'Sup

[One and only tanner]

o/

[Rigwyn]

We need more people in PS that are actually into grim occult stuff, it would make the suspension of disbelief in Dakkru/BF advanced RP more plausible for a mature audience.

I've always been interested in an adult (non-sexual) rating and crowd for the game. I wouldn't want to see this turned into another smut shop, but the pg/g rating that the game is supposed to have is way too limiting.

Reading about Hermeticism, Qabalah, Tree of Life, Chaos Magick.   

Chaos magick?

I kind of wish you were my dad, Rigwyn.

It's good stuff, Volki. The chaos magick facebook crowd is full of idiots with a sprinkling of intelligent and insightful folks, but the book suggestions that you see and the downloadable files are the way to go if you want to learn about it.

[Indygo]

o/

[Mordaan]

* Mordaan waves at Indygo

Hiya Indy.  Good to hear from you again.

[Illysia]

Oh hey.. an Indy. o/

[VedaVelda]

I really should try to revive my old forum account (Liadan) ... but maybe not. I read some of my old posts and definitely more than a few are cringe worthy. Nonetheless -


o/ Illysia!

[Zerxzz]

It's good stuff, Volki. The chaos magick facebook crowd is full of idiots with a sprinkling of intelligent and insightful folks, but the book suggestions that you see and the downloadable files are the way to go if you want to learn about it.

I disagree, it's not healthy to believe in unobservable/unverifiable phenomena and such practices can lead to mental illness.

[Rigwyn]

That's what I originally thought, Zerxzz. I understand and respect your point of view, but I have found that there is more to reality than the objective perspective. The subjective world is the other side of the coin, and a side that is often dismissed. The subjective world is larger than you may think and is home to art, music, philosophy  religion, magick and more.

One of the ideas central to chaos magick is that belief can be used as a tool. The chaote adopts and dismisses beliefs as needed. And no, this does not cause mental inconsistency as I had origionally feared. You know what you know, and one only needs to adopt a belief temporarily.

[Dilihin]

The SUBJECTIVE world is larger than you may think and is home to PHILOSOPHY

No further comments needed i guess 

[Rigwyn]

Oh, come on. Join the conversation and share some ideas. How is philosophy not subjective?  Are we capable of being truly objective or is our objectivity flawed or an imitation aided by the use of tools? Where exactly do we draw the line between the physical world and the mental world? What is reality? What is creativity?  Do straight lines exist?

[Can-ned Food]

Dilihin's comment is the most telling one, I think.

The word Philosophy once meant ‘friend to wisdom’.
Nowadays, philosophers are regarded with disdain by some.  Begs the question:  whom was it who first lost sight of Sophia, the philosophers or everyone else?  Whom first disconnected wisdom from its intimate connection to everything, the esoteric and the exoteric, whether so–called pragmaticism or art and music which give us purpose to be sapient creatures.

We don't need more plumbers than philosophers.  We need more plumbers who are also philosophers, if anything.

[Zerxzz]

That's what I originally thought, Zerxzz. I understand and respect your point of view, but I have found that there is more to reality than the objective perspective. The subjective world is the other side of the coin, and a side that is often dismissed. The subjective world is larger than you may think and is home to art, music, philosophy  religion, magick and more.

One of the ideas central to chaos magick is that belief can be used as a tool. The chaote adopts and dismisses beliefs as needed. And no, this does not cause mental inconsistency as I had origionally feared. You know what you know, and one only needs to adopt a belief temporarily.

1. No one has demonstrated evidence of paranormal ability in any credible study
2. Those who perpetuate "magical" or new age beliefs have nothing to show for it themselves

These should be reasons enough to stay away from that hogwash.

Some people can easily trick themselves into believing things that are not real, or experience such things as a result of mental instability. That's why subjective experience of a given individual is not reliable for truth. To see just how destructive similar practices can be, I recommend taking a look here:  https://forum.culteducation.com/list.php?6

[Rigwyn]

1. absolutely correct
2. it depends on what "it" is.

Now, how about a definition of what "real" is? What makes something real?

Are thoughts, perceptions, emotions, your "self" real? Or are you nothing but your physical body?

Of what value is inductive reasoning?
Where would be be today in terms of scientific achievement without imagination ( which is not real?).

Im not asking these questions just to be a boogersnot, but rather, Im trying to engage with you in thoughtful discussion.

Did Einstien, Newton, and Hawkings cave into consensus reality and limit themselves to what everyone agrees is truth, or did they dare to get messy and experiment with reality? Surely they dared to experiment with seemingly foolish ideas.

As for the cult stuff, I've done quite a lot of reading on the topic and find it quite fascinating. Rick Ross had a very informative site for a long time. Not sure if its still around or not.

[Can-ned Food]

1. No one has demonstrated evidence of paranormal ability in any credible study

There was a long time during which nobody had publically available any “credible study� of neutrino detection.
Did they not exist until then?  Do they only exist when observed?  What is an observation, anyway?

Hmm, we don't know, do we?

Are you arguing for ignosticism, agnosticism, or what?
Are you telling us why something is not “real�, or why you don't consider any of it when you make decisions using your problem–solving, purportedly soulless, brain?

Seriously… what do they teach in schools today?

[Zerxzz]

1. absolutely correct
2. it depends on what "it" is.

Now, how about a definition of what "real" is? What makes something real?

Are thoughts, perceptions, emotions, your "self" real? Or are you nothing but your physical body?

Of what value is inductive reasoning?
Where would be be today in terms of scientific achievement without imagination ( which is not real?).

Im not asking these questions just to be a boogersnot, but rather, Im trying to engage with you in thoughtful discussion.

Did Einstien, Newton, and Hawkings cave into consensus reality and limit themselves to what everyone agrees is truth, or did they dare to get messy and experiment with reality? Surely they dared to experiment with seemingly foolish ideas.

As for the cult stuff, I've done quite a lot of reading on the topic and find it quite fascinating. Rick Ross had a very informative site for a long time. Not sure if its still around or not.

Our conventional reality is based on a set of axioms.  We have axioms to support the existence of ourselves, what gives us pain or pleasure, what limits our abilities in some ways, why we are staring at our computer screens, etc. This is what I define as "real" or “rational”. Einstein, Newton, and Hawkings worked within the set of axioms in conventional reality to achieve great feats. It is possible that the reality which I describe is a delusion of some kind, or that there is some greater truth for which we are unaware of, but I contend that we currently have no practical axioms to support these possibilities.

Rick Ross is still around, the site that I linked belongs to him.

Are you arguing for ignosticism, agnosticism, or what?
Are you telling us why something is not “real”, or why you don't consider any of it when you make decisions using your problem–solving, purportedly soulless, brain?

My point is that it would be unwise to seek out paranormal abilities with the methods that Rigwyn was promoting, that his methods have no scientific or proven basis and may result in delusion as it is normally understood.

Seriously… what do they teach in schools today?

Maybe you should find out?