recognize writers as conscious entities when we read their well-formed sentences. We recognize other humans as such when we communicate with each other in text environments such as Internet forums. And we even recognize fictional characters as entities for whom we might predict behavior and sympathize. (What would Captain Kirk do?) There are many behavioral patterns and cues that help us to, unconsciously, tell the difference between a conscious entity and a brick of cheese.

This all made much more sense to me when I came across the concept of mirror neurons. These are physical structures in the brain which enable us to build predictive models of intelligence or consciousness. In effect, mirror neurons build models of entities and use our own consciousness as computing power to run those models. We look at another person and we a) recognize them as another person, and b) try them on for size to some degree. This suggests that mirror neurons are not only the operative force behind empathy, sympathy, and most forms of communication, but may also explain some of the phenomena involving gods and demons with which I was struggling to understand.

First, let’s demonstrate how mirror neurons work. The following exercises are excerpted from the Meta-Magick Invocation Workdbook (© 2008 Philip H. Farber, used with permission).

 

Watch Yourself Relax:

  • Imagine that you can see yourself, or hear yourself, or feel yourself, as if observing another person. Make it like looking at a movie or a picture of yourself. If you are better at hearing or feeling, then hear yourself talking or making sounds, or feel where your presence would be.

  • Imagine that this other self that you are observing is in a place that is very comfortable and very, very relaxing. It’s not necessary to see, hear or feel the place, just keep your attention on this other self.

  • Watch, listen, and/or feel as this other self becomes more and more relaxed, more and more comfortable, and exhibits the effects of relaxation: softer muscles, different posture, different facial expression, and so forth.

  • Make changes to the structure of the image (but not the content):

    1. Make the image larger or smaller

    2. Make the colors brighter or more muted

    3. Emphasize the foreground as opposed to the background, and vice versa

    4. Make the sounds or speech louder or quieter (if the emphasis is on hearing rather than seeing)

    5. Speed up and slow down the action (works for all senses)

    6. Move the image closer or farther away (works for all senses)

    7. Give the image a soft glow or sparkles

  • Notice any changes to your state as you experiment with these changes.

 

The above exercise deals not just with our ability to recognize entity-hood in our dealings with external stuff, but also with the things that we imagine, the dissociated images and entities that we create in our minds. The very (im)material that gods, demons, and imaginary friends are made from. Also notice how subtle changes in the form and quality of our internal image have the ability to change our response to the entity. Different configurations affect our consciousness in different ways. Making the representation larger or smaller, brighter or dimmer, etc., will often continue the process of making us more or less relaxed. Hopefully you found a configuration that was wonderfully relaxing.

Although the above excersise was about our self-image, it gives us a start towards finding clues to the anatomy of entities of any kind. And even better, we may notice some direct connections between the anatomy of an entity and our own states of consciousness.

Let’s consider for a moment our criteria for recognizing something as god or goddess, demon or angel. There are, generally, two major magical operations that involve these critters: invocation and evocation. Invocation is the drawing into oneself of a quality or entity; evocation is the externalization of a quality or entity. In a traditional invocation of Hermes, we might visit a temple of Hermes and contemplate his image, or recite a descriptive poem in his honor, or create a magick circle and bring into it only those things of Hermetic nature, so that we might become more Hermetic ourselves. In a traditional evocation we might summon a Goetic spirit into a triangle and question it about what would make life better for us or constrain it to perform some task for us to that same end. We perform these operations quite naturally in daily life, outside the context of magick or mysticism. When we are inspired by another person or a work of art, that is a kind of invocation. When we imagine conversations with people who aren’t present, or attempt to verbally convince our computer connection to go faster, we are engaging in mild forms of evocation.

Let’s say that, for the purposes of this discussion, our entities become useful when we can use them to perform invocation and evocation willfully and with well-defined intent. An entity suitable for invocation could, ideally, change you in some desired way by contemplating the entity and drawing it into yourself. An entity suitable for evocation would be able to impart information or perform tasks according to your will. In our Meta-Magical explorations, we hope to discover entities in relation to our own states and our consciousness, rather than necessarily learning some previous explorer’s version of a pantheon. (And when we all do this, perhaps we’ll find that we have many of these entities in common.)

As in the preceding exercise, we begin with an image of the self. Our hypothesis here is that a self image is the very essence of entity-recognition. It is our basic reference point for consciousness and can also help to reveal our own innate pantheons, the entities who already inhabit our world of consciousness. To change that image from our human self to that of a god, we have to tweak the parameters in order for that image (or voice or feeling) to rise to the level of something useful in invocation or evocation, something with the potential to change us through interaction.

 

Instant God(dess):

  • Decide on a quality that you either have and would like to enhance, or one that you don’t have and would like to acquire. For instance, creativity, compassion, patience, strength, assertiveness, financial skill, adaptability, understanding, concentration, flexibility, love, sex appeal, or whatever you decide upon. Make sure this quality is a positive one, that is, it is one that stands on its own and is not expressed as a lack of something else (for instance, “reduced stress” might be expressed here as “relaxation”, “no more bad luck” might be expressed for these purposes as “good luck” and so on).

  • Breathe and banish. Imagine a circle around yourself, at about the diameter of your spread arms. Sit or stand in the center of that circle. Fill your lungs completely, with a slow, even inhalation. As you inhale, allow your attention to expand to fill the circle. As you exhale, slowly, evenly, and completely, allow your attention to contract to a single point in the center of your chest. Repeat at least three times.

  • Create a dissociated image of yourself (an image, voice or feeling of you as if perceived by another person or in a recording), standing or sitting. Eliminate background and any accessories, objects, props, and so on that might be in your image, so that the image is just you.

  • Begin to adjust the physiology of the imagined person to include more and more of your desired quality. Pay attention to and adjust facial expression, posture, breathing, movements, skin tone, muscle usage and anything else that might pertain.

  • Adjust the structure of the image (submodalities) for greater impact. Experiment with image size, color depth and quality, image location, and special effects such as glows, sparkles, shimmers. Take each of these to its greatest intensity – for instance, the image could be increased to much greater than life-size. If this image were a god of that particular quality, how would these submodalities manifest? Just how big, bright, loud, strong and sparkly is a god(dess) of x?

  • Begin to add in extra features and aspects from other humans, from animals, machines as appropriate to a god(dess) of this quality. For instance, if cunning and strength are useful to this entity, give it some qualities of a tiger or other animal that might represent those qualities (head, body, teeth, eyes, whatever). If enhanced intelligence or processing speed is important, then maybe a computer chip or having a computer as an accessory might work. Take as much time as is necessary to test out some of these qualities. Notice which ones feel the best and keep them. Have fun with this and make your image fantastic.

  • Adjust physiology to account for the additions. If you added a computer chip to the brain, how would that be reflected in facial expression, breathing, posture, etc.?

  • Contemplate the image for at least 30 seconds.Pull the image into the circle with you and draw it into you. Wear it like clothing, wrap it around you, let it interpenetrate your body and mind. Let your own body, posture, breathing, facial expression, etc. reflect what you saw in this image. Let the memories of this (future) self who has already resolved this basic need be your memories. Breathe and banish. Be open to thoughts, epiphanies, and suggestions from your unconscious mind that may occur throughout the day as a result of this practice.


  • This exercise and the early one are offered here for demonstration purposes, to give some practical experience of the relationship between entities and consciousness. For the most part, entities produced or contacted in this way are personal ones, not necessarily god or goddess archetypes familiar to us from the astral storehouse of sacred images. However, sometimes they do rise to that level and first-time practitioners occasionally find themselves face-to-face with deities who offer names and abilities drawn from known pantheons and belief systems.

  • The exercises demonstrate an extremely stripped-down and basic mode of working. There are endless modifications and enhancements to these processes of deriving personal pantheons from our unconscious minds. At some point, they become much more than simple demonstrations of a point – but I’ll leave that, for now, to your own imagination and experience...


 

(...And before you’re off to read the next article, I’ll just note that to fully understand the point that this piece dances around, no matter how well you think you get it on an intellectual level, it is most likely necessary to actually perform the experiments. You have to look through the microscope and adjust the focus before you really know what a micro-organism is like. And it likewise helps to change the focus of your mind before you really understand the nature of the entities all around us, including gods, goddesses, demons, angels, imaginary friends, ideologies, corporations, schools of art, mass movements and those mysterious bipeds we call “human.”)

 

 

Comments

Communion of Spirts

Great article. 

If the human species could telepathically communicate these introverted experiences with one another either through meditation or technology, perhaps then we could ascend our physical bodies.

Tuning in

Thank you. I think perhaps we do constantly communicate these experiences with one another... it's more a matter of remembering to tune in.

...the origin of archetypes...

Given that consciousness seems to transcend time and space...retro-causality may make understanding the "origin" of the archetypes difficult...if not impossible. For now, at least. From a temporal point of view...

 

I doubt even the Gods and Goddesses know the origin of the archetypes. I recall a Hindu story, recounted by Joseph Campbell, in which a beautiful woman enlightened the Gods about the transcendent mystery source from which they (and us) came.

Hidden in plain sight

By "origin" I wasn't referring necessarily to a temporal origin, more the place in our consciousness that allows us to make contact with our gods and imaginary friends. And I think this is a case of something being hidden in plain sight. We all have the ability to bring forth our inner pantheon. (And this isn't about theorizing, this is an experiential process. Please see the final paragraph.)

Well Said, Thank You

"as soon as you call on some God or Deamon or Fairy, you open yourself up to deeper levels of your psyche, just to be in the world we are confronted with constant manipulation through media and religion/politics, therefore, anybody that has a consciousness, and is not just another troglodyte, wants to have some access to their own psychological make up"

Thanks again

I enjoy reading your posts and generally agree with what you say, so really have little to reply. Your personal experiences are your own, fascinating to read about - and as per the last paragraph of my article, I'd love to know your personal experience of exploring these exercises.

Square peg, round hole?

It's very common that we try to fit new information into the box of our previous experiences. This is most decidedly not a Gnostic Mass. This is an opportunity to have a new experience. It is offered here as an opportunity to learn something about your own consciousness beyond what you've already learned. This article is very much about your personal experience... Perhaps it will relate to those experiences you had all those years ago or perhaps not. But, as I've re-iterated several times now, the information here is transmitted by practice, not by my exposition.

I seriously doubt that my personal experiences in this regard would make any difference to anyone... except as I am able to offer them as an experiential process. In fact, even when I was teaching traditional rituals of the kind you are familiar with, I rarely talked about my personal results as these tend to prejudice people about their own experience. If you're interested in that, however, do a websearch. There are quite a few interviews with me in which I share anecdotes.

If you choose to do your learning in a different way, that's fine... just recognize that discussing this particular material without actually doing it entirely misses the point (which is spelled out in the last paragraph) and I probably won't join in except with remarks of this type.

Well, I think

Well, I think this article is delightful if only because it bears the stamp of truly free and brazen fearlessness.

That we might have some pragmatic approach to our own kind of 'self enslavement' or is it an 'inner impulse' to be 'honest'?

Or, maybe, something deeper even than that?

Are we really willing to be kind? To be loving?

What if to be 'loving' means, we are open enough to see that any species of 'self' can change varieties of individual experience in terms of 'selfness'?

Maybe our favorite 'hero' of the moment at one time was a worm, or a maggot or a butterfly or, shall we forbid? an amoeba?

What if 'progress' has nothing to do with mere physical form but such 'imaginary friends'?

And what if, such 'friend' is a form of an intrinsic principle that leads towards greater freedom for a molecule of 'consciousness'? An 'outer' non-centric form of consciousness that presses inwardly with 'love' to an inner form of 'itself'?

What's the deal? We took some 3,000 years to come to a place of thinking that 'atoms' actually existed. Imagine that! Doubt of 'atoms'!

Yet, today, who actually knows that 'atoms' really exist based on first-hand experience?

Today, we are told "HGH" will bring you back to childhood, make you 'young' again!

Who has an 'apetite' for "HGH" (human growth hormone)?

Yet, I'll lay my bottom dollar that everyone who is reading this has had some period of time in their lives of really believing in, and communing with an 'imaginary' friend. That is a kind of 'play' we too easily discount as 'valid'.

I'm no big fan of 'shamanists' of the American ilk who go down 'south' to investigate our neighbors there, who actually think and speak in terms of first hand experiences of invisible 'friends' or a 'friend'. They don't use the term 'God'. They say 'friend'. They wouldn't know anything about capitalization of a term. For them, it isn't something special. It has nothing to do with 'shamans' or special seers. Everyone has it. It is the 'inner voice' of our culture in specialized language. Yet we have relegated a number value-system with this. We have the possibility of 'many voices' and 'possession' by spheres of 'heaven' and 'hell'. We have a dichotomy.

In some regions of the wildernesses peoples have some of this, some not. We cannot define how this goes.

Why? Because unless you were born 'there,' you are a 'visitor' and what they think, you can never really think or even 'know'.

So I am sorry: I don't care what people have said here about this. It is varied and some of it is valid, some entirely fictional and motivated by an interest for profit. Not to be trusted.

You can only know by going on your own into the most remote regions and making your own observations.

Otherwise, you are trusting mere anecdote. Circumstantial evidence. Not good enough for me. For one.

You may sympathise or relate to such, but you are never gonna be 'them'. At the same time, a willingness to TRY and see, to enquire and TRY and understand: that is based on some sympathy.

Such must be based on something beyond mere 'scientific' interest to be valid. Otherwise it is simply a kind of invasion and subjugation and abnegation of consciousness in one or another of it's species or kinds or flavors

Such is nothing other than objectifying in the same way we abhor objectifying a sex, male or female. Mere impulse without even regard to propogation. It is a kind of 'voyeurism' or 'tourism' with a tinge of 'green' interest or 'kindness'. Really? Do we want to be kind? Then STAY AWAY.

In the 'imaginary friend', however, we have a language based on something highly valid, primal, and perhaps the most important form of transformative 'information' we 'educated' folk might explore.

Yet it requires of us to be willing to be taught. To stay within. To be quiet, still, and stop running about.

But we have pride. We have models, we have forms which obstruct pure 'observation'.

We obey the 'worldly' desire to run about, to go and see, and 'enjoy' and go back home and talk about those 'strange' folk, even if it is in 'sympathetic' tones and terms. How rude. How gross. We are shallow. We ignore our 'imaginary' friend. The stranger within.

It almost makes me want to cry. I'm cryin'. I'm crying.

We are so smart. We aren't so smart. And we're unwilling to say: I'm wrong. I don't know. I want to know. No. That seems beyond us. 'Cause we "know".

======================
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." HERBER

Alias as the death of the ego?

Is that what's kickin' here?  Smash the 'I think therefore I am' thing?  Do these exercises 'speed things up'?  Or are they simply your way of participating with the way?

I've always been fond of the games that can be played with the framing of realities.  Grasping at the catalysts of invention, building vast sums of knowledge as we spin, twist and spiral through the unnameable stuff of the unknown.  It seems the faster we go, as we Coriolis our way along the spiral, the less we are able to hold onto the framework of knowing... Centripetal jettisoning of increasingly irrelevant notions and means due to the newly acquired ways of knowing?  Or slowly trodding along the outter obtusities of the spiral, grasping, gathering and playing with our toys as we go.

I've always felt the framing itself, the alias or archetypes, and it's importance is disproven the moment it is understood to be being.  The alias rejects itself once its being is achieved, once it has achieved center.  Why then is it of any importance to achieve this centered being if the framework or vehicle is to abandon itself once whole?  Micro Cosmic Pole shifts in Consciousness?  It's in our nature?  A bold notion either way.

Once all this stuff of myth and legend is understood then why would anyone ever want to encourage someone else to stick themselves in the framework of the framework of inevitable abandonment?  To place another beings reality in a stylized mobius of tedious monotony of destroy, erase, improve?  To discover for themselves that it's an arbitrary waste of their existence? 

I find directly experiencing the unfettered elemental is the way to an untethered being.  If anyone is to 'teach' a way of knowing and experiencing that is to break the bonds of artificial framing than it is by showing the bonds are illusion by simply being.  Be an illusion of yourself if you insist on being a framework.  I believe it was Aristotle that made this popular with his line of questioning.  Wanna teach?  Just be dumb, stupid. 

What's Kickin'

"Is that what's kickin' here? Smash the 'I think therefore I am' thing? Do these exercises 'speed things up'? Or are they simply your way of participating with the way?"


These exercises are in part my way of participating with the way. They are offered here simply to elucidate a point about entities and mirror neurons that is better experienced than described.


"Centripetal jettisoning of increasingly irrelevant notions and means due to the newly acquired ways of knowing?"


I'm not entirely sure about the judgment of notions being relevant or irrelevant... But I am very much in favor of periodic notion-jettisoning. If only that by experiencing through a variety of different perceptual frames, your perception of each remains in proportion. We may begin to understand the origin of these notions and frames in our own consciousness and neurology and the real/illusory nature of them.

I see

"We may begin to understand the origin of these notions and frames in our own consciousness and neurology and the real/illusory nature of them."

I like attempting to understand the origin of things myself.  What do you make of the archetype humans have placed on this planet?  Mother.  I feel it should be shed like a snakes skin.  The smarter we get, or the more we become students, this old way of knowing about our flesh origin seems to be increasingly useless.  How would you apply this method to humans projecting archetypes upon others?  Would there be an archetype/framing to break from for the individual who is projecting, perhaps the 'teacher'?  Or perhaps it's the planet who needs to shed the old skin, so to speak?

Humans/Projections

By the very nature of mirror neurons, it seems that our relations with one another are largely with the entities we project for each other. That is, what we know and can predict for another person is based on the internal models that we make. This can be extremely obvious in cyberspace where just a few words can elicit rather complex and inaccurate projections from others.


As for the 'Mother' archetype... it hasn't always been that way. Some cultures have related to the Earth as a Father, for instance some of the Egyptian cults in which the sky was a goddess and the Earth was a god. I like to think that our individual unconscious and collective unconscious tends to select images, icons, and archetypes that are appropriate for our situation. Will we eventually have to shed our current images and beliefs? Very likely.


I think all of us have something to teach, all of us have something to learn, all of us embody father/mother/sibling/sage/trickster/fool/hero and the full range of human experience and expression. The ability to shift from one to the other, again, puts each in perspective. And the greater range of such experiences that we have, the more well-rounded and integrated we become - thus the traditional methods of working through each element/sephiroth/metal/sign of a system, rather than becoming fixated on one.


Likewise, the planet similarly has that full range of expression.

Thank you

That was more my language.  Fields of specialization can make communication difficult when things like lingo are held sacred and inflexible.  I appreciate your efforts at translation, it's a showing of your love for your craft.

beacon through smog

People that are 'knowingly' in communion with the generator of their so called 'reality' know that to attempt "invocation and evocation" of "god or goddess, demon or angel." would require forgeting/ignoring much of what they had to learn in order to get to the level of understanding that is necessary to 'know' they're in communion with the generator of their reality/consciousness/universe .............. ....... From typed words it's very easy to spot someone who 'really' knows .......& likwise 'very' easy to spot someone whom likes to think they know....or wishes others to think that's so........ ... . Behind The Scenery

Changing our Attitude Towards the Imagination

If we can change our attitude towards the imagination, then I think we have one of the keys that unlock a lot of doors.

As a point of reference- How philosophers have changed our attitudes regarding language: It is now pretty mundane to note that choice of language and metaphor is consequential.

So I see the next step as changing our attitude towards imagination.  Then we'll clearly see how we're imagining the world into what it is, rather than (say) market forces, or politics, or what have you.

No contradictions with or evasions from science required.

Mmmm

That sounds like Kerouac.  "Words have no meaning"

 

What of a communication without artefactual definition?  Last I heard of this was from McKenna exploring with Dennis and his wife or at least I recall him bringing it up in one of those cerebral rap sessions.  I can't exact the name of the technique only that there are traces of it through out our story usually popping up in the muddled scribblings of the twice fringed misfits.  Yea the juicy stuff, with some pulp.  Someone help me out here...  The conscious stream of expression without intent, and it ain't jazz.  What the heck's the WORD...  It's not the flowers, not the leaves... It's the fruit, the stuff of wombs... But there's a word when applying it to language... Logos?  maybe... ah, forget it

 

Communication w/o Artefactual Definition

By "communicating without artefactual definition," do you mean "some way of communicating that has none of the biases or unintended communications that come with language as it is" ..?

It's a neat puzzle, but I personally suspect something like that isn't even possible.  We could believe it's possible, but I don't think it actually could be.

Scientists and math people work really hard when they write their papers to put anything that's irrelevant to the subject at hand, off to the side.  So they develop these very specific languages, for talking only about what they're intending to talk about.

But even then, your choice of representation (of language) matters immensely.  A lot of Feynmann's genius was in re-representing what was already being represented, in a way such that certain conclusions became obvious.  (For example.)  Not so much "changing the model," but rather just "changing how we represent the model."  It works the same way before and after, but the new way lends itself towards different patterns of thought.  (Polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates describe the same two dimensional surface.)

So this isn't just true in the world of human subjectivity, but it's true in science and mathematics as well.  There's no "just seeing things the way they are," much less communicating the way things are.

linguistic tethers

Words are after all, for the advanced transaction of ideas from one individual to another.  However it is not the word that is necessarily important, but the quality and integrity of mental model hung from it. Also, an idea can become hindered in its growth and decay, ironically, by the very words that are used to define it, seeking effectively to break its semantic bonds in hope of redefinition. Dusty, half-forgotten words can be resurrected to expand and clarify the meaning of such pre-existing ideas. Models should ideally be dynamic, and terminology which foments the clarification/expansion/complexification of ideaspace is welcomed.

glossolalia

"Speaking in tounges"

It is now pretty mundane to

It is now pretty mundane to note that choice of language and metaphor is consequential.

No doubt--but would you mind naming some of the champions of this theory? 

The Whorfian Hypothesis

Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, Benjamin Whorf, Alfred Korzybski, Milton Erickson, Richard Bandler, Robert Anton Wilson, to name just a few. This idea, that our experience of reality is in some way dependent on our linguistics is often called "The Whorfian Hypothesis." In magical traditions predating Whorf, a similar idea was central to the grade of "Dominus Liminis."

Lakoff, Orwell, Burke, ...

The whorf hypothesis is one, for sure.

More broadly, off the top of my head, there's George Lakoff, as a theorist.  Jean BaudrillardGeorge Orwell had a few things to say.  Umberto Eco, I understand, (but have not read,) talks about this.  Kenneth Burke, used the phrase "terministic screen."  How much of post-structuralism, post-modernism, blah blah blah -- is dedicated to language & it's consequences?

Outside of philosophy, there's the whole school of political framing, practiced by Democrats and Republicans alike.  Much of public relations is about carefully minding the language and the metaphors, and interpreting and shaping the interpretation of such.  There's an enormous body of self-help books out there for couples, that pays very close attention to "what are you saying" and "how are you saying it.  That, and pretty much anyone who believes in the power of a spell or affirmation.

Beating hearts& last gasp farts

The "pic" is front cover from the first album 'Exuma', the music within by 'Daddy Ya-Ya & The Junk Band,........put that into your ears & feel the Fu flow Cj....the pic you was using the first time i came here 'Sargent Pepper's', & second time - 'Space Ego Greetings', connected up with my present reality very nicely....& helped my decision to register here...............Ohh, & whilst i'm completely off topic,, heres an example of poetry/words in action>>> Reality Sandwich's 'Psyche' threads, post entitled 'Under the Sea', by Erin Shaw, maybe read the BBC report & watch the short film then read my poem-ish thingy at the page bottom, you may recall it..................~re-Boot The System~

Broad Swords Bwrote To Show

"It is now pretty mundane to note that choice of language and metaphor is consequential." .................... 'duhhh'................... You're maybe in for quite a shock further along your 'imaged' time line,... sprawlingpussy........bestwishes~ .........................~By The Soundofit~

Watch Myself Relax

OK. I just did the first exercise. Very nice. A nice meditation all by itself and I think I’m getting the point. Everytime I changed something that I imagined I could feel it in my body. I changed the expression and the way it/I was sitting and after a little while I could feel my own posture follow. At first it followed more slowly but by the end when I changed something I felt it immediately. I eneded up with it big, kind of dim, with a soft glow and stayed like that for a few minutes. All told about 15 minut3s? Something like that. I read through the other exercise and will give it a shot later. This was enjoyable. Thanks for shareing. I like the interactiveness of it. -- Jack

You got it!

Thanks for the experience report, Jack. Keep us posted on the next experiment.

...

it's funny how we contend to misunderstand and fill our mind with semantics. EGO A delicious toy to destroy us all, but to those with none, there is no destruction, just realignment.This Website is so egocentric. Everywhere is written words of others or who can remember the most and slight proddings of how much more the next person knows about whoever wrote something last. Words got us into this mess. Silence and compassion will probably get us out. And probably won't. But who cares. Tell about your belief. Tell about everything you want to hold dear like a grain of rice or an ipod. Tell how enlightened you are with the vocabulary you use and go back to your apartment with a smug feeling. Know that words are black holes. Especially these ones. Just because you can quote the most prominent of your time means nothing. It's obvious there is something more going on than meets the eye. But pretending you understand it, is like, is like, is like absolutely nothing. Everything is always different. Pretend to understand and watch yourself dissolve. Realize. Realize. Realize that words only detract from the anarchy of being. And that the anarchy of being is what makes it worth involving consciousness in at all. Not bad not good just is

Glassido

It wasn't Logos, duh, Logos was the instance of birth.  It is Glassido.  The technique used in an attempt to find structure in the chaos.  Thanks, you rang that bell spot on.

glassido

I look out of interest for this 'futile' word, yet i cannot find it. Might it be spult tutherwise?

teh veed

Yea

I've been searching through the audio tomes for a while now and I'm still looking for the reference point but for the mean while I'll slap my interpretation on the table.

 

Glassido (if that is its real name), as explored by McKenna, was a stream of unguided sounds manifested from no thought or intention.  I equate this to free form jazz.  No boundries, no call and response, experiencing nothing but the instance of constant transition.  Observation would obstruct the action as much as anticipation.  Experiencing unimpeded action.

 

I'm gonna keep searching for McKennas' explanation though.  He's an eloquent translator of experiential phenomena. 

Re: Monkeyblood, glossolalia

That's the word, thanks.  Glassido, is the technique in stringed instrument play where you slide from note to note.  Well less the technique and more of the timbre of the action of sliding between positions on a fret board, an expressive act.  The sound of the space between notes.  I think I made a glissadolalia out of the situation, heh.  Miles Davis was famous for 'Living in the space between the notes'.  He had a fretless instrument, they always make for the smoothest glassido, no boxes impeding expression, like a voice.

The plot thickens

Int that musiqueul word Glissandro

Well, I don't think so off

For my money, any question is ligitimate.

This is no 'police state' of curiosity or 'what' or 'what not' aught be asked. If it were, I'd be inclined to say something I've been asked not to say on this site: blankety blank (fill in the blanks).

CJ, you asked something about the 'ten commandments' somewhere, and I can't find it now. So I'll just express some of my thoughts about this here:

I'm of the opinion that what we know as the '10 commandments' or 'decalogue' was probably an outgrowth of a 'key' that later was obscured either by accident or on purpose in some ways.

Originally, perhaps it said: IF one does this, one 'won't do' that.

The key was: IF you honor consciousness as your father and mother you will see this same principle in all others. Thus, you will NOT 'kill', commit adultery, steal, covet, etc.

What exists as current versions of these 'commandments' even seems to say: If you worship your own consciousness as "god" or "good", you will see that all others are this same thing. Thus, we will not worship images, or idols or any inert thing as 'good' or 'god' and bow down and worship them.

At the same time, we would not bow down and worship any other person while demeaning 'That' within which we know first and foremost: our first-hand experience which none can deny . . . and none can really impose on another. We are what we are. We have what we have. Maybe we 'halucinate' 'others', but we cannot deny we are.

It is up to any or each of us to decide if we are such an 'halucination' or 'creation' of 'another'. That is pure speculation. That is imaginary life. Maybe some of us give such fantasy probity or validity, but it is a choice not based on 'fact'. It is a BELIEF or maybe a FAITH.

I for one give not hope such 'faith' will ever have any but cult-status. It would be accepted only as a means for uniting people who can't deal with direct experiences. They have to live by a social standard of acceptance to such society. Fine. Let 'em have it. I will be content to be a pariah from such.

We may mentally revere this same principle - - - what I call 'I AM' as meaning just simple 'consciousness of consciousness' - - - in others as we do our own first-hand experience of this.

We may even bow at our physical or adopted parents feet in an entirely different way without, at the same time, making them into 'idols'. That is an understandable form of love that can't be confused with 'guruism' or idolizing some childhood hero. We grow up and become like our parents or do even better at being parents or friends of 'kids'. The bottom line would seem to me to be that we not neglect something much nearer and so practice self-hatred in some form. As we treat ourself of selves we'll treat all and any 'other'.

The original message was probably more along the lines of what is espoused in the Katha Upanishad and other 'upanishads' and especially the Vashishtha Yoga: consciousness is all: power, substance, intelligence or life, love and wisdom or what you will in 'spiritual' terms. If one regards and honors what we have most intimitately as the only 'needed' thing, what need to 'covet'? or any other 'sin'?

I also see in the extant teaching of Jesus remnants of a message much more about an equalizing this kind of regard to consciousness: in ourselves and in all others. I see this as highly egalitarian and iconoclastic. We have no need that any should teach us.

But perhaps we, as a whole, don't spend much time attending to this inner teacher. We presume by familiarity a form of contempt and so we lose access to 'riches' and choose 'poverty' on purpose. How sad.

We judge consciousness by typical things in waking life: mom, dad, brother sister and neighbor. Play, work, invention and creation or just busy-ness.

I'm intrigued by the theory of a 'bi-cameral' mind . . . but not as something necessarily altered stictly or solely by genetic evolution or structural changes in the brain. It seems possible that the evolution of language and the select alteration of behavioral patterns or learned things can create very real schisms within any individual, groups, cultures. These then can be transmitted through 'entrainment' or socialized accession to 'ways' and as ways 'time honored'. Is this not just 'bad habit' writ temporal and transmitted? Why respect a bad idea?

Then here and there a 'genius' somewhow escapes these learned patterns and expresses in ways that would obviate any need for 'instruction'. And, even, 'instruction' may destroy this 'genius' or insight. Are such 'instructed' the 'converted'? The 'reformed'? In whose image? To what ultimate end?

The sleeping life, the dream life, though in some ways highly 'weird' includes in one of its phases a period of non-thought, but just stillness and hearing white-noise in our ears and seeing the 'snow-flake' and electrical patterns inside our eyelids. That is an electrical world that may make up the deepest aspect of our life in sleep or non-REM sleep.

It may be a merging into a kind of liquid or acqueous-gaseous phase of 'self' that is utterly self-content or 'lacking nothing'. So true sleep refreshes us. Yet we may 'unlearn' what was learned all over again by returning to the daily exposure to the 'ungrok' state or states of the 'mortal' paradigm. The 'practical' life.

From within this sphere of personal experience it is I believe that we reasonably question the format of the 'shalt not' or compulsive or even martial slant of an 'ancient' record. There may be yet more ancient ways lost to us that talk about these things in ways a child can understand . . . and without fear or punishments.

The newer formulations are misinterpretations and bunglings of something probably much simpler and must needs have been closer to what anyone can experience even if they couldn't read. That level of first-hand experience is highly demeaned in many ways by the current modes of human life in my opinion.

At one time, these differences were much more obvious and typically notable as a fact of everday life: country folk versus 'city' folk.

Today, with the insinuation of all the wiles of 'city-folk'ism through television and developer's methods of selling their purposes, people who once were much more content with the simplest rhythms of daily life and work and play and topics of talk now are discontent and so goes a seemingly metastacizing desire to see all the world be just one big 'city' and a culture of speed and 'mode' and 'change' as if 'change' is good for it's own sake.

Consciousness must have been somewhat conditioned by 'realities' or 'limits' which constrain its intrinsic ability to transmute an inert world.

Homeostasis imposes a definite limit on any urge for unlimited growth. Unlimited growth is another way of saying cancer.

At the same time, this natural principle of 'limits' isn't a 'shalt not' kind of stricture, but a component of self-preservation that sees that creation must not outstrip destruction or dissolution.

Dissolution must not outstrip creation or regeneration.

This is the 'anabolism' versus catabolism' as the ideal of 'metabolism' or steady-state in biology where creation and destruction or 'exchange' of form does not result in erasure of form, but ever-lasting renewal or permanence of form.

The 'human' form, as such, is only such an 'eternal youth' by sexual reproduction. But as we become more and more aware of the potency of the human genome and examples within nature, popularly referred to as research into 'stem cells'; here and there, we are awakening to the idea that this exchange can take place in place in the individual themselves. We might learn to regrow arms and legs, eyes or even damaged brain cells.

I found it interesting that Swedenborg in his forays into a 'spirit world' found that the 'angels' have sex, but they don't reproduce. They are everlasting in their spiritual bodies which are identical to their prior fleshly bodies, only in the spring of youth.

If we are to ever generally become aware of this potency in any practical way, we must learn this technique of sex without reproduction, or we will soon HAVE to resort to 'terra-forming' new planets just to accomodate an 'everlasting' humanity.

With them-folk: better not have kids like you who are ever young, or if you do, better have a space-ship or some means to get new land somewhere else. Off world. Or maybe they know how to expand this one. Maybe this explains the idea that myth of the 'little people'? Imagine that!

Furthermore, I would hope that the 'enlightened' would not attain to such eternality lacking a morality that puts kindness and consideration of the good of others above selfish interests. In the concept of 'reverbration' or how waves return to their own center, we may not have 'karma' as such, but simply a self-limiting principle that crowds around any motivating center what it is they are expressing. It is self-informing. Maybe mediated by others to varying degrees. But I highly question the idea of punishments for past actions when one has altered ones' mode of behavior that may have prior induced in others a desire for some 'punishment' of that one or ones.

'Echo' or 'boomerang' refers to pure information moment to moment, not something dealing with a long forgotten past. We express, and what comes back is an 'informing the discresion'. It may or may not affect our chosen 'art'.

And so, in many words, I've said what Tennyson said in fewer: the principle that is important is

" . . . nearer than breathing, closer than hands and feet."

"A Higher Pantheism". <

Living Imagination

There is a way to fantasy that is not based in belief, or faith, but is also not "fact;" That is: heart.

("Do you have a heart, scientifically speaking? No, I'm not talking about the cardiovascular system, ...")

This is part of what I am referring to when I speak of changing our attitude towards the imagination.

We think of heart and imagination as disconnected things, and we relegate imagination to the miscellaneous drawer of "art." We box art with picture frames, and the preface & "fin" notes around the play, as if to ensure that the imagination doesn't "get out."

What I am exploring is that if we can create a culture that lives imagination, then we can finally connect the spiritual & intuitive with the rational, scientific, and real.

It's not about science clobbering imagination, ("religion is meaningless!"), or imagination clobbering science ("science will be taught to us by fairies!"), nor is it about a philosophical or personal realization that has no impact on culture and society ("study, meditate, realize the essential unity, and then close the book and stop meditating.")

Rather, what I am coming to, is living imagination and heart, while keeping rooted in the Real. (Imagination without the real is icing without a cake.)

"Who's imagination?" Everyone's, anyone's, as much as they'd like to contribute to the creative act. Life as a giant role playing game: And when you think about it, what else could it be?!?

We can dream up, create, and live in societies like Damanhur.  We can make them with our hands.

Brilliant

George Lakoff was the name I struggled to remember, thank you.

Further verbal eructations

If one can consider that language, as words and semiotics, can be materially visual in an eidetic space, particularly the aggregations of language that construe robust ideas; theories, archetypes, godforms, etc. then the operant thought forms of what has been called magick, can be considered to manipulate and rearrange the objects which can be found here.

As ones knowledge of a model or idea becomes more sophisticated and complete, the model ideally becomes more functional, congruent and sympathetic with the thing in itself, at least in this notional ideaspace.

Terence McKenna has often described universe as being made of language, and that sometimes when he was waxing lyrical (glossolandria) he literally felt as if the world around him was recasting itself, to incorporate a novel idea. The plasticity of this eidetic environment is tangible to any with experience of it. The way we use language, profoundly influences the way we experience the world, hence why although seemingly a trite subject there is still the wide fondness for the E-prime of Korzybski, etc. Semantics can bind us to static, outmoded ontologies that limit the perceptor/operator.

Results are where it's at, and in that sense it matters not what you call anything, even that thing over yonder; armadillo overfiend; marshmallow-pongoid-planetary-projector; sirian or negentropic object?

http://www.decontaminated-continuum.blogspot.com/

Vague Me and er...

I am very interested in hearing anyones ideas and methods for achieving results and was especially heartened to read your steps to realise/produce the other. Particularly because you began with the approach of stillness from a base of intent. The maintenance of intent whilst limiting action is a subject close to my heart and it's practice (or non-practice) intrigues me greatly.

The method of modal and qualitative intensification and temperance are something I have found my self 'doing' whilst preparing for meditation. However. At the centre of these experiences (or rather, very near the centre) is I think an issue of temporality. Where the intent meets the self seems to me to be a kind of temporal vortex. The infusion of some desired quality into this... place, has associations, in my mind, with the origin of the intent and the community of self-hood (read communitative archetypes (or whatever)) from which that intent arises.

So. What then is intent? My true desire to intend to modify myself wants to be expressed from the innermost part of my being. Is my conscious, desirous mind augmenting the structuring of my intent? Or would I have always done it the way I will?

Phi is not the only fruit.

I suppose . . .

Thank you for putting forth such a cogent question that really demands of all of us an answer from pure conscience.

You are not alone. I'm with you 2k. You challenge us to think with not just intellect, but with feelings.

You aren't alone. I'm with you. I personally think by your words you do, even if all alone, something very good. And I would hope, by my addition, your good isn't lost in some void. I, at least, am with you.

Your beautifully voiced writing is not lost.

I applaud it. That, what you writ here, is guts.

Pure guts.

Whyso hostile

sending electromagnetic love and light energy to everyone and everything !!

Well,

billherbs, your comment might be taken more seriously if it really occurred in the context of what used to be here and is now missing. This is getting rediculous.

If any of us had had the foresight to save every-page so as to prove some comments, once here, are gone now, then that would be a kind of 'electromagnetic love and light' that couldn't be contradicted. But when we can't any longer be sure of an accurate record, 'love and light' disperse in an edited world or maybe it is just a void. And impetus to avoid. Like trust between lovers, lying is never going to strengthen that. Let the 'ugliness' stand and hope that true lovingness will give beauty greater concentration. Erasing the truth, the facts linearly, doesn't aid the latter. It only propogates suspicion and resentment.

======================
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." HERBERT<

my paradigm is better than yours

All the talk about which system of entities to use in your worldview is a giant debate in magick, to use a personal and unique user-defined paradigm or to use a predefined paradigm. A unique one can be more expressive and conclusive of your views and you may be able to work with it on a deeper level, but if it's too individualized then you have to explain so much in order to converse about it. Where on the other hand with a pre-existing paradigm people will know what you're talking about but it can be less involved and engaging and you may have to change your thoughts to fit it. I think that's why alot of people recommend you study a less user-defined paradigm before delving into chaos magick. It's all about the traditionalists fighting the eclectics until the end of time. What's lame is that paradigms that have been around for a while were once made up by someone or a group of someones no different than how I could sit and dissect reality into small chunks, personify them and voila I have a working pantheon, but it's only my own and has to be modified heavily to work for someone else. I like how Farber settles to work with god/ess/es/demons/entities/what-ever-the-fuck that work for you in a personal way that will change you. I like this results oriented viewpoint, there are way too many people, not only in the magick community, but in the rest of the world that just surround themselves by the comforts of their ideas, beliefs and understandings, always talking about how to change or improve their situation but never do because they mistake getting off their asses and doing it for just reading about it. If introspection doesn't kick your ass, you're never doing it right: fuck the armchairs! I loved the instant god/ess exercise. I just got the idea to make specific deities to represent myself as I'd be if I wasn't trapped by the klesha egregores (that I made to be personifications of my bad personality habits, so that I could visualize them more easily), and invoke that new god to banish the klesha. Lord knows I still have problems to deal with. I'll have my nice little warring pantheon. I think I might actually buy this book it is so interesting, and more importantly it's something I can apply to my life.

I like them all

Personally, I find no dichotomy between pre-existing or traditional pantheons and those created through self-exploration. I use some of both kinds. Ultimately, as you note, it is about what you can apply to your life. I hope that these Meta-Magick exercises will help to highlight the way we interact with the traditional gods and goddesses as well as opening the door for new ones. And we've had plenty of cases of people with no pre-knowledge of traditional gods and goddesses bringing forth very accurate descriptions of these from their own psyches, which lends some experimental weight to theories of collective consciousness or holographic reality.

Anyway, thanks for getting off your ass and actually doing it... and telling us about it.

Tone is what you decide to perceive

Cj, as we've discussed in the past, I've had my own experiences with the OTO. I've never much cared for order politics, I was in it for the ritual and that's where I got off. It's been almost 20 years since I was active with them, but I remain on good terms with many OTO members (and with members of many other organizations). Mostly for the past 25 years I've explored magick with and without the help of several magical organizations, orders, collectives, and freeform groups. I never understood the intrigue thing - why go to all that effort to put yourself in pain-in-the-ass situations? Why not just go do the damn magick instead?

I worked my way through almost all of Crowley's body of ritual work over the course of about ten years. And I've similarly applied myself to several other systems of study. I hope I always have some magick to learn at least until the day I die.

Human history is, perhaps, the written record of the multitude of gods, goddesses, demons, angels, imaginary friends (and everything else) that we have brought forth from consciousness until this day. At least, all the ones that got written down. They keep coming, changing, growing, communicating, and interacting with our lives. Past, present and future. Every aeon, every culture, every generation and every individual human calls forth its own gods. Crowley knew that... he helped birth a few during his time.

The level of complexity of the interaction between humans and entities is fractal. It's not surprising that "as above, so below" is reflected once again in the pattern of our brains.

Weirdest of all

I'm more and more inclined to Farber's last sentence that refers to 'humans' as the oddest and weirdest of all.

Kids play with beings every day that are pure and delightful and innocent and kind and outside the spectrum of everday life for 'adults' defined as human. Gods, demons, witches and ogres, trolls and even devils don't scare me half so much as 'humans'.

I've often wondered about the very term: just a hue of man, some kind of shape-shifter of sometime 'humane-ness' and other time 'back-stabber', murderer or just plain liar? A 'god' is a 'god' a 'demon' is a demon, a troll is a a troll, an ogre is an ogre, but the 'human' is this chameleon and never same, waxing and waining and schizophrenic altering into sometime friend other-time . . . what?

So, 'danger Will Robinson!: Humans!' BEWARE! BEWARE! BEWARE!

After thoughts

I'm personally, still, highly impressed by Philips delineations.

Traditionally, insights and direct experiences like this were divulged only personally and privately from some 'teacher' to some 'student'.

In this piece we are getting the 'dope' without the 'high-minded' and restrictive 'guild-like' process of 'guru-paramapara' or 'chela' UNDER guru.

It is a sharing of one individual's experiences and more akin to scientific method. The chief benefit of such method is its equitablity in terms of being available to anyone who wishes to follow personal curiosity.

I'm also highly cognisant of another aspect of this system of transmission: you can get seriously injured by inattention to certain rules of experimental method. Every step must be checked and double checked and no egoistic method has ever been deemed probative. If it worked for you, and doesn't work for another, something was missed.

Furthermore, no lab ever operates directly from book to test-tube. There is a risk of explosion or sudden reactions that no number of words can be written to fully prevent. Yet a human moderator with experience can. I am not saying that one cannot do this without direct human contact with another or must be dependent on such. I'm just saying, it pays to be careful and if not receiving caution from without to apply caution from within.

This is the big issue here: are we meeting with our 'Innermost' as guide, or is that being supplanted by some 'outer' guide?

Are we meeting ourselves? And that Self, what if and what then if that Self says: stop reading that crap?

I don't know about you, but I'm going with that rather than another way. At least with that, lacking electricity and computer or even paper-book, I'm still connected. Not alone. My inner eyes are open.

And, thus far, they tend to look to those most close whom I might love and who love me most.

How odd. And I was ready to run the world to try and find. And what I might have sought, was inside me, not remote, and what was closest lead me to something else quite near.

======================
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." HERBERT

Interview on non-corporeal entities

Hi all, In light of this subject being discussed I though some of you might find my recent radio interview interesting. The link is in this introduction article I posted to my site: http://2012rising.com/article/2012-the-evolution-of-perception It includes my own experience with a Succubus as well as a general look at thought forms and other such forces. Lord knows what my poor old parents made of it all when they listened in!

 

Bruce Fenton: WebMaster @ www.2012Rising.com

Anyone else had meetings with Succubus?

Just out of interest...