Super-Natural or Skeptic: What does the occult mean to you?

[owlzee]

I always look at the occult in terms of a spectrum from the supernatural to the skeptical, on one side there are the people who believe in the ability for humans to levitate and have miraculous powers that quite literally defy conventional science, then as you go towards the center you get things like Necromancy and the summoning of dead spirits, which although it defies science that you could evoke/invoke spirits of the dead in the orthodox sense, there is a sort of sub-conscious/mental/imaginary process, where you are able to plant mental seeds within the mind which may give you a sense of communication with that spirit, that is to say that it is imaginary, yet an imaginary experience you would not have been able to experience without the ritual. Then this spectrum ranges all the way over to the other side where the meanings of symbols are deliberate and the messages are clear, such as say freemasonry, which appears to be more concerned with moral lessons that magical abilities.

I would say I'm over in the rational area, when somebody wants to talk about some spooky new-age business with me or astrology or crystals or cursing people or people who are very systematic and insist that blue is for water, red is for fire and white is for air, as if that means something outside of their system, and my eyes sort of roll over thinking it's all bullshit. That's not to say I'm a total non-believer. I'm had experiences which did indeed suggest the existence of a psychic energy an ability to project emotion onto other people, or have out of body sexual experiences. I've also been able to detect negative forces in people, such as an acquaintance of mine who I performed an ad-hoc exorcism on, the negative entity seemed to travel back to him though.

I have quite a few instances where the psychic energy seemed to defy conventional science, it is a great reason I maintain interest in the occult, that includes such things as vampirism and tai-chi.

The next thing I would say about the occult is that the symbols allow a person to expand their mind and think in directions which otherwise might be impossible, without certain concepts it is impossible to arrive at certain conclusions.

Finally there is Sigil Magick, which I is favorite of mine which I integrate into art and painting, which seems to work behind the scenes in my sub-conscious, picking up charge as I go along and subtly directing me towards my ambitions.

Thanks if you've read this post so-far. I've not really been involved in the greater occult community, lots of people I've found it difficult to talk to because they off in a different part of the spectrum to me, and thus one person hears what the other person is talking about as nothing but bs.

Of course whether you refer to what you are summoning as angels/demons or imaginary thought-form archetypes, what you are doing is essentially the same. (At least as far as I am concerned). Somebody who literally believes in X religious figure wont see it like that.

I'd like to hear from forum members if you relate to this spectrum, and whether your interest in the occult is to achieve something supernaturally extra-ordinary or if you mainly do internal work which does not challenge conventional science in any radical way.

[cyberdemon]

Skeptic isn't a nice term to describe what I used to be before I began practice, but I had my doubts. Anyway, I got a lot of results in an invisible-force-is-working-for-me way, so. No doubts about my own methodology, if anything, I'm a skeptic now of more things than before.

[Desecrated]

I'm trying very hard not to be too skeptic when people talk about things outside of my experience, but at the same time not get sucked into the occult world-view completely.

[ErebusNamtar]

For me the majority of it is psychological/internal/subconscious work. It's the reason why everything I throw into a ritual works as long as it resonates with me on a personal level. I could do Wiccan rituals until I'd burst but they would never work for me as I have no interest in it. It doesn't "move" me.

BUT...there's definitely something else going on too. What this else is I have no idea. It's IMO not anything sentient or worthy of worship. This is something I believe after doing lots of silly experiments others might frown at as they do believe this is a force that needs to be respected. I do believe there is some as of yet unknown force I tap into but it's much like any force we learn about in physics. It's simply there and does not care about my existence.
Being a true skeptic means being critical; even about your own assumptions. I think everybody into the occult should be an open-minded explorer. Always willing to question and not to become restricted by dogma; either your own or that of someone else.
Who knows? I might think differently about this very topic in the future as I need to readjust due to new discoveries. Part of the fun IMO

[Nahemah]

I don't really like the term 'super'natural, it implies an authority or order over, above and outside of nature. It's an ontological argument for god.

I am sceptically open minded and my views are open to change in light of further evidences, but I also never accept anything unquestioningly without investigation.

The Occult is what I do.

Meaning is varied for me, but it's basically the art of self inquiry and growth.

[Haelos]

I think you have a vaguely misguided idea of what "occultism" is.

Everything I can do can be replicated by soneone with the right skill. Knowledge isnt even always needed.

I'm skeptical of the power of things I don't fully understand. After I do understand it, I find a way to integrate it into my conception of reality. It hasn't failed to work in any field of study I've pursued.

[Nahemah]

Rather than misunderstanding Occultism, as you put it, perhaps I merely hold a different perspective from yours.

I percieve Occultism as the study and practice of matters arcane and magickal. How do you understand it?

Religion is not necessary for magick, though it often accompanies it, that is all.

This is why I spoke as I did in the post above, regaring 'super' natural and why it's contestable as a descriptor for the Occult:

Breakdown of the term:

natural
ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

super-
word-forming element meaning "above, over, beyond," from Latin super-, from adverb and preposition super "above, over, on the top (of), beyond, besides, in addition to," from *(s)uper-, variant form of PIE *uper "over" (cognates: Sanskrit upari, Avestan upairi "over, above, beyond," Greek hyper, Old English ofer "over," Gothic ufaro "over, across," Gaulish ver-, Old Irish for), comparative of root *upo "under" (see sub-).

In English words from Old French, it appears as sur-. The primary sense seems to have shifted over time from usually meaning "beyond" to usually meaning "very much," which can be contradictory. E.g. supersexual, which is attested from 1895 as "transcending sexuality," from 1968 as "very sexual."

supernatural
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: super|nat¦ural
Pronunciation: /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
Definition of supernatural in English:
adjective

1(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:
a supernatural being

I am not religious so I dont' believe anything exists that is over and above the making or creations of humanity or nature, in this world. That is all.

Your mileage may vary and that's ok too.

This is why I said ontological:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol ... arguments/

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

It relates to Cartesian dualism, where everything is defined as binary opposed, God and Satan, man and woman, natural and supernatural and so on...

There was a bit of a philosophy nerd joke in there too. My bad.

[Haelos]

Rather than misunderstanding Occultism, as you put it, perhaps I merely hold a different perspective from yours.

I percieve Occultism as the study and practice of matters arcane and magickal. How do you understand it?

Religion is not necessary for magick, though it often accompanies it, that is all.

This is why I spoke as I did in the post above, regaring 'super' natural and why it's contestable as a descriptor for the Occult:

Breakdown of the term:

natural
ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

super-
word-forming element meaning "above, over, beyond," from Latin super-, from adverb and preposition super "above, over, on the top (of), beyond, besides, in addition to," from *(s)uper-, variant form of PIE *uper "over" (cognates: Sanskrit upari, Avestan upairi "over, above, beyond," Greek hyper, Old English ofer "over," Gothic ufaro "over, across," Gaulish ver-, Old Irish for), comparative of root *upo "under" (see sub-).

In English words from Old French, it appears as sur-. The primary sense seems to have shifted over time from usually meaning "beyond" to usually meaning "very much," which can be contradictory. E.g. supersexual, which is attested from 1895 as "transcending sexuality," from 1968 as "very sexual."

supernatural
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: super|nat¦ural
Pronunciation: /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
Definition of supernatural in English:
adjective

1(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:
a supernatural being

I am not religious so I dont' believe anything exists that is over and above the making or creations of humanity or nature, in this world. That is all.

Your mileage may vary and that's ok too.

This is why I said ontological:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol ... arguments/

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

It relates to Cartesian dualism, where everything is defined as binary opposed, God and Satan, man and woman, natural and supernatural and so on...

There was a bit of a philosophy nerd joke in there too. My bad.

Ugh, not you, OP.

Unless I quote your post or @Mention you, assume I'm always talking directly to the thread author.

[Nahemah]

I'm glad you were not referring to me, that's good to know, but this is in error...

Unless I quote your post or @Mention you, assume I'm always talking directly to the thread author.

Moderator part:

No, unless you quote the member post you are adressing, or otherwise define the username in your reply, the assumption made is that you are referring to the previous poster in the topic. [thumbup]

That is why we recommend using the quote function to signify which post you are specifically addressing, especially in a thread with more than a few responses. If you are quoting the original poster we do use the abbrevation OP, but unless you actually use this term, it's not always clear that is who you are referring to.

Please do so in future to avoid further mix ups. [thumbup]

[Hadit]

I think internal magic is actually far more "supernatural" thank external magic. Even a termite can change the objective world, but only a magician can change the subjective one.