Original post: Nalyd23
Overflowed_Buffer wrote:You edited it as I was posting lol. I do not see how light can be compared to these entities. Light exists outside of us, it is not something we made up in our subconcious. There is no doubt in that (I hope;)).
Go look at this -
Does Light Exist Between Events?.
Spirits, whether they act one way or another, are either ouside us or imaginary. How can there be any compromise?
"Either/or" may be better replaced with "maybe" here. They could very well exist in both simultaneously like LadyH suggests. My angle, like I said above, is that the external element is neutral and may be the same energy either way, we decide how it appears, we give it it's attributes. Demons, angels, gods/goddesses, aliens, little people, faeries, etc. may all be manifestations of the same exact energy. We give it it's form. It is co-dependent on our interaction and participation for it's existence. What is it when we
in-voke these things? It is ALL internal then. I actually use forms of invocation more than evocation and am not really interested in invoking "demons" for any of my Magickal purposes (not usually a good idea anyway).
Sidenote : The word "imaginary" contains the root of Magick and one of it's relevant secrets.
Consider this as well.
Inside our head vs Outside our head
Many people have a difficult time telling the difference between what happens inside their heads as opposed to what happens outside their heads. And I don't mean just schizophrenics or psychopaths, but also some sane people. Most of us have had confusions about "reality" at some times in our lives. Since all sensations and information comes to the brain filtered, we experience all our perceptions in our head. To establish the difference between outside verses inside events, we usually derive, through intuition, some sort of comparative test. Most of our sensations instinctively tell us what occurs outside. As infants, we quickly learn that the sounds we hear in our heads actually emanate from the outside. We learn to manipulate objects through touch, observe movement through sight, etc. As we grow, we begin to form abstract thought and we attach these abstractions to our perceptions. Observation, reasoning, and experimentation gives us the means to define the difference between outside and inside.
Errors can creep into our thinking process. And from there it can invade our language system. This happens, virtually in any information system. If we do not correct these linguistic and logic errors, we may go for years propagating ancient errors without thinking about them. It seems obvious that this has already occurred to many cultures that have promoted dangerous belief sets. Although most will agree that dangerous beliefs present a threat and that we should do something about them, many beliefs that seem inconsequential receive no concern at all. These, seemingly, innocent beliefs act through our language system and can give us a false sense of "knowing."
To give an example, we usually think of color as "out there." We observe green foliage, blue skies, red apples, etc. Yet color, demonstrably, does not occur "out there," but rather, totally inside our heads. Matter contains no color. Color has no bases from the physics of light. Color, rather, describes a sensation. However, matter does "reflect" or produce light (photons). Our eyes absorb this energy and our brains interpret this information by tagging a "feeling" of color to it. Many times we express this perception through an error of language that projects color as "out there." We use ancient "essence" words like "is" and "be" that put mystical properties to events which occur only in our heads. For example, "the grass IS green" seems to project the property of "greenness" to an external plant form. Regardless of how much chlorophyll a plant may contain, it contains no "green." The color green occurs in our brains as a "tag" to an indirect reflective property of light. Yet our "essence" words and ideas continually fool us into thinking that things exist outside our heads, without the slightest evidence to support it. To help eliminate these "essence" verbs, we can simply replace them with descriptive verbs. Instead of saying "The grass is green," I might say, "The grass appears green (to me)." The descriptive verb "appears" connects a personal perception of green to the observer instead of an external event. Many sentences which use "to be" verbs produce false or misleading statements.
SOURCE
I recommend the entire article.
Don't mean to pry...