Does chaos magic suggest that Gods/God does not exist, that we created them, or that we are actually

Originally posted by MightyWizard
reply to post by yampa

 

Imagination comes out of image, do the math ...

Or you could pick up a neuroscience book and quit with the one-liner daydreaming?

Originally posted by yampa

This is different to the OPs point (and seems a peculiar understanding of human altruism). He wasn't talking about the knock-on effect of human interactions, he was talking about man manifesting gods with their minds alone. He was essentially implying the mind is inseparable from an omnipotent god (as long as you say the right kind of mind-spells). That kind of thinking can be a dangerous delusion, and it will never reduce suffering.

Oh...

Here I must agree with you. Although God is present in every aspect of our existence, we were created by God, and therefore, we are not inseparable from God.

Chaos Magick does not, and never has made us out to be gods, neither do we have the power of Gods. Much more in keeping with chaos theory is that we have a reality given to us by God, and within that reality, we are able to do all things. But as CIAGypsy has already mentioned - for all things, we are accountable to that supreme being for the things we do. (Although the actual details of the accountability depend on the magician's personal religions or beliefs.) This is how I interpret it.

If it were true that chaos magicians thought of themselves as gods, then I think you are correct in saying that suffering would never be reduced. It is the same reason why Freemasonry requires us to believe in a supreme being, because only by being accountable to that supreme being will suffering ever be reduced, and good things come to pass.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure what werewolf99 is asking. Because the OP did challenge the assumption that we (and our minds) are a special part of the creative process of the universe. So my basic answer to that would be no. We are not special beings, we're normal evolved animals (but quite possibly evolved from unresolved divine rules).

Originally posted by Saurus

If it were true that chaos magicians thought of themselves as gods, then I think you are correct in saying that suffering would never be reduced. It is the same reason why Freemasonry requires us to believe in a supreme being, because only by being accountable to that supreme being will suffering ever be reduced, and good things come to pass.

I don't see too much evidence that werewolf99 was pushing that point, so perhaps I am misrepresenting the post. But if I read something like 'Chaos magic is doing what works, for you' - which seems to be the basic philosophy - then I am going to have to call that out. I think any apparent magic that works only for you has a strong potential to cause disruption to others when that possibility is lived out in the unprepared mind.

'doing what works, for you' is the same philosophy found on in a million pieces of corporate advertising - if you see what I'm getting at?

Originally posted by yampa

I don't see too much evidence that werewolf99 was pushing that point, so perhaps I am misrepresenting the post. But if I read something like 'Chaos magic is doing what works, for you' - which seems to be the basic philosophy - then I am going to have to call that out. I think any apparent magic that works only for you has a strong potential to cause disruption to others when that possibility is lived out in the unprepared mind.

Yes and No...

On the one hand, a person should be happy in order to make others happy. A person should have the means and ability to be able to help others. By improving oneself and one's life (through magick or otherwise), a person has a much greater capacity to help others. When used correctly, magick is an extremely powerful tool for the good. A person should not be denied the right to use magick to improve and sweeten their own lives, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

On the other hand, it does have the potential to cause disruption to others when the intentions are wrong. But this is not limited to magick alone. Like money, which can also be used for either selfish or charitable purposes, magick can be used for the right or the wrong reasons.

Originally posted by Saurus

A person should not be denied the right to use magick to improve and sweeten their own lives, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

But can the implications of a person spending their time thinking about a 'personal magic' be disruptive in itself? I think it can. I think there is a strong possibility of runaway egotism when time is spent focusing on what is only inside, rather than spent learning what is universal.

We see this effect amplified and running wild in current western consumer culture. The slogans between the two are identical - you must see this?

"The mood of meditation should not be: I will inwardly lie down in a warm nest, which must become warmer and warmer for me. Rather, our mood must be that we are about to dip into reality, to grasp something real. Devoted attention to little things, indeed to the least thing, is what it comes down to." - Rudolf Steiner

reply to post by yampa


If you want you can complicate it ... But it is simple ! The book tell s you something behond of what is needed to comprehend this simple fact ! Everything you see MUST BE IMAGINED.

reply to post by yampa


Aah, but self-improvement is vital.

There is no difference between going to school to educate oneself or reading a book or studying magick. All are to improve oneself.

Ego is also very underestimated. If one person is to change the world, he must first believe that he can do so (this is not just magick , but the way the mind works in general). If one person can change the world, he is very important to the world. The belief in one's importance and the belief in one's ability to make a big difference cannot be separated.

The belief in doing great things or achieving the impossible come from experiences of previous successes in doing anything you put your mind to. Thus, the practical successess of magick are vital to achieveing the great.

It is no different than educating oneself by going to a university and standing or working in a lab to educate oneself. Then, like the job afterwards which earns money that can be used for charity, magick earns power and belief in oneself which can be used to make a positive change in the world.

Originally posted by Saurus

Aah, but self-improvement is vital.

I didn't say ego or self-knowledge was bad - I said runaway ego and indulging in individual-only daydreams about having control over things which you do not have control over was bad.

Originally posted by MightyWizard
reply to post by yampa

 

If you want you can complicate it ... But it is simple ! The book tell s you something behond of what is needed to comprehend this simple fact ! Everything you see MUST BE IMAGINED.

edit on 28-3-2013 by MightyWizard because: fix the english , since l~m not a native

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by yampa

I'll be interested see how much suffering you manage to remove from your own or anyone else's life by adhering to the wisdom contained in those sentiments.

If we repeat an action, eventually it becomes a habit. It we practice acts of kindness every day, these eventually become part and parcel of who we are.

Acts of charity and kindness which once required us to make an effort, eventually become part of our very makeup, and then those acts no longer require an effort, but simply become mundane.

Then, those acts of kindness which later require a special effort are of a much greater magnitude that the first ones, which have now become mundane. Eventually, those 'great effort acts' also become mundane, because they have become a habit. And so on, and so on...

Ultimately, there is no limit as to the positive change one can make in the world.

This is actually a good example to demonstrate the magickal concept I was trying to explain.

This is different to the OPs point (and seems a peculiar understanding of human altruism). He wasn't talking about the knock-on effect of human interactions, he was talking about man manifesting gods with their minds alone. He was essentially implying the mind is inseparable from an omnipotent god (as long as you say the right kind of mind-spells). That kind of thinking can be a dangerous delusion, and it will never reduce suffering.

...which should not preclude the notion that this is true...the 'knock-on' effect is part of a complicated series of other knock-on effects (that are not conveniently delineated by what is affected)...there is also the much maligned and misunderstood mandate conducting individual and group visions/pathways, expressed through free will (as a coalesce of greater will)...

Never mind 'saying the right kind of mind-spell'...mind-spell is consciously averring the 'tap' mechanism, necessarily a step towards being able to admit that you are not an insignificant speck of nothing, existing for no reason, without a purpose...or, machinery and mechanisms necessary to understand this...
...self-admittedly, you concede (and I do not mean to target you personally) that such matters fall within the realms of possibility...only that, it does not fall within the realms of your understanding of how this could be so...people with a color-blind red 'condition' can argue all eternity with this...in terms of whether the color red actually exists - a case, in the end of the vagaries of 'recording equipment' we are provided with/choose to sharpen, hone, push the boundaries of...

It's certainly an interesting set of questions (albeit, I see the questions as a** about)...asking/establishing the wrong things first, and proceeding from there...bound, at the same time to raise more irrelevant questions, or, establish a wrong conclusion...

A99

Originally posted by akushla99

It's certainly an interesting set of questions (albeit, I see the questions as a** about)...asking/establishing the wrong things first, and proceeding from there...bound, at the same time to raise more irrelevant questions, or, establish a wrong conclusion...

A99

So basically your point is 'think positive' and 'anything is possible'. Great, that's very useful, thank you! A couple of themes straight out of self-help literature and corporate programming right there.

Talking about the major philosophical flaws of a belief system is not irrelevant - it's tangential to the OPs original point about gods, sure, but that point was not particular well put forward anyway. And it's at least as relevant as talking about multiple universe theory (which I don't see anyone else jumping on).

Originally posted by yampa

I didn't say ego or self-knowledge was bad - I said runaway ego and indulging in individual-only daydreams about having control over things which you do not have control over was bad.

How do you differentiate between ego and believing in oneself? To me, ego means a person’s sense of their own value and importance.

How do you differentiate between individual-only daydreams and self improvement?

What makes you say that these are things we don't have control over?

I think the difference between you and I are that you believe what 99.9% of the world believe, whereas I think that knowledge is superficial.

Consider this quote by Douglas Adams (granted, he's normally a comedian, but this is quite profound) about the dangers of belief in the obvious...

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "
~ Douglas Adams

Originally posted by Saurus


I think the difference between you and I are that you believe what 99.9% of the world believe, whereas I think that knowledge is superficial.

I don't think you've asked me to produce any knowledge, nor have you offered any. Not really sure how you're gauging what I believe? I've already said that it's possible that humans are evolved 'from divine rules', how much more open mindedness do you want? Oh, I know how much you want, you want to be able to say 'anything goes'!

reply to post by yampa


Ok, granted - perhaps I was generalizing and assuming that you fell into the "if it can't be proved, it doesn't exists" genre. My assumption was partly based on the fact that you claimed that magick (more specifically, chaos magick) does not exist.

As an analogy, let's consider 'dark matter'. Human being are only capable of directly detecting anything which emits radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. Until now, because we could only 'see' from gamma to radio frequencies, scientists and their sheep believed that it was all that existed. Now, we have indirect evidence which suggests that two thirds of the mass of the universe is made up of dark matter, which we are unable to directly observe. But since the dawn of time, human beings have denied (or rather, did not even contemplate) the existence of anything else, because it was not 'tangible' or directly observable.

Magick is very much the same, in that the majority of the population deny its existence, or more commonly, do not even contemplate its existence, because it cannot be directly observed. However, the difference between dark matter and magick is that there is a lot more indirect evidence for the existence of magick, which has been experienced by most, if not all, that have studied, or even dabbled in the craft.

I am sorry if I generalized your beliefs, but most 'non-believers' in magick that I have come across are either doubters because of their beliefs in the nature of God, or because of their beliefs in the nature of science, both of which require faith to be considered 'true' (which is perhaps even a little ironic.)

Originally posted by Saurus

As an analogy, let's consider 'dark matter'. Human being are only capable of directly detecting anything which emits radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. Until now, because we could only 'see' from gamma to radio frequencies, scientists and their sheep believed that it was all that existed. Now, we have indirect evidence which suggests that two thirds of the mass of the universe is made up of dark matter, which we are unable to directly observe. But since the dawn of time, human beings have denied (or rather, did not even contemplate) the existence of anything else, because it was not 'tangible' or directly observable.

I agree with your analogy. The kind of 'belief based' magic we are talking about is similar to the theory of dark matter. The way those two theories have been sold to us are very similar. Both are superficial and heuristic and do very little to help us understand the true causes of observed phenomena.

The same kind of people who sold us dark matter/energy as a theory, and put that concept on the front of every popular science magazine, also told us it's ok to talk about 'multiple universes' as if that is a concept which has any utility at all in normal human existence. Both of these theories are likely wrong in many ways and source almost entirely from the postulates of 20th century mathematics, not from a true disparity between observed data and robust physical theory.

The theory of dark matter is missing a theory of physical causes, as is any talk of 'belief magic'/prayers found here.

As I said earlier, any gap in theory which requires filling with a phantom like dark energy can likely be understood via a proper comprehension of the motions of photons.

I draw the line at photons, currently. If you aren't at least directing emitted photons from your body, you aren't doing anything which perturbs the world. I see no reason to utilise anything else to describe the current universe and the construction of the mind - the photon works as a perfectly acceptable scientific base at this time and it has a decent mystical base in many intelligently thought-out human religions and belief systems.

book marking ta! Great discussion.

Originally posted by yampa

I agree with your analogy. The kind of 'belief based' magic we are talking about is similar to the theory of dark matter. The way those two theories have been sold to us are very similar. Both are superficial and heuristic and do very little to help us understand the true causes of observed phenomena.

There is one fundamental and striking difference. Almost everyone who practices or even dabbles in magick gets results. Therefore, I would say that 'dark matter' is just a hypothesis, whereas magick is empirical.

Originally posted by frankky

In the Universe there's no chaos magic! There's only law and order, everything has it's cause and effect.

I think you are confusing chaos with chaos magick.

Yea both yampa and Saurus are right Dark mater is conjecture as far as i am concerned, it's like the theory of duality it's a flawed concept because life is not as simple as Yin and Yang black and white, to think so would be foolish there are more forces at work then just two remember that....and while i do like aspects of Buddhism the theory of Yin and Yang does not hold up for me, conjecture also.....