OccultForum.org

A new video on www.youtube.com/genealogyphilosophy - Empathy - The Genealogy of Empathy

I ask what this word means and how it is used in society, I also ask if the contrast between psychopath and empath is too general.

Lots of people in society lack empathy, this does not mean that they automatically qualify as a psychopath, it could just mean that they are alexithymic.

I finish the video off with some ideas from Baruch Spinoza, a philospher of ethics and morality in the 1600s, who used concepts that were a very early form of philosophy with psychology and was the precursor to many of Nietzsches' ideas.

Very thorough and informative video, over all you transitioned between the words very well, due to the time you put into the video you did very well. [thumbup]
The only critic I would have and I would of liked to of seen is incorporation of feelings associated with the words, I felt like you only skimmed the surface, looking at it in a purely dictionary definition sort of way that almost has a lack-luster feel to it.
Over-all very informative, as mentioned the time you put into the video, 30 minutes, I can understand why you went about it in the way that you did. I learned some new things which is all that really matters imo [thumbup]

Hey guys, not posted for a while, been busy on many projects etc.

Here is a short talk that relates to the empathy video, it explains the way we create transactions in morality that are in a way, a form of materialism. It's called "Ought and Owe". I also explain how forgiveness is generally a bad way to relate to others, it lacks empathy and understanding, it is dismissive and likened to labelling in the DSM. Surprising at first, but definitely some good points to remember here. Enjoy!

Don´t we feel pity for someone BECAUSE we understand where he is coming from?

ulvfdfgtmk wrote:Don´t we feel pity for someone BECAUSE we understand where he is coming from?

Can you give an example?

What I was putting across is that pity is like looking down at someone, whereas understanding why that person is where they are or who they are, is to treat that person as an equal.

A homeless person may be on the streets because of crimes he commited and may have a leg missing due to injecting drugs into his legs. If we asked him what happened and if he replied honestly, without appealing to pity, which is one such habit of those who are down on luck like that, as it works out for them to ask for charity in that way, we would then hear his story. It could go something like - "I was beaten by my parents and sent to a home for wayward children and then grew a mistrust for authority as the abuse continued, leading to getting involved with the wrong sort of people and ending up in prison for stealing food to provide for myself" and so on.

My understanding is that he wasn't really given the best start, but that doesn't make him inferior to me, just different. I understand how animals will respond to violence, as humans are animals, that is understandiable that he would develop mistrust, although I don't share that mistrust, again, we are just different. His time in prison and inevitable survival through theft is hardly something to judge anyone for, he didn't ask to be born into a society that lacks understanding and divides people up into "worthy and not worthy" and I certainly wouldn't forgive him either for his theft, as that is also showing he is inferior and goes hand in hand with pity, most people forgive and feel pity towards others as they feel uncomfortable when around people like our subject here - they feel guilt and in turn our subject feels resentment.

He doesn't want to be treated any differently to anyone else, he's just different, he would be happy if people smiled and said hello, rather than feel sorry for him and pity him, he doesn't want that. What he has experienced is no one elses responsibility and pity opens up all sorts of enabling behavior for him, he will not respect you, he will just see another way to survive through charity.

There is absolutely nothing to pity him for, all of his experiences and faults are understandbale given the conditions of his environment, to pity him would be like saying he has not fulfilled a certain ideal of what a human should/ought and must do, but in reality, with understanding, he is who he is and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

This is not to say that we should not care about him, but certainly not pity him.

When we glance down at his abcess ridden legs (what is left of them), we may well feel a co-suffering with this man, that what we call compassion, but in reality, we don't. Those of us with two legs without them being used as a narcotic pin cushion, have no idea what it is like not to have two legs and to go through the horror of losing a leg in that way with the risk of septacemia and therefore we don't suffer with him at all. The understandng comes in when we reflect upon how people are driven into impossible "Sparta" style tests in society, that basically teach "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't", leading inevitably to self medication and a desire to escape, not to be, not have been born and to die quickly - this is a crisis that all humans experience, angst and care while we all head toward the grave where we will no longer be of any relevance, on this level, I understand him, not pity him. It could happen to anyone of us, I personally have seen this happen, even had a taste of it myself to a degree, seen the rise and fall of many who walk in his shoes (or shoe) and I would be a hippocrite if I pitied them - I understand that they are doing what they have to do - that's being human, therefore through understanding, we become equals.

Pity doesn't allow equality. Understanding does.

If this was too dramatic, I apologise, but I thought it best to paint a grim picture. Bob Solomon may do a better job of explaining this in a video I uploaded to my "Affirmation Zero" YouTube channel.

Why is it that the pupils of psychopaths or sociopaths sometimes dilate? Especially when they are targetting?

Btw howcome people with autism have trouble with emotional connection like sociopaths/psychopaths are said to do but lack the malevolent/destructive parts? I have nothing against them be advised, they are highly intellectual but with a different mind. Also said to be more susceptible to seeing the paranormal for some reason. What are your thoughts on them?

Nemiel wrote:

ulvfdfgtmk wrote:Don´t we feel pity for someone BECAUSE we understand where he is coming from?

Can you give an example?

Seems like my translator translated pity, as well as compassion to Mitleid. I watched your two videos again and now it´s clear what you mean.

Nemiel wrote:There is absolutely nothing to pity him for, all of his experiences and faults are understandbale given the conditions of his environment, to pity him would be like saying he has not fulfilled a certain ideal of what a human should/ought and must do, but in reality, with understanding, he is who he is and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

This is not to say that we should not care about him, but certainly not pity him.

Yes, I agree.
However I would argue that sometimes "labeling" someone is kind of a defense mechanism. I mean we can´t show compassion for anyone we meet, just like in the example you gave with walking past a homeless, or else we would take in all the bad of the world.

Nemiel wrote:If this was too dramatic, I apologise, but I thought it best to paint a grim picture. Bob Solomon may do a better job of explaining this in a video I uploaded to my "Affirmation Zero" YouTube channel.

It was a good example and everything is perfectly clear to me now. Btw I got to say I really like your videos, please keep them coming [yay]

Haven't logged onto here for a while. Good to see that Nemus's videos are still being discussed here too. I do not observe a lack of connection in my autistic friend (I am kind of offended righg now), but detect empathy shrouded with nervousness (he moves and twitches a lot). He is just as alienated as the rest of us. I agree on the note that pity is an alienating sort of reaction, however it is the expected response oftentimes in our culture unfortunately. Don't expect me to be active.

Liberator wrote:Why is it that the pupils of psychopaths or sociopaths sometimes dilate? Especially when they are targetting?

I am not up to scratch with the biology of psychopaths, I recommend checking out Thomas Sheridan and Darryl Sloane on YouTube, you will be able to find them on my Disjunctive Media channel in my recommended list.

My best guess is that fear usually pinpoints pupils and dilation is a sign of ecstacy and relief - this principle being applied to someone who enjoys sadistic actions towards others for gratification must be the reason why they have a reaction that is opposite to those with a conscience.

Btw howcome people with autism have trouble with emotional connection like sociopaths/psychopaths are said to do but lack the malevolent/destructive parts? I have nothing against them be advised, they are highly intellectual but with a different mind. Also said to be more susceptible to seeing the paranormal for some reason. What are your thoughts on them?

I have no experience with the type of person you are referring to, do you have any source material I can read?

Seems like my translator translated pity, as well as compassion to Mitleid. I watched your two videos again and now it´s clear what you mean.

Indeed checking out the etymology of certain words can be an illuminating endeavor. One such etymology I encountered recently was that of the word "faith". Faith in the Bible when translated into English from Greek, actually meant something more like "trust" and the general modern usuage of faith, being that of having an assertion that is believed to be true without evidence, was actually first created in the scientific community for that particular purpose. Therefore the usage of "faith" that seems to go hand in hand with Christianity, is another example of how the "word steers the herd"!

Yes, I agree.
However I would argue that sometimes "labeling" someone is kind of a defense mechanism. I mean we can´t show compassion for anyone we meet, just like in the example you gave with walking past a homeless, or else we would take in all the bad of the world.

Yes, labelling is pretty much a cover for shame, which is when most people get defensive, or relatively "too defensive". Forgiveness is one such example of labelling in order to justify human experience in terms of "right and wrong" instead of reaching understanding.

It was a good example and everything is perfectly clear to me now. Btw I got to say I really like your videos, please keep them coming [yay]

I think I will focus more on my existential stuff more, it's far more fruitful than dealing with Holocaust deniers and Flat Earthers!

Deathquota wrote:Haven't logged onto here for a while. Good to see that Nemus's videos are still being discussed here too. I do not observe a lack of connection in my autistic friend (I am kind of offended righg now), but detect empathy shrouded with nervousness (he moves and twitches a lot). He is just as alienated as the rest of us. I agree on the note that pity is an alienating sort of reaction, however it is the expected response oftentimes in our culture unfortunately. Don't expect me to be active.

This is primarily why I named my channel "Disjunctive Media", as I tend to relate more to those who are at odds with the narrative.

Nemiel wrote:Indeed checking out the etymology of certain words can be an illuminating endeavor. One such etymology I encountered recently was that of the word "faith". Faith in the Bible when translated into English from Greek, actually meant something more like "trust" and the general modern usuage of faith, being that of having an assertion that is believed to be true without evidence, was actually first created in the scientific community for that particular purpose. Therefore the usage of "faith" that seems to go hand in hand with Christianity, is another example of how the "word steers the herd"!

Interesting example! In german we got the word Gottvertrauen which literally means Godtrust. I think this would have been a far better translation then for a german bible, instead of Glaube (which means faith).

Nemiel wrote:Yes, labelling is pretty much a cover for shame, which is when most people get defensive, or relatively "too defensive". Forgiveness is one such example of labelling in order to justify human experience in terms of "right and wrong" instead of reaching understanding.

I agree 100%.

Nemiel wrote:I think I will focus more on my existential stuff more, it's far more fruitful than dealing with Holocaust deniers and Flat Earthers!

I viewed some of your videos where you debunk the flat earth theory and although I really enjoyed listening to how you used logic and seeing how you tried to approach the subject without any prejudice I felt it was kind of a waste of time. Well not really a waste of time since you tried to explain to people how they got caught up in a 'conspiracy theory' but I was thinking that you could use your talents to a far greater effect.
So in short: I love that idea!

I viewed some of your videos where you debunk the flat earth theory and although I really enjoyed listening to how you used logic and seeing how you tried to approach the subject without any prejudice I felt it was kind of a waste of time. Well not really a waste of time since you tried to explain to people how they got caught up in a 'conspiracy theory' but I was thinking that you could use your talents to a far greater effect.
So in short: I love that idea!

Couldn't agree more, although my exercise in debunking the flatards was not really aimed at convincing them they are wrong, as that is impossible anyway. It was more of a personal "Shoshin" exercise, which is translated usually into English as "Beginners Mind".

Arguing for/against flat Earth or any other natural phenomena, theory, assertion and ideas are a great practice for sharpening our skills in building an argument.

I like how W.V.O.Quine positions himself into a debate regarding ontology, where the sides to take are "Yes it is" and "no it isn't". He takes the side of "no it isn't", out of nothing more than the fact that he damn well wants to say that "it isn't" as that is what philosophy and other fields of knowledge allow those who participate in them to do, to enjoy the debate.[1]

Granted that there are far more profound and complex problems out there that "flatten" non-issues like the Flat Earth/Geocentrist debate, but the fruits of immersing ourselves into that debate are quite useful when applied within other, more worthy issues.

Debunking the Flat Earth is a great place for beginners to start and for experienced experts to play too. You will need to know how to epistemically design your argument to provide proof that the Earth is not flat, which evidence will get you somewhere in the debate and what kind of source material you will need and how to determine if it's fabricated. It is also a great rehearsal for identifying fallacies, especially "poisoning the well", "non-sequiturs","conflated arguments", "ad hoc" and of course, the inevitable"argumentum ad nauseam" within those debates.

There are of course, simply put, particularly outright, filthy lies that they perpetuate too.

I was hoping to encourage more people to build their confidence, as a side order with my flat Earth series and feel that I have had my go of it and will leave it alone for the thousands of debaters online.

It is remarkable and slightly disturbing how we can live in a modern society with people who take Biblical texts literally and who celebrate mysteries, who want science to be wrong and who sadly, are believed to be allowed to use play-dough unsupervised.

It is not too far fetched to associate the word "Flat Earther" to "Nazi Sympathiser"either, which is a line I found particularly upsetting, these people repulse me and so I attacked them from their ridiculous assertion that the Earth is Flat, in order to hopefully show that these people are not of sound mind and shouldn't be prepared to re-write history just yet.

You are right in saying that this "care" that I have, would be useful in other places. Which I will of course be putting to more use. I feel like my writing has improved and that I can make shorter videos, better points and I always provide source material that I think will improve the audiences' world views as a whole.

On that note, great discussion, it's always good to hear what others have to say.

[1] "Suppose now that two philosophers, McX and I, differ over ontology. Suppose McX
maintains there is something which I maintain there is not. McX can, quite con
sistently with
his own point of view, describe our difference of opinion by saying that I refuse to recognize
certain entities. I should protest, of course, that he is wrong in his formulation of our
disagreement, for I maintain that there are no entities,
of the kind which he alleges, for me to
recognize; but my finding him wrong in his formulation of our disagreement is unimportant,
for I am committed to considering him wrong in his ontology anyway." - http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fak ... e%20Is.pdf -1
On What There Is Willard Van Orman Quine Review of Metaphysics (1948) From a Logical Point of View

Nemiel wrote:Couldn't agree more, although my exercise in debunking the flatards was not really aimed at convincing them they are wrong, as that is impossible anyway. It was more of a personal "Shoshin" exercise, which is translated usually into English as "Beginners Mind".

I saw magari recommend this book "Zen mind - Beginners mind" on another thread. I might look into this in the future, it sounds interesting.

Nemiel wrote:Arguing for/against flat Earth or any other natural phenomena, theory, assertion and ideas are a great practice for sharpening our skills in building an argument.

I never saw it like this. It´s a great idea.

Nemiel wrote: It is also a great rehearsal for identifying fallacies, especially "poisoning the well", "non-sequiturs","conflated arguments", "ad hoc" and of course, the inevitable"argumentum ad nauseam" within those debates.

Wow I never knew that there are words to describe these fallacies. I mean you practically get to hear them everyday so i´ts logical to assign a name to them, but haven´t heard of it before.

Nemiel wrote:It is remarkable and slightly disturbing how we can live in a modern society with people who take Biblical texts literally and who celebrate mysteries, who want science to be wrong and who sadly, are believed to be allowed to use play-dough unsupervised.

To be honest when I began my path I was completely deorientated. I somehow knew that there has to be more and that the current scientific scheme of the world could not be complete. During this period I stumbled across spirit science and it was exactly what I was looking for (at that time). Therefor I view it as normal that people who begin to take an interest in spirituality/occultism begin to question everything (even proven scientific discoveries) but I don´t see it as disturbing. I would say it´s a part of the path for some people and sooner or later everyone will realize that science and occultism don´t contradict each other but rather blend in together perfectly well.

[quote="Nemiel]It is not too far fetched to associate the word "Flat Earther" to "Nazi Sympathiser"either, which is a line I found particularly upsetting, these people repulse me and so I attacked them from their ridiculous assertion that the Earth is Flat, in order to hopefully show that these people are not of sound mind and shouldn't be prepared to re-write history just yet.[/quote]
I don´t quite understand what you mean by this. How did they repulse you if I may ask?

Nemiel wrote:You are right in saying that this "care" that I have, would be useful in other places. Which I will of course be putting to more use. I feel like my writing has improved and that I can make shorter videos, better points and I always provide source material that I think will improve the audiences' world views as a whole.

Yes this is true. For me I find especially shorter videos are more valuable then longer ones. Of course you can explain more in longer videos but you can´t take in as much information in a ~20min video compared to a ~10min video.

Nemiel wrote:On that note, great discussion, it's always good to hear what others have to say.

Likewise, great talking!

I saw magari recommend this book "Zen mind - Beginners mind" on another thread. I might look into this in the future, it sounds interesting.

Decent book, it links in very well with many of the existential philosophers and structuralist thought. Very useful when getting into Heidegger, who i am currently in love with intellectually at the moment.

I never saw it like this. It´s a great idea.

Sometimes "doing" is very revealing. I saw what these people were saying and it bothered me that in the modern age and in modern societies, we live amongst people with very low critical capacities, who take everything at face value and who criticise extremists for their beliefs, yet they are equally ignornat, hostile and stupid.

I just felt like I had to say something.

Wow I never knew that there are words to describe these fallacies. I mean you practically get to hear them everyday so i´ts logical to assign a name to them, but haven´t heard of it before.

Yeah, the fallacies are very useful, this is where philosophy is essential. Philosophy, above all, is a method that teaches us how to learn to reason. Many truths are found in lies, or fallacies. We need to know a lie to know any truth. We must of course not get into the trap of thinking that the opposite to a truth is a lie, however.

To be honest when I began my path I was completely deorientated. I somehow knew that there has to be more and that the current scientific scheme of the world could not be complete. During this period I stumbled across spirit science and it was exactly what I was looking for (at that time). Therefor I view it as normal that people who begin to take an interest in spirituality/occultism begin to question everything (even proven scientific discoveries) but I don´t see it as disturbing. I would say it´s a part of the path for some people and sooner or later everyone will realize that science and occultism don´t contradict each other but rather blend in together perfectly well.

On the surface, no it's not disturbing. It is when we see that people like Jordan Pearce are promoting fake remedies of woo to those who are critically ill, such as crystals and homeopathy that we need to see the destruction potential. Spirit Science is pretty much an eclectic mix of every single new age and conspiracy woo that has ever been, it even suggests aspects of Scientology. He also promotes a very dangerous mindset that encourages apathy, ignorance and discourages facing problems in life, quoting Jordan himself "Children and debt...ah, it doesn't matter".

In no way does it help people who want to look into the occult. Mixing spiritual concepts with scientific theory does not work, especially in the method that Spirit Science promotes - that if it feels "warm and fuzzy" then we should just go with it, don't think about and if it doesn't make sense or fit first time, then we try to make it fit - this is just asking for non sequiturs, ad hoc, conflation and general horse crap.

I don't agree that occultism fits into science, although I suppose we should ask what both of those terms mean first before making that assertion.

Science to me, means we have information that can be reproduced, tested, falsified and reviewed. Even when we come up with a theory (which is not as slack a term as many think) it is only accepted tentatively at best. For the record, a scientific theory is composed of many verified facts, or rather, verified evidence that seem to fit a constant, usually from a general law that fits certain conditions, which then gives us a model that can hopefully produce a prediction. If there are anomalies, then these have to be investigated, if they appear to completely contradict the theory, but still apply to the general laws under certain conditions, then the theory is revised.

The occult is simply another term for "hidden", it often has spiritual connotations attached to it. I can see how it can be connected to science, but this is a result of a way of thinking that seems to originate in Ancient Greece, specifically Socrates and Plato, whereby there is an invisible realm of ideas/forms etc that are presumed to be causes of physical effects. These metaphysics are outdated and can find their way into bad habits in the way we interpret physics, of which Spirit Science does many times over, totally unaware of these metaphyics and even less aware of the importance of questioning as to whether or not they are even true in the first place. The theory of forms was nothing more than an epistemic device to attempt to solve the problem of universals. The ontology, causation and other Gnostic type themes were added to it much later. David Hume is the most important philsopher on this subject.

Metaphysics is still very much alive, discarding many of these innatism concepts and it moves towards process philosophy, emergentismand panpsychism these days, which work well with the magnificent discoveries in mathematics, such as fractal geometry, a process that emerges from a state that is irreducible down to the lowest levels, therefore finding the Monadwill not produce a predictable model, or proof of cause and effect, or indeed innateness.

Unless I hear an argument or discussion along those lines before these assertions are made, I treat the following information after it with suspicion. These bad habits often turn up.

I don´t quite understand what you mean by this. How did they repulse you if I may ask?

I find racists, Nazi sympathisers and Holocaust deniers repulsive. They are toxic. It's just good old fashioned Jew hating, they lack humanity... and dignity.

I have included some links in this post in order to introduce others and yourself into a wider scope of ideas.

Nemiel wrote:Sometimes "doing" is very revealing.

This is very true!

We must of course not get into the trap of thinking that the opposite to a truth is a lie, however.

Could you elaborate on this?

On the surface, no it's not disturbing. It is when we see that people like Jordan Pearce are promoting fake remedies of woo to those who are critically ill, such as crystals and homeopathy that we need to see the destruction potential. Spirit Science is pretty much an eclectic mix of every single new age and conspiracy woo that has ever been, it even suggests aspects of Scientology. He also promotes a very dangerous mindset that encourages apathy, ignorance and discourages facing problems in life, quoting Jordan himself "Children and debt...ah, it doesn't matter".

Yes this is dangerous. However there may be a bigger picture in which one could see that it is necessary to make these experiences, see that it´s all just woo. I´m not saying that what spirit science is doing is 'good', all I´m saying is that it has its place.

In no way does it help people who want to look into the occult.

I would argue that it does. Maybe people pick up a crystal and think it is working somehow but later realize it was just their imagination. This way they made the first step of learning the difference between imagination and real occult phenomenon.

Mixing spiritual concepts with scientific theory does not work, especially in the method that Spirit Science promotes - that if it feels "warm and fuzzy" then we should just go with it, don't think about and if it doesn't make sense or fit first time, then we try to make it fit - this is just asking for non sequiturs, ad hoc, conflation and general horse crap.

Yes I agree on this one.

I don't agree that occultism fits into science, although I suppose we should ask what both of those terms mean first before making that assertion.

What I meant by science was actually the scientific method, but when I said occultism I was actually only refering to the practical side of occultism (rituals, evoctions, ect.). Now I can´t comment much on this because I´m still a beginner but when for example X does an evocation of a god and this god tells him his name, sigil, etc., and X proceeds forward to tell Y all the details he needs to invoce the same god. Y does this and finds out it works. Isn´t this empirical evidence derived through the scientific method?

I find racists, Nazi sympathisers and Holocaust deniers repulsive. They are toxic. It's just good old fashioned Jew hating, they lack humanity... and dignity.

Seems like I should have translated repulsive before I asked this question. I thought they were also kind of attacking you but after I translated the word and saw what it really meant I could totally understand where you were coming from.

I have included some links in this post in order to introduce others and yourself into a wider scope of ideas.

Great idea, it´s always good to learn more.

We must of course not get into the trap of thinking that the opposite to a truth is a lie, however.
Could you elaborate on this?

Sorry, I sometimes expell conclusions I have thought about alot, forgetting that I need to explain them first. I noticed that many people online, particularly within so called truth movements, have a very "either/or" way of percieving information. If not A, then B is always false. I suppose confirmation bias, willful ignorance and selective reasoning are along the lines of this overly simplistic fallacy of reasoning. There can be the apparent view that there are no other alternatives to choose from. If someone speaks out against any bullshit claims the freemen on the land have for instance, you are instantly a "paid agent" or something to that effect, showing this overly simplistic mentality of "you are either with us, or against us", there is nothing inbetween. The flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers, even Spirit Science too, have this idea that critical thinking is closed minded, when I reject their ridiculous claims because I am open minded.

I mean, take a look at the responses on this video I made about Robert Arthur Menard, after I turned his own surname into an insult.

Yes this is dangerous. However there may be a bigger picture in which one could see that it is necessary to make these experiences, see that it´s all just woo. I´m not saying that what spirit science is doing is 'good', all I´m saying is that it has its place.

I think you are saying it is a "neccessary path", which I will have to strongly agree.In order to know truth, one must know what is not truth. There are some interesting aspects of SS, but it is presented in a way that seems to suggest "just consider it", but when you go to consider it, you end up throwing it out as there is no evidence to even begin to consider it with.

I would argue that it does. Maybe people pick up a crystal and think it is working somehow but later realize it was just their imagination. This way they made the first step of learning the difference between imagination and real occult phenomenon.

See above comment, it is a neccessary path. Each path holds experiences.

Yes I agree on this one.

I think the best way to explain is to say that science deals with what is in the natural world, spirituiality does not often deal with it, but then again, spirituality is a meaningless term, I try to avoid it. I think we can define something spirit-like from what knowledge we have NOW, instead of fitting the Now knowledge into a certain design. It should all be done after-the-fact instead of having a conclusion we want to see in the explanation.

What I meant by science was actually the scientific method, but when I said occultism I was actually only refering to the practical side of occultism (rituals, evoctions, ect.). Now I can´t comment much on this because I´m still a beginner but when for example X does an evocation of a god and this god tells him his name, sigil, etc., and X proceeds forward to tell Y all the details he needs to invoce the same god. Y does this and finds out it works. Isn´t this empirical evidence derived through the scientific method?

If it's a God, then it's something supernatural, therefore not in the natural world. It's not important whether or not what you are practicing or what you believe is science, it doesn't need to be labelled as such to have value, which is where I think many get lost in the details. Ceremonial magick, was like a super strength, super stimulating experience to me, like meditation on crack! I know it was all actually an invocation from within, I was calling (Goetia means "howling") to an inner aspect of my personality, I like to think of the Goetic demons as the "id" in Freudian analysis, a mass of instinctual drives and impulses looking for satisfaction of desire, the ego often is regulating it and the super ego tells off the ego when it favours the id. A ritual is the temporary dissolution of the ego and superego and this leaves only the id, the creative drives, which then rebuild the ego and in turn, super ego from the inside out, as opposed to the way it is constructed from being an infant.

I will provide this video to elaborate on the structural model of the psyche :
It's only science if the results or effects of the ritual can be reproduced and some form of testable model can be formed to measure the supposed cause and effect as being related, but if we could all do that, then we would have our $1,000,000 from James Randi by now haha!

You said yourself earlier, that the experience you thought was external, is actually internal, but that's no reason to devalue what we have experienced, it is praise to the magick of the human mind.

Again, thanks for the responses.

Nemiel wrote:Sorry, I sometimes expell conclusions I have thought about alot, forgetting that I need to explain them first. I noticed that many people online, particularly within so called truth movements, have a very "either/or" way of percieving information. If not A, then B is always false. I suppose confirmation bias, willful ignorance and selective reasoning are along the lines of this overly simplistic fallacy of reasoning. There can be the apparent view that there are no other alternatives to choose from. If someone speaks out against any bullshit claims the freemen on the land have for instance, you are instantly a "paid agent" or something to that effect, showing this overly simplistic mentality of "you are either with us, or against us", there is nothing inbetween. The flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers, even Spirit Science too, have this idea that critical thinking is closed minded, when I reject their ridiculous claims because I am open minded.

This is indeed true and I have noticed the same on various occasions. A friend of mine is still trapped in this "either/or" fallacy and once I myself got out of it I could incredibly clearly see how he does this over and over again.

I think you are saying it is a "neccessary path", which I will have to strongly agree.In order to know truth, one must know what is not truth. There are some interesting aspects of SS, but it is presented in a way that seems to suggest "just consider it", but when you go to consider it, you end up throwing it out as there is no evidence to even begin to consider it with.

That´s exactly what I was trying to say and I couldn´t agree more.

It's only science if the results or effects of the ritual can be reproduced and some form of testable model can be formed to measure the supposed cause and effect as being related, but if we could all do that, then we would have our $1,000,000 from James Randi by now haha!

Taking my example above isn´t some form of reproducting happening here?

A ritual is the temporary dissolution of the ego and superego and this leaves only the id, the creative drives, which then rebuild the ego and in turn, super ego from the inside out, as opposed to the way it is constructed from being an infant.

This is great! I will probably work with this view once I reach the advanced stuff.

Your video about the model of the psyche is great. It sums up the subject really good!

Again, thanks for the responses.

Likewise

ulvfdfgtmk wrote: This is indeed true and I have noticed the same on various occasions. A friend of mine is still trapped in this "either/or" fallacy and once I myself got out of it I could incredibly clearly see how he does this over and over again.

"Existentialism is a philosophy of structures" - Marshall McLuhan; who also said "We must recognise the pattern before it complete", which is an excellent starting point for a whole new ecology regarding media.

I don't see myself as immune from either/or thinking, I don't think anyone can be. The only difference between people is how much they value certainties over robustness and predictable models of reality, values are what it all comes down to.

ulvfdfgtmk wrote:Taking my example above isn´t some form of reproducing happening here?

Although I, on a personal level don't exclude the claims of people practicing magick and understand that a leap of faith is needed to advance any further with most occult/spiritual/magickal practices, I also know that it can't be classed as scientific.

The problem is, or rather the question is, how can

ulvfdfgtmk wrote:" when for example X does an evocation of a god and this god tells him his name, sigil, etc."

be reproduced to others outside of the ritual?

I am not saying this will not/does not happen, I have every bit of confidence and upmost respect, understanding and admiration of the care and application of each practitioner that seeks the unknown, but although the observer (magician) is able to reproduce the effect (God/s confirming name and sigil) for himself, which is only possible through his/her own will and operation, this can't be reproduced to others outside of the ritual/ceremony, which means it can't be confirmed by others, tested, falsified.

If you hear a voice, or see a vision of the Deity, this is only happening in your own experience. Even if this is not only subjective, it is not possible for anyone outside of the ritual to hear or see the Deity. It may aswell just be voices in your mind, or a hallucination, there is no way to cancel these probabilities out.

1. Gods exist and can be produced via rituals
2. Only those performing the rituals can hear/see the Gods
3. The only evidence for Gods effects and existence comes from those who perform the rituals

There is absolutely nothing for an external observer to test or falsify. This claim would be dismissed on the grounds that it is only anecdotal evidence, especially when the one who is making the claim uses the claims of many others making the same claim as evidence for their claim.

I guess the challenge is to come up with a testable model for magickal rituals.

You will need to find a way to show how an effect that is supernatural can affect the natural world in some way, maybe not as heavy-a-burden as asking a God for this weeks winning lotto numbers, which would be a similar structure to the testable model -

P1. Gods can cause an effect in the natural world.
P2. Asking for the winning lotto numbers in a ritual
R3. Winning with 100% accuracy being the minimum requirement for proof, meaning if 6 numbers are needed for a prize, then if <6, there is no supernatural affect.
C4. If this test can be reproduced at least 5 times with an average greater than chance, say >3, then we can say, that it is more than probable that P1 is true.

These are the kind of reproducable results that would be needed to call magick science.

How can we produce and reproduce a test that would show something a little less extravagant? How can we find a system that would allow others to know a God can respond to a petition, such as prayer or ritual, with a greater probability of the effect being more than just chance?

I am not sure if this topic is relevant to the OP anymore, apart from two very different view points requiring understanding, becoming emergent in the thread itself.

Nemiel wrote:I am not sure if this topic is relevant to the OP anymore, apart from two very different view points requiring understanding, becoming emergent in the thread itself.

Yep it probably isn´t relevant anymore.

I will just say that I wasn´t aware that the reproduction part has to be observable by 'others'. I was believing that a reproduction (by someone who is experienced in magic) would, on it´s own, make the whole thing scientific.

Well it´s been a great talk, great thread [yay]

ulvfdfgtmk wrote:

Nemiel wrote:I am not sure if this topic is relevant to the OP anymore, apart from two very different view points requiring understanding, becoming emergent in the thread itself.

Yep it probably isn´t relevant anymore.

I will just say that I wasn´t aware that the reproduction part has to be observable by 'others'. I was believing that a reproduction (by someone who is experienced in magic) would, on it´s own, make the whole thing scientific.

Well it´s been a great talk, great thread [yay]

Yes, if you are to call anything in the occult, magick or spirituality, "science", then it will require a repeatable experiment or evidence that can be falsified not only by the one conducting the experiment, or the one making the claim(s), but one that will be possible to achieve under controlled conditions and will then become subject to intense, peer reviewed criticism and scepticism. Even then, whatever theory is developed from the observable facts will be accepted tentatively at best.

A ritual does not need to be called scientific to be valuable, just because something isn't science does not mean it isn't true, or that it isn't woprth doing, or has no use, it just means it is not accepted under the requirements of proof, mainly because it requires special pleading to be accepted, or it hold too many assumptions outside of the main three assumptions required (neccessary assumptions) in order to make predictions.

That is all I will say on that matter now, as it has gone off topic for sure.

Great talk indeed.

This video will hopefully steer this topic back on course -
This is my personal opinion on the housing crisis in the UK and how it affects many people, making them homeless. I also make some poingnant observations regarding the way the oppressed, er, ahem, "express themselves" as a result of their resentment.