Why Subjective Reality Is Delusional IMO

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Maybe the reason I'm quick to discount a higher power is because I don't want a higher power. I would rather be the higher power than follow one.

right on! When someone surrenders, they become the pure awareness that is just that. You get into a state of grace and that grants you the all. However, it's not that you get to use and control power - you are given access to what is best for you and you step through life experiencing glory. That is being God by giving up your laundry list of needs or desires - in such a way that list or even better comes to you.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

People may experience God, but personal experience does nothing to convince me. They could be mistaken, dreaming, "out of their mind" etc. There is no reason to believe in a God because someone tells me God spoke to them. I want logical reasons and evidence for a belief, and there is little to none for any God.

god is not in your head - it's in your heart. it is not something to think about. it is not logical. it is not a belief.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Sure there's an objective reality! I discover it everytime I run into things while I'm walking through the dark (happens more than you'd expect).
I like to think I'm the master of my domain. I do my own thing and it serves me well. If I do what other people or a higher power want, then I'm not being true to myself. That's why whenever I get a new job, I climb the ladder as fast as possible. I don't like having people/gods above me.

-Tim

have you ever considered that the will of a higher power is also what you are already doing? that the higher power is with you in your own desire to go about how you do what you do? and also being true to yourself is exactly what the higher power wants?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

God either exists or doesn't exist.

first you have to define God to say it exists. And once you define it, you have guaranteed being stuck in wondering if if it exists or not. because existing or not is not how God shows up. it's a knowing or an awareness without needing to believe or think or have facts or lists of tests to prove it- like some sort of attempt at an objective science approach.

I don't understand why me believing in him has anything to do with it. Why do I have to believe in God before I receive any evidence?

any evidence you receive is also based on how you define it which is, like above, putting God into a box of a limited idea - which is definitely not where God is.

Sure there is no way to prove them right or wrong, but you can't seek absolute truths. You have to come up with the best explanation based on what you're presented.

yup - that's called having an experience or reality. The only absolute truth is that truth moves so fast there's no way to say what it is - as far as the logical mind tries to pin down absolute truth. As soon as we try to pin it down, we have jumped into the head or logic and partial or linear processing - which in far far complete or whole.

What would you say if someone told you they just saw a flying pink unicorn? You don't require proof to call them wrong. I look at God in the same way, I have no reason to believe in any Gods until I am presented with a logical reason to do so. I don't see why that is such a problem, it isn't really for everything else in my reality.

I'm not sure belief in God is how to know God. I'm not sure having a purely logical reason to believe is how to know God either. It's not to believe something, imho. Belief is like wanting to know it's true for you from only the logical side of you being. We are more that just linear logical thinking beings. To know God doesn't require you believe or think it exists.

well, maybe I'm off my rocker now!!!

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

There is a tremendous amount of evidence for Mounds argument. Back before we had science, God pretty much controlled everything. Once we started learning how the world worked based on natural explanations, God's slice of the pie started getting smaller.

There once was a time God and nature or matter were not split. At some point, science started making rules or equations to approximate reality. And Galileo was at odds with the Church's ideas. Then a split happened. Everything that was mysterious became "spiritual". It's still this way. We don't have a consensus view that reality is spiritual and material as ONE any more. The mysterious spiritual unexplainable stuff is not addressed by science. I was listening to a lecture on neural science. Sure they figured out how to detect neurons firing and decomposed or mapped part of the brain for certain activities, etc... but the what actually turns on these parts of the brain they still have no idea!!! The had to just say - that's consciousness and outside of our study.

In a way, God is a place holder for understanding. In primitive times, it was widely believed and accepted that God made the sun rise and set every night.

That wasn't God - that was an idea about what makes something observable possible. It's making up a rule that says that's why we see that. Saying it's the earth rotating is the same thing, just a different idea or rule. God is not about the rules or explaining why what we observe happens a certain way. God is everything else that is not a rule or a belief. The gods like zeus or whatever they put lighting on, was not God. Same with the sun rising. That was not God. That was their science at the time. The rule they made to explain something we could see.

We now know how this works, and there is no need for God.

I'm sorry. To say it's because the earth rotates relative to the sun - is not to know how this works. There is no way to really explain how that occurs. It is still a model to say what's going on. It still has mystery just like the greek gods of nature. OK, so the earth spins while it goes around the sun - why? Because of gravity. OK. So what the heck is gravity? How is it that the sun of a certain mass and the earth are in a dance in such a way that we see sunrise after sun rise? Because of gravity? Bow to the god of gravity, lol... How damn mysterious is gravity? There is no explaining how it works. They have just modeled the experienced (subjective) behavior into abstract math and labeled it gravity.

Same with disease and sickness, it was once believed that demons were responsible. Of course, now we know what bacteria and viruses are, and there is no need for God.

So the God game would be to ask - how it is that these viruses exist as they do? the wonder of such a thing existing is still in everything that we can experience. If we keep using only our logical brain and say -"oh that's because of this virus and stop there" we are no better that what you pointed out as people looking at the sun rise and pinning it on a god of some kind. Anything, if looked at completely will be full of mystery and in a sense full of God.

Rain, earthquakes, stars, planets, volcanoes, even animals (you and I!), all things once supernatural now have a very natural explanation. The list could continue on for a long time.

So what do you know about rain? Do you see no mystery in how it feels wet? Or why it will rain one day and not the next? This is the mechanical Newtonian thinking we got stuck with when they split nature/matter off from spirit.

The unicorn analogy was made simply to prove a point as well - tremendous claims require tremendous evidence. God is a tremendously complicated theory, which would require a lot more evidence than just "he or she experienced it" or "people wrote about it thousands of years ago".

I think science is the complicated thing in our thinking. God is not. God is not in thinking. If you do make God about thinking you are in the science realm not in the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm includes science. Or all the complicated equations to make a "model" of reality - is not reality.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

The problem is, every revelation was different.

that's another way of saying reality is experience subjectively.

How am I, aside from adhering to the scientific method and considering the evidence, tell which revelation was true? Was Joseph Smith right? Neale Donald Walsch? L. Ron Hubbard? Maybe all of them were right? What about the points they did not agree on?

why would you need to figure out which revelation was ture?

These are the kinds of questions that have to be asked if we are to ever arrive at a sufficiently accurate understanding of reality.

to arrive at a sufficiently accurate understanding of reality - sounds like thinking it's possible to make a model for reality and stop doing science because the equation is "good enough".

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

1. that's another way of saying reality is experience subjectively.

2. why would you need to figure out which revelation was ture?

3. to arrive at a sufficiently accurate understanding of reality - sounds like thinking it's possible to make a model for reality and stop doing science because the equation is "good enough".

1. Doesn't seem like that to me.
2. What's the point of revelations which aren't true?
3. No. It just means that you can never be too sure.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

The proof is actually very simple and it's a math problem.

1. Is technology moving at a pace and in a direction where the progress will eventually result in ever more powerful "entities"? Answer: In under two hundred years the exponential increase in technology has resulted in computers that can already participate in systems thinking as well as humans. Games like chess and language recognition. In this scenario it's easy for me to imagine how combining these expert systems results in an intelligent entity that is smarter in combination than any individual entity. The only thing standing in the way is processing ability when measured in time. Moores Law appears to be accurate so therefore chip speeds are doubling every two years. Moore's Law also applies to all the cascading developments that are derived from computer chips.

2. Is it possible in our objective reality to eventually "evolve" technology to the point where it becomes powerful enough to understand everything eventually? Answer: If technology progress is exponential it seems entirely reasonable and is a mathematical fact

maybe it's asymptotic - never ever reaching the limit but just getting closer, and closer and closer while spewing out equations or new theories that might actually be creating what we look at in the unseen worlds as something we think we can see and look at and study. Richard Feynman virtual particles? Virtual - as in not really there!! ahhaha

The evidence of the possibility of God is in the possibility that we are trying to progress toward something that becomes more and more like what people advocate God is. If God is perfect the only question you have to ask is how long would it take mathematically for something to become powerful enough informationally and materially for it to have possession of every form of information in all the know universe and the ability to process them instantly?

math is god. bow down to math. what the heck would that something be? a number crunching machine?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by SheldonCooper

It is VERY easy to end up thinking you have had an experience, that does not make it true. Saying that they are all right because life is a dream anyway is skipping the question. There is still no evidence for anything paranormal, and personal accounts are not enough because of the afore-mentioned reasons. The current simplest explanation based on all the evidence we have is that the universe, etc is not a dream or anything like that.

that's because we made up the rules and agreed to the universe to present itself to us within that rule set. if paranormal stuff showed up for the average person, they'd go nuts because it breaks too many rules they agreed to experience.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by SheldonCooper

Ultimately, a random person's personal experiences, are no reason for the rest of the world to move to their vision of the world.

actually that's what happens all the time. everyones' personal experience is imprinted into a field that becomes a reality that is available to the next random person as a rule set they can choose to engage in. we are all to some extent stuck in the conditioning of other's personal experiences as we observed and choose what to make out of what we percieve.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

And scientists usually see nothing.

No, they see plenty of weird stuff, they just can't put it in the papers.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

To investigate any particular matter, one way is to check for the existence of a general consensus. This works best for experiences which are common for many people.


Now, where does the consensus approach tend to fail?

It fails, when the experience is uncommon.

the uncommon experience is that which falls outside of some rule set that has been agreed upon by the masses. popular conditioning. or shared/similar conditioning.

the common experience is that which fits in the agreed rule set of how reality operates.

It's kind of relative to what conditioning you are carrying around with you. An uncommon experience might be everyday thing to another.

But for an uncommon experience to occur for someone in the popular conditioning, might just be too much rule breaking - and as such much less likely to occur.

It doesn't mean that these types of people don't exist, or that their experiences are false. It just means that it is foolish of you to rely on a consensus approach, to investigate such experiences.

However, the consensus approach (or mass conditioning) is also exactly what we are kind of stuck with. If my world does not have people levitating on a regular basis, I will not see it or if I did I'd go nuts because it breaks some heavy rules. So to think that is possible might require ditching the consensus (agreeing with ALG).

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

You're assuming I'm completely close minded to the concept which is simply false. I would consider myself an open minded truth seeker. I align what I know to be true based on the evidence my reality presents me.

Reality presents to you that which you have agreed to be true.

In light of new evidence, my map of reality would update. If God came to me it would be cause for an update.

New evidence may not come from the outside. If you wait around, sitting in your conditioned world view, there may never be anything new to update the reality map. If however, you look at your conditioning and view it as just something you either made up or agreed to, you could all for other possibilities. The possibilities would then show up as "evidence" but more like knowing there's more to life then living out a conditioned way of being.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

So, although these experiences are probably life-changing for the people who do have them, they are practically worthless to the rest of us.

It may provide some wiggle room in our mass conditioning. I think those stories come from people that were able to get out of the massed programmed view of what reality is supposed to be. Like, if you never saw an airplane, you'd not think it possible - or even maybe not even have the idea of a flying machine. But when you do see an airplane in the air - you can stretch your conditioned view of that not being possible, into hey maybe that is possible.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The Harvard scientists have reported that John's brainwaves were normal right until he began his channelling, whereupon his brainwaves accelerated to higher frequencies that are not seen in normal human beings. After he ceased his channelling and the "angels" left, his brainwaves rapidly fell back to normal.

cool! was it gamma waves? do you a link?

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

It may provide some wiggle room in our mass conditioning. I think those stories come from people that were able to get out of the massed programmed view of what reality is supposed to be. Like, if you never saw an airplane, you'd not think it possible - or even maybe not even have the idea of a flying machine. But when you do see an airplane in the air - you can stretch your conditioned view of that not being possible, into hey maybe that is possible.

Good point, I have to agree. The thing is, I have already stretched my mind. I believe some aspects of psi, LoA and occultism might be possible. But, I have asked multiple times on this forum to point me in a direction which would yield results, as I have tried these things before without any success. The best response I got was silence.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

"that's another way of saying reality is experience subjectively."
1. Doesn't seem like that to me.

Saying that it doesn't seem like that "to me" is a subjective statement.

2. What's the point of revelations which aren't true?

Damn those liars and pretend mystics.

But I guess my point was that I wouldn't want to have to go figure out if what they say is real for them or not. That would drive me nuts to ask someone if what they say they experienced was real for them or not.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

Good point, I have to agree. The thing is, I have already stretched my mind. I believe some aspects of psi, LoA and occultism might be possible. But, I have asked multiple times on this forum to point me in a direction which would yield results, as I have tried these things before without any success. The best response I got was silence.

yeah, is silence the answer? kind of joking.

and I'm still in a boat like you are in, waiting for the heavens to open up or something. I recently am entertaining the idea that I am running a block on experiencing something else because I want to experience something else. That trying to make something happen ain't going to happen while needing it to show up. So my approach is, actually I have to let go of this too, is to not even care about it. Let it be. Allow. Don't look for it. Don't chase what others say they have experienced to try to make that your experience. Get out of my logical mind/thinking. Have FUN!! Play!! Make it up. Drop into the heart space in some way. Get out of the head.

[branigan]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

OK first off my first point is that everything is based in information. Every single thing around you whether physical or non physical is based in information. Consider this, even if there were no universe at all the one thing that would always exist is information. The fact that there is nothing is still information.

So anyway now that I have gotten the entire substance of the universe to it's lowest level I will show you how if you build up from that singular fact of information existing no matter what that you end up developing our current reality and the elimination of a subjective reality as separate from physical reality. Since information exists from both perspectives how we perceive that information has no basis in reality. All our lenses for our perception are influenced by the physical processes and mental value systems that we create to interpret it.

If Steve goes to Costco and has an urge to purchase wine that choice to purchase the wine is contained in him trying to have different choices because he is actively participating in a subjective reality experiment.

Our imagination of what is possible is in fact possible. If for example we imagine a dragon that breathes fire in our mind that dragon exists and can be created by someone who had enough information to do it. Every possible scenario that we can imagine unless paradoxical is possible.

What is really interesting is when you consider why certain things don't exist. Why isn't the entire Universe made out of water? If you consider how many obstacles stand in the way to complex forms of information it's amazing that they even exist at all.

Consider evolution. The ultimate paradox for science is this. If evolution is true what would human society be like in a million years with our current level of progress? If chip speeds are doubling every two years it seems like we would eventually have a Terminator like scenario where we build something that really is smarter than us. Scientists estimate that the Singularity will happen within 100 years maximum. My point is that if evolution is true doesn't it eventually reach maximum information optimization? Considering that the Universe is billions of years old doesn't it make sense for something to have gotten to that point?

What I'm saying is that maybe objective reality is the only reality because nothing on this planet is more intelligent than us. That reality has to be true because if it weren't we would have been killed by it already. Our complexity means that we are the only beings on this planet that is aware that there even is a reality.

Let's consider a way an entity could be smarter than us to test this theory. Well it could have more than one brain. Picture a million human beings thinking at the same time yet having an awareness of what all of them were thinking at once. So let's say these million people decide to build a house. Well with their separate brains they would be able to build the house instantly.

Information exists in both realities and all physical matter is information down to the smallest particle. Time doesn't exit it only appears to exist because our brain is never the same physical form. Every second of every day neurons are firing and memories are being created which changes the state of your mind making it a different physical object. Brain cells are dieing. Time is matter changing from one form to another. There is no time. If forces didn't alter each other nothing would ever change and would be timeless. The only reason that time exists is because of the space between the the different physical phases of the state of our brain matter. Our conciousness is the updated awareness of those changes and an update of the new state of our reality. Every single thing we do is a means to increase the enjoyment of the passing of time because we have no other choice besides dieing which is an end to that passing of time. Trying to find a purpose for why we have to experience this passage of time and then not experience it abruptly through death has led many people to seek a higher power.

So if evolution leads to power over matter it leads to power over time too. If an entity has figured out a way to live forever maybe it has figured out how to make other things live forever. To extend the consciousness forever and to truly enter a subjective reality. This path leads to faith that something or someone is looking out for us or knows we are here. The only way it doesn't is if we can't imagine something smarter than ourselves.

I disagree mainly with the premise that "the fact that there is nothing" could be considered information. We're fiddling around in the realm of mere wordplay; this is similar to saying something like "what happened before the beginning." Well...nothing.

This also seems to remind me of one of the main flaws in some versions of the ontological argument. Philosophically speaking, something's existence or nonexistence is not a property of the thing (something), but merely a fact regarding it. I dunno why, but this thread reminded me of that somehow.

[Carl Carlson IV]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

OK, so the earth spins while it goes around the sun - why? Because of gravity. OK. So what the heck is gravity? How is it that the sun of a certain mass and the earth are in a dance in such a way that we see sunrise after sun rise?

So what do you know about rain? Do you see no mystery in how it feels wet? Or why it will rain one day and not the next?

So the God game would be to ask - how it is that these viruses exist as they do? the wonder of such a thing existing is still in everything that we can experience.

These are exactly the types of questions I was referring to when I said "The fine tuning of our universe is such a mind struggle that it seems sound to assume there was some intelligence behind it all." Explaining sickness with bacteria is a logical explanation, and bacteria DO exist and offer a solution to that problem. But it still begs the question as to why there is bacteria in the first place. I have no answers for these types of questions, absolutely no idea. I don't know where we came from, what this all is, and why I am experiencing it. However, the vibe I am getting from your posts is you are taking this mystery and applying the label of "God" to it. What's the point?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

first you have to define God to say it exists. And once you define it, you have guaranteed being stuck in wondering if if it exists or not. because existing or not is not how God shows up.

How do you know this? How can you possibly make such a claim? If a concept of God is real, how do you know how "it" shows up? How do you know God can not be defined? Why are you so convinced that God is so mysterious that it can not be understood? I understand we need to form some sort of concept to have a conversation about it, but you are actually committing your own fallacy. You are defining what you find God to be and then telling me I need to stop defining God. Why?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I think science is the complicated thing in our thinking. God is not. God is not in thinking. If you do make God about thinking you are in the science realm not in the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm includes science. Or all the complicated equations to make a "model" of reality - is not reality.

Again, you're telling me what God is.. or rather what it is not.

Lastly, why do the two have to be separate? Is not the question "Is there a God?" a scientific one? Same with ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. There is a truth. Either there is or is not a God(s).

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

These are exactly the types of questions I was referring to when I said "The fine tuning of our universe is such a mind struggle that it seems sound to assume there was some intelligence behind it all." Explaining sickness with bacteria is a logical explanation, and bacteria DO exist and offer a solution to that problem. But it still begs the question as to why there is bacteria in the first place. I have no answers for these types of questions, absolutely no idea. I don't know where we came from, what this all is, and why I am experiencing it. However, the vibe I am getting from your posts is you are taking this mystery and applying the label of "God" to it. What's the point?

deeper into the rabbit hole. I am saying there really isn't a label for God. Some things we can look at and find some rules that make it explainable to a certain point. It's always been that way after we split matter and spirit as two different things. So when we view a sunset, for example, as having only the equations that come from that split - we are not being whole. We end up without spirit in it. We go into our heads and think about math and science instead of being moved and connected and feeling as ONE. We will take a picture instead of sitting with it. We will identify all the colors - more science in a way.

How do you know this?

Definitions are of the mind. It is sin. It is making separation where there is none. To me, God is a whole being awareness that we all have that is not logically definable. It is subjective. God is not an object and there are no objects apart from us observing them so any object is also subjective.

How can you possibly make such a claim? If a concept of God is real, how do you know how "it" shows up?

I'm not sure God is a concept. Well actually when we try to define God it becomes a concept - but that concept is not God. God doesn't show up. It's not something that once a concept has been made will show that God exists. God is not subject to existing or not existing. Duality makes us think God has to exist or not exist. God is not a thing to look at and turn into an object. But even as I write this I feel too conceptual about it myself.

How do you know God can not be defined?

Because definitions are part of duality and God is not a duality thing that can be labeled. The Tao de Ching helps in saying: The Tao that can be Named is not the Tao. I know that's not Biblical. But all religions are just approximations at trying to name God. They all are not able to but try to.

Why are you so convinced that God is so mysterious that it can not be understood?

It can be known in the heart space. I am convinced God can not be understood with the logical linear mind because that is just the part of our thinking that separates things. As soon as you separate things - you are in duality and there is no hope of knowing wholeness (God) or holiness.

I understand we need to form some sort of concept to have a conversation about it, but you are actually committing your own fallacy. You are defining what you find God to be and then telling me I need to stop defining God. Why?

I have also sinned this way because I too am in duality for the most part and an over thinker and often not at all in my heart space where God is found to be whole and pure awareness without any emotions to muck things up - no judgments, no definitions, no sin, no thinking - complete one. So I can only approximate how I notice God in my experience when I write. And I do not wish to be hypocritical - but damn duality for that. I do know, when I am able to touch peace in my body, that to me is God but even saying that is not going to define God. Words betray it. I am sorry. I have attempted to not define God. Because I don't think God is in a definition. Or a belief or a thought.

Again, you're telling me what God is.. or rather what it is not.

Lastly, why do the two have to be separate? Is not the question "Is there a God?" a scientific one?

No I don't think it's a scientific question. I also don't see that they are separate. Didn't I say spiritual include science realms? It's all one big whole and God is the all of it. But subsets are not God. So to want a definition of God is to separate and sin.

Same with ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. There is a truth. Either there is or is not a God(s).

I don't know. Sorry. Truth is in the eyes of the beholder. subjective. Make it up and believe it for yourself and say it is the truth - that works. But it is a subjective truth for the person doing that - which is never the complete truth (God). As long as we have a perspective we are lying to ourselves about what reality is. Because reality doesn't fit in our linear heads. I am indeed off my rocker writing this. oh well, sorry and don't worry about making any sense of what I wrote.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

cool! was it gamma waves? do you a link?

I saw it in a documentary, I think it was by the BBC. The segment with the scientists was just like six or seven minutes out of the overall documentary (an hour long). You could try to find it on Youtube, I guess.

[Piercetheveil]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Wasn't the name "Yaweh"? Or heck, Adonai, Elohim, Lord, Jehovah, Allah?

The Tao that can be named is not the Tao.

Same with God, to me, in a way. The name itself means nothing. It actually causes a limitation by naming it becomes concept.

And what is it about "thou shall not worship false idols"? Wouldn't needing to insist there is a "proper" name for God kind of like worshiping a false idol?

Yep, kinda the modern awe point I was making.

[Carl Carlson IV]

@wolfgang - please don't apologize for giving your opinion! i'm greatly enjoying this conversation and us sharing what we think we know. I agree that no one can ever really explain the "concept" in any true meaningful sense,but that doesn't mean it's not important. I'm on a phone so no able to reply in depth but will when I'm able to. Even though we can never truly understand god or whatever you want to call it, it's still a discussion worth having.... Even if our logical minds can never grasp it.

[Mounds]

What about the possibility that were the product of millions of years of evolution? Wonder how that fits into the equation.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

Godot, I'm still waiting for you to point me in a direction of the occult which actually works

Oh, sorry. I missed your post.

Anyway, there are many occult schools, just as there are many different religions. There are also various schools, about psychic ability, paranormal phenomena etc.

However, if you look closely at them, you may be able to discern some fundamental principles (I do, anyway). In fact, I see practically all religions as merely different maps of the same territory.

If you would like to try something hands-on and paranormal, then you might consider taking a two or three-day Silva Method course (if there's a centre near you).

I attended one such course some years ago, and it was an eye-opening and enriching method for me. Although nowadays I do not really use the Silva Method (in its "pure" form) very often, the course has given me the basic understanding and confidence to venture into other areas and also develop my own personalised approaches.

If you would like something more overtly occult, and yet do not want to go "over the top" and start looking crazy to your family members, take a dip into the occult via this book entitled "Instant Magick" by Christopher Penczak which will teach you the fundamental principles, applied without any elaborate rituals or tools.

If you feel uneasy about any of this stuff, I would suggest that you simply meditate regularly, and consistently try different meditation methods, and keep going "deeper".

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, sorry. I missed your post.

Anyway, there are many occult schools, just as there are many different religions. There are also various schools, about psychic ability, paranormal phenomena etc.

However, if you look closely at them, you may be able to discern some fundamental principles (I do, anyway). In fact, I see practically all religions as merely different maps of the same territory.

If you would like to try something hands-on and paranormal, then you might consider taking a two or three-day Silva Method course (if there's a centre near you).

I attended one such course some years ago, and it was an eye-opening and enriching method for me. Although nowadays I do not really use the Silva Method (in its "pure" form) very often, the course has given me the basic understanding and confidence to venture into other areas and also develop my own personalised approaches.

If you would like something more overtly occult, and yet do not want to go "over the top" and start looking crazy to your family members, take a dip into the occult via this book entitled "Instant Magick" by Christopher Penczak which will teach you the fundamental principles, applied without any elaborate rituals or tools.

If you feel uneasy about any of this stuff, I would suggest that you simply meditate regularly, and consistently try different meditation methods, and keep going "deeper".

Thanks, I will look into it, that book looks really good, I might consider purchasing a Kindle version.

EDIT: The Kindle version is not available in Europe Oh well, I might just get it shipped then.