Nungali

" 15. Nevertheless have the greatest self-respect, and to that end sin not against thyself. The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices. " - Liber Librae

Not really, not with John 1 : 1 - 5 , if that is what you meant as the first paragraph ? I relate the quote above more to John's general message relating to a savior to come , and the Jewish concept of messiah , seem to correlate to Zoroastrian Saoshyant concept . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant

" I am happy with my wokism and take no offence . "

Yes. Can you see the reins which you control your 'vehicle' by ? ( You do realise the images on tarot cards are symbolic , magical and psychological and not an accurate representation of the material plane ? ) 'Couchant ' . Everyone gotta rest sometimes . I am not actually a fan of the Waite deck , I prefer the Thoth deck, on that "chariot' card it is pulled by the four elemental sphinxs . They are couchant too . There are cards which show other relationships to parts of psyche / animals and sometimes they are rampant, volent , naiant, segreant etc . IE 'active' according to their nature ... in the small cards . The major ones - Trumps , show a different dynamic of potential . EG here the three principles are requiring some force to 'keep them in line ' , they and the 'chariot driver' are 'active' . Further on this, you should ask me in tarot forum . .

Well yes, first one needs knowledge OF something , first , hen knowledge of how it / they 'work' within their natures ( the 'understanding' part ) .... the next stage is learning how to balance and strengthen them . The longer answer is the whole magical curriculum . But it all comes down to ; an accomplished magician should be earing to master the forces of their own psyche , using them as tools , not them using you .

yes it has . I said I can supply clinical trials evidence of it . That applies with your 'magickers' to . I am assuming the 'problem ' here is , you know a fair bit about psychology , but not about the real inner workings of magick . Thats like me disputing that psychology can work, when not having much information about it . You mean like those 'parts' added to 'brain' that makes 'mind ' ?

I hope so . My problem : A nice looking middle age lady greets me in a shopping mall , a few years back during on of my rare visits to 'the big city ' . She is enthusiastic, friendly , kind ... she certainly knows me .... from somewhere ???? So I am bluffing it , waiting for some hint , but she busts me ; " You dont even know who I am do you ! " - very indignant . Me ; " Ummmmmm did I nurse you in hospital ? " " Errrr ... used to read your tarot cards ? " " ... Are you from where I live now ? " " I am your Aunt Glenda !!! " Ooooo ... shit ! ( I'm glad I didnt guess ; " Errrmmm ... some guy I used to know that had a sex change ? " )

They are special magic harnesses ... so of course you cant see them The end of a Sphinx's tail can get itchy at times .

The essence shared in both traditions is sometimes clear .

Yes. However the IFS stuff I looked up was talking about what was in the 'mind' . Some people think mind is generated wholly by the brain .... I dont . Even if it is , what has this got to do with my point ? * It may no longer exist during life - personality can change during one's life . So I dont see that as any replacement for mind or spirit . https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/personality-change It seems you ( and I might be wrong , of course ) equate brain wholly with the generation of self and self as personality or personality as that aspect of self that people believe survives (or I am claiming that ) , and personality as that aspect that is claimed to live on after death , therefore ; brain dies , mind dies , personality dies hence no afterlife . Okay , but that was not my focus . I was talking about 'spirits' still being a valid metaphor for the modern recognition of aspects of the self, in the mind and unconscious , just as 'internal family' is a valid metaphor for it * . - I can supply a paper on this if you want , relating to clinical trials ( from the Chief psychologist , Mendicino State Hospital , California , working with the mentally ill for 17 years ) . How does the inability to prove life after death enter into this ?

" This person handed me a marijuana-filled cigarette, which is colloquially called a "joint." " - You 'the Man' Lois ! You wild Bohemian far out dude .

Oh , sorry , yeah .... you mentioned it and then I looked it up , So I am going off the definitions I looked up , and not the unlinked sort of 'definitions' you gave here .

Not in my book . Very related to 'spirits' I would say . I'm not hung up on disproving old ways , and surpassing them with wonderful new accurate discoveries ... that is just a fashion or trend IMO , not any sort of 'new truth ' but a new way of the dominant paradigm consciousness interpreting it within its own terminology .

Jeeze ! I missed that one ! I used to chat to dmattwads a bit ...... ummmm , was it about martial arts ??? ( sometimes I have trouble with facial recognition, which can be a bit embarrassing , I hold back until get an ID from voice, accent, body movement / language , but then when I cant see none of that .... and they change their name .... AND their sex ... Im totally lost

I am only going by the definitions supplied in the links you gave . Look at the bits I quoted . EG " with its OWN unique viewpoint and qualities' - 'with its own ' suggests 'separate from yours' . In the pre psychological view your ' part of us that's our childhood personality or our teenage years personality ' if it DID have similar viewpoints and qualities it would be considered a 'memory ' if it didnt it would be considered something different , a 'spirit' . ' A Spirit ' can have lots of meanings, you know .

Hmmmm ... for some reason I thought you where a fairly recent arrival , but now I see your post count ..... name change was it ? ( Who was Maddie before Maddie ? )

IFS is just another name and another way of saying and another way of looking at 'talking to spirits' . Why is one way of viewing something considered false, old fashioned and uninformed , when modern people stumble upon the same thing and give it new names and identity within the 'citizenship' of modern day rational science ? That is IFS ; " .... combines systems thinking with the view that the mind is made up of relatively discrete subpersonalities, each with its own unique viewpoint and qualities. " Okay, now read up on subpersonality ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpersonality and keep going , the more you go down this rabbit hole the more one can see the correlations in 'spirit' concepts . Just using fancy words and adding more complications ... we dont have 'abiding spirits ' or 'adjustment spirits ' in us any more , they been dispproved by science .. we do however have 'sub personalities ' ... whuch sounds reasonable , until we look at what they are claimed to be ;

" The Black and the White are harnessed to his car ."

My fav bums ... the crazy ones that is ; I will never forget ..... whatshisname - that crazy Turkish nuclear power plant operator that was a Buddhist astral samurai who threatened to come around my house (on the astral ) and kill me with his magic samurai sword . And of course .... Drew Hemple . let's not forget Thunder Gooch , ( aka 'MorePie Guy ' ) the arse grounding wire farting giant kung fu panda - he got modded out and banned but then came back with a paid advertising banner here about himself , mods could not remove it as advertising was managed outside off site by someone else . and one I was rather fond of, The rich kid, upper class British, weather magician - 'Lord Josh Allen ' ; talk about a 'pile on' ! I had to step in and defend him . ( I think people here where just jealous that he had enough money to buy all that 'Daoist magic' paraphernalia that you guys wanted but couldnt afford )

And a lot of psychedelic mushrooms grew up there near the chalet did they ? Just as well you had a skiing robot Rabbi to talk to about that .

Yes, it is the first requisite to philosophy and initiation .

Yes, but his system might be different to yours , you can see where his 'red chakra' is situated below

But, but .... what if your Copernicum 112 is out of balance ?

... and full of bubbles ?

I am finding your posts confusing here , the answers seem obscure . Perhaps its because you have a misunderstanding . The way I see it is the elements where used to classify types of substances , just as modern 'states of matter ' are . You appear to be mixing up areas of classification with the individual things that fit into those areas . Eg , the sea , rain, our emotions would all come under water . where as in the modern form , some elements in the periodic table are liquid in natural form so in a way the elements and the states of matter are all inclusive containing the things in each set , not as a replacement for them or as the things themselves . Your idea might be better explained with statements like ' the modern 'states of matter ' are more inclusive than the old classification of elements ( except I dont think they are )