Hey, I don't blame you. I'm not particularly pleased with how this all went down, either. But .. it's because of his manners that the dismissal even happened. And like I said, I was hungover. People who don't see eye to eye rarely have good arguments. He was just making a bunch of assumptions about me I didn't care to defend against.

FTR, only my first post was sarcastic. The rest can be chalked up to bad writing, but .. yeah. I've already talked about the books I wanted to mention. The rest of my "contribution" was a fool's errand by a mediocre writer. No hard feelings, I'm just starting to see why no one wants to talk about this stuff around here.

Well, I like talking about it. I always thought people into metal and all things occult and esoteric kind of went hand in hand, although I can see that's probably a bit of a generalisation. Still, I thought there'd be a few metallers on here who like to discuss this stuff.

We should all gather at the standing stones, and talk business.

@ Grave_Wyrm

Can you recommend something with a more modern twist to it, say something that mixes science with the occult? I remember Burroughs said something about how in the future researchers would integrate the sciences and the occult in hopes of better understanding each with respect to one another? If not, how about some good fiction or sci-fi that refers to the occult, its historical texts and practices? Something like a modern day version of Burroughs' The Western Lands that dealt with the Egyptian Book of The Dead.

Scientists are already finding out that things get a bit strange when you're down at a quantum level, even believing that our own conciousness may utilise this new branch of physics. Some particles react to thought alone.

I can see why Burroughs would say that. It's pretty often that a spiritualist will point to something in science and compare it to something they heard from their yogi (nevermind that the yogi could just as easily have read it, too, since yogis can probably use computers). And to a certain degree, I'd say that in the dawn of discovery they had a fair amount of "beginner's luck". Some of the reasons meditation, for example, can be shown to have beneficial health effects is because the complex state of rest is a state the body naturally finds when it's in need of repair. People who did this more often were less stressed and better rested, able to consider things more patiently, were provided time to reflect, and could be more measured. The difference is that the mechanist/materialist hold the mechanism responsible, while the spiritualist/animist hold the belief responsible (or in the case drterror666 is making, IMMERSIVE BELIEF: you consider something long enough to refine the idea, then ignore or avoid as many aversive conditions as you can, and credit belief for what could otherwise be called "setting about the business" while refreshed after a sitting up nap. It's like calling rehearsal magic.).

To hold a minority of similarities as validation for an entire system of belief is a significant error (I'm baffled by how Christians can even stand the bible). The early "occultists", who weren't that at the time any more than the indigenous people here were "Native Americans", were wrong about a lot more than they were right, but some of the things they got right were logical and effective then for the same reasons they are today: reality has not changed. Imagination worked, the endochrine system was there, serotonin flooded the brain then as it does now when the retinas cease relaying stimulation; not to mention the ever present x factor of THE ALMIGHTY PLACEBO .. PLACEBO .. Placebo ...

When the Egyptians went about their studies of anatomy, the same systems were found (The corpus callosum wrapping about the thallamus was the basis for the design of The Eye of Horus). They put a magical tag on the cadaver's toe and sipped on colloid silver made from a melted down heirloom. They also made a crude battery. The same mechanics are at work at the thin overlap of science and the occult (the established and the theoretical). So that's why people say the occult is bollocks: it's rhetorical/contextual chaff around the fertile seed of mechanistic knowledge. Science is redundant in that way: it's got .. to pass .. the test. The reasonable person credits the compound in the medicine, whereas the spiritualist credits the shape of the pill.


As far as books, sorry, nekuomanteia, I intentionally stayed away from the lion's share of occult fiction. There's the obligatory quip of "if you want to read occult fiction, pick up any of the sacred texts". I prefer pure fiction because if I'm going to be indulging in my imagination, I'd rather like it to be fun!

Of what little I've read, modern non-fiction work is limited to the better portions of Disinformation Press. Ralph Metzner is an odd guy. Burroughs is a favorite over there. In fiction, my closest experiences are Foucault's Pendulum (which I didn't finish, but was very good); I've heard good reviews of Robert A. Wilson's The Illuminatus Trilogy (fiction), but haven't read them; I'm always quick to recommend Gene Wolfe's Latro in the Mist. It's not "occult fiction" by any stretch, but it is a beautiful, masterfully handled work of historical fiction set during the Peloponnesian War when belief in and rituals to the gods were intrinsic to one's life and society; and freakin William Blake, man! That guy wrote the best religious/occult fiction you're likely to find. It's unclear how much he took it to be fiction, but whatever .. I don't have to be religious to like Bosch or the wood work in 16 century cathedrals, either.

Do NOT .. I repeat DO NOT read The Secret (unless you want to have an educated opinion about your toilet paper). That is the biggest piece of infuriating shit I've come across. The fact that that asshole had people literally expire in his overcrowded sweat lodge ... What the absolute fuck .. Like a Darwin Awards Jonestown. Fuck .. YOU, shit book! I feel similarly about The Alchemist and, to a less bilious degree, The Prophet. Ach .. there's so much bullshit!!

Source?

False.

I think this claim, which is incessantly and infuriatingly repeated by scientifically illiterate people, stems from a basic misunderstanding of what an "observation" is in terms of quantum mechanics. Hint: it doesn't mean "someone thinking about it."

Counterintuitive and magical aren't the same thing. Quantum mechanics is really weird but it has nothing whatsoever to do with magic. It's a description of entirely natural phenomena that can be clearly described with mathematics, it's just hard to get your head around outside of the equations.

Woo-woos misunderstanding and misappropriating quantum physics? Say it ain't so!

OK, OK, so I'll leave the whole quantum thing as it's just theory that I've read at some point. I couldn't give a source, as it was long ago I read about it.

Anyway, as this thread is about the Occult, I'll write down some thoughts.

I don't like the word 'occult' when used to describe abilities that our ancient ancestors had (which few modern tribes possess) that are freely available to everyone. I've studied Occult literature for a long time and I came to the conclusion ages back that it's the same as our ancestors were doing, but dressed up with all sorts of romantic nonsense.

My belief is that we are surrounded by an energy field that connects us all to one another and the universal conciousness. This energy source can be manipulated when in a deep, trance state (what Occultists / Chaosites like to call Gnostic Trance) to do just about anything. Of course, it's not going to solve the question of world hunger or anything like that, but it can be utilised to help one's own life and other people's. This is all based on things I have experienced myself. I didn't need any candles, robes, effigies, physical altars, etc. I didn't need to be sitting in a hay field facing north when the moon was full at exactly 01:15. It doesn't work like that. Everything you need is already in your mind.

There are others of us out here who feel that this information should be freely available to everyone in order for us to all have a better life. Our ancestors knew of this stuff and so should we. It should not be guarded like some arcane secret by a theatrical looking bunch who think they're better than everyone else.

So, er, mote it be, or something like that.

I feel like reading a Final Fantasy plot here.

I don't know if I'd exactly describe New World Order Jewish reptilians as "theatrical looking." Actually, quite the opposite - they have to blend in, you know.

This is a testable truth claim about the world. Thing is, every time it's tested, it's proven wrong, every single time.

And don't go all conspiracy theorist on me. If a scientist could prove that magic was real, it would be the biggest breakthrough of all time. That's what scientists live for. No one would hush this stuff up. But science is really good at figuring out how the world actually works -- and it turns out the world doesn't work like you say it does.

There is no mystical energy field. You're tricking yourself into thinking you're doing something when you're not. We even know exactly how.

Why do these 'detractors' insist on posting on subjects they don't like and in which the OP never invited? Seriously, look up the thread 'What's the most brutal death metal right now?' and the same shit happens. People go in talking shit about the genre when clearly nobody ever asked them what they thought.

Is magic (that's discussed here) events that are currently unexplained, as of yet? Or are we talking in the realms of;

"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble"


"Last of the magicians"

Well, you won't be the first psychology fan to say I talk a load of crap and throw various theories at me. The thing is, it's much easier to believe in the whole science and psychology thing because it can be proved. I could say to you that I've experienced things that just don't make sense when measured against a scientific ruler, but that's just the way it is. You either believe or you don't and I'm not going to try and convert anyone. I just pass on my knowledge and theories and invite other people to do the same.

How about this, which is loosely to do with this thread, but you won't be able to explain it anyway. Our expanding universe is contained within a place scientists, astrophysicists, etc. call the Void, because there's nothing but darkness (and possible other universes). Now, this Void has no size or age. It has been here for eternity; it never began and will probably never end and is infinite by design. Get your head around that concept. The alternative would have been nothingness, which is also really difficult to imagine. The point I'm making here is that there are things out there that cannot be explained using traditional physics.

I don't like the term magic (or magick), but I suppose it is used when scientific explanation is at a loss. As for Macbeth, I've seen it many times, both at the theatre and on TV. That Shakespeare knew his stuff, even if he did rip most of it off from other writers!

I think, in this thread, magic is the unexplained stuff.

This sentence shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method that is likely a contributing factor to your mistrust of what it can be used to accomplish.

"Proof" is not something scientists are really concerned with at all. Proving things is for mathematicians. Science is an inductive process, not a deductive one. Scientific theories can be confirmed or disproved but they can never be proved.

An excellent book, but needs to be read through in a week. A reading period any longer than that, and you start to lose the subtleties buried in it. Not suitable for toilet reading, in other words.


Sucks. Big time. Sucks a donkey. Heavily, and with disturbing dedication. Not worth your time.

It simply reeks of a couple of hippies writing half-paranoid and half-"illuminated" crap while baked off their asses... which, incidentally, is known to be how it factually went. A couple of nice ideas, a funny atmosphere, but gets old in the beginning of the second book as you notice it's all blabbering with no real content, and keeps going downhill thereafter, with nothing to back the so-called story up.

If you want to read something worthwhile by Robert A. Wilson, I suggest Masks of the Illuminati. It actually makes some token sense after you figure out the weird logic of the way it was written. It's also relatively short, so if you get fed up with it, you will not have invested an unreasonable amount of time in it before quitting.

I think this is a really basic problem. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say we can't understand something. Likewise, just because science hasn't explained something yet doesn't mean that it won't, because every problem is a mystery until it's solved. Saying "it's magic" just shuts off inquiry.


That's a moot point for this thread, though, since we understand clearly why it can sometimes appear that meditation and positive thinking has a mystical effect on events, even though we can show conclusively that it doesn't. This work has already been done. There's no mystery at all.

.. leave it curling in the shower steam next to Make Love! the Bruce Campbell Way. I got half way through and then stupid real life took the free time, and I didn't want to forge ahead and spoil it. I'll start over entirely, since the beginning actually has context now.


ech .. disappointing, but it's what I feared. I must have caught a wiff of unwashed donkey penis.

Now that I think about it, that's basically been my reaction to the vast majority of this kind of material: varying levels of repulsion proportionate to the strength of the scent of unwashed donkey penis.

Ironic how most occult fans probably hate Christianity, but are actually no different in terms of mindset and gullibility...


You have neither knowledge, nor theories. You have faith (which isn't knowledge), and beliefs (which aren't theories as they aren't testable or verifiable -- and when they are, they are disproven).


FTFY

*yet.

it's good for the digestive system!

The scientific method is very good at explaining physical natural phenomena. Matters of metaphysics often times actually cannot be explained because for all intents and purposes are not real in the physical sense. You cannot prove using science whether or not God exists. That being said, that fact doesn't make God any less real for people I've met that believe in both God and science. Science is nothing more or less than a method for describing physical phenomena. Science is not a god.

Finally someone making sense in here

That's only true in a very limited sense. There are only two kinds of gods that science can't disprove:

1) An omniscient, omnipotent trickster god who is deliberately trying to fool us into thinking it doesn't exist, and has created a flawless deception with no errors.
If this is the case, its existence doesn't matter, because a universe with one is indistinguishable from one without.

2) An inactive, deistic god that is out there somewhere but never, ever does anything. As before, its existence doesn't matter, because we could never tell.


What do these gods have in common? They never touch the natural world. Because the instant you say your gods or spirits or magic are doing things in the real world, you're making a testable hypothesis about how the natural world works. If gods are real and they really do stuff, or if magic is real and you can really cast spells that affect the natural world, then that's as much a part of the natural world as gravity or magnetism, and therefore they are subject to scientific investigation.

And we all know what science discovers when it investigates claims about gods and spirits and magic.

Didn't Einstein say that his scientific discoveries strengthen his belief in God?

That being said, humans can only observe reality using our brains perception of our five senses. The reality we inhabit just as easily could be as much of an illusion as many of you say God and Magick are. Repeatability serves us in that we can come to consensus about certain physical occurrences, but for whatever reason, at the quantum level, not of those principles apply and we are left once again questioning the universe.

More on topic, has anyone here read any biblical apocrypha? Personally I find it far more interesting than the 2000 year old game of telephone that the mainstream bible is.

Pretty sure he didn't, but so what if he did? Authority fallacy.


Sophism.

+1 .. not to mention that would make God and Magick not-real squared.

This is a fascinating series I highly recommend called Magical Egypt by John Anthony West. He brings on other guests each giving their take on Egypt, its history, cosmology, harmony and chaos cycles, architecture, art, philosophy, way of life as well as drawing comparisons to other cultures like ancient India and Mesoamerica.

part 1 - The Invisible Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tshlYmX8OkI

part 2 - The Old Kingdom and still Older Kingdom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAImOggWolo

part 3 - Descent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FbVEGzJA0

part 4 - The Temple In Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xli3uYjfJqA

part 5 - Navigating the Afterlife
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDyob7cjqkk

part 6 - Legacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td6MCkWzn5c

part 7 - Illumination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFJxeg5jDmw

part 8 - Cosmology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc5c608C9RY


Another great series is The Pyramid Code by Carmen Boulter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHSECwJKo0M

This dude is associated with the likes of Graham Hancock and doesn't believe in evolution (comparing to fascism for some reason)? Yeah, doesn't seem much better than this guy then:


I'll pass.


You have got to be shitting me.

Guys, guys...did you realize that tons of ancient cultures all built pyramids, but all SEEMINGLY INDEPENDENTLY? They had no contact with one another at all yet somehow all arrived at very similar architecture. There can only be one explanation for this.

Well, I'm beginning to see why these types of threads hit the skids. Are some of you completely encased by science? Do you ever wonder what the point to our existence is?

I guess not.

No. He frequently used the word "god" as a metaphor, as scientists of his time often did, but he did not believe in a personal god, and considered himself an agnostic.



Quantum quackery again. You're claiming that the subatomic world, which is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, is some kind of "wild west" where there are no rules. There are rules, and we've known what they are for almost a hundred years, and they're not magical in any way, although they're odd. They're repeatable -- so repeatable, in fact, that when you average the behavior of large numbers of subatomic particles, you get Newton's laws, exactly as you'd expect.

The macroscopic world is, in a very real sense, built upon the microscopic world. If it weren't repeatable, we'd all be fucked.

Please read something on quantum mechanics written by a physicist instead of by someone who thinks they're some kind of wizard. Preferably a book that goes through the math. It's really a fascinating topic but easy to over-interpret.



I have. They're amazingly silly, even moreso that the canonical bible. But I guess you'd expect that if they were too silly even for the early christian church.
Also, they're no less a 2000 year game of telephone.

Actually, ChaosGoatKills didn't write what you last quoted, FearTheNome. I did.

And, I think you answered me quite nicely...

Like I don't know that... Do you scour my posts for just one inaccuracy and then jump in? No, don't answer that. I bow to your innate cleverness.

Oops, sorry about that misquote.

OK, here's a real answer: of course I try to find meaning in my life. I just don't think meaning comes from fairy tales. I'm concerned about whether the things I believe are actually true. If my personal "meaning" is based on a faulty model of reality, then that meaning is likely to be wrong. I can't abide that.

I want to have a happy, ethical life, where I have a net positive impact on the rest of the world. I want to have satisfying, mutual personal relationships with friends and lovers. I want to advance human understanding of the natural world. I want to make music. That's enough meaning for me.

I can do all of these things without some ill-defined "spiritual" entity telling me that I'm supposed to. Moreover, since I know all of these things -- art, science, other people -- really exist, I can be sure I'm not wasting my time.

No, actually. If I wanted to "jump in" to criticize you for the sake of doing so, I would've called you out on the myriad nonsense you've been spewing throughout this entire thread. I chose this quote of yours specifically because I think it's a very strong indicator of exactly why you hold the specific worldview that you do, and I think it's a common thread among many believers in the supernatural. You claim to know how the scientific method works but your statements indicate otherwise.

Spiritualists in general like to make claims about how magic, the supernatural, divine influence, etc. are outside the scope of science because they aren't concerned with things that can be "proved" by science, as if "proving" how natural phenomena work is something any scientist ever sets out to do.

I also enjoy the hilarious insinuation that non-spiritualists don't wonder about the "point" of existence. As I've explained in threads long locked, I'm a rule utilitarian. I think the "point" of existence is to maximize pleasure/minimize pain. It's endlessly amusing to me that people genuinely think that atheist have no moral compass or reason to live or do good things with their lives.

And, I would never expect you to be anything else. I was just writing my beliefs from my own experiences on this forum. If you're happy with your life, then that's great. If I drank beer, I'd raise one to you.