So I "googled" chaos magick forum, and landed here. I'm considering beginning a journey, not sure if I have the time, energy or commitment to do it. I do know that I would need to engage in a community, so I here I am.
I guess I have always had an interest in this area, past engagement attempts had failed or I lost interest after just getting lost. A little about me, I'm quickly approaching 40 years of age. Recently suffered something resembling a nervous breakdown. Questioning nearly everything about my life.
I've always been interested in science, specifically physics. Have not had the energy or intelligence to fully grasp some if the concepts. I had been doing some reading and watching some you tube videos recently. I was trying to piece together something? In point form this was what I have been thinking
We are all part of a singular universal consciousness.
Nothing is "real"
Everything is impermanent.
Our consciousness is required for the observed universe to exist
If the above is true, we can influence the universe.
These thoughts have pointed me to two books that I'm currently trying to get through
Biocentrism by Robert Lanza and Quantum sorcery by David Smith.
Not sure what I will think when I'm done reading these books. I hope I they will compliment each other and provide some guiding plan? I don't know...
Has anyone read these books? How have they influenced you?
Hi!
-
Nahemah
- Magus
- Posts: 5077
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:49 pm
- Location: Sunny Glasgow by the Clutha's side
Re: Hi!
Hello and welcome to the forum. [cool]
I've not read those books,so can't offer comment on them.
I've not read those books,so can't offer comment on them.
"He lived his words, spoke his own actions and his story and the story of the world ran parallel."
Sartre speaking of Che Guevara.
Sartre speaking of Che Guevara.
Re: Hi!
Well, I doubt this theory of Robert Lanza. It is more a philosophical play-around then an actual prooven model since there is no experimental or mathematical proof fo this hypothesis of his. This is more a subjective philosophic idea of his then an actual scientific hypothesis as he claims it is. If I am honest, I don´t really sympathize with his claims, it reminds me more on a religious fundamentalist who comes into the room and says his is the only truth and everything circles around it.
On the other hand also Galileo claimes that everything circled around his sun so who knows [confused]
The other thing I don´t know but it sounds familiar to the topic of "quantum healing", a very sinister current in the actual healing scene. It tries to legitimate some obscure phenomenons and theories with even more obscure theories. Since the quantum mechanic is still a very fragile terrain you can go on with as many dimensions in your theory as you like but most of their stuff lacks any point to falsify it. It is like saying " there are angels in front of me" but no one can see, hear, smell or detect them in any way.
However, "science" (generalization is not my thing) indeed tries to standardize many things in order to make a base for the model or hypothesis so that it is legit. It also mostly answers the questions for the "how", but not for the "why". So there is still room [thumbup]
Ramscha
On the other hand also Galileo claimes that everything circled around his sun so who knows [confused]
The other thing I don´t know but it sounds familiar to the topic of "quantum healing", a very sinister current in the actual healing scene. It tries to legitimate some obscure phenomenons and theories with even more obscure theories. Since the quantum mechanic is still a very fragile terrain you can go on with as many dimensions in your theory as you like but most of their stuff lacks any point to falsify it. It is like saying " there are angels in front of me" but no one can see, hear, smell or detect them in any way.
However, "science" (generalization is not my thing) indeed tries to standardize many things in order to make a base for the model or hypothesis so that it is legit. It also mostly answers the questions for the "how", but not for the "why". So there is still room [thumbup]
Ramscha
bye bye
Re: Hi!
@Ramscha, thank you for the input. My challenge is in trying to reconcile the collected insights with some established probability or theory?
I just have this feeling that there is something there, but the most I can probably hope for is some flimsy connective branch between pseudo-science and whatever it is I'm looking for.
I just have this feeling that there is something there, but the most I can probably hope for is some flimsy connective branch between pseudo-science and whatever it is I'm looking for.