OccultForum.org

Original post: spiritual_aspirant

[QUOTE=IAO131;376324]Actually you're wrong and its quite silly that people here don't know the difference between "Subject/Object" and "Subjective/Objective." Let me try to explain it to you AGAIN: Anything that is an 'experience,' as you say, is SUBJECTIVE. Even the uniting of 'Subject adn Object' is a SUBJECTIVE experience. The 'Subject and Object' make up your normal SUBJECTIVE experience.



Exactly - experience adn consciousness are both subjective. The tree itself is objective as is your body, but your EXPERIENCE of the two uniting in consciousness is subjective.



Right... That doesnt matter as consciousness is ONLY experienced subjectively, even if it is the experience of subject & object uniting.



I think you mean subject and object and I wouldnt be surprised because you never failed to confuse subject/object with subjective/objective in your post many times



Very good. Emotion, consciousness, hallucination, and visions are all subjective. Whether theres a mass hallucination from media or not does not matter. All the sensations and consciousness are subjective. The behaviors and the physical apparatuses are objective.



Im aware of that aspect of magick - in fact I could argue you are wrong and that the final act of Magick is actually a resigning of the Will (Passive Will he calls it) which is identical with Christian (and other) mystics.



Wow - are all occultists just ignorant, unobservant, or what?
SUBJECT/OBJECT IS NOT THE SAME AS SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE. THE UNITING OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT IS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

Is that somewhat clear enough?



This would be subjective



This would be objective.



No offense but htere is zero evidence for this. Even the military lookedi nto this and shut it down eventually because it was useless. Psychic cops are equally useless.



I like how a lot of people just say things becuase theyve read them places and just assume them to be true. (not that I disagree, I just find it funny people prattle off these platitudes about subject & object without having experienced it by their own admission)

IAO131[/QUOTE]

Such kind words. May you be blessed with love and light.

Can not magick be both objective and subjective depending on how you see it? I mean magick for me have often had effects I could very much experience in the real world around me, but if those changes happened becouse magick did it directly or becouse it changed me and I made them happen, that I do not know. I think that is a bit of a case by case thing.

objective - 10 results
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

subjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.

From www.dictionary.com

One must know what they're talking about before claiming to know anything about the subject. Based on these two definitions, what conclusion do you come to?

My findings point to objective.

The people I've left broken along the way would agree, if they could.

There's even one left!
"He can breathe okay, as long as nobody unplugs him" ~Bryant, "Bladerunner"

Definitely Objective.

When you divine the winning power-ball numbers, twice, you'll agree with me, as well.

Just for the sake of conversation here.....consider..

Not very often, but when there is no other recourse, I send people 'power slaps' or 'whammies' as I am wont to call them.

I build up energy and send it thru the computer..or remotely otherwise. Sometimes I invision (subjective) a barage of 'snowballs' (objective) or a large hand (objective)..to deliver that 'slap'.

So this would be effectively combining both subjective and objective natures to do what you wanted to do.

Is this a correct assumption or not?

Shaam wrote:Just for the sake of conversation here.....consider..

Not very often, but when there is no other recourse, I send people 'power slaps' or 'whammies' as I am wont to call them.

I build up energy and send it thru the computer..or remotely otherwise. Sometimes I invision (subjective) a barage of 'snowballs' (objective) or a large hand (objective)..to deliver that 'slap'.

So this would be effectively combining both subjective and objective natures to do what you wanted to do.

Is this a correct assumption or not?

Your assumption is that your 'whammies' do anything which I am guessing they dont.

IAO131

Now now, play nice

It's wonderful to have such a heavy contributer as yourself aboard, IAO131, but sniping other people's magick isn't very nice. Worst-case scenario, you're assassinating their confidence in their abilities, in short: crushing the development of magick. Best-case scenario: you're only strengthening their resolve against yourself. Sort of a lose-lose situation.

The question was on the subjectivity/objectivity of the action, not whether or how effective the action itself is.

I suppose my question would be: when performing an act of magick, do you see yourself as separate from.. anything else? We could wax philosophical on that point till the cows come home though

Your assumption is that your 'whammies' do anything which I am guessing they dont.

Oh, he's not making me doubt my abilities. I've been at this far too many years to let someone bother me who is just trying to start problems on the site.

Vashta wrote:Now now, play nice

It's wonderful to have such a heavy contributer as yourself aboard, IAO131, but sniping other people's magick isn't very nice.

Hey, you're the one calling me 'heavy'!

Worst-case scenario, you're assassinating their confidence in their abilities, in short: crushing the development of magick. Best-case scenario: you're only strengthening their resolve against yourself. Sort of a lose-lose situation.

Best case scenario: they realize they're deceiving themselves and see the beautiful in going beyond self-imposed ignorance based on a shock from the outside.... You are quite unimaginative with your best case scenario if I may say so

The question was on the subjectivity/objectivity of the action, not whether or how effective the action itself is.

I thought the question I was answering asked if the assumption was wrong and so I pointed out which assumption was wrong. My fault...?

I suppose my question would be: when performing an act of magick, do you see yourself as separate from.. anything else? We could wax philosophical on that point till the cows come home though

You must necessarily do such if you see your 'self' at all. Other wise 'world' and 'self' are coterminous. I, and probably most others, see myself as separate from but connected to the world... i.e. I am not the sky, btu I am connected to it through vision etc.

P.S. Those cows are never coming home.

Shaam wrote:

Your assumption is that your 'whammies' do anything which I am guessing they dont.

Oh, he's not making me doubt my abilities. I've been at this far too many years to let someone bother me who is just trying to start problems on the site.

Typical response. Dismissing something that might pose a threat to your beliefs is the most ancient of defense mechanisms.

IAO131

It is of little use to win arguments based around attacking the untestable experience of others. There are far more ludicrous methods of spellcasting out there, yet still obtain the desired results. User Shaam's method does not strike me as being unbelievable from a theoretical perspective.

IAO131 still brings to light an interesting point, that there must be a concept of the self if there is any concept of the self performing an act, such as magick. This becomes a significantly more difficult question when one reaches a certain state of spiritual evolution... many paradigms contain the idea of there being an overlap of "perception" and "reality", and the bringing of the two into alignment in such a way that the individual's perception becomes an objective reality.

I understand this does not answer the question of whether "Is magick objective or subjective?" However, the answer might not be as simple as one or the other.

I think that it would have to be both, Subjective/objective. A lot of the time when we meditate to heal, we try and join the two, looking at where we are, what were doing , and the signifigance as the observer. sometimes i forget. We join the two almost like we join consciousness/subconsciousness. In dreaming i find myself conscious in what scientists could say unconsciousness. all the while the dreams are connected to the sub or universal consciousness

I and I am I and I
we are we
a combination of the two

-Keld Ra

Keldrean wrote:I think that it would have to be both, Subjective/objective.

As many have said, but not many have backed up...

A lot of the time when we meditate to heal, we try and join the two, looking at where we are, what were doing , and the signifigance as the observer.

I have no clue what you are saying here: your communication is really muddled.

sometimes i forget. We join the two almost like we join consciousness/subconsciousness.

Again, it appears as if you are stringing words into sentences but I cant tell if those words mean anything... Joining consciousness/subconsciousness is nothing like objective/subjective... especially because those are both subjective.

In dreaming i find myself conscious in what scientists could say unconsciousness

Youre not very familiar with 'science' or psychology are you? Scientists call it a lot of things including "dream awareness," "dream consciousness," etc. and many speak of it as a form of consciousness.

all the while the dreams are connected to the sub or universal consciousness

No, they arent. They come from you.

I and I am I and I
we are we

And tomatoes are tomatoes and bugs are bugs. I like when people say nothing and act as if theyre saying something significant.

IAO131

IAO131 wrote:And tomatoes are tomatoes and bugs are bugs. I like when people say nothing and act as if theyre saying something significant.

IAO131

As do I. I'll be the first to admit it's quite entertaining to do such, especially when people take it to heart... Though shouldn't you be the second?

In all seriousness though, am I the only one who thinks this thread had managed to go on and on and on without anyone ever saying anything remotely definitive? Perhaps the whole question is moot to begin with, as to many, the very objectivity that could be seen in such things is very much as subjective as anything else.

LHoE wrote:It is of little use to win arguments based around attacking the untestable experience of others. There are far more ludicrous methods of spellcasting out there, yet still obtain the desired results. User Shaam's method does not strike me as being unbelievable from a theoretical perspective.

agreed.
I understand the feeling of desiring to 'illuminate' another person, pressing your own view until they open up and let that concept into their mind, broadening their understanding... but isn't that supposed to be a two way street IAO131? And if not, then I'd say you're doing yourself a disservice; broadening others' minds but shielding yourself from that experience, its charitable, but not self empowering.
I call this the "teacher trap",
and let me ever be a fellow student.

none of which is to say that you're doing anything more than pressing a possible truth into the discussion with 'enthusiasm'. I not infrequently do the same when I play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, or more rarely, when presenting my own 'beliefs'. But ultimately I think the 'lose-lose' situation described is more realistic and likely than the alternative you postulate. for evidence, just look at Shaam's response. Personally, in my own beliefs, I LIKE to be proven wrong. Because if I am in error, I consider that vital information. But even I would brush off a vague disparaging comment about my practices or ideas.

Anyway, I didn't see anything theoretically wrong with Shaam's technique. Granted its not "ceremonial magick". Is it just the energy manipulation model in general which is 'faulty' in your opinion? Personally I like Frater U.D.'s take on the matter:
http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chao ... model.html
that there are different models of magic, theoretically working on entirely different principals, which can be used separately or in blended forms. its clearly influenced by the idea of metaparadigm in chaos magick.

LHoE wrote:IAO131 still brings to light an interesting point, that there must be a concept of the self if there is any concept of the self performing an act, such as magick. This becomes a significantly more difficult question when one reaches a certain state of spiritual evolution... many paradigms contain the idea of there being an overlap of "perception" and "reality", and the bringing of the two into alignment in such a way that the individual's perception becomes an objective reality.

I agree. I think this issue becomes 'very' murky with extensive spiritual evolution. When we say "what is self?" do we answer from a finite perspective? Or from a perspective which makes answering somewhat ineffable?

Interestingly... I would say that "belief in an objective, and/or in the know-ability of an objective" is the mother of all subjective paradigms. When you think that there is something beyond the self which can be known, and you think you know it, you have trespassed into a belief system... which ironically actually limits your ability to regard the 'subjective experience of life' with objectivity.
(if that makes sense, sorry, having trouble putting that last paragraph to words)
.

Shaam wrote:Just for the sake of conversation here.....consider..

Not very often, but when there is no other recourse, I send people 'power slaps' or 'whammies' as I am wont to call them.

I build up energy and send it thru the computer..or remotely otherwise. Sometimes I invision (subjective) a barage of 'snowballs' (objective) or a large hand (objective)..to deliver that 'slap'.

So this would be effectively combining both subjective and objective natures to do what you wanted to do.

Is this a correct assumption or not?

I think that all of that would be subjective. To my thinking the 'objective' would be any result achieved on the other end.

IMO, visualization is non-literal. its a tool to use a part of self which is ill defined by any of the 5 physical senses. to 'visualize' is to create a sort of framework which is more easily accessible to our brains (hopelessly wired to work only with sight, sound, touch, smell, taste), but the actual thing being done is not something which in its natural state involves form or color. So in a sense, i view visualization as a very free associative form of ritual/ceremony, still detached from what one might call 'direct' magick, or direct energy manipulation.

I think Kath hit it on the nail.

sorry IAO131, and to everyone else, I plan to think more about what I write, I was trying to describe what i felt.
I still think i was on to something but it wasnt sub/obj

I would say after thinking that, magic is more objective, but some ideas or personal opinions we have about magic and how it works can be subjective. Keld

and the I and I is rastafari for we. i was trying to describe the merging of the consciousness. but it should of been, I and I am.

Thanks Kath, I agree with you.

I just offered that up as an example anyway. Though I do build energy that way...and have for years...works for me...lol.

I realize it is not ceremonial magick...and ceremonial magick has never really interested me that much. I admire people who are into such a highly disciplined practice, but my path steers me in another direction and that's fine. It takes all of us working together to create the changes we want to see.

Okay, I have wanted to declare "Magick"(and by that I mean the power of the brain's 'energy') simply subjective many times in the past within my records since I kind of disliked the absurd 'haziness' and drastically unconsiderable results of any kind of objective Magick.

Mainly because I feel that the field of Magick is just as wonderful(if not even more so) when it is stripped of all hopes of causing objective change on reality(the actual physical body of the practicioner is exculded from this of course). Although, when I change my little reality tunnel to fit the mold of objective change on the phenomenal world impossible/highly-unlikely I get snagged by another anchor which keeps the field of Magick somewhat objective...

This would be the area of divination of course. And by divination I include all aspects in this, for example, the ability to sense magnetism as well as the abilities of being able to understand the possibilities of the future as well as events/objects within the present time.

I by no means enjoy believing in this(as I would much rather just label all Magick as being untterly and totally subjective, so I wouldn't have to worry about all that crap), although I have within my own records a hand full of occurrences which I'm still attempting to disprove by means of myself simply having selective perception or harboring some other form of partialness unconsciously.

So heres my two cents as of the moment... yes, Magick is objective, although it's objectivity is so pathetic that it's not even worth considering(just a bit of icing on the cake folks).

my magic is fairly objective.

but then I don't have unrealistic claims or expectations. but what I *can* do, i can do. and then aside from that, there's a lot that I can do which may or may not result in a physically manifest effect. sometimes that's a bit tricky.

however, I'm not very interested in material gain & such, so i don't have much magic which is in the vein of what the typical non-occultist expects based on their wants & desires. I'm on a path of spiritual evolution, which just happens to overlap with magick in places.


that said, I think *many* people who practice magick are focusing entirely on subjective 'proof' of their magick's power, and that they are 'mostly' unreliable and ineffectual (except for the psychology of it perhaps). its a harsh criticism of the occult practice of magick, I don't like making it, but i call it how i see it. There is a LOT of 'recipe style' spell/ritual work without the investments in time/focus/energy/education/experience to make legitimate use of the 'recipes', and there is a lot of what amounts to 'wish-craft' as well, and then the remainder is mostly focused on just engineering one's own feelings in a sort of new agey way. this isn't directed at anyone in particular, or at anyone on this site even, but that's how I view the bulk of 'magick' work in the occult. There's a lot of shrines & chalk circles & pentacle necklaces & social groups, but not a lot of what I'd call really dedicated serious results driven magi. I often even find myself a little bit ostracized for looking at magick more seriously (and more critically) than most of my occult peers.

USER wrote:my magic is fairly objective.

Could you give me an example or two of your successes in the realm of objective Magick? And, if have any recorded/remembered successes in causing change in the material-world(i.e - crafting a powerfully charged thought-form to attract a particular event/object/person) I would prefer to hear about that instead of a success in an area of divination since I've already proved to my own self that that is an objective avenue of Magickal practice.

Thanks in advance!

To me, it's rather simple. How you practice is subjective, but the results are almost always objective. Everyone, it is true, has different methods of casting/psyching/whatever you wish to call it (I hate technical terms, have you noticed?), but the results are the same. And I would call the saving of a few people's lives a fairly damn objective result, ne c'est pas?

And I would call the saving of a few people's lives a fairly damn objective result, ne c'est pas?

There is such a thing as selective perception ya know..."what the thinker thinks, the prover proves" - RAW

Also, would you care to tell about your theory of how 'casting' or 'psyching' manages to cause any significant change in the phenomenal world? The only two possible things you could alter are thus :> 1. Your future physical actions
2. The physical actions of other life-forms

Now...I highly doubt that you or I could alter the thoughts/emotions much less the physical actions of other sentient-beings.
And if you say you can, then why not go out and do some more...eh...interesting things?

With No.2 out of the way, the only thing you have any hope of changing is your future physical actions, emotions, thoughts, and desires. Which is a mega-super-ultra power to attain to.. but falls vastly short of causing ANY significant change on the objective and phenomenal Universe(save your own physical body of course, that I will admit to and support).

nuthin_gem wrote:

USER wrote:my magic is fairly objective.

Could you give me an example or two of your successes in the realm of objective Magick? And, if have any recorded/remembered successes in causing change in the material-world(i.e - crafting a powerfully charged thought-form to attract a particular event/object/person) I would prefer to hear about that instead of a success in an area of divination since I've already proved to my own self that that is an objective avenue of Magickal practice.

Thanks in advance!

That's a little bit tricky to answer. One might ask for example "can you give an example of something that you really did eat? and how you came to eat it?" but with the handicap that the person asking the question may not have ever heard of hot pockets or a microwave oven. So it can be more complicated than it should be. nonetheless...

in order to explain successes, i'd have to explain my methods a bit. well a lot more than a bit, but I'll try to be concise. It has not been my experience that my magic works very well vs. direct physical effects (like telekinesis for example).

So in creating actual physical outcomes, I always look towards 'indirect' approaches. For example (just a hypothetical example, try to ignore the obvious manipulative overtones), I do not know how to 'magically' make the grass in my yard shorter, directly. Indirectly though, I find that 'minds' are one of a number of things which are very susceptible to magic. So if i want to 'magically' make my grass shorter, then influencing a physical person, with a magically 'pliable' mind, to mow the lawn... would be an example of an indirect magic working. Now if you just used psychology, or cash, or even just asked, to get them to do it, that'd be cheating, since we couldn't really call that magic. Probably the most extreme example I can think of of this form of magic would be an incident where I more or less mesmerized an aggressive pit bull which was in my yard.

Empathy can be a magic form, as well as mind reading. I'm very good at empathy, and sometimes (irregularly) mind reading. Having access to information is always useful, if you come by that information 'unnaturally' then that'd be a form of magic IMO. If you know you're being lied to by an employer for example, that can be critical information. Now some people are just bad liars, I'm really talking about taking that intuition to a whole new level though. And lying isn't the only interesting use. The most potent example of this that I have experienced is being able to see (first hand) some childhood memories of someone I was close to a number of years ago. We made a sort of game of it, she'd start talking about it, and I'd finish talking about it, filling in details & such. That's not especially 'useful' I suppose, but when she would say I remember a time in my kitchen... etc. and then you say, yeah, with a wooden door into the back yard, painted green with peeling paint, around dusk, fireflies just starting to light up outside, and the door had a broken latch so that it would just bang shut with a 'clackety clack' when you let it close by the spring's tension. and its all accurate, and this is considered 'routine'... well its objective in terms of accuracy, if not in terms of usefulness. But uses for even much more subtle inklings of the goings on in other noggins do frequently arise. Probably the most materially useful thing related to this would be scaring a 'bully' witless with it, and threatening to make their darkest secrets public if they didn't bug off.

remote viewing... i'm not great at it, but given a strong empathic link with a person at the target location, I've had some uncanny successes. Uses? I dunno. Its too unreliable to 'count on', but its obvious that in some attempts the level of detail & accuracy is far beyond the bounds of chance. (which incidentally is exactly what the military officially said about their remote viewing program when they shut it down, not that it was 'useless' as someone said earlier in this thread).

Energy manipulation has its own areas of influence, which are similar to the above, but extend beyond just the mental. For example a person can pass out if their energy is really dramatically assaulted. Healing should probably come up under this heading as well, but honestly I'm not very good at healing, so i don't want to talk out of my field. I have seen some people who are very potent with direct energy healing methods. Myself I'm better at sort of convincing a person to make themselves well, again leaning on the mind angle a bit.

another example of magic, would be using what you've mentioned 'divination'... but instead of vague generalities, if you were able to be 100% certain of a detailed sequence of events in the future, then using that knowledge to change the course of events would IMO count as magic. So yeah, by my definitions, bill murray performs a lot of magic in the movie groundhog day. I don't get frequent opportunity to use this magic form, since I find my own precognition to be quite random, but it has been useful on occasion. Much more frequently useful is garnering explicit advice from a being which has total precognition, so as to engineer one's path somewhat.

microtelekinesis... I'm about 62-64% accurate on coin tosses. Which is really quite high, statistically. I can't think of any specific example of this being useful, but it wouldn't take much imagination to find a potential use.

I do a lot of things which are less objective too, summoning, astral projection, invocation, energy manipulation just for the fun of it, various rituals, anything really which revolves around any goal which is somewhat intangible or unmeasurable. it would be 'strange' to not have any subjective magic, since our experience of existence is largely subjective. And there's some magic I do which is directed at events which I have no way of verifying. For example, I have thrown some curses towards my ex fiance, but since he did a very good job of disappearing I don't have any way to really observe the results... so i am pretty redundant and try a lot of different methods all stacked up.. but i digress.

The most tangible results I have gotten are 'within' though. Honestly all 'external' magic tends to strike me as kinda... i dunno, 'petty'? Take for example, curing social anxiety, through energy manipulation & an understanding of empathy. By that I don't mean putting a magic feather in your cap and not feeling as bad, but really taking a genuine discomforting circumstance, and turning it fully inside out such that one could easily command center stage, and feel perfectly comfortable there, even thrive there. and via occult understandings, not psychological ones (former psyche major here). Or say improving one's IQ by about 20 points, by redesigning the way your mind processes information, under the guidance of a being who's not physically there. Although mind you, 20 IQ points was a 'side effect', not the intent. mmm, I suppose it would be easy to say that most 'internal magic' could be viewed as subjective, while calling your boyfriend on the phone to ask him why he's shaving his legs while he tries to figure out how you knew what he was doing, would be more 'objective', but I find that 'internal magic' overshadows external sorts, in my own sense of importance. I don't think that internal change is entirely subjective, the causes might be open to debate to an outsider looking in though.

In the end, objective vs. subjective is about verification. But verification can be deceptive too, if any of you have read my short bit about 'working models', you can have an idea which is wrong, but which gets results or appears to, and this can lead to false positives in terms of your own impression of what's true. Ultimately you cannot prove anything 'absolutely'. everything you experience is relative to your perceptions, sight, sound, touch... but these are known to be unreliable. are you reading this right now? or is it a very detailed dream? how do you know? you just know? but how? in truth you can't "know"... you can only find it 'highly likely', based on everything else you've perceived up to this point. Which proves nothing, except that humanity is very willing to believe in the idea that 'facts' are abundant even though there are very few facts in the universe. This is why Descartes said "I think therefore I am", because he was aware of the subjective nature of our experience of this thing we call existence, and he was looking for something concrete in it all. Its a daring jab at nihilism. So then, can I *prove* my magic? no, not even in person, let alone over the internet. I have however contemplated evidences, and find that my magic and metaphysical beliefs range from 'very probable'(like the existence of my keyboard, or my hands), to other things which are somewhat less substantiated/more hypothetical. Everything in a person's life really would fall into brackets such as these.

But verification... the best verification is the sort which does not require feelings or opinion. For example, if you met a ghost who told you that your neighbor is secretly having sex with a yak, and you went to go see what your neighbor was up to, and he was in fact having sex with a yak... that would be 'fairly good' substatiation. It would be better if you had someone go with you to look, without telling them what you're looking for, and ask them what they see, and see if they mention sex with a yak... cuz its easy to see what you want to see, and outside confirmation is really more solid. Sometimes events cannot be substantiated in this way, for example, if an incorporeal being said that the president was having sex with a yak... there's not a lot which you could do to provide evidence one way or the other. other times events & information can be more easily substantiated.

At any rate, I'm satisfied with numerous portions of my magic "beyond a reasonable doubt" (and i can be quite the cynic really). And some other portions seem pretty good, but I don't feel as sure about. And then there's a slew of things which just didn't seem to work for me. But I'm results driven, I look for lack of results as much as I look for positive results. I'm not interested in being optimistic or pessimistic about it. While performing magic, i may be all confidence & will, but when analyzing the results I'm perhaps even a bit overly cynical.

nuthin_gem wrote:

And I would call the saving of a few people's lives a fairly damn objective result, ne c'est pas?

There is such a thing as selective perception ya know..."what the thinker thinks, the prover proves" - RAW

Also, would you care to tell about your theory of how 'casting' or 'psyching' manages to cause any significant change in the phenomenal world? The only two possible things you could alter are thus :> 1. Your future physical actions
2. The physical actions of other life-forms

Now...I highly doubt that you or I could alter the thoughts/emotions much less the physical actions of other sentient-beings.
And if you say you can, then why not go out and do some more...eh...interesting things?

*laughs* you mean besides saving lives? I'd call that pretty damn interesting, wouldn't you? and anyway, influencing the thoughts and emotions of people is easily doable, but, as Kath points out, rather petty. Why should I do that? Casting can effect the objective world. Now a quote for you would be 'when a skeptic is told its raining, he will not believe you until he looks out of the window.' This makes 'proving' magic/psi/whatever's efficacy to you in objective phenomena somewhat difficult, as you will always have an explanation, no matter how tortured in logic it may be, for what happens (swamp gas is my personal favourite, and apparently covers a multitude of phenomena )

But genuinely, what would you mean by interesting things? *chuckles* my idea of interesting (saving people's asses from possessions and attacks) may be very different to yours.

nuthin_gem wrote:

And I would call the saving of a few people's lives a fairly damn objective result, ne c'est pas?

There is such a thing as selective perception ya know..."what the thinker thinks, the prover proves" - RAW

Also, would you care to tell about your theory of how 'casting' or 'psyching' manages to cause any significant change in the phenomenal world? The only two possible things you could alter are thus :> 1. Your future physical actions
2. The physical actions of other life-forms

Now...I highly doubt that you or I could alter the thoughts/emotions much less the physical actions of other sentient-beings.
And if you say you can, then why not go out and do some more...eh...interesting things?

With No.2 out of the way, the only thing you have any hope of changing is your future physical actions, emotions, thoughts, and desires. Which is a mega-super-ultra power to attain to.. but falls vastly short of causing ANY significant change on the objective and phenomenal Universe(save your own physical body of course, that I will admit to and support).

Now here I have to step in and strongly object to nearly everything stated above. From my experiences and own actions, I can not in any way doubt the capability and at times, practicality, of one's will to cause very direct and noticeable alterations in the very nature of existence around you, both on it's own levels of action and on those outside of it. In the end, it comes down to the very will of the practitioner to impose an action upon his reality and the physical space in which it occupies, and if it is lacking in either raw strength or talent, others have come in to fill the niche such weaknesses create. Notably gods, godforms, spirits of all sorts and classical (and modern) sigil or rune based magicks. Admittedly though, regardless of the pick in assistance, it is still a will, that of the entity in question (though strengthened in the general reality by all those who support it through worship or simple belief.) which induces the change. With this will, in enough quantity (if not quality) literally anything can be accomplished, without limits beyond it's own size(or power) in contrast to that which wishes an opposing reality(outcome, results) to take place.


As for those results? It hardly matters what I can list off, but if you can believe in your own will fully enough, you can and will accomplish them regardless of what you think of me.