• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and Magic

Free episodes:

I have watched many if not most of Bergman's films. The two I love are 'The Magic Flute' and 'Fanny and Alexander'- the latter has extraordinary scenes of life, and in it we see Bergman give form to two of his childhood 'paranormal' experiences. (I will try to find an interview with Bergman where he describes the experience under the table in his grandmother's house). There are also two films that chronicle his parent's marriage and his mother's life - can't recall their titles. Bergman is an example of the artist who penetrates his own reality - and in doing so, becomes the universal human.

Another current director who does the same is - interestingly enough - Robert Redford. No one would equate Redford with Bergman or Kurasawa - yet in fact, it is my opinion that Redford is exactly in their league.

I can believe that - my opinion of Redford has grown since I've bothered to actually watch his films as an actor. I remembered him as being dull, in comparison with say Paul Newman - but I re watched Barefoot in the Park and caught part of a more recent role and he was much more dynamic, less of a pretty boy than I remembered. He was also excellent in Brubaker. What do you recommend of his work as a director?

I'd like to see that clip of Bergman if you come across it. I've not seen all of his films and I've only gone in depth with a few ... Now that I've finished Scenes from a Marriage again, I'll re-watch Sarabande, his last film and then I'll need a break! :)
 
To create is to be godlike, no? And in that process both the creator and those who behold the crelation are changed.

If we leave the "rigors of religion" out of this picture then we can appreciate how art making, meditation and mystical prayer can move us towards transformative spaces. No matter who your 'god' is the process of transformation is upon you.

What I see in the artist divine is the command over their tools and their need to bring up to the surface our deepest entanglements. They live through it so we can conceptualize it better for ourselves in the gallery hallwyas and our living rooms, and more authority to them for giving us such ritualistic practices.

Sometimes, Randal, words are flexible for the user in order to express their creative ideas. This will often conflict with literalism, something I only pay attention to for a portion of the time. It's not a problem I need to address as that can create conflict between people. But anyways, let us not tangle this thread anymore with such talk. It is what it is. Let go.

Or as my kids like to say to me often, "Don't judge."

Burnt, I think of your phrase "purple prose" - I think it was yours ... and that captured what I was up to.

Language is usage ... if two people or even two parts of one person agree on meaning, then they can communicate. Usage is how any word started and how it's meaning changes, we can't impose a final meaning and expect to communicate.

I don't think though that we can leave the rigors of religion out of it ... as without rigor there is only mortis.

(Actually I think of rigor mortise as more appropriate in the case of religion, if you accept the etymology as "to bind fast".)

Words are full of such play ... if you look at them they'll undress for you:

imprimatur
I'm prim at your (ur)

Therapist = the rapist
Together = to get her
Manslaughter = man's laughter
The pen is mightier ... well, you GET it!

But back to religion, transformation is just change if we say we are spiritual but not religious. Nothing there to bind us ... no ultimate meaning but what we might assign, the existentialists struggled with this internal only source of meaning - when clearly meaning is out there too.

I've never thought of creativity as the primary attribute of God/god ... In polytheism gods do all sorts of things, and in some schools there is a ground of being or nexus out of which all things come, very reminiscent of quantum foam or the idea that fundamental particles wink in and out of existence ... creatio ex nihilo, yes? (Something I think even JK Rowland can't pull off.)
This ground even underlies the gods. In Christianity, it's the idea of the Godhead.

And Oppenheimer invoked Shiva upon first witnessing his Break the Sky magic ... so destructio ex nihilo is also the bailiwick of the gods.

Rather I think if the gods have an underlying quality or function in common it's to personalize the world.

As for creativity, I'm partial to Tolkien's theory.
 
I re-visited @Tyger's first post on The Consciousness and Magic thread ...

"As self-evident as the materialist sees their world view - so too is self-evident the magical world view to the 'magician'. There has been a shift, however, where the magical world has to 'prove' its existence to the materialist (not vice-versa, and there are reasons for that). [Some conflating of terms here, as well as unique usage but still within an acceptable range given the imprecise introductory nature of this exploration. Spiritual and magical in this sense are close - magic deals with both the spiritual and the material and magic is the 'technology' and the 'psychology' that bridges those two 'worlds'."

As poster prima, hers is the imprimatur ... but we've ranged broadly already, I've even slipped in some science here and there, though I have promised mostly to be less academic and more magical on this thread ... for those wanting something more rigorous (and less mortous) I recommend the Consciousness and the Paranormal (part 2) thread - some great minds at work there.

I think there's a lot to be explored about the similarities of magic and technology as mentioned above, the same force being behind both and the same illusion that it's our ambitions driving both ... as if we could rein in even ambition.

And the same goals - longevity/life eternal, "soft immortality" they call it:

Soft Immortality: Would You Do It? | New Hampshire Public Radio

... power over nature and other people

mind to mind communication:

BBC News - Scientists 'make telepathy breakthrough'

and of course building towers upon which to Babel:

Burj Khalifa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the meantime I found an old print out I'd made of the index to Frazer's The Golden Bough

Golden Bough Index

The index is rich in both e and pro vocation

Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 1. The Whitsuntide Mummers.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 2. Burying the Carnival.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 3. Carrying out Death.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 4. Bringing in Summer.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 5. Battle of Summer and Winter.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 6. Death and Resurrection of Kostrubonko.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 7. Death and Revival of Vegetation.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 8. Analogous Rites in India.
Chapter 28. The Killing of the Tree-Spirit. Section 9. The Magic Spring.

Chapter 57. Public Scapegoats. Section 1. The Expulsion of Embodied Evils.
Chapter 57. Public Scapegoats. Section 2. The Occasional Expulsion of Evils in a Material Vehicle.
Chapter 57. Public Scapegoats. Section 3. The Periodic Expulsion of Evils in a Material Vehicle.
Chapter 57. Public Scapegoats. Section 4. On Scapegoats in General.

Chapter 67. The External Soul in Folk-Custom. Section 1. The External Soul in Inanimate Things.
Chapter 67. The External Soul in Folk-Custom. Section 2. The External Soul in Plants.
Chapter 67. The External Soul in Folk-Custom. Section 3. The External Soul in Animals.
Chapter 67. The External Soul in Folk-Custom. Section 4. The Ritual of Death and Resurrection.

and for @Burnt State and Christopher Lee lovers everywhere:

Chapter 64. The Burning of Human Beings in the Fires. Section 1. The Burning of Effigies in the Fires.
Chapter 64. The Burning of Human Beings in the Fires. Section 2. The Burning of Men and Animals in the Fires.
 
I've had amazing healings with Classical Homeopathy. Really remarkable.

So far I've been very healthy so am not a good source but am reaching that juncture where I am bound to take notice. In the last few years I've experienced infections of one kind or another - and since I am allergic to all 'cillins' I have to take really yucky stuff that have disquieting side-effects. I would prefer to use alternative health options but this is stymied because of the politics of medicine these days. My health insurance will not pay for the Naturopathic and Homeopathic physicians I would prefer to use.

Would love to hear what his process is.

When you're ready to share, would love to hear about it. :)

Can you say more about Classical Homeopathy, what it is and your experiences? How to find a practitioner, etc?
 
Can you say more about Classical Homeopathy, what it is and your experiences? How to find a practitioner, etc?
There is a great deal to say about Homeopathy. I will only say a small bit for now due to time constraints.

I came across Homeopathy many decades ago, coinciding with my Medical Anthropology courses at university. I was particularly studying the time around the late 1800's and early 1900's when the break into Allopathic and Homeopathic medical modalities was in full swing. I was aware, or became aware, that a classically trained Homeopath - meaning following Hahneman's medical modality precisely - were unique and the most effective practitioners.

There are several elements to Homeopathy as a practice, and a Homeopathic 'cure' as experienced by the patient, that are unique - one being the exceptional involvement of the patient in self-observation. The Homeopathic physician's questions are detailed - and a single intake-interview with such a physician can last a solid hour or more. Time spent with a Homeopathic physician, and the degree of knowledge both patient and physician are required to have to effect a cure, will forever alter one's perception of mainstream medicine. Sitting for 10-15 minutes with a main-stream physician with minimal in-depth understanding of the individual becomes painful to experience.

What the allopathic medical modality excels at is trauma medicine, but it's drug therapy has become harrowingly toxic to the point of being death-dealing. The prime problem with allopathic medicine is it's lack of understanding of the subtle bodies that comprise the human being (etheric, astral, mental - as well as physical).

The Homeopathic medical modality is a drug therapy - but of a kind that is hard for the materialist to understand. Due to a phenomenon called 'potentization' - where all material elements of the original ingredient are no longer present - the most common accusation is that Homeopathy is fakery. The idea that less-and-less of the original material makes for more 'potency' has become alien to most modern thinkers, we are so locked into a physical mind-set.

First 'cure' was in the early 1980's. I was in the midst of my Anthropology research on the topic and decided to submit myself to a cure. I was having a serious emotional depression that I felt was crippling me. After my interview of a Homeopathic physician (who knew I was doing research as a university student), I asked if he would do a cure on me. He said yes. There then ensued a lengthy Q&A (which I will describe at another time) and he then prescribed and administered a high potency dose of Aurum (Gold). The dosage was in the form of the well-known 'sugar pills', placed beneath the tongue, absorbed quickly into the bloodstream. He alerted me to the changes I would experience though I knew the healing rhythm that would occur from my research. Within minutes the depression lifted - with the healing rhythm proceeding as is typical in Homeopathic cures. (I'll go into later). Within 6 months the depression was gone completely. He had me return only one more time for a repeat dose, but after that no more. His comment was that his most common application was Aurum for depression - and this was in the early 1980's. There is no sustained taking of the medication. One dose of the correct drug begins the healing process in the body and in the subtle bodies - the latter is the essential point.

Homeopathy is looking at the human being's physical body, but also the life/energy body, the emotional body, and the mental body. Disease manifesting physically is only part of the story. The patient has to be willing to observe themselves in all parts of their being.

Second cure had to do with a troublesome rash that actually took years to cure. A mainstream physician would likely have given me a cortisone shot and basically suppressed the symptoms. In Homeopathic terms this suppression of a physical symptom (not a cure but a suppression of symptoms) causes the condition to drive inward to effect a more serious condition, like asthma (often caused by the suppression of rashes). If the asthma is suppressed, the condition drives deeper, to the heart, and so it goes.

In my case, my hometown Homeopathic physician gave me a prescription that initially seemed to work but the rash came back. I wound up moving a long distance away, and my new Homeopathic physician then began trying to find the cure. It took about 2 years - and the break through happened because he had had two other patients with the exact same rash condition that he had successfully treated. He asked me a pointed question about my 'mentals' - which I refused to admit to (though it was an aspect of how I thought about something). Unable to get me to verify the mentals for the drug, he decided to give me a dose anyway, and the healing process was immediate. The skin condition which was extensive, painful and profound across a good potion of both my hands, and had plagued me for years, spreading with alarming speed, literally began receding within hours of having the dosage administered in his office. By 4:00 p.m. I was on the phone to him telling him that the rash was nearly gone (I had gotten the 'high-potnetized' dose at 10:00 a.m. in his office). It was stunning. He reminded me, of course, of the rhythm of the healing and that I needed to be prepared for that swing back-and-forth for a space of time. So it was, but in the end, complete cure - from simply one dose of a 'potentized' drug.

In the subsequent follow-up interview he asked me again pointedly about one aspect of my 'mentals' - this medication had a very specific 'mental' associated with it. For me to have had a cure with this medication I must have had this 'mental'. Sadly - being young, or being sensitive - I continued to deny I had this 'mental' when in fact I did.

Two spectacular cures using Homeopathy. It is very hard to get a good Homeopathist. Like any good physician, the best work from a wealth of knowledge regarding their healing modality, but also intuition. In my two cases I was working with classically trained Homeopathic physicians - not just herbalists, or anyone dabbling in the Homeopathic pharmacopoeia.

'Nuf said for now. Must fly.
 
Last edited:
@Tyger - please do share more when you have the time, lots of good information here for me to explore; rhythm of healing, mentals ... I've heard of Aurum for depression and I'm interested in Nux Vomica for my particular condition.

Another plant I've used in the past for pain is Ghost Pipe (monotropa uniflora) - it has a unique effect in that the pain is present but seems to be beside one and no longer of concern.


Green Man Ramblings: Ghost Pipe (Monotropa Uniflora)
 
To create is to be godlike, no? And in that process both the creator and those who behold the crelation are changed.

If we leave the "rigors of religion" out of this picture then we can appreciate how art making, meditation and mystical prayer can move us towards transformative spaces. No matter who your 'god' is the process of transformation is upon you.

What I see in the artist divine is the command over their tools and their need to bring up to the surface our deepest entanglements. They live through it so we can conceptualize it better for ourselves in the gallery hallwyas and our living rooms, and more authority to them for giving us such ritualistic practices.

Sometimes, Randal, words are flexible for the user in order to express their creative ideas. This will often conflict with literalism, something I only pay attention to for a portion of the time. It's not a problem I need to address as that can create conflict between people. But anyways, let us not tangle this thread anymore with such talk. It is what it is. Let go.

Or as my kids like to say to me often, "Don't judge."

There's so much to be said about your two posts Burnt ... your cinematic examples of illuminative knowledge show how gnostic and mystical vision is brought to wide audience; the role of the true-badour of olde. To give birth without minstrel pain is the Auteur's blessing.

The crisis our gods have today is one of identity because they are all in their adolescence - hence the resurrection of Orthodoxy. How/will the new gods cope with their parent's ancient authority?

"What I see in the artist divine is the command over their tools and their need to bring up to the surface our deepest entanglements. They live through it so we can conceptualize it better for ourselves in the gallery hallwyas and our living rooms, and more authority to them for giving us such ritualistic practices."

This is the psychologizing of art - the process of squeezing the gods (and any other power) out of art so that it is only fit to hang in our living rooms.

What actually is divine in the artist is their tools' command over them and the surfacing of deep entanglements despite their most rigid ego boundaries - what must come up is Godlike ... but any more the must is musty ... St Vitus' dance is today a mere Twerk of the publicist's art.

As for ritual ... we're told to make our own, the only necessity of virtue left is that we haven't figured out how to get rid of it all and are only very dimly aware any more that in trying to do so we've eliminated the basement in which the Boogeyman lived and have become ourselves the monsters ... which is the only point of any and every episode of The Walking Dead.
 
We're just getting started folks ... perhaps there needs to be a thread on language and creativity ... but what is paranormal about those topics ... ?
 
We're just getting started folks ... perhaps there needs to be a thread on language and creativity ... but what is paranormal about those topics ... ?
What is paranormal about art? You mean besides that feeling that the eyes in the portraits lining the wall of the spiral staircase are watching you ... LOL. Good question. I suppose we could look at cases where people think they're the reincarnation of famous artists:

Reincarnation Case of Artist Paul and Mette Gauguin


This might be applicable to consciousness. But is it magic?
 
What is paranormal about art? You mean besides that feeling that the eyes in the portraits lining the wall of the spiral staircase are watching you ... LOL. Good question. I suppose we could look at cases where people think they're the reincarnation of famous artists:

Reincarnation Case of Artist Paul and Mette Gauguin


This might be applicable to consciousness. But is it magic?

LOL ... have at it, Randall ... this thread is YOURS.

Enjoy.
 
I have to say Randall that in these last few pages the discussion has gone one way and you have interjected a few times, pretty much ignoring the direction of the discussion and tried to take it another way. It looks like you don't want other people to have a discussion that you cannot or will not be involved in. Why? (I don't mean why do you wish to change the discussion, I mean why do you not accept others don't want to join you in that direction despite all the evidence that that is what they wish?
 
Me: "What I see in the artist divine is the command over their tools and their need to bring up to the surface our deepest entanglements. They live through it so we can conceptualize it better for ourselves in the gallery hallwyas and our living rooms, and more authority to them for giving us such ritualistic practices."

You: "This is the psychologizing of art - the process of squeezing the gods (and any other power) out of art so that it is only fit to hang in our living rooms.

What actually is divine in the artist is their tools' command over them and the surfacing of deep entanglements despite their most rigid ego boundaries - what must come up is Godlike ... but any more the must is musty ... St Vitus' dance is today a mere Twerk of the publicist's art."
Yes we should make our own rituals and our own art but the role of the Artist, like the Shaman, the Witch, the Concubine and the Seer are all ones we have consciously distanced ourselves from. The only art we can get at, outside of the art we make at home, or that our kids make, is what's squeezed in and out of a tube. Still, it's often the best we've got. I'm not too interested in the gods at all, but much more taken by the edges of human experience and art still maps that out for me - and yes, mostly through that relatively new medium on the block - cinema. I think the long take in film comes closest to the technique of mapping out human experience, both in waking life and dream.

I also have a very deep appreciation for authors whose thinking about their own life, previous artists and the how's of their writing (yes, women and men, both dong and ding, all crafty in their high skills of high strangeness) make a kind of magic out of the written word. They too, suspend time and place and immerse dear reader into an altered plane of existence. Take me, right here, right now, I say to the poem!

A note about the horse movie, like the recent more ritualistic cinema of Guy Maddin, it's on my to do list. But it's bleak, right, so I'll need to set aside time some time I don't have, as my son encourages me to stick with the Rebirth of Mothra movies. I can see why.
turinhorse1.jpg

I think I forgot about Maddin in the film list: Careful is his best. But here's a sample if I can find it that goes along with this discussion and pulls in paranormality as just the way that things are. The Heart of the World, Archangel & Tales from Gimli Hospital are all online. Here's The Eye Like a Strange Balloon...
Are we the Walking Dead? I love zombie movies for their unapologetic despondency as they remind us of how we humans act. After screening Romero's original NOTLD on 16mm just a few a weeks ago daughter comes up to me and says, "Dad, the end that movie - the brain, it goes boom" and her fingers make that explosive gesture. "It's what we do to each other, sometimes" I say.

Haven't really talked much about theatre - how ironic. Isn't it still considered the only art form not yet dead and still vibrantly alive? Perhaps the best conscious magic is to be found here where you are born onto the stage and cry (butchering King Lear on purpose) because that's the real magic for me, just breathing. The trick is to just keep doing that.
 
Last edited:
I have to say Randall that in these last few pages the discussion has gone one way and you have interjected a few times, pretty much ignoring the direction of the discussion and tried to take it another way. It looks like you don't want other people to have a discussion that you cannot or will not be involved in. Why? (I don't mean why do you wish to change the discussion, I mean why do you not accept others don't want to join you in that direction despite all the evidence that that is what they wish?

Actually, I haven't tried to take it the direction of the discussion another way. That is an assumption about my intent. The fact is. I have no specific agenda. I just notice things that seem to be relevant to some aspect of the thread or the discussion and create posts based on that for whoever wants to look at them, including the public at large. Then the people already here just happen to react the way they do. Therefore, contrary to your second assumption, I have no problem accepting that certain people may not be interested in what I have to contribute. That is absolutely their right.

Where I think any hypothetical objections cross the line is when existing participants think that ( barring acceptable content and the forum rules ), that their additional approval should be a prerequisite for allowing people ( including me ) to participate. It's not just about them or me. There is also the general readership to consider, and we don't know how they will react. Some of them might appreciate my point of view and content, or find it useful in some way even if they don't agree with it. Or some of them might think it's the other people here who have an attitude problem ( or whatever it is that this is about ). Either way, I don't appreciate constantly having to justify my participation ( in the open forum or via private messages ).
 
Last edited:
Yes we should make our own rituals and our own art but the role of the Artist, like the Shaman, the Witch, the Concubine and the Seer are all ones we have consciously distanced ourselves from. The only art we can get at, outside of the art we make at home, or that our kids make, is what's squeezed in and out of a tube. Still, it's often the best we've got. I'm not too interested in the gods at all, but much more taken by the edges of human experience and art still maps that out for me - and yes, mostly through that relatively new medium on the block - cinema. I think the long take in film comes closest to the technique of mapping out human experience, both in waking life and dream.

I also have a very deep appreciation for authors whose thinking about their own life, previous artists and the how's of their writing (yes, women and men, both dong and ding, all crafty in their high skills of high strangeness) make a kind of magic out of the written word. They too, suspend time and place and immerse dear reader into an altered plane of existence. Take me, right here, right now, I say to the poem!

A note about the horse movie, like the recent more ritualistic cinema of Guy Maddin, it's on my to do list. But it's bleak, right, so I'll need to set aside time some time I don't have, as my son encourages me to stick with the Rebirth of Mothra movies. I can see why.
turinhorse1.jpg

I think I forgot about Maddin in the film list: Careful is his best. But here's a sample if I can find it that goes along with this discussion and pulls in paranormality as just the way that things are. The Heart of the World, Archangel & Tales from Gimli Hospital are all online. Here's The Eye Like a Strange Balloon...
Are we the Walking Dead? I love zombie movies for their unapologetic despondency as they remind us of how we humans act. After screening Romero's original NOTLD on 16mm just a few a weeks ago daughter comes up to me and says, "Dad, the end that movie - the brain, it goes boom" and her fingers make that explosive gesture. "It's what we do to each other, sometimes" I say.

Haven't really talked much about theatre - how ironic. Isn't it still considered the only art form not yet dead and still vibrantly alive? Perhaps the best conscious magic is to be found here where you are born onto the stage and cry (butchering King Lear on purpose) because that's the real magic for me, just breathing. The trick is to just keep doing that.

This thread's dead, Zed ...

... but we can start a new one on these subjects if you like ... I will in closing just note a loss of interest in film (and story/narrative) as my meditation practice deepens and also the difference in illuminative knowledge and unitive experience.
 
Actually, I haven't tried to take it the direction of the discussion another way. That is an assumption about my intent. The fact is, I have no specific agenda.
That is bogus - disingenuous at the least. Your agenda is clear as crystal - you're trolling the thread. You have no interest in the topic. None. You pop on here in July to get in my face. You're a jerk, Randall, that's why you're on here. That's your agenda.
I just notice things that seem to be relevant to some aspect of the thread or the discussion and create posts based on that for whoever wants to look at them, including the public at large.
Yes, we know about your proselytizing zeal - and here you confirm that your agenda is to hector any thread that dares counter your world-view. You must put your foot in so that the 'general public' can follow the breadcrumbs to your mechanistic matrix world view. I think we've got that, Randall.
Then the people already here just happen to react the way they do.
You should not be on this thread because you have no respect for the content - and unlike you, most of us are not on a mission to convert people - just have a nice conversation, which you will not allow.

This thread is not discussing what you want to discuss. It's that simple. You need to start your own thread to discuss what you want to discuss - as you have in the past. Problem is, of course, that apparently no one wants to discuss what you want to discuss, so your best bet is to come on here to kick up some dust and obscure the view.
Therefore, contrary to your second assumption, I have no problem accepting that certain people may not be interested in what I have to contribute. That is absolutely their right.
It's more than their right - as you yourself have opined on the threads you have started: the OP is the one who sets the agenda for a thread. You claimed that right for yourself on 'your thread' - you recall that? You told those of us who were dragging in spiritual elements to cease posting. We did, and went elsewhere - like this thread. You kick us off your thread - and then follow us here to a thread created in order to discuss what you would not allow us to discuss on your thread. How much clearer can it be what your agenda is? You are trolling - you are a spoiler. You are now here spouting self-righteously that you have the right to post regardless of the parameters laid down by the OP. How is this working, Randall? You set the rules to suit yourself ?

Where I think any hypothetical objections cross the line is when existing participants think that (barring acceptable content and the forum rules), that their additional approval should be a prerequisite for allowing people ( including me ) to participate. It's not just about them or me.
Oh, but it is about you and me, as you well know. We were told by admin not to post where the other is at - and I am very much 'at' here. I have asked you to cease being here. This thread has as it's premise a world view that is not being debated - it is, rather, the back-story for explorations. If you want to debate the world view - start a thread for that debate. On this thread the outstanding premise is that a spiritual world does exist - read the initial post to get the jist. I am well aware that the mere suggestion that a spiritual world exists is somehow offensive to you and you feel obliged to rise up to fend off such ideas like an infection afflicting the world. You are a Fundamentalist Scientism Layperson. You are as bad as any other fundamentalist afflicting this weary world.

There is also the general readership to consider, and we don't know how they will react. Some of them might appreciate my point of view and content, or find it useful in some way even if they don't agree with it.

There it is - you have betrayed what your agenda is about! :rolleyes: React to what, Randall? The spiritual on a paranormal chat site? Wtf?

That's just it, this is not a thread for a debate on the world view presented here on this thread. It is you,
perhaps, who is out-of-sync with the 'general readership' of this site, Randall. It is for those who want to pursue the world view without hectoring from the side-lines - the same way that those keen on UFOs and Abductions want to have conversations here without OTT hectoring reactions.

By insisting on having the
debate you are derailing the thread - which is precisely your intention, of course. This statement of yours is absolutely what your intention is - you are trolling the thread to disrupt it. You are under a considerable illusion that your contributions somehow serve a 'general readership'. I am speechless.

Or some of them might think it's the other people here who have an attitude problem ( or whatever it is that this is about ).

Come on, Randall - you know exactly what this is about. You're not suppose to be on this thread. The only 'good thing' about what you're doing is that you show in spades what kind of person you are - selfish, self-absorbed, and when it comes down to it, a bit nasty, even vicious. I've seen it, had to deal with it.

Either way, I don't appreciate constantly having to justify my participation ( in the open forum or via private messages ).

Really? You don't appreciate it? Well, you have given me purpose on this chat site, Randall. :cool: I do believe it's my obligation to be Paul Revere to your proselytizing fervor - wherever I see it rear it's head. I think it will become clear over time exactly who is trying to censor who - and who is trying to curtail free expression. To those with discernment, it will be very clear what it is you are trying to accomplish, Mr Randall Murphy.
 
Last edited:
But back to your premise. I am starting to think increasingly that the tip of the iceberg that we call conscious reality is a smoke and mirrors show being put on for our limited intellect, or limited biological capacity for perception.
Might you be seeing the human being in a position of powerlessness rather than an amazing being with an astonishing past, a mesmerizing present and a compelling future? We are beings conceived to take hold of a universe that is the densest of all creation. We are observed with awe at the task we are undertaking.
i think that there's a lot we're missing,
No argument from me there - but what we are missing is easily corrected the moment we begin the inner journey imo.
but I would like to ask, from a magical perspective, when you look at the world and really see it for what it is, do you see more awe and wonder or more shock and awe?
For what the world is - when I look at it - I am amazed. My 'magical perspective' is enthralled - after all. I am under the thrall of the world's spell - were I not, I could not be alive, I could not act, feel and think. The longer I live the more in awe I am of the natural and human - the complexity that has been created here across millennia of incarnations by this movement called humanity. The natural world is amazing - the human world is complex - at once heaven and hell.

What happens when I am 'disenchanted'? When the spell is broken? Materialism. Despair. As the character in 'Anne of Green Gables' says to Anne: 'To despair is to turn one's back on God.' I could argue that the 'normal' state of a human being is Magical - and that it is when we lose it that we become 'lost in the labyrinth'.
in this way i keep my magical lens turned down, lest i have to accept so much of the tragic stench of perverted human machinations that i become non-functional. is that too harsh? am i not seeing things correctly?
Is this magic? Or are you talking about the tumult of the soul? I am not sure what you are referencing here. Can you re-state?
i wonder sometimes if the esoteric lens is just another ideal that we long for, to displace the bliss of materialism with not real knowledge but a false illusion or fantasy.
It would be an ideal if it is not grounded in knowledge based upon experience. But here you have to ask: what is experience? Have you ever read a book and thought to yourself: I know these thoughts, they are my own thoughts, I could have written this book, the author just got the words down first. It's like a meeting and a recognition. You know what you are reading is true, is real. What is experience?

Harry Potter is a fantasy novel - but what kernel of it is describing a truth?
from my pov, in the morning, the magician casts a stiff spell in order to tolerate feeling all the human vitriol of all the ages, and that way can still pull purple spider flowers out of the air and make them turn into a splash of hummingbird fireworks for the kids' party later that afternoon. but without that stiff spell to carry her along for the day all would be dross and ash and poison.
What you mean is that we barricade ourselves with fantasies - be they a good book, a religious construct, a magical spell - to withstand the un-enchanted ordinariness of a prosaic lived-life. You are speaking a truth - unearthing the despair of the material reality we find ourselves in. When does that 'material reality' bear in so close that we forget? When do we give up 'childish things'? May as well ask: when do we stop loving? when do we stop feeling enthusiasm for the next turn in the road? when do we begin to think we see a pattern that we then assume will always be the pattern of our lives? when do we stop being new 'like a child' every moment?

The Magic whereof I speak is not the spinnings of the fantasy worlds - which have their own significance (but far harder to 'read'). Magic is everywhere, every moment - within this life, within this world. I am currently teaching optics to upper grade Middle Schoolers. The study of images includes both real and virtual images. A virtual image is one that exists only in the eye of the beholder; a real image may be projected onto another surface. These distinctions raise questions about what we call reality - but such questions are integral to the study of images - for by the fact that they are not objects, images are both real and not real. When we study images cast by lenses and curved mirrors, we observe how the forces of nature behave in a lawful manner, but we are also reminded of the beauty and the power of natural phenomena. Faced with the majesty, mystery and magic of the human eye - and the Camera Obscura - how can anyone stand back and not proclaim the world magic? We can describe so much - we understand so little. Magic is the understanding behind the description. It's at another level. Reached only by magical means - else we remain with feet of clay, conscious only 'of food and the food announcing call.' The quote is from Olaf Stapledon.

A bit of a digression: Stapledon was such a beautiful writer. Gems of lilting beauty everywhere, even when saying the unlovely things pertaining to the context of the story he was spinning: "[Man] is eternally a beauty in the eternal form of things. [...] He is only a fledgling caught in a bush-fire. He is very small, very simple, very little capable of insight. His knowledge of the great orb of things is but a fledgling's knowledge. His admiration is a nestling's admiration for the things kindly to his own small nature. He delights only in food and the food-announcing call. The music of the spheres passes over him, through him, and is not heard. Yet it has used him. And now it uses his destruction. Great, and terrible, and very beautiful is the Whole; and for man the best is that the Whole should use him."

You might like this little bit from the same novel: “There is much in this vision that will remind you of your mystics; yet between them and us there is far more difference than similarity, in respect both of the matter and the manner of our thought. For while they are confident that the cosmos is perfect, we are sure only that it is very beautiful. While they pass to their conclusion without the aid of intellect, we have used that staff every step of the way. Thus, even when in respect of conclusions we agree with your mystics rather than your plodding intellectuals, in respect of method we applaud most your intellectuals; for they scorned to deceive themselves with comfortable fantasies.” Olaf Stapledon, Last and First Men

I love the final passage in Olaf Stapledon's 'Last and First Men': “Is the beauty of the Whole really enhanced by our agony? And is the Whole really beautiful? And what is beauty? Throughout all his existence man has been striving to hear the music of the spheres, and has seemed to himself once and again to catch some phrase of it, or even a hint of the whole form of it. Yet he can never be sure that he has truly heard it, nor even that there is any such perfect music at all to be heard. Inevitably so, for if it exists, it is not for him in his littleness. But one thing is certain. Man himself, at the very least, is music, a brave theme that makes music also of its vast accompaniment, its matrix of storms and stars. Man himself in his degree is eternally a beauty in the eternal form of things. It is very good to have been man. And so we may go forward together with laughter in our hearts, and peace, thankful for the past, and for our own courage. For we shall make after all a fair conclusion to this brief music that is man.” Olaf Stapledon, Last and First Men

LINK: Last And First Men
 
Last edited:
In my view we don't shut ourselves off.......love is the ultimate magic......

Narayanan Krishnan- A companion to the forgotten

 
see, smcder, everything comes back again, he says, arms outstretched & moaning (i'm a zombie pretty much every halloween and most mornings).

what a wonderful and generous post, Tyger. thanks for all of it. that was an excellent response and something to sink down inside of for a while and stretch out. loved it.
 
see, smcder, everything comes back again, he says, arms outstretched & moaning (i'm a zombie pretty much every halloween and most mornings).

what a wonderful and generous post, Tyger. thanks for all of it. that was an excellent response and something to sink down inside of for a while and stretch out. loved it.

I am happily wrong!
 
Back
Top