Testing by Experiment

Unorganised, disorganised, heterodox or individual beliefs, ideas and praxis sharing.

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

I was educated/trained in various belief systems. Some of those belief systems were not to be tested.

I recall the priests, when asked a too difficult theological question would say: It is a Mystery.

In retrospect that was a standard answer meaning: you and I, being unworthy, cannot hope to understand.

Later in life I was shown in meditation some of the techniques a human might use in practising spiritual science.

One of the simplest techiques is looking for implications.

Long ago I was in a community that prided itself on its spiritual connection to nature. I was called to the house of an elderly lady who was into space brothers. (She had a nice photo of a Haunebu 3 - not realizing it was German) She complained that her nylon nightie kept creeping up as she slept. I found that the house wiring was connected with phase and neutral reversed and the house being on a rather dry sand, it was not well earthed. (She only used non-electronic appliances)

I thought that the symbolism of reversed wires was important, possibly indicating that her energy connections were different. I asked in my meditation and they said: she does not belong to the community.

So I said: That's interesting. Prove it.

And they said: you will observe that she has no garden against her house.

And that was true, and of perhaps 100 dwellings in the community, hers was the only place without gardens against the walls.

Thus here is the first technique: What are the testable implications of the proposition/belief?

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Thank you for this very interesting story. But before we got to the "proving" part, you ask me to "believe" a very many things.
You ask me to believe you were educated/trained in various belief systems.
You ask me to believe that such story actually happened to you.
You ask me to believe that her nylon nightie kept creeping up as she slept is connected to main electric wirings, which connected to her not having garden which connect to her not belonging to community. Which was the actual reason her nylon nightie kept creeping up as she slept?
..and few more things, but that's not the point. My point is, for an outsider like me, every step of the way that story require belief, faith, and the end results you got in there, are not reproducible by me, if I don't have your set of beliefs. To me, for something to be called a "proof" it must repeatable by anyone without any prerequisite beliefs, without any leaps of faith.
For example, my experiments show (to me) that wards placed on other people by some third party are inherently ineffective. Or that angelic entities can be banished almost as easily as any other kinds of entities from our personal space. And many other things. But there is not a single thing out of my countless experiments that can be "proven" to anyone who don't already have certain "compatible beliefs", so at the end of the day, everything is kinda hypothetical, and mostly just "for personal use", the way I see it.
I mean, the way I see it, in metaphysical topics "proof" is way too strong of a word.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>every step of the way that story require belief, faith

So you have identified a core skill: How to measure if a statement is true in its context.

A simple test of this is using voice:

Form a statement of which the truth is known. Say that statement out loud and feel its effect.

Now say an opposite statement out loud and notice that it has a different effect.

It is important that the true statement be exact. For example if the statement is "I ate breakfast this morning" but my breakfast was a shake drink, then the test will not work well as the word "ate" is incorrect.

This is simple test but reasonably accurate when properly formulated.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:28 pm >every step of the way that story require belief, faith

So you have identified a core skill: How to measure if a statement is true in its context.

A simple test of this is using voice:

Form a statement of which the truth is known. Say that statement out loud and feel its effect.

Now say an opposite statement out loud and notice that it has a different effect.

It is important that the true statement be exact. For example if the statement is "I ate breakfast this morning" but my breakfast was a shake drink, then the test will not work well as the word "ate" is incorrect.

This is simple test but reasonably accurate when properly formulated.
What if I feel nothing after saying something out loud?
What if what I'm feeling is what I want/hope/desire to feel and not really an actual indication of truthfulness of the statement, in cases where we don't know the truth in advance?
What if I have a question, answer to which I do not know, so I bring 10 people in the room (who don't know the answer in advance), and ask them to say my question out loud, and then to give me the answer depending how they feel. And what if 5 of them feel like answer is A but the other 5 say it's B? How do we objectively determine whose feelings and which feelings we are supposed to trust?
Or does it work only on questions we already know the answers to?


I just checked the definition of "objectively". Apparently it's "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions." Which in it's self creates paradox. It seems like objectivity is like the opposite of this approach.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>What if I feel nothing after saying something out loud?

Perhaps some humans need a little practice to feel the weight of Reality. Apprenticeships used to be the standard for acquiring skills.

>What if what I'm feeling is what I want/hope/desire to feel

Quite right. The spiritual scientist needs to be able to control and progressively purify feelings and thoughts so as to make neutral observations. Double blind experiments are sometimes used by material scientists to deal with unconscious interference.

>What if I have a question, answer to which I do not know, so I bring 10 people

If you yourself cannot operate the technique it is unlikely that you will be able to identify people that can.

> does it work only on questions we already know the answers to?

With any technique it is important to calibrate the process. Thus before I try an important statement, I will try known true and untrue statements.

>I just checked the definition of "objectively". Apparently it's "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions."

The operator needs to be skilled and detached.


Mental reaction is common in humans. It takes time and motivation to learn to respond rather than react.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

But this method seems fundamentally not very scientific.
Scientific method definition is:
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous scepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
Image

I don't see any way to objectively perform "measurement-based testing" on my own feelings, nor on other people's feelings. If I'm the only observer able to determine which of my feelings are correct and which aren't (or which truths are truer based on my personal feelings) and if I'm the only one able determine based on my own feelings who else has the "right feelings" (if the other person has the right skill set, the right level of awareness etc), it's seems to be fundamentally biased, in collective settings, I'd be the central point, the source, of collective bias.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>rigorous scepticism about what is observed

This is known to be a problem for materialistic science - hence the use of double-blind experiments, although rarely in physics as yet.

As you will recall from quantum mechanics, the event does not condense as a wave or particle until it is observed.

In this theory, Reality does not appear until after an observer has interacted. Considering the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe there must be some observers with high bandwidth viewing.

>I don't see any way to objectively perform "measurement-based testing" on my own feelings, nor on other people's feelings

I recall a dowser that came to my land to consider a capped well. Without taking off the cover he accurately told both the height and salinity of the water - to two significant figures. He did that by observing the twitches in one of his fingers.

We may distinguish physical-etheric feelings/sensations from emotional and mental sensations. The dowser was using physical sensations - as the communication method preferred by the entity operating his sacral chakra. (I was about to write "method chosen by the entity" but the word "chosen" did not feel right. Try it yourself)

As you will recall from the Tree of Life the human is isomorphic to the manifested Source of All. There are many dimensions of isomorphism, all of which may be used to develop the inner senses used for spiritual science. It mostly takes a lot of work, underpinned by intent and right relationship (internal and external).

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 am >rigorous scepticism about what is observed

This is known to be a problem for materialistic science - hence the use of double-blind experiments, although rarely in physics as yet.

As you will recall from quantum mechanics, the event does not condense as a wave or particle until it is observed.

In this theory, Reality does not appear until after an observer has interacted. Considering the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe there must be some observers with high bandwidth viewing.
Well quantum mechanics theory does not really state "event does not condense as a wave or particle until it is observed", that part is just something that over the years becomes almost like gag of some sort. Theory only states that here are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions because of the uncertainty principle. Which kinda sounds the same or similar but it's not. Quantum theory does not define clearly what actually qualify as a "measurement". It only implies, and to extent even proves that reality and it's properties are probabilistic, not very deterministic, and that "uncertainty" is very probabilistic only on subatomic level, it does not scale up very well. If those effects scale up, I'm pretty sure our physical reality would be too unstable for us to even exist, in physical forms we are riding now. It's great it is there in subatomic level, so we can enjoy vitamin D, but it scale up to celestial level, and oxygen atoms in our planet's atmosphere would randomly turn to chlorine just because they felt like doing that, or because someone looked at the the wrong way - that would not fly very well, for the entire known existence, not just our oxygen loving species.
>I don't see any way to objectively perform "measurement-based testing" on my own feelings, nor on other people's feelings

I recall a dowser that came to my land to consider a capped well. Without taking off the cover he accurately told both the height and salinity of the water - to two significant figures. He did that by observing the twitches in one of his fingers.

We may distinguish physical-etheric feelings/sensations from emotional and mental sensations. The dowser was using physical sensations - as the communication method preferred by the entity operating his sacral chakra. (I was about to write "method chosen by the entity" but the word "chosen" did not feel right. Try it yourself)
Well that example it's kind of measurable, if some specific person claim he can guess something with high accuracy we can simply give set number of guesses to make in various environments and settings, and make a spreadsheet to calculate probability of their accuracy, if it's more than 50% (plus some accounted margin of error), it would be scientific to asset that based on certain controlled measurements there is a measurable, provable phenomena.
As you will recall from the Tree of Life the human is isomorphic to the manifested Source of All. There are many dimensions of isomorphism, all of which may be used to develop the inner senses used for spiritual science. It mostly takes a lot of work, underpinned by intent and right relationship (internal and external).
I don't use "Tree of Life" in my personal gnosis.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

I spent many years as a Freemason - taking a close interest in Masonic Science. Masonic Science is often referred to in Masonic literature and lectures, but I only met two brethren that knew anything about it.

Accordingly very few Masons do any experiments in that spiritual science.

The honourable exceptions include some of the SRIA who do/attempt various forms of alchemy (mineral, vegetable but probably not animal)
https://sria.uk.com/

Animal alchemy appears in Lovecraft, slightly veiled, but nowhere else in print that I have seen.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Well I've never been part of Masonic Order, can't even speculate what are their practices about. But I always assumed, due to their age and origins, their "spiritual activities" probably don't go too far from general Qabalah, Ars Goetia etc paradigms and related scriptures. Was I wrong?
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

Masonic science is built into the rituals, but very few brethren know that or see it working. In the last few decades the tide has been going out and the rituals are much less powerful.

Still, occasionally a very worthy candidate arrives and brings his/her own inner sponsors. Then the geometry and intent (such as it is) may result in a strong inflow of liquid light. On one occasion I felt the liquid light filling the temple to about 5 feet deep - but that was years ago.

Arguably both blue lodge and red lodge rituals predate the Qabalah - blue being Egyptian and red being Sumerian.

Even then, the Widow of Masonic legend was believed by ancient Egyptians to have come from Sirius and some aspects of blue ritual (particularly the three degrees system) are apparently based on the workings of the Sirius lodge. I do not dispute those assertions.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Oh, I see.
I just heard somewhere, one of their core, fundamental beliefs are that there is "one supreme being" or something along the lines. Which, in my personal gnosis, is like signature line of Abrahamic/Enochian/Qabalah/"Non-Terrestrial" paradigm. Teachings and scriptures that start with such line (or at least I usually find it in first couple pages), I rarely study in-depth, not my cup of tea.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>one supreme being

Masonry refers to the Great Architect of the Universe. After some years in Masonry I would occasionally see in the high distance a spot of gold light that was from the GAOTU - by my testing. Over the years that light would often come closer and sometimes into the ceiling of the temple when there was a particular significant candidate.

Still, like all manifestations of the Source of All, the nature of the GAOTU retreats before expanded human perception.

For example, in my perception the GAOTU has a male face to this universe and a female face to the complementary universe. The two universes have a student exchange program that includes the human kingdom - hence some of the profound entities sometimes seen in the human race.

As far as I have seen, the GAOTU has never required child sacrifice.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Child-Sacrifice

Still, humans are free to choose - as part of the process by which the GAOTU experiences the intensity of its manifested universes.

> I rarely study in-depth

I find much of what is written is derivative and based upon personal belief/religion. So I use such texts for suggestions for experiential investigations.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

My whole personal gnosis stands on few fundamental cornerstones, one of which being "there is no ONE supreme being/entity/creator/architect", and other teachings, paradigms, gnosis that state the opposite to that, would be/is considered "fundamentally wrong", more or less, looking from my own personal paradigm.
So I generally try to maintain considerable distance from materials and scriptures that may pose threat to, let say "my very fragile inner temple".
On the other hand, there often can be certain lessons to learn, revelations to discover in places we don't want to go. So my library contains many books that might be a bit "bad" or "naughty", a bit threatening, and while I still touch them, I touch those with certain level of care and consideration, sipping knowledge in small bites, one or two pages at time, rather than gobbling it all up in one go. [tongue] [smile]
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>"there is no ONE supreme being/entity/creator/architect", and other teachings, paradigms, gnosis that state the opposite to that, would be/is considered "fundamentally wrong"

No doubt you are aware of the concept of the Earth Mother. Many native peoples have that intelligence as central to their meaning of life.

If the Earth Mother is alive (Gaia theory) then the other planets should be alive as well.

And if the other planets are alive then probably the solar system is an entity also. The intelligence driving the solar system is referred to as the Solar Logos. This is not the same as the Ancient of Days nor the Ancient of Ancients.

Then if the solar system is alive, the galaxy must be alive also, and the universe. That is certainly my daily experience.

In the Hindu system the 7 planes are penetrated by 5 electricities. These electricities seem to be the life force flowing through the universe.

At one stage I used to have dreams that I suspected were fake - like a TV dramatisation. So I would inspect the dreams for the 5 electricities. If the electricities were not present I knew the dream was artificial.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:31 am >"there is no ONE supreme being/entity/creator/architect", and other teachings, paradigms, gnosis that state the opposite to that, would be/is considered "fundamentally wrong"

No doubt you are aware of the concept of the Earth Mother. Many native peoples have that intelligence as central to their meaning of life.

If the Earth Mother is alive (Gaia theory) then the other planets should be alive as well.

And if the other planets are alive then probably the solar system is an entity also. The intelligence driving the solar system is referred to as the Solar Logos. This is not the same as the Ancient of Days nor the Ancient of Ancients.

Then if the solar system is alive, the galaxy must be alive also, and the universe. That is certainly my daily experience.
Yes, that's how many people been seeing the whole thing, many including me actually, at least for a while. Makes sense, simple, easy to digest, relatively. That idea of all being part of greater whole, by design, or by some fundamental law of nature at the quantum level of our reality, just makes sense. And it even has some parallels in our everyday, in our scale observable reality. For example, in some way, I , as a sentient individual, am a sentient manifestation, a greater sentience, of the millions, maybe even billions (I don't have exact number on top of my head) of all those cells my body is made of, each of them being an individual, having a life, interacting with environment, and who's to say a single cell is not a living organism, and not sentient one in their own right, just because they are small and communicate with chemical signals and not by vibrating gases around them?
But, when I start looking deeper, poking some finer details of that concept, some things don't quite line up, it appears. When I actually start studying egregores, interacting with them, closely, hanging out with them, observe them in their "natural habitats", even watch them born... All things didn't quite "align" the way I imagined initially.
And from my experience so far, it seems that, while it's natural to expect any given "chuck of physical reality" (like a chuck of meat of my body) to have a "spiritual/astral manifestation" (a soul) it's not necessarily so. And then egregores seem manifest in more complex manner than I initially thought. There seem to be two part of the whole, two sides of the coin. First there is the "enviroment", an astral place, like a container, a shell of it.
While I'm not yet sure what are the exact factors that define the shape or size of the "enviromental" part of manifestations, usually if you connect to some community, for example, and go explore it in that "spiritual/astral plane", you usually going to find some place, maybe it's just a small building, maybe a whole buzzing town, or small garden, suspended in the the void like a snow globe from a toy shop (any shapes and forms we can imagine and more).
And if we enter that "egregore-place" we can often can find the second part of manifestation: egregore-person. Like a local deity, lord/lady of the place. But(!) not necessarily so. What I found so far, sometimes they are gone and the entirely place is just en empty place, abandoned and deserted, other times, the place is still alive but the "original spirit" is gone, and somebody else took over the place, and most of the time, the physical community would not notice the "change of spirit", how could they never being able to see the original to begin with.
While all these strange and unexpected instances interesting in their own ways, the main point is that from my personal experience, the "greater spirit person" of anything, is not usually chained to that something. If someone like that was here or there, it's not necessarily still is.
So going back to the original question about Gaia, I'm sure there was an actual person, somewhere out there, I'm just not sure if she still is, and if she is, where exactly. We may have lost her.
When I tried to connect to some ancients before, there was some "strangeness".. While often times I'd simply find them in some new places, dressed in new clothing, calling them self different names now. Other times, following old scent, I'd reach dead ends, gateways locked, blocked and guarded by very aggressive and very old creatures.. To be specific, I never tried to find Gaia (The Person), but I never come across anyone like that yet by accident, and have not heard mentioning her anywhere out there, but she still could be there.
Even if she is though, that does not answer another question, what came first? Did the spirit of Gaia came before the body? Or did she came in to existence only after the life on earth evolved sufficiently sentient enough to be capable of "dreaming her in to existence"? If it's the latter, then that would imply strong possibility Gaia is more an exception than a rule amongst celestial bodies. There is more questions than there are answers, maybe if I ever meet her, I'll ask at least some of those. But at the moment we are more focused on the future than the past.
So to sum up. While in theory of "supreme being" theory seem possible or even plausible on the face value, my actual experiments and experiences, especially from studying egregores, working with them, don't directly support such and similar ideas yet. At least so for, I haven't found any strong parallels between philosophical ideas floating around for the past couple millennia, how the greater reality works and connects with everything, and the actual experiences and my observations of those realities working, interconnecting..
One of those things, that could be, might be, but haven't seen yet, so I personally leaning towards belief that might not be the case.
But I adopt strict dogma of "there is no ONE supreme being" practical reasons, as a precaution, a filter, a wall to keep at least most if not all of certain negative influences away from my very fragile inner temple. I'm not overly concerned if this particular personal dogma is factually right or wrong, it's more important to me for it just to be practically right for me atm, in the present time and space.
In the Hindu system the 7 planes are penetrated by 5 electricities. These electricities seem to be the life force flowing through the universe.

At one stage I used to have dreams that I suspected were fake - like a TV dramatisation. So I would inspect the dreams for the 5 electricities. If the electricities were not present I knew the dream was artificial.
I don't personally have concept of "electricities" in my own gnosis or anything similar, have not observed anything that would match it exactly. I may have something vaguely similar, but not exact. I have concept of "energies" (just because I have no better word at hand) to define all existence, or rather all the different flavours of all existence. Every astral/spiritual place, being, entity, has it's own "energy", it's own "flavour"/"scent". Just like every physical place might have distinct smell, and every human being does have distinct scent, at least for some creatures, the ones with larger noses..
So that's what we use for navigations and identification or everything and everyone out there. But that doesn't sound quite the same as your mentioned concept of "electricities".

[hope my spelling is ok, don't have time to proof read now, will do later]
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>So going back to the original question about Gaia, I'm sure there was an actual person, somewhere out there, I'm just not sure if she still is, and if she is, where exactly.

I am not sure that the term "person" is appropriate. It seems to me that the question is whether there is an elemental intelligence managing the energy aspects of the planet.

I was at a park yesterday with an interesting woman, showing her some of nature. There was a dark shaded pool of water - somewhat dirty. Still it seemed to me that there was an elemental in the water in the darkest place, so we gave the elemental some love/light from the heart. Then I told the woman to slide her eye sight across the water into the darkest place. When she did that she was most surprised as her eyes hit an object above the water that she could not see. It was the elemental sitting up and taking notice.

Similarly with planets.

>don't personally have concept of "electricities" in my own gnosis

How then do you consider that the life force enters manifested existence?

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:41 am >So going back to the original question about Gaia, I'm sure there was an actual person, somewhere out there, I'm just not sure if she still is, and if she is, where exactly.

I am not sure that the term "person" is appropriate. It seems to me that the question is whether there is an elemental intelligence managing the energy aspects of the planet.

I was at a park yesterday with an interesting woman, showing her some of nature. There was a dark shaded pool of water - somewhat dirty. Still it seemed to me that there was an elemental in the water in the darkest place, so we gave the elemental some love/light from the heart. Then I told the woman to slide her eye sight across the water into the darkest place. When she did that she was most surprised as her eyes hit an object above the water that she could not see. It was the elemental sitting up and taking notice.

Similarly with planets.

>don't personally have concept of "electricities" in my own gnosis

How then do you consider that the life force enters manifested existence?
I don't have such concept either, concept of "life force". In personal gnosis, there is just two part to the existence, there is the matter ("body" ), and the "spirit". And the spirit is a kind of substance, which can be said to be made of energy and information, but I personally define it more like "substance that has and express properties of energy and information". And everything in the astral/spiritual plane is made of spirit-substance, spirit people, places, buildings, ground, all that I see out there, all is made of that substance, just like all material existence virtually made of the same matter-substance, same dirt.
Everything out there made of spirit-substance, just some structures more static than others, like here, a bag of dirt may contain similar chemical coposition as our bodies, even if in different ratios, but no bag of dirt managed to compose a sonata yet, so substance alone is not enough to produce a functioning human being, similarly spirit-substance on it self is not enough to produce sentience spirit-entity.

While it can happen naturally, like human being (or similar sentient life form) can naturally evolve through billions of iterations from a bag of dirt, most(?) human beings that exist in the present time and space, did not evolve naturally, they are product of replication of other pre-existing similar life forms, kind of created by somebody, mostly by a couple of life forms of opposite sex, throwing together some of their own material in to "container", similarly new spirit life can manifested by couple spirit people throwing their substance together in to some "container", although out there "creation" is more flexible, two people are neither a minimum nor maximum requirement. We can self replicate, using only our self as a source, or gain "substance" for creation from many sources. Egregores, for example, usually "sourced" from very many.

Since I don't have your concepts, I can only try and re-phrase your question with concepts I do have: "How does spirit enters material existence?", would that match in any way?
If so, I'm not too sure. I mean I'm not too sure it needs to enter. I tend to think there is no strict separation, spirit plane is ever present, but it tend to concentrate where there is physical life going on, since it feeds of it. So I don't believe I would find much spirit substance on the moon or mars, since there is nothing to feed of, and to generate the energy and information. There may have been spirit before there was matter, may have not, or both may have come in to existence at the same time, and both planes evolved in parallel, feeding of each other, in certain sense. Physical reality influence spiritual one, and spiritual one influence the physical one, kind of perpetually spinning wheel of Yin and Yang. The very origins are too far behind and too obscure, but the present is too complex for simple answer. I think it cannot be answered, if not specified which exactly spirit entered what specific physical existence.

About Gaia. If it's not a person, and not a place, then it's only pool of energy and information, a substance waiting to become a person, unless it's eaten before that. Like a chicken's egg, when it's just laid it's only 2 oz of yummy protein and some fat, but if you keep it warm and roll it around gently every now and then, a structure-less mass will become structured, and formless mass will become something, even someone.
So egregores are only abstract in their pre-infant stage, existing as some pool of energy within some literal or metaphorical container, and at some point, if they don't get eaten before it, that pool will reach some critical mass or due to some external trigger all of that substance will condense in to structure, and out of it comes out a person, usually. A person that is aware of it self and it's environment and is actively interacting with it's environment, instead of just passively existing as some supernatural energy/force.

So because that nature of things, as I personally perceive it, in my own gnosis there is no single entity "managing" the spiritual energy (and I don't think I'm aware of any other kinds of energy, at this moment) of this planet. There are some that have more influence than others, but to the most part, it seem to be law of the jungle, unless you're in some town, then it's the law of local mayor.
Do you believe every piece of matter, be it a pebble or a whole planet has, gains spirit inherently by the default, just by coming in to existence without needing any pre-existing source, out of pure-nothingness?
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>Do you believe every piece of matter, be it a pebble or a whole planet has, gains spirit inherently by the default

The woman I mentioned above, while in the park made contact with the galactic logos - from which intermediate source comes her flow of Spirit. She said she felt quite differently after that. And I could see that various entities were looking at her.

I pointed out a 50 foot pine tree a short distance away and she immediately jumped backwards as the spirit of the tree leaned over the 25 yard gap to touch her.

So then I pointed out a steel pole a short distance away (holding a park sign). She was very sceptical but when she compared the concrete path to the steel pole she could feel the pole looking at her, while the concrete was not.

Then we had a go with the cars parked nearby. She could feel that one car looked at her from the surface of its headlights while another looked from behind the engine. The latter was a 30 year old car and had been around the block a few times. (Low detachment from the situation results in looking from the surface of the eye.)

She had fun with some large rocks too.

So the amount, quality and focus of Spirit within an object depends on various factors including structure, quality of substances, intent of maker, nature of use etc.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:30 am >Do you believe every piece of matter, be it a pebble or a whole planet has, gains spirit inherently by the default

The woman I mentioned above, while in the park made contact with the galactic logos - from which intermediate source comes her flow of Spirit. She said she felt quite differently after that. And I could see that various entities were looking at her.

I pointed out a 50 foot pine tree a short distance away and she immediately jumped backwards as the spirit of the tree leaned over the 25 yard gap to touch her.

So then I pointed out a steel pole a short distance away (holding a park sign). She was very sceptical but when she compared the concrete path to the steel pole she could feel the pole looking at her, while the concrete was not.

Then we had a go with the cars parked nearby. She could feel that one car looked at her from the surface of its headlights while another looked from behind the engine. The latter was a 30 year old car and had been around the block a few times. (Low detachment from the situation results in looking from the surface of the eye.)

She had fun with some large rocks too.

So the amount, quality and focus of Spirit within an object depends on various factors including structure, quality of substances, intent of maker, nature of use etc.
Well in that specific situation, all those "objects" could, possibly even did have a spirits, possibly even sentient spirits. Almost all, possibly even all "objects" in our day to day reality been exposed to life at some point. And spiritual substance, the energy and information, permeates in to environment almost like virus, from one "container" to another on contact, physical contact, visual contact. Every "thing" we touch, can touch us back.
On the other hand, I have no reference for "galactic logos". I've never encountered any sentient life force of that scale (at least as it is defined) in all of my travels.
Most of the time when I go out I go straight to destination I was intended to go, like just jumping on to subway train, tunnelling straight through the astral plane. But even on those rare occasions when instead of going somewhere specific, I lift above the plane just to float in that surreal astral ocean, and just watch all those myriads of worlds like stars sparkle suspended in the existence..
Image
..not even from that "height" I ever noticed any signs of "supreme intelligence" of that scale, anywhere as far as my eyes can see, at least not yet.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

In the Hindu tradition each plane has a deva lord that uses the substance of that plane as its body of manifestation.

Varuna is the name conventionally given to the deva that manifests the astral plane (as we see it) - the astral plane being likened to water

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Varuna

As you would expect the lords of the planes are closely related to the lords of karma.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:47 am In the Hindu tradition each plane has a deva lord that uses the substance of that plane as its body of manifestation.

Varuna is the name conventionally given to the deva that manifests the astral plane (as we see it) - the astral plane being likened to water

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Varuna

As you would expect the lords of the planes are closely related to the lords of karma.
There no clear way to prove that this or that celestial deity is manifestation of celestial body, predating human consciousness, rather than manifestation that came from collective human consciousness.
The greater existence I see may be a body, a tissue of some galactic size sentient super entity, might as well be just a patch of interdimensional moss, or foam of bubbles in a bathtub, or a slime. Whichever the case, in my frame/scale of time and space neither seem to make any difference. Because my immediate reality is predatory and it's seems it's the way it was for the past millions of years and going to stay for the coming millions of years, makes sense to focus on that immediate reality. "Immediate" being few millions of light years radius in space, few millions of earth years in time.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>my immediate reality is predatory

And yet many mystics have had quite different experiences of the cosmos

Image

Image



I recall a billionaire media owner that had a near death experience after falling off his polo horse. He said he was in a place that was cold and dark and spikey. He did not want to return there. Oddly enough he did not change his attitudes about this world.

User avatar
Cerber
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:12 pm >my immediate reality is predatory

And yet many mystics have had quite different experiences of the cosmos

I recall a billionaire media owner that had a near death experience after falling off his polo horse. He said he was in a place that was cold and dark and spikey. He did not want to return there. Oddly enough he did not change his attitudes about this world.
Yes, it's mildly bothersome that 99.99% of all others see the opposite to what I see, which should and does kind of suggest that I may be wrong.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong way? Projecting my inner "reality" in to the external, seeing merely mirror reflections of my own fears, bias, preconceptions, conscious and/or subconscious? Or been looking at the internal the whole time while thinking I'm looking out?
I'm been having these many more questions for a long time, continuously, at least once a week, and I think I will continue ask same questions to my self for the foreseeable future.
But all the efforts to filter out any trace of "personal bias" of any kind, did not produce "better looking reality", as of yet. Which doesn't mean all the universe is vile or "evil" in any sense, it only means it's "complicated", at least in my own personal gnosis as it stands now. And at the same it is somewhat simple. More than anything, greater reality is no more different that a jungle on this planet. If we were to remove every single human off this planet, what the life would be like on here? It wouldn't be bad, vile or evil, it would be certainly beautiful and exciting, but would be predatory, where every living thing constantly trying to eat other living things. The universe I see is not much different from that. Maybe I'm seeing the universe wrong, or it's the humanity as whole, it's collective consiousness got detached from that greater reality and drifter off and got tangled in to some cosmic spider web of strange twisted moral and philosophical ideas and ideals?
Who can say for sure which is which?
You say A must be true because almost ten billion other human beings believe A to be true.
I say, it's possible, even likely, but I gained the sign to see it for my self, yet now, however hard I tried, I've only been getting pretty sour version of it.
Then again, I'm OK with it. I accept it, all parts of it, even that possibly my heavens may not be very safe heavens, or that I may not always find the way back from wherever I have to go, I accept the risks, and I expect to have to work tediously to have any heavens to rest in-between my work shifts. Be it figuratively, or literally.
So the reality I see is perfectly fine for me, that's why I said it's only mildly bothersome, it's not like we are planning to stay here for long anyway.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>my immediate reality is predatory

I think it was on another thread I asked about who was the food and who was the feeder.

All the biographies I have read of OTO members have seemed to me to have been tragedies. I am not sure such a pattern would encourage too many new members.

What is the motivation to risk being food? Power?

Post Reply

Return to “Individual Spirituality”