Weird esoteric mad black Deleuzian shit

Is the same work that is mentioned in Dorian Gray?

>Carteret's dialectical metaphysics is mind-blowing stuff entirely.
can you give a little resume?

Koran

Eh, no. Carteret was a 20th century man, contemporary to all the other post-modern fucks.
Can you read French? If not, there's little point in going on since his work happens to be quite poetic, full of wordplay and would be quite difficult to translate. On the other hand, there is a book in Dutch on his thought by a student/acquaintance of his, but I don't read that language.

Nvm it is Against Nature, referenced as The Yellow Pages

Gurdjieff/Ouspensky turned me off of mainstream Western occultism while simultaneously making me obsessed with no one else except Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. It's strange to say, but I'm beginning to think Gurdjieff was right about everything (except when he was being obviously fantastical or comical, etc.), even his strange cosmology. It kind of ruins the point of making this an anonymous board to claim continuity with an earlier post, but I'm also the poster who posted all those connections between Philip K. Dick and Gurdjieff.

In my opinion, OP, while you may have made a good OP to start off discussion and probably weren't entirely serious in it, I'd go so far as to say that all the questions you asked can be responded to with, "Bullshit". Studying the occult is a very good way to be misguided and misled with bullshit. It's funny how people can take it as a rule of thumb that they should critically examine mathematical or scientific statements, but suddenly when you get into mysticism it all has to be la-la taken on faith. People have the sad habit, when they are looking for answers to life, to cling onto anything that may help and extol it as truth, like a drowning man clutching at rushes.

yes, i can. brief rundown pls

J-K Huysmans' À Rebours, also translated as Against the Grain, if I'm not mistaken.
there are plenty of his scribblings and recordings online, here for example: paganguild.org/pissier/carteret/autrestextes.htm
blockhaus.editions.free.fr/Inedits.htm
blockhaus.editions.free.fr/Archive1.htm
knock yourself out

summary here: mindstructures.com/jean-carteret-language-and-psyche/

Course in General Linguistics hides vast mystical implications behind a veil of dry, mundane technicality.

I'd be interested to hear some of your thoughts on Gurdjieff, like why you find him particularly interesting and whatnot? Didn't see the post with the connections to PKD either so would be great to hear some of that as well.

I'm only really vaguely aware of his thinking and techniques and all that, started Beezlebub's Tale's years ago and remember enjoying it in spite of how dense it was. Never actually finished it though, should probably try and reread it.

That isn't very original, I hate to break it to you.

Got any book recs? My school doesn't offer linguistics classes

you can the Course on General Linguistics (by saussure) cold, just make sure you get the very newest very latest one because a big overhaul translation was done recently

saussure isn't much studied by modern linguists, he had much more influence on structural linguistics which is mostly known for having a huge influence on french structuralism and poststructuralism

t bh the important part of the Course is like 40~ of the first 100 pages

meant for

Uhhhhhhh...
Currently trying to reconcile Evola with... a bunch of stuff. Have the Garland Sutra on schedule for vacations. Meditating regularly. Want to read more stuf in general. Want to save the world too. I'm also writing a whole counterfeit world with its warring ideologies, nations, history, etc. as my main literary project; I wish for it to be a device for enlightenment (if you can call it that) in our modern world; whether my scope and my talent match only time will tell. Good traps might take a lot.
Uhhh...
Everything feels old. Can't escape memory/desire/knowledge/libido. Fuck you Nick Land, I will destroy your future.

OH MY GOD SOMEBODY ELSE UNDERSTANDS
DAMNED FROGS THEY RUINED SAUSSURE

I'd totally read that user.

Shite that first one was meant for

Currently reading Kant and Samuel Sagan, trying to piece together a solid theory and practice of subtle-body-building

Language is an Esoteric Science first and foremost

youtu.be/zOHvslNI-WI?list=PLvQV7gqXryR0vFRThNnvyeqOdzHbUq0nI

Language is the medium by which we transmit our thoughts. The language we use to communicate does fundamentally affect how we see the World, language structures thought to at least the same degree that it reflects thought. For the most part, we live in a world constructed by language. What and how we see the world is tied directly to how we describe it. Linguistic relativity was first suggested by Edward Sapir and Benamin Lee Whorf when they noticed that differences in language reflect the different views of different people.

Information as a linguistic object is a rather undiscerning metaphor. Metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagination, yet it is much more pervasive in everyday life than most people assume. Our ordinary conceptual system in terms of which we both think and act is fundamentally metaphorical in nature

Hickman makes an interesting case for Magic here:

>When, under the authority of the sciences, one speaks of the uncanny and weird effects of particles acting at a distance in quantum mechanics; or the anomalous existence of temporary particles that come into and out of existence; or the entanglement of particles across vast worlds one never mentions the word magical. Instead we mask it with both mathematical equations and technological measurements and speak of the power of science as true, while the old magical universe of sympathy is shriven of its ancient power. If magic is at heart the discovery and manipulation of sympathy: action at a distance – then isn’t science after all a theory of magic that disguises it’s magical praxis?

>Have we not been hiding our modern magical world view under the secular guise of a demythologized and abstracted magic? Are we not techno-sorcerers enabling the ancient arts of black magic, or the manipulation of matter and the release of ancient daemonic powers from the abyss-energy fields of darkness? Is modern secular society after all a mere magician’s ruse that has initiated several generations into believing magic is not magic, but something else? Is science a pure abstraction from the principles of ancient Neoplatonic theurgists, released from the images and myths of those symbolic relations and purified of its religious trappings? Are the sciences nothing more that a pure abstraction of magical praxis under the guise of a demythologized pantheon of dark powers we term dark matter and dark energy? Have we truly left the ancient worlds behind, or merely staged our own cartoon version reducing the height and breadth of their symbolic worlds to a mathematical puzzle and technological praxis? With all our supposed sophistication isn’t science a mere stage show for the ritual magic of techno-capitalist power, a power that seeks to master the universe like the dark sorcerers of old for profit and control?

socialecologies.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/techno-sorcery-science-capital-and-abstraction/

It's probably a good idea not to get *too* crazy
>but of course acceleration always says the problem is that we're not crazy enough, so

AO: we haven't seen anything yet

The thing about magic is that it really wasn't different from science to begin with. Science traces itself neatly back to alchemy. The question was never whether you could manipulate matter/nature but if you ought to and what for. The one difference is that science has in its core a truth principle which distinguishes it from your common rituals. Is it more important that science works, or that science is discoursibly capable of shutting down every other belief, when it comes to its proliferation? If you burn all the books and kill all the scientists, do the metal phalli we send into space still matter?

Mages are shown to be scientist-like over and over again in fiction. It's not a matter of them being superstitious or not, but what their obsession with knowledge does to them and their insidiousness. To discover is to rule, because to know the ultimate essence of the world is have access to everything, to everything's principle. This is what the Hebrews originally rebelled against; the Jewish character is a reaction against hierarchy. But they were not incorrect to rebel, they simply came to a dead end.

To me the answer is clear. It formulated it consciously and my dreams confirmed it. Don't fuck with the Dhamma, kids.

youtube.com/watch?v=wgN1sLcAQnw

I'm working on Habermas right now because he provides a more rigorous and academically viable (read: cryptomarxist, liberal-performing) framework for work I already do. But it's forcing me to take somewhat of a detour through Husserl, who I have been kind of deliberately avoiding for a long time.

What a stupid argument. The fundamental differences between science and magic are methodology and results.
One uses empirical and logical ways to create a result which can be quantified and qualified. The other uses rituals and big ancient words to achieve nothing.
If magic really were about the manipulation of matter, and if it actually did anything, you'd expect wizards and witches to have a bit more influence in the scientific field

Your post is a catastrophe on multiple levels. This is what materialism does to your brain.

It's here if you want to see it

warosu.org/lit/thread/S9631810#p9638367

Not only is your post awesome, you made your point with a reference to one of my favorite movies ever.

Have a (you) user, it's well-earned this day. Fucking legendary.

Are Gurdjieff/Ouspensky actually worth investigating? My only exposure to them is a friend who grew up in a cult in northern california called The Fellowship of Friends, though they use many names internationally, it all leads back to this creep Robert Earl Burton who runs stuff in Oregon House, CA. Typical cult behavior: slavery, brainwashing, private schools, homosexual orgies, etc etc.

G&O are revered within the cult as the 42nd and 43rd 'Enlightened Individuals' who reached the '5th state of consciousness'. Robert Burton was a student of Ouspensky, and of course Robert Burton is the 44th and most recent Enlightened Individual. Others of the 44 include Jesus, Buddha, Mozart, Da Vinci, Moses, Mohammed, Shakespeare, etc.

Anyway, just a warning, becareful of groups peddling G&O, the Fellowship uses a model similar to Scientology, lots of front groups and recruiting methods. You'll be part of the cult before you know the cult exists, probably before you hear the name Robert Earl Burton.

Thinking about reading more into Kabballah Judaism desu.

Also is Alister Crowley a good writer?

>If magic really were about the manipulation of matter, and if it actually did anything, you'd expect wizards and witches to have a bit more influence in the scientific field

Plenty of notable occultists have also been scientists. Issac Newton is the example people go to, but also people like Jack Parsons, a NASA guy who invented rocket fuel. He was the head of the california branch of Golden Dawn, a student of Aleister Crowley. Interesting connections to Hubbard as well (a stolen yacht and mistress, lots of intrigue).

But really, you need to ask, 'what is magic?'. There are plenty of fields that would be considered magical 100 years ago. Marketing and Social Psychology are good examples of this. It's essentially mind control through symbols, sounds, messages, etc. Of course, you can argue that the moment we understand Marketing as a science, then it is no longer magic. If that's the case, what types of 'impossible magical things' will become rudimentary science tomorrow?

Throwing up a name because I actually want to carry on a conversation with people from these threads.

Pic is basically what I believe.
It starts with a basic theory on consciousness, then on biology, then it goes off into symbolism / relating to scripture (pic is an example) and a form of meditation.

I'd love to talk about it with someone who's a little more well read than me.

I love these threads. I came up with everything I have from 17-18. I'm 25 now, and now I'm at a point where I can communicate it a lot better. I want to finally put more of the theory into practice. And eventually maybe a pamphlet.

What did you get out of it?

I think magic is just an archaic word. Like chakra. The 3rd chakra for example would be serotonin and dopamine; most of the former and a large percentage of the latter are located in the gut. The 4th would be the adrenals and so on.

Science would be the evolution of magic, and yeah it's more important that it works.

To seek ultimate pleasure leads one to seek ultimate power - to best ensure the pleasurable outcome - which gives birth to evolution, the goal of which is Godhood. Pic related.

Now days it's money - not steel - that is the most tangible form of power. And people are still the biggest source of it.

I wrote this in the OP of a thread last week

>Aleister connections to Hubbard
I'll find the source, but in the rankings of the O.T.O. I think he writes that it's the magician's job to use reality to tell lies.
I don't know if I agree with this.

Failed with the name. Here's one.

I'd be interested in possibly starting some kind of secret society : ^ )

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/8c/1e/b48c1e0d27c546077df75397098fc69b.jpg

Yes.

That cult you're speaking about has only a nominal relationship to Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and is basically misappropriating them. Would you say the cult also reflects negatively on Jesus, Buddha, Mozart, Da Vince, Mohammad, and Shakespeare as well?

Gurdjieff highly encouraged critical thinking and purposely distanced his students from him if they became too slavishly attached to him as an uber-paternal guru figure by putting such extravagant demands on them they had to leave him. He was a great man and much of what he did was to make his students more conscious and aware, not some sociopathic tripe like this cult you're talking about and Scientology.

Moreover, reading the books can't possibly make you a slave to a cult, that's something personal you do on your own. The only trouble is if you try getting into modern Gurdjieff or Ouspensky groups, which I haven't tried doing because from reading the books and of the history of the original groups I can see how worthless modern groups would be without the actual presence of Gurdjieff and his official word on what successor he wanted or how he wanted his groups to continue after his death.

There's no more official Gurdjieff groups, anyone saying they are is a fraud. All of Gurdjieff's groups died with him, you could probably find some beneficent fan-clubs of him, but it seems the most important thing we have left from him is his literature, apparently.

This is sensible enough. I know little about G&O's writings/teachings. But given the reach of the Fellowship of Friends, I just think it's important to warn anyone interested. Occultism is cool, you might even find some like minded friendos to do seances and rituals with.

But when you're working as an indentured servant in northern california in a vineyard, when you're sucking an old dude's dick because he has achieved the final state of awareness, when you're letting that guy decide who you marry, what you name your children, where they go to school, who they will mary, and if they will also suck the old dude's dick...

Well fuck all of that.

I think it's happiness that's the goal, with magic / science being the tool.

A thing I think is true that most people don't know about is that we can consciously control our neurochemicals. Achieving states of being - basic tier. Consciously increasing serotonin / dopamine, testosterone etc - advanced tier.

Then, there's the task of achieving worldly power.

The best way to go about this in a religious sense is to create a religion where those with eyes to see become the leaders, and the masses become the followers. I think Christianity / New Testament is for the masses while Judaism / Old Testament is for the leaders.

Though, I've read most of the OT and not much of the NT. There's also Gnosticism, which I don't know much about.

Quick test on your software: Define the first person pronoun.

>The 3rd chakra for example would be serotonin and dopamine; most of the former and a large percentage of the latter are located in the gut. The 4th would be the adrenals and so on.

go on

It's an indexical, right?

That only one part of three that you need to understand it.

Hmm. Well, I'm not the dude you replied to to begin with. I was just hoping to bait more info out of you.

That's fine, I was baiting myself, there was nothing for me to tell you and the classifications I was going to throw are made on the spot and so aren't very refined.

But one thing that guy is getting wrong already is that he's taking the pleasure principle as common sense. I wonder if he's read Stirner. His interpretation of the Bible is also probably against Buber's. He might be interested in Jordan Peterson too.

our method is science our aim is religion

love this

A first person pronoun when used personally is a reference to my consciousness; me.

What do you mean?

Talk of chakra is pretty much irrelevant. With how convoluted the information is out there, it's best to just work from first principals and call it what it is. Though what it is is pretty much unknown to us without some kind of biofeedback equipment / blood tests / mri etc.

The one thing that I think to focus on is feeling pleasure - I'm talking without connotations of drugs or doing things that feel pleasurable (not at the moment at least) - but the feeling of direct pleasure in the body.

A study has been done that shows mindfulness meditation leads to a decrease in telomere degeneration
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057175/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859856/

You can start by getting a workout high and expanding the feeling. You'll feel it in your guy / solar plexus area.

From what I understand, eastern inspired meditation basically seeks to get rid of all the clutter in the mind and what you're left with is pleasure. Mindfulness meditation seeks to get rid of all the clutter by pure in-the-moment focus, and the result is pleasurable. I'm talking by filling the room with pleasure, which would get rid of all of the clutter.

When the room of your mind is focused on one thing, your consciousness is basically unified. Flow state. I think this is inherently a good thing, because 'you' are your consciousness. I think that this flow state helps you connect with your subconscious / subconsciously controlled neurochemicals and physiology.

If you think about it, we start off in the world mostly subconscious. Our body is almost completely subconsciously controlled. Eventually we gain motor skills, which start off as a lumbering thing and eventually gain dexterity. Equally, our nerochemical control starts off as a lumbering thing; the feeling of pleasure, the feeling of pleasurable intensity etc. And eventually would lead to dexterity; serotonin / dopamine / adrenaline control, testosterone / adrenaline control.

I'm guessing that the difference between unconscious and conscious neurochemical control would be the same as unconscious motor functions and dexterous motor control. I'd be interested in figuring it out.

As of now, technology is headed that way.
waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html
It would be nice if we didn't an AI layer of consciousness if we didn't have to.

>A study has been done that shows mindfulness meditation leads to a decrease in telomere degeneration

And I think this really says something about feeling pleasurable. Our feelings are how we communicate with our body.

I'm actually kind of insulted by this post. Peterson gets a lot of nowhere from what I've seen, and you do realize that the opinions of neither Stirner nor Buber is law?

I'm not going to try to convince you. In my post above I site sources that imply pleasure being good for the body. If it's not evident, I argue why that's a good thing in the last post in the thread I linked.
It ended with a question which you can feel free to answer here.

If you would've made shit up I would've called you on it. There's only 1 truth imo.

>When the room of your mind is focused on one thing, your consciousness is basically unified. Flow state. I think this is inherently a good thing, because 'you' are your consciousness. I think that this flow state helps you connect with your subconscious / subconsciously controlled neurochemicals and physiology.

This is why we're better at things in the flow state. The flow state itself has a biological correlate. I'm implying that a hack, without the need for biofeedback equipment of some kind, would be to feel pleasure.
But the other options of valid too.

I think that, if you want to try, I can show you that this is the easiest way. If you don't want to try, then there's still the general philosophy to talk about.

>I'm actually kind of insulted by this post.
There's nothing wrong with that.

>Peterson gets a lot of nowhere from what I've seen
What do you mean?

>you do realize that the opinions of neither Stirner nor Buber is law?
I wasn't implying that.

>In my post above I site sources that imply pleasure being good for the body.
So? Long life is only one of many values.

>There's only 1 truth imo.
If truth is that way then I couldn't have made shit up in the first place.

Also, explaining things spontaneously and purposely lying are different things. It's not like I don't know anything of what I'm talking about (that's impossible anyway).

>A first person pronoun when used personally is a reference to my consciousness
Then you stop existing when you sleep? Then you always are aware of everything you're doing? You don't identify with an unsconscious?

>From what I understand, eastern inspired meditation basically seeks to get rid of all the clutter in the mind and what you're left with is pleasure.
You're underselling what these disciplines are about. Joy is a mean in meditation, not an end. The reason it's used is because the other ways just lead to a dead end.

...

>Also, explaining things spontaneously and purposely lying are different things
Okay, I get what you're saying.

In Sam Harris' podcast episode with Jordan Peterson (second one), Harris talks about how he picked up a recipe book and treated it as if it had esoteric meaning. He talks about each part of the recipe as if it's a spiritual text, and it made a lot of sense.

Peterson seemingly does that repeatedly with no end in sight and I don't always agree with his conclusions.

I'm talking about something more than a long life. I think that this is the point of life, and I think it leads to the next stage of evolution.

Evolution, as we understand it, has been an unconscious thing. At this point there's no longer a survival of the fittest. There's a reality show featuring people with autiism lol.
I think the next stage of evolution will be conscious. We're going to do it to ourselves.
Where that's through AI or through what I'm talking about is the only question.

Does sleep count as overall consciousness?
From the thread I linked:
>I would argue that temporary loss of experience (sleep) still in effect holds with overall experience

But, no I don't very much identify with the unconscious. I can say I slept - which means 'I temporarily loss consciousness for the night', or I dreamed [blank] and dreaming is a conscious thing.
It also remains to be seen whether or not we remain conscious throughout the night in dreams - but the dreams aren't well remembered. Don't you notice yourself dreaming as soon as you fall into sleep?

On consciousness vs unconsciousness: I'm saying the imperative is to become fully conscious.
Another quote from the thread (paraphrased):

>Overall if God were omnipotent then everything is His will.
>This, to me, says God is essentially unconscious
>Which would mean that life is God's consciousness, humans being the head of life.

I am speaking of pleasure as a means to unite consciousness. Consciousness being the tool we experience the world with.

>Peterson seemingly does that repeatedly with no end in sight and I don't always agree with his conclusions.
That's understandable, but I was more pointing out to his attittude towards hierarchy.

>I think that this is the point of life
Your intentions are good but they could lead to horrendous danger. A whole society of monk-like individuals could very much crumble the moment a dangerous agent enters it. You only need one person that can stay in a state of flow and still murder people (a thing that's very possible, even recommended, in Zen) and for them to get an idea and you're done. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would need infrastructure the likes of which we haven't seen before to work well, and first we would need to get a lot of other stuff done.

>Evolution, as we understand it, has been an unconscious thing.
Not really. You're equating consciousness with things like conceptualization here; there's much more broader takes on conciousness than the symoblic part of the human mind.

>At this point there's no longer a survival of the fittest.
Was there ever?

>We're going to do it to ourselves.
That implies we didn't do it ourselves to begin with.

>Don't you notice yourself dreaming as soon as you fall into sleep?
Sometimes? It's rare for me to remember my dreams at all. What I have been noticing since starting meditation regularly is that my thinking process and my actions at times have a "lag" to them: I think of doing something, don't do it, then my body is doing it before I think/want to do it again. The opposite also happens where my reactions are instantaneous and thoughtless, normal good actions mind you, not something repressed or violent.

>Consciousness being the tool we experience the world with.
The problem is that that consciousness isn't merely a tool "you" have.

Been studying this for a good many years now.

My path has taken me all over. Started with Buddhism and Hinduism and moved onto Carroll, Crowley, and Spare. As I grow older my fondness for the Greeks grows. Plato in particular. Especially when clarified with Neoplatonism and Hermeticism.

I believe in Truth. I believe in The Way. I believe in Being. I believe in Reality. Call me old-fashioned.

Never read Gurdjeff so can't really offer an opinion. I heard some wild story about how he was in complete control of his faculties as he died tho... or maybe that was someone else.

I like Peterson myself. His advice is pretty spot on. Make your bed, sort yourself out. I can't tell you the number of chaotes I met who considered themselves lords of the astral but didn't have the discipline to get a job, much less perform ritual. Hell, if you think about it, there's a lot of ritual in the small things.

But ya. If you really believe then live your faith. Yoga sounds cool? Take some classes, don't just read books. Same with meditation and magic.

I think there can be a lot of wisdom in stories, whether put their consciously or not. There is not a single misplaced atom in the universe. If one believes we are all self-realizing selves then any work of art can be educational. Even a cookbook. This is not a dead end unless you are constantly chasing rabbits which is not the point. The point is that the rabbit is already in your head. It's an objet petit a that the magician produces from out of nowhere, or anywhere, or his tophat.

I'm not completely familiar with any actual ideas Peterson holds desu. His talks feel like a loosely directed stream of consciousness.

Note that this isn't a philosophical treatise for the masses. I'm just posting it here for the sake of it, but I'm not sure I'm interested in preaching it. It's meant for a few people in a group.

As far as consciously controlling neurochemistry, I would be interested in potentially publishing papers on that. Someone killing me in a state of flow is a stupid argument to hold back what would be science.

I'm talking about conscious experience and are you seriously asking if there was ever a survival of the fittest? The popular theory of evolution is survival of the fittest as dictated by random mutation, if I'm not mistaken.

I know this is Veeky Forums, but I'm being serious. I'm interested in intellectually getting somewhere with this. Not arguing syntax. Broad strokes first, dexterity later. Just like we learned motor skills.

I'm 25 now. At this age I've realized that the answer isn't an idea, it's a process. I'm interested in doing things or - with occult, philosophical, political etc texts - finding inspiration.

I'm going to check out for the night. I'll be back ITT but if anyone wants to email then here it is.

Awww, i just made a trip so i could pick your brain :/

Gn bro. Hopefully thread won't slide off overnight.

>chaotes
lmao

Unless proven otherwise, 'exploring the astral' is akin to inducing yourself in a dream. Whether or not it has any basis in reality is a possibility, but it may not be, and it may not be true for everyone all the time.

I think 'the point' would be to do shit in the real world. I've had intense experiences mediating, but in all likely hood I was somehow just making myself 'trip'. A trip can be an intellectual thing with basis in reality, but not all trips are created equal. The more I look into hallucinogens, the more I see serotonin popping up as it relates to them.

While this is fun, I think the aims should generally be a little more clear. Raising serotonin or testosterone as an example.
This can be tested with back to back blood labs. Anger, for example raises test and cortisol. The goal to be to refine the feeling so that there was more test than cortisol.
This can be tested with blood labs, but I also think it can be sensed.

Night. I'll bump it in the morning

If it's gone by then, [email protected]

>I'm not completely familiar with any actual ideas Peterson holds desu.
You can more or less get what he's going for by listening to his various talks. His idea on belief as something that isn't a testable fact but rather a necessary assumption to action is at least useful.

>Someone killing me in a state of flow is a stupid argument to hold back what would be science.
It's not just killing you, it potentially killing a bunch of people or creating human murder machines. If you are 100% sure those are prospects you can avoid and make other people avoid, more power to you.

>are you seriously asking if there was ever a survival of the fittest?
Yes. You're talking about big projects but won't even put the basic scientist model into question? Really?

>Broad strokes first, dexterity later. Just like we learned motor skills.
Me thinks there's no broad strokes, only dexterity not realized yet.

>I'm 25 now.
So am I.

Don't take this as an insult if you would, but have you read Brave New World?

holy shit this video is so good, I have the Tractarus (I know early and late Wittgenstein differ a lot) but I never actually got myself to read it completely. This made me really consider that.

Anyways, I'd like to participate in the topic, but I'm neither well-read nor well practiced on mysticism or esoteric topics, I've read and seen a few videos, as well as lurked around forums about this kind of fringe knowledge. I've meditated a lot since the start of the year, and that has helped me quite a lot, but I have yet to develop the habit of doing it and actually committing to studying the occult.

It was just so surprising to me how much mysticism can affect the everyday life of people, not only from the practice of magic, but the whole aspect of mental power is extremely moving and it baffles me how overlooked it is. Generally speaking we focus on material things to showcase what we are and how far we have gotten, that means to me that our body and what we posses are made the center of attention, but in reality and in my experience, the mindset that people have constitutes at least 50% of the road. That means (or the way I interpret it) that having the proper ideas and structures ordered in certain ways facilitates the way we approach life itself. As an example, the things that can make a person attractive (not only sexually, but as a friend or leader too) or not aren't actually our physical/material being nor our meta-physical (for lack of a better term) being, but the proper mix of both, people with the right mindset are just as attractive as strong fit people, but so many people tend to overlook that.

I don't want to expand too much on that, but magic and mysticism is so focused in making people develop those structures and ideas, and making them so sound and strong that they cannon't be shaken. Afterwards, when a magician or such are trying to bring into reality whatever it is, they are manifesting is utmost certainty what is on their mind, killing doubt and weakness, somehow and sometimes the world just works itself out to make that happen.

I would say that mysticism is developing the strength of mind. Not intellectually necessarily, although they overlap, but just having the conscious and unconscious parts of our brain working together.

Oh man, all this "theory" just came as a shock to me when I was writing too. I know it might be super entry-level, but it was weird how everything just made sense.

Anyways, how do I get into Carl Jung? He seems to be the most interesting writer about psychology and mysticism I know of.

This right here. Part of it is some weird meta-fictional framework involving Burroughs, Lovecraft and a bunch of fictional figures, and part of it is /x/-tier conspiracy/mythology/cosmology stuff. Pretty entertaining so far.

>Generally speaking we focus on material things to showcase what we are and how far we have gotten, that means to me that our body and what we posses are made the center of attention, but in reality and in my experience, the mindset that people have constitutes at least 50% of the road.
If you think about how much decision making and mapping goes into getting "material" things, you see that the mind and body are distant, not separate. It also makes aesthetics a lot more important and "taste" much more than an irrational gut reaction; if anything, it is only rational because it is only measurement.

The really irrational or absurd is something that's likely impossible to put into representation, let alone consistently. Still, attempts ought to be made.

Not fast enough.

youtube.com/watch?v=0yf0Z_9QLpc

It is original, in concept. But he probably sucks.

aeon.co/essays/the-quantum-view-of-reality-might-not-be-so-weird-after-all

So basically:
- "Objects" have information in them.
- This information is depletable/consumable.
- An "object" only "exists" insofar as its information is imprinted on its surroundings.

I know this isn't properly formulated, but it's something like that, right?

>- An "object" only "exists" insofar as its information is imprinted on its surroundings.

is that the same thing as the concept of the plato's cave / holographic universe idea?

youtube.com/watch?v=hmxDvX_i-EM

I , for one, drew some valuable lessons from Castaneda's books. Even though in my country he is mainly popular among junkies and such, if you don't take the whole peyote meme too serious, there are some interesting ideas on responsibility,will,ego and such to be found.

this deserves a bump

I think so. Be interested to see what the techno-sorcerers and consciousness wizards in this thread can unpack from it. I'm a continentalfag so I don't really know. Once we stop talking about Heidegger or Lacan or whoever I fade into the background. Cool stuff tho, I'll be watching this thread.

Coherence and decoherence, "quantum Darwinism"...just too interesting.

I must keep this thread alive