OneOfFourth wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:32 pm
That's a great place to be in my opinion. The hard part is figuring out what is bullshit and what is not. Maybe one way to go about it would be that if you
know couple of things that are really true, it's often easy to logically determine causes & effects from that which don't feel random. I.e. they paint a specific clear picture of something.
I've noticed that when you have 2+ nuggets of truth that are somehow related to each other (even in a distant way), you can start drawing conclusions from them which make surprising amounts of sense. This usually suggests which info bits are true and which are not.
I took a page from nihilism.
Probably worth reading some Nietzsche. Although people seem to love or hate nietzsche without actually having read his work. He wasn't a nihilist. He viewed nihilism as sort of the dragon in his personal epic. A greatly revered foe.
Anyway. The issue is, what do you absoultely KNOW? so nihilism kinda pops up.
cognito ergo sum "I think therefore I am"... that sounds good. Some have questioned even that... but, i think it's fairly sound.
What about practicality? How many nihilists have starved to death because they weren't sure their hunger was real?
I'd wager not many.
So.. even within a system of percieved stimuli... of variable reliability and trust in the veracity of what's perceived... some of it is simply accepted as "real enough to be take action based on it", ergo the nihilist goes out and eats a sandwich, a fairly realistic sandwich even
So... there's an economy of trust in perception and reason, OUTSIDE of absolute provability. Which is to say...
You only need things to be absolutely provably true, if you plan to go around conceiving of them as such.
Instead, I decided on a kind of probability hierarchy.
I think, I am = true-true
i feel pain, i have needs, i must eat and drink, etc. = not absolutely provable. but in the absence of contrary evidence, lets call it "true for all intents and purposes", or maybe 99% true.
I live in a civilized society = eh... even within all that is perceived, assuming perceptions are accurate, that's about a 50/50.
My school's sportball team is the best! = ok, lets not bullshit ourselves, that's maybe 5% true
I'm typing on a keyboard = it's as realistic as the hunger, lets go with 99% true
other people think, therefore they are? = it's as realistic as the keyboard being real, best as I can tell, so 99%
and so on
somewhere around 75% true or so, lets call those 'truths': "actionable"
Basically, just going with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which the legal system 'tries' to employ.
If I'm not typing on a keyboard, that would not be upsetting, it would be interesting.
Almost all of what I think is in that category, or a lesser category.
Tell me everything I think about the world is all wrong... I'd say prove it.
Not "prove it" in the sense of "fuck off", but really, if you can prove it, very thoroughly (I didn't come to what I think in a void of perception & reason, so it'll take a lot), then I'm interested in your evidence.
If I was eating soup with a spoon, and then all of a sudden, you proved there was no spoon, I mean, that would be really interesting.
Like, I was sure the spoon was guilty of existing, then you go all Perry Mason and do the thing with the objection, and bam, it wasn't the spoon the whole time. And I'm not sure why I tasted the soup exactly, but that's a cool plot twist. Did not see that coming.
hehe. that never happens. and I'm a little more entrenched in ideas than that sounds. but at the bottom layer is just a bit of humility in what I think I know. And building out from there without losing sight of the possible need to restructure ideas.
As you get more into the fringes of what seems kinda true-ish... sorta. I'm happy to entertain multiple differing and directly conflicting ideas. And consider the ideas for their 'utility' as well as their validity, as separate things. Magic fits into this. Is my method of magic literally correct in all of it's varied aspects and conceptual principals? ehhh... lets just go with "I like that it works (when it works)".
There's a few unexpected zingers in the mix though, like precognition. Based on my first hand experiences, that's 99%, as close to true as me typing on this keyboard, or eating soup with a spoon. Now, it's a causality violation... so it creates a gigantic mess, conceptually, in how the universe works. But it's as concretely perceived as anything else i've perceived, so my universe modeling will just have to be messy. "things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler than possible" (Einstein lightly chastising the over-use, or abuse, of Ockham's razor. people too often skip the "which fits the evidence" part, if it's too inconvenient for their world view)
My mentor... now, really easy to say "figment of my imagination". However, she provided proof that she's "something". Basically just brandishing a little omniscience here & there, as needed, to assuage doubts about her existence. There is the possibility that she's a figment of my imagination, BUT, that would mean I'm omniscient, and don't know it. Either way, there's no tidy, simple way to explain her away. And a 'higher self' interpretation of her kinda fits that explanation actually, or a gray area somewhat adjacent to it, and I've considered that possibility often.
But yeah, you learn an area by first learning the cardinal directions, and a few main roads... and then the rest just fills in with the experience of exploring and relating it all to what you know already. I tried to be excruciatingly meticulous in keeping that core framework pure and accurate, as failing that was the downfall of my previous attempt. A lot of rigor in differentiating between experience and assumption. I try not to assume, or at the vary least label assumptions with a big red flag, flashing lights, warning tape, and an angry badger. Sometimes when talking magical stuff, i get into territory which needs more and more red flags, and it can be exhausting labeling everything as such, so just for blanket purposes: some of what i say on magic & philosophy is tentative
(and some isn't tentative, and some is highly utilitarian whether it's explicitly true or not)
Same here. The more open mind you have, the easier it is to notice new and odd things that lead you to new discoveries.
I also try to "fail fast" when piecing together information. I.e. if I've understood something wrong, I try to find that out as fast as possible. Unfortunately it's easier said than done, when going on the first steps on personal esoteric journey. More knowledge and experience makes the "failing fast" process faster (confirmation of what's true and what's not).
yeah.
sometimes people criticize by insinuating I lack uh... conviction.
But I think humans are incredibly good at generating conviction, whether it's true or not. So I just play into that strength, and have no problem creating a tsnuami of 'Will' and conviction, on demand. It's almost easier to generate when you know how the brain conjures such things than it is to fall into it purely by way of paradigmatic happenstance. But then i can reign that in, and look at how things worked with an ounce of realism and open mindedness after
so that lends itself to a 'better informed' body of experience.
To me personally, morality is not relative. You first have to define what is Right and what is Wrong. Here's how someone put it so eloquently:
1. Wrong is
an action which steals or destroys other person's property. Property isn't limited to physical objects, but also includes freedom, life, Rights, etc.
2. Everything else is a Right. In other words: Right is
an action that when taken, does not cause any harm to other sentient beings.
Moral actions are based on Rights.
Immoral actions are based on Wrongs.
I hold that as a truth
Those stem from the Natural Law, i.e. the law of the Universe.
I'd hold that as a truth for the species, rather than the universe.
I'm of the species, so it applies to me. And if something not of the species came along and wanted to violate it, I'd be apposed. But, I don't really think certain species of spiders are "evil" because the young eat the parent.
Like there's tiers to morality:
I think that's wrong.
I think that's wrong and I'll fight you over it.
I think that's wrong, and the stars and the moon and the fish in the sea and every galaxy in existence shares my opinion and considers you evil, even the rocks are ashamed to touch your feet from what you have done.
(I avoid ever thinking the last one, as a pretty strict rule. everybody knows rocks have no shame anyway)
Maybe one way to put it is that "god is the law of the universe"; everything works though the laws that god has set into this reality?
I dunno. honestly 'god' feels like an awkward word for it to me. so much cultural and conceptual baggage. it's just more poetic than "the over arching current of universal consciousness, or something kinda like that"
Nothing can replace actual real world practical hands-on experience and knowledge. That's the testbed for all things we learn in life. If it doesn't work in real life after lots of practise, there's probably something wrong.
Yeah, in the same vein of thought, I kinda feel like an 'overly guided' approach is like having an experience on rails in a theme park, it can be interesting, but it lacks that true spirit of exploration and discovery.
Agreed. Numerology feels to me like it tries to categorise/compartmentalize everything wayyy too much. Kinda like "everything in the world is either a potato or not a potato." Well... yeah... but....
![[unsure]](./images/smilies/Unsure.png "Unsure")
Thales said everything is made of water.
Solid water, liquid water, and gaseous water. (ice, water, steam) that all of reality was just varying forms of water.
Most people mock his viewpoint.
But really he was just saying that matter has specific 'states', and they're mutable, under the right conditions.
so really i think Thales is underrated there.
BUT... it's all a labeling scheme. It turns out there's more than 3 states, there's also plasma, and superfluids, and... well a number of things, even a few which exist only in the cores of certain stars (probably), but... he chose to say 'water', and the later labeling scheme which got broad acceptance chose 'matter', so he gets ridiculed, cuz he didn't pander to a labeling & categorization scheme which didn't exist until after his death. I mean, obviously he thought the different sorts of 'water' had differing properties. metal doesn't melt at room temperature for example, he knew this. sorry, rambling
Anyway, I could say 427 is the number of the great chewing gum. and then figure out ways which different measurements and dates and numbers, correlate to different flavors of chewing gum, but it's not like it has any effect on the measured things. But i'm sure if it caught on at all, then at 4:27pm on may 27th, some group would try to gather to blow bubbles, and think it significant.
Compare that to Ronald McDonald: he doesn't wield such power in people's minds. No one goes praying or summoning for Ronald McDonald when doing magick. On the otherhand Ronald McDonald wields immense power to make people willingly cause themselves obesity and heart diseases. Now that's a power most demons would be envious of. All this power and we're only talking about a fictional character. It's a whole other story if all this gives birth to new spirits, which somehow reflect people's subconscous beliefs/actions related to all things McDonald's.
I think I've seen Ronald McDonald brought up in chaos magic before
And by doing things that way (your way) you automatically steer away from harming other people, which is great
You're using esoteric knowledge/research/journey to make a better version of yourself; you're on a mission to transform/change yourself. There's nothing inherently bad in it and never will be. It's morally super safe way to do esoteric things. It's also the wise way, since aquiring knowledge and skills is the only proper currency we have, in addition to time. Time, knowledge and skills are basis for everything humanity has ever achieved and done.
It's not a desire for a higher road or a gold star though
I feel I have difficult goals, and I'm greedy and utilitarian about getting there. And it sure isn't going to be by way of asking for easy fixes to things i should know how to fix myself
To me personally, traditions = dogma. All the things I learn, must prove themselves to be both usable and true. I'm not especially looking for the complexity or simplicity of the thing I learn. Just that it works and it holds true. I also try to break it into smaller parts to figure out which parts are just extra fat and which are the important parts that actually make it work.
I know I don't become popular by investigating things and scrutinizing them. But that's how I've always approached learning things. I have never been able to just accept something to be true because someone says so. I always have to test it myself to get peace of mind on the topic.
Someone: "That stove is really hot. You'll burn your finger if you poke it."
Me: *pokes the stove with finger* --> "Auch! Yep! It did get burned!"
I don't disagree. I just kinda circle around all the ways a thing might be taken. sometimes anyway.
I'm 'moderately' sensitive to the idea that if i dismiss someone's ideological ecosystem too bluntly, that they may not wish to engage in conversations which 'might' have fruitful ideas contained in them. perhaps for them, perhaps for me.
'moderately' being the operative word though.
Hmm, any pointers on this topic?
ummm
well like, if it's a blow, it's a bunch of force up front, you deflect or dodge it, or absorb it, then it's over. but an ongoing thing, is like a trickle that keeps going and going, like someone shining a bright light in your eyes. you need to break their flashlight, or contrive sunglasses, or step into a different room, or give them a cardboard cutout of yourself to shine it at, or something to disrupt the ongoing annoyance. You can usually just short out the mechanism of the thing. but sometimes it's 'tactful' to leave it working and just distract it onto a fake target. and see if the operator notices the switch. i dunno. maybe even leave it in place for a bit to study it.
bit of chess involved, and psychology, and subterfuge, logistics, planning, experience, creativity, and changing the rules...
Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Ludendorff, cold war psyops, there's lots of reading material which is indirectly applicable to any extension of negotiation by undiplomatic means.
![[gz]](./images/smilies/015-congrats.gif "Congrats"){kind=small}
