What is magic? How does magic work?

[goldisheavy]

That's because some people like talking or listening to other people regardless of the subject matter (and by the same token, dislike talking or listening to some other people regardless of the subject matter). Manitou might enjoy listening to you, e.g., regardless of what you're talking about.

 

Ahh! This is a new concept for me. Meow!

[manitou]

Wait a second. You think this discussion is wonderful but you don't know what the topic of discussion is?

 

 

Not feelin' confrontational today, goldi....

[Taomeow]

Hi Taomeow,

 

I just finished cleaning one of my fish pond filters. I decided to have some music to listen to while I was doing that. I selected my collection of soft rock music from the 1960s. The second group to play was The Lovin' Spoonful. Their second song to play was "Do You Believe In Magic". My thoughts immediately went to you.

 

For your pleasure:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=o89iKsKw19M

 

Thank you for the song.

 

Second song of the second group? A very faint echo of the resonance of what you were talking/thinking about just prior to hearing it, of the kind that happens every day and doesn't mean much. If it was the first song you heard with the discussion still close in time and on your mind, it would have been a bit stronger. No, let me rephrase: if you resonated with the subject matter more, it would have been the first song to play.

 

However, if you start noticing such "coincidences" more, and paying attention to the ones that resonate with you more, that's dipping a toe in the flow of real (not pop and not belief-based and not stage) magic, the sturdy survivor of all those assaults on its very existence by all the weapons of mass instruction used against it over the centuries. If you do, and feel something, it means your toes weren't too badly bruised and numbed out by all those weaponized marbles falling on them.

[goldisheavy]

wonderful discussion....

 

Maybe it would be helpful to define what exact magic we're talking about? It seems like there's a couple different kinds, and I'm not sure which one we're talking about.

 

Are you talking about the intentional magic that a magician would cause to happen by sleight of hand? Or manipulating people's attention in one direction while the real action is happening elsewhere?

 

Or are we talking about the magic of wu-wei? Of not-doing? Castaneda would also call this 'setting your intent' (on a result) and then not-doing until the conditions come about.

 

Hi Manitou,

 

I think we are all talking about the last type of magic you mention (the one Castaneda talked about), although I wouldn't quite describe it the same way. Intent proceeds without a break. I don't think it can be turned on or off. Intent is more like a river, it changes course but it's always in effect, always ongoing. So when we say "set the intent" we don't mean turn it on and set it on a specific goal. I think we mean "change course from how it used to be before." Once the course has been changed, one maintains course. Maintaining course is effortless (that's the not-doing part). Changing course is also effortless if the person is ready to live the life of a mage (sorcerer, witch, bruja, whatever you want to call it). Otherwise changing course requires effort. This means inner effort and sometimes it also means external effort in the form of a proper ritual.

[Taomeow]

Ain't that the wu wei...

 

[Marblehead]

Thank you for the song.

 

Second song of the second group? A very faint echo of the resonance of what you were talking/thinking about just prior to hearing it, of the kind that happens every day and doesn't mean much. If it was the first song you heard with the discussion still close in time and on your mind, it would have been a bit stronger. No, let me rephrase: if you resonated with the subject matter more, it would have been the first song to play.

 

However, if you start noticing such "coincidences" more, and paying attention to the ones that resonate with you more, that's dipping a toe in the flow of real (not pop and not belief-based and not stage) magic, the sturdy survivor of all those assaults on its very existence by all the weapons of mass instruction used against it over the centuries. If you do, and feel something, it means your toes weren't too badly bruised and numbed out by all those weaponized marbles falling on them.

 

Hehehe. You done good. Remember though, I am a materialist so there are some things that just don't fit into my box.

 

But don't sell me short. There is a big difference in my mind between the unnatural and the extra-natural - those thing that happen rarely in life.

 

As long as I can put some of "my" logic, flawed as it might be, on a concept, I can deal with it.

 

Ya' know, Voo Doo is real. Yes, real for those who believe in it. Looking at it this way is the only way I can deal with it.

 

Ah!, my marbles. They all are now at ground level. Can't fall any further. No brain, no pain.

[Taomeow]

Ya' know, Voo Doo is real. Yes, real for those who believe in it. Looking at it this way is the only way I can deal with it.

 

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1985) by Wade Davis is a book you might enjoy reading. (Please disregard the Hollywood treatment of the subject... sheesh, I can keep saying it till the cows come home... the cows never come home anymore, and everybody thinks voodoo is what the movies told them it is.)

 

Wade Davis is a researcher with Ph.D. degrees in biology, anthropology, and enthobotany, all from Harvard University. He started out his investigation of Haitian voodoo by being sent on a research mission. He ended up becoming an initiate, practitioner, and possibly priest of voodoo. (Yes, a less-known case of the Castaneda syndrome... this happened to materialistic, scientific, thoroughly indoctrinated "researchers" of these things on occasion... more often than once or twice, per my sources... Michael Harner the scientific "researcher" of shamanism joined this glorious company too... and quite a few others...)

[Marblehead]

Yeah, my cows never come home any more either. Hehehe.

 

Wade Davis is a researcher with Ph.D. degrees in biology, anthropology, and enthobotany, all from Harvard University...

 

Yes, even the best educated people on the planet can be drawn into aspects of life such as this. I try to not make value judgements but I never hesitate to voice my opinion. (You've noticed that, haven't you? Hehehe.)

 

Voo Doo's power is enhanced by the hallucinogens that are used in most of the activities.

 

Thanks for the reading recommendation. I don't read that much anymore. I still have a couple translations of the TTC that I haven't read.

[Marblehead]

My personal favorites were the colorful sequin beaded pieces.

 

WoW! You brought back a wonderful memory for me with that. Love beads, that I still have, that I bought in Paris from an Algerian.

[Birch]

" He ended up becoming an initiate, practitioner, and possibly priest of voodoo. "

 

So that's what it was.

 

Did I mention he and Narby are over at Reality Sandwich doing an online course in shamanistic stuff? I think it was quite expensive.

[Birch]

Everything you say makes perfect sense to me and nothing you said above contradicts anything I am saying. I think the difference here is that you and I have different ideas about what is mind. You might think that the mind is something locked away privately in your skull. I don't think that way at all. By believing in the Taoist deity, you've magically empowered the deity to be what it is. Secondly, your belief in that deity does not contradict your other beliefs -- this means it's a coherent and effective belief for you (and likely for many others as well). And it all worked nicely.

 

So you tend to ascribe the results to the specifics of your practice, such as the specific deity, the specific ritual and so on. I ascribe the result to something less specific, to your intent and to the general principles of manifestation (intent, coherent state of mind and possibly some other principle I am forgetting). So in my way of thinking, someone can get the same result as you from an Egyptian deity. Or you can even get the same result from a completely fictional deity that's been properly empowered. So a Chaos magician can empower Mickey Mouse as a deity and get the same results if the empowerment is good enough.

 

This in no way means that the Taoist deities (or vajrayana deities, or Egyptian, etc.) have no value. They do. The value they have is that they have the weight of tradition behind them, which makes them more believable and more acceptable for many people. And this is important. When something is more believable than something else, we can say it is more coherent with your mentality. And like I said, coherency is critical for magic. So if Taoist deities sound most plausible and most interesting to you, they will be the most powerful and the most effective deities for you and there is no practical reason to change anything for you. Key word "practical." If you're not content with something that just works, if you want to know how it all works under the hood in a more general and more universal sense, there is a good reason to keep investigating.

 

Happy rituals!

 

" You might think that the mind is something locked away privately in your skull. I don't think that way at all."

 

Yes I'd figured your concept of mind had to involve "non-locality" in some form or another. So what you're saying is the intent of TaoMeow coincided with the intent of some other people and brought the respective objects of intent (getting rid of a car vs. acquiring one) together at the "right" point for all concerned?

 

Digging into "non-locality". I'd like to understand it better. There could be "fake" non-locality (as in the example of mirror-neurons). I'm guessing you'd say that in practice it doesn't matter. I suspect it does matter, quite some.

 

The other thing you said somewhere (I think on this thread) was that mind pre-empts body and body catches up. I have experience that the reverse is also the case. The ole "jing, qi, shen' thing? Is "shen,qi, jing" ever mentioned? I haven't seen it so far. And I figure that might have quite a lot to do with this magic stuff.

[goldisheavy]

" You might think that the mind is something locked away privately in your skull. I don't think that way at all."

 

Yes I'd figured your concept of mind had to involve "non-locality" in some form or another. So what you're saying is the intent of TaoMeow coincided with the intent of some other people and brought the respective objects of intent (getting rid of a car vs. acquiring one) together at the "right" point for all concerned?

 

Yes. For example, how do we all end up on this forum? Our intents coincide, right? Why should magic work any differently? The thing is that we often believe that things just don't coincide in a beneficial way very often, or that they do so only randomly. Magicians believe they can encourage, provoke or evoke such coincidences on purpose, willingly.

 

Digging into "non-locality". I'd like to understand it better. There could be "fake" non-locality (as in the example of mirror-neurons). I'm guessing you'd say that in practice it doesn't matter. I suspect it does matter, quite some.

 

So it's going to matter for you. You believe in neurology very strongly. You can't just pretend your way out of that belief. It doesn't work like that. Belief transformation is the hardest thing there is in this whole world. Going from believing into neurons to believing into infinite mind is a huuuugggeeee change. Huge. It affects almost everything you believe and not just one or two beliefs.

 

If you say something matters, then there is a very good chance it does. My view doesn't contradict the materialist experience. Materialists experience phenomena in a materialistic way and that way of experience is valid for them. Furthermore, they are very much unlikely to see any genuine magic in their lives and most likely any magic materialists encounter is going to be simply fraud and scams. That's the intent (karma) of the materialist manifesting. They get what they believe in and there is no way to pretend out of it.

 

Changing beliefs requires life-long dedication to serious spiritual work replete with logical analysis, experience, or both (preferably). Often a significant belief change can only be precipitated through a cataclysmic event or a near-death experience. Why? Because sometimes nothing less can actually budge the person's worldview. Sometimes logical analysis is sufficient. Sometimes you have to get whacked with lightning on your head, or be in a huge car accident to get a new perspective on life. That's just how it is, in my opinion/experience.

 

So when we talk about beliefs it makes no sense to denigrate them as in, "oh it's just beliefs". It's not "just." Beliefs run deep deep deep. When it comes to our core beliefs we are often willing to die 100 times in a row than to give them up. Still, all beliefs can be changed. But what that means shouldn't be underestimated or slighted.

 

The other thing you said somewhere (I think on this thread) was that mind pre-empts body and body catches up. I have experience that the reverse is also the case. The ole "jing, qi, shen' thing? Is "shen,qi, jing" ever mentioned? I haven't seen it so far. And I figure that might have quite a lot to do with this magic stuff.

 

Yes, it works both ways. But if the body controls the mind, that's not a good modality. It's like a horse carriage controlling the horse. Not good. And yes, horse carriage can have an effect on the horse. The link between the horse and the horse carriage goes both ways. But when the horse is in charge that's a virtuous coupling. And when the carriage is in charge of the horse that's a troubled coupling. Both mind and body will affect each other no matter what though. I think most magicians want to rely more on the mind and less on the body because the mind is much more flexible and resourceful than the body. The body is very limited. The mind is limitless. Of course it's better to make your home in the limitless. The mind is the center of power.

Edited May 24, 2011 by goldisheavy

[doc benway]

Interesting stuff.

Those interested in magic may also enjoy "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" and some of Alejandro Jodorowsky's work on healing with Tarot.

Great stuff.

[manitou]

Hi Manitou,

 

I think we are all talking about the last type of magic you mention (the one Castaneda talked about), although I wouldn't quite describe it the same way. Intent proceeds without a break. I don't think it can be turned on or off. Intent is more like a river, it changes course but it's always in effect, always ongoing. So when we say "set the intent" we don't mean turn it on and set it on a specific goal. I think we mean "change course from how it used to be before." Once the course has been changed, one maintains course. Maintaining course is effortless (that's the not-doing part). Changing course is also effortless if the person is ready to live the life of a mage (sorcerer, witch, bruja, whatever you want to call it). Otherwise changing course requires effort. This means inner effort and sometimes it also means external effort in the form of a proper ritual.

 

Then I do indeed understand what you're talking about. The last type. Sorry for the silly question.

[Birch]

Thanks for the replies Mr GIH.

 

I'll have to cut it up because I can't make multi-quote work either

 

 

"Yes. For example, how do we all end up on this forum? Our intents coincide, right?"

- Alright

 

"Why should magic work any differently? The thing is that we often believe that things just don't coincide in a beneficial way very often, or that they do so only randomly. Magicians believe they can encourage, provoke or evoke such coincidences on purpose, willingly."

- Your belief is that intent is at the root of magic? I don't know enough about either to say whether it is or it isn't.

 

"So it's going to matter for you. "

- Isn't that a bit simple? "You believe and so there you go, something matters for you?" Is that it?

 

"You believe in neurology very strongly."

- Well no, actually, I see it as a variant/translation of something I don't know a huge amount about, but it sort of makes sense to me. I guess it's all that time fiddling with meridians and qi-gong and stuff.

 

"You can't just pretend your way out of that belief." Why not? If I'm only using it as a translation?

 

"It doesn't work like that. Belief transformation is the hardest thing there is in this whole world. Going from believing into neurons to believing into infinite mind is a huuuugggeeee change. Huge. It affects almost everything you believe and not just one or two beliefs."

- I'm interested in all this because you keep saying I believe things when I reckon I'm just using them for convenience.

 

"If you say something matters, then there is a very good chance it does. My view doesn't contradict the materialist experience."

I'm not even sure I know what the materialist experience is. What is it?

 

"Materialists experience phenomena in a materialistic way and that way of experience is valid for them." How do you know??

 

"Furthermore, they are very much unlikely to see any genuine magic in their lives and most likely any magic materialists encounter is going to be simply fraud and scams. That's the intent (karma) of the materialist manifesting. They get what they believe in and there is no way to pretend out of it." Unless they're pretending to be materialists in the first place?

 

"Changing beliefs requires life-long dedication to serious spiritual work replete with logical analysis, experience, or both (preferably)." Is that true or is it just your belief ?

 

"Often a significant belief change can only be precipitated through a cataclysmic event or a near-death experience. Why? Because sometimes nothing less can actually budge the person's worldview."

- Why not? Isn't that why we're doing a bunch of meditation and qi-gong

 

" Sometimes logical analysis is sufficient. Sometimes you have to get whacked with lightning on your head, or be in a huge car accident to get a new perspective on life. That's just how it is, in my opinion/experience."

- Did you get whacked? I keep getting this idea that you're way far too logical and mind-driven for me to understand a lot of what you're saying.

 

"So when we talk about beliefs it makes no sense to denigrate them as in, "oh it's just beliefs". It's not "just." Beliefs run deep deep deep. When it comes to our core beliefs we are often willing to die 100 times in a row than to give them up. Still, all beliefs can be changed. But what that means shouldn't be underestimated or slighted."

- ALL of them can be changed?

 

 

 

"Yes, it works both ways. But if the body controls the mind, that's not a good modality. It's like a horse carriage controlling the horse. Not good."

- Why not?

 

" And yes, horse carriage can have an effect on the horse. The link between the horse and the horse carriage goes both ways." - Well, see isn't all this qi-gong about understanding this a lot better?

 

"But when the horse is in charge that's a virtuous coupling. " - Why? Doesn't it "depend"

 

"And when the carriage is in charge of the horse that's a troubled coupling. Both mind and body will affect each other no matter what though." - I know!

 

" I think most magicians want to rely more on the mind and less on the body because the mind is much more flexible and resourceful than the body. The body is very limited. The mind is limitless. Of course it's better to make your home in the limitless. The mind is the center of power."

- Yes, I figured a top-down person might come up with something about that

[goldisheavy]

Thanks for the replies Mr GIH.

 

I'll have to cut it up because I can't make multi-quote work either

 

 

"Yes. For example, how do we all end up on this forum? Our intents coincide, right?"

- Alright

 

"Why should magic work any differently? The thing is that we often believe that things just don't coincide in a beneficial way very often, or that they do so only randomly. Magicians believe they can encourage, provoke or evoke such coincidences on purpose, willingly."

- Your belief is that intent is at the root of magic? I don't know enough about either to say whether it is or it isn't.

 

Yes. It's normal not to know something. The answer is to investigate. I suggest the best way to investigate the influence of intent is via lucid dreaming. Not only will you very likely learn something interesting and surprising, but lucid dreaming is fun in its own right.

 

"So it's going to matter for you. "

- Isn't that a bit simple? "You believe and so there you go, something matters for you?" Is that it?

 

It's that simple. Of course people hate when things are simple. They look for complexities. Just keep in mind beliefs can be profoundly deep and silent. By "silent" I mean we don't necessarily express everything we actually believe in. If you accept these small but very significant provisos then yes it's that simple.

 

"You believe in neurology very strongly."

- Well no, actually, I see it as a variant/translation of something I don't know a huge amount about, but it sort of makes sense to me. I guess it's all that time fiddling with meridians and qi-gong and stuff.

 

OK, then all that time spent fiddling with meridians has shifted your perspective on neurology. Your beliefs are now somewhat different than before you started your meridian practice.

 

"You can't just pretend your way out of that belief." Why not? If I'm only using it as a translation?

 

What I mean is that for change to have effect it has to be a sincere one. People think that if one day they wake up and repeat "gravity is not real" three times, it will remove the law of gravity. Obviously that kind of exercise and approach is pretentious and will accomplish nothing whatsoever, except possibly frustration and disappointment.

 

If you repeat "gravity is not real" three times with a degree of sincerity, then you'll produce a very very very very small change in your experience of gravity, and possibly in your experience of society experiencing gravity. Why only such a tiny change? It's because gravity is a huge and deep pattern that's hard to reverse even in dreams (try it during lucid dreaming; try it 10 times and I think you'll experience some success but also a number of failures -- that's what happened when I tried it anyway). But there are many more superficial patterns that are more accessible.

 

"It doesn't work like that. Belief transformation is the hardest thing there is in this whole world. Going from believing into neurons to believing into infinite mind is a huuuugggeeee change. Huge. It affects almost everything you believe and not just one or two beliefs."

- I'm interested in all this because you keep saying I believe things when I reckon I'm just using them for convenience.

 

You believe in reckoning and convenience then. Seeing your beliefs is like seeing your nose. It's very hard without a mirror. Sometimes the only way to know what you believe is to get strongly tested in a desperate situation. Until such time you may only guess what your beliefs are, or you may assume you have no beliefs.

 

"If you say something matters, then there is a very good chance it does. My view doesn't contradict the materialist experience."

I'm not even sure I know what the materialist experience is. What is it?

 

Chairs stick to the floor. If you sit on a chair, you don't drop through it. Objects in space appear in a consistent and stable fashion. Changes happen according to laws of physics. Etc.

 

"Materialists experience phenomena in a materialistic way and that way of experience is valid for them." How do you know??

 

I was and to an extent still am one of them (habits die hard). I know from personal experience.

[goldisheavy]

"Furthermore, they are very much unlikely to see any genuine magic in their lives and most likely any magic materialists encounter is going to be simply fraud and scams. That's the intent (karma) of the materialist manifesting. They get what they believe in and there is no way to pretend out of it." Unless they're pretending to be materialists in the first place?

 

Right. The degree of sincerity is always important. Not every materialist is as committed to that worldview as every other. For some people the belief in the material nature of phenomena is backed by many interdependent beliefs that are also strong, deep and sincere in their own right. For other people, that network of supporting beliefs is smaller and shallower.

 

But if materialism is only a pretense, then a person is not a true materialist in the first place.

 

"Changing beliefs requires life-long dedication to serious spiritual work replete with logical analysis, experience, or both (preferably)." Is that true or is it just your belief ?

 

It's true for me because it's my belief and it's not likely going to change either. Nor do I want to change it. It's also going to be true for a lot of people because the people I meet here are not too far off my intent, because all meetings represents coincidences of intent, remember?

 

"Often a significant belief change can only be precipitated through a cataclysmic event or a near-death experience. Why? Because sometimes nothing less can actually budge the person's worldview."

- Why not? Isn't that why we're doing a bunch of meditation and qi-gong

 

People can't practice qi-gong if they don't believe in it. For many people qi-gong is just crazy juju and they won't even get the slightest motivation to even try practicing it.

 

" Sometimes logical analysis is sufficient. Sometimes you have to get whacked with lightning on your head, or be in a huge car accident to get a new perspective on life. That's just how it is, in my opinion/experience."

- Did you get whacked? I keep getting this idea that you're way far too logical and mind-driven for me to understand a lot of what you're saying.

 

I can't see you having any problems. I think it's mostly your insecurity speaking just now. You're just as mind-driven as anyone.

 

"So when we talk about beliefs it makes no sense to denigrate them as in, "oh it's just beliefs". It's not "just." Beliefs run deep deep deep. When it comes to our core beliefs we are often willing to die 100 times in a row than to give them up. Still, all beliefs can be changed. But what that means shouldn't be underestimated or slighted."

- ALL of them can be changed?

 

If that's the intent, then eventually yes.

 

"Yes, it works both ways. But if the body controls the mind, that's not a good modality. It's like a horse carriage controlling the horse. Not good."

- Why not?

 

Observe and you'll see.

 

" And yes, horse carriage can have an effect on the horse. The link between the horse and the horse carriage goes both ways." - Well, see isn't all this qi-gong about understanding this a lot better?

 

Yes, it's one of the ways.

 

"But when the horse is in charge that's a virtuous coupling. " - Why? Doesn't it "depend"

 

It doesn't depend because by definition we assume that the horse is more alive, and thus more precious than the carriage. If you think the carriage is more alive and more precious then you simply change how I will phrase my point without actually changing the heart of my point. The heart of my point is that something is more alive than something else. Something leads. Something else follows. That which leads is more powerful, more alive, and more precious. Don't get lost in words. Look only into the heart of the meaning.

[Birch]

Yeah I can see you're going to annoy me on the choice of words thing with some circular argumentation skills I just don't have

Bummer

 

I'm not actually that insecure BTW Telling me I am doesn't make it so - which is why I tend to oppose the throwing around of the "you-word" . I apologize for using it myself. It only encouraged you

 

Back to this one later. I'm going to go and think about it...

[Birch]

Alright, I've been mulling this one over. Kind of thinking about it and also not thinking about it (I often attempt both, not sure which produces any results, but anyway...)

 

 

"Right. The degree of sincerity is always important. Not every materialist is as committed to that worldview as every other. For some people the belief in the material nature of phenomena is backed by many interdependent beliefs that are also strong, deep and sincere in their own right. For other people, that network of supporting beliefs is smaller and shallower.

 

But if materialism is only a pretense, then a person is not a true materialist in the first place. "

 

You've started with words that complicate already. A "true" vs not a "true" materialist. Are you saying that "truth" is measurable by degrees of sincerity? There's a long road to go down about truth and I'm not sure it's a good one to attempt in a discussion about magic...

 

But anyway, if you're calling a "materialist" as you see it and a "pretend" one (that you can't see) something else, well why not just call it something else? Maybe an 'insincere materialist" or "a maybe materialist" because you said you don't know how they experience it. I'm not very good at the argument thing because there's too much in every single word to deal with.

 

 

 

"It's true for me because it's my belief and it's not likely going to change either. Nor do I want to change it. It's also going to be true for a lot of people because the people I meet here are not too far off my intent, because all meetings represents coincidences of intent, remember?"

 

Yeah, not sure about this one either. Are you're saying truth for anyone is only belief and you'll hang on to that whatever happens and you don't want to change it? Or are you saying it's just that the way you see truth is like a belief? And you didn't say why?

 

And lots of other people are going to agree with you because you've intended they will?? And you're only meeting people whose intent coincides with yours? But you didn't say whether it was coinciding to agree or to disagree...I dunno, I think I come on TTB's quite often because I think that having disagreements furthers my thinking and contemplation. Is that what you meant?

 

 

 

"People can't practice qi-gong if they don't believe in it. For many people qi-gong is just crazy juju and they won't even get the slightest motivation to even try practicing it."

 

Well this is weird, because I didn't believe in it either and I came to it as a practice out of necessity. Oh it's very probable that for many people it's crazy juju and yet I suspect not doing it is probably also just as crazy juju. I'm not aware of any specific belief I have related to qi-gong except the ones I've been using to actually do it. But then I haven't analyzed it that much yet. It's really just experimental.

 

 

 

"I can't see you having any problems. I think it's mostly your insecurity speaking just now. You're just as mind-driven as anyone. "

 

Like I said

 

 

 

"If that's the intent, then eventually yes."

So, just as an intention experiment. How about you change your materialist belief? The you can change it back (if you want, apparently)

 

 

 

"Observe and you'll see."

I am observing, constantly, and IME I can't say that there's a "higher" element, or carts before horses. Besides, I'm trying to get them to be in tune with each other so emphasizing one or the other just maintains the silly split I'm getting rid of.

 

 

 

"Yes, it's one of the ways."

Other ways being?

 

 

 

"It doesn't depend because by definition we assume that the horse is more alive, and thus more precious than the carriage. If you think the carriage is more alive and more precious then you simply change how I will phrase my point without actually changing the heart of my point. The heart of my point is that something is more alive than something else. Something leads. Something else follows. That which leads is more powerful, more alive, and more precious. Don't get lost in words. Look only into the heart of the meaning."

 

Well, that's what I already pointed to above. And I don't assume either is "more alive". I think that's the point of qi-gong.

[Todd]

 

When it comes to people, each person has a slightly different degree of tolerance for mind compartmentalization. Now compartmentalization is a big word, but it means something simple. A person with compartmentalized mind is someone whose mindset is split into sections and beliefs must only cohere within each section, but the sections themselves are allowed to contradict each other. Most people have some degree of compartmentalization. Some people have highly compartmentalized minds. We can tell this is the case when people profess seemingly contradictory beliefs without too much discomfort. Such people are usually dumb. They rate lower on the IQ scale. The reason they can tolerate a high degree of compartmentalization is because they don't bother to investigate, to introspect, to compare and to align their beliefs, to see how they all fit together, whether any of them make any sense or not, etc. An intelligent person is more likely to check one's own beliefs for consistency (coherency) and for soundness against experience.

 

 

I understand that the above paragraph was part of larger explanation of how people can believe things ineffectively, and how effective beliefs are necessarily coherent with other beliefs. However, I thought I detected a hidden assumption in this paragraph. Please let me know if I am wrong.

 

The assumption is that coherency is primarily achieved through beliefs, or that the most valuable thing is the mind. A counter proposition is that coherency just is, even in the presence of seeming contradiction, or that the most valuable thing is not the mind, or at least not more the mind than anything else, even if that anything else is nothing at all. At times, recently, it seemed that you were speaking from this perspective. I'll just flesh it out a bit to see if we happen to disagree.

 

If coherency just is, despite seeming contradictions, then one would not necessarily need to be stupid in order to entertain contradictory beliefs at different times. The trick is in recognizing that the contradiction is primarily, or only, a matter of seeming. An example of this is the seeming particle/wave duality of matter/ energy (another seeming duality). At times light can seem to be a particle, and at times it can seem to be a wave. Is it actually two different things? I would suggest not. It actually contains both, seemingly contradictory properties, which are observed under different conditions. It is only the underlying assumption that a thing must fit into one category and not the other that causes the seemingly contradictory observations to cause cognitive dissonance. Light is not actually a particle and it is not actually a wave, but it is not not particle and it is not not a wave. It just is. The issue comes up when we become certain that one aspect of how it is sums it up in totality. This closes our eyes to other aspects of what it is.

 

The same phenomenon goes on at all levels. We don't need to consider light and physics experiments. Just take any person that you know. You may think that you know them, but how often do you end up surprised? What they just did or said did not fit into your understanding of them. You may not even notice if you believe your understanding to be total. This principle also scales to simpler objects (as tricky as the word object may be). Take for example an apple. It can simultaneously be red (on the outside) and white (on the inside) and brown (in the bruise) and sweet and juicy, and firm, and crunchy, and soft, and tasty and sour, and whole, and separated from the tree that it grew on, and lacking in any separation from anything at all, and unreal and real, and nutritious and poisonous, and any number of other categories that we choose to identify it with. All of these descriptions say more about us than about any "apple". The same principle can be applied to vastly more complex objects, such as life, or existence, or even mind. (You might have noticed that this was what Alan Watts was getting at in the video Steve posted)

 

As stated earlier, the issue is not so much that we are capable of perceiving any given entity in innumerable, often seemingly contradictory ways, but that we have a strong tendency to try to eliminate contradiction, and hence to see/experience things in limited ways. We tolerate more variety of perception with objects that we interact with through our varied senses, but when it comes to mental constructs, which are more removed from our senses, then we tend to tolerate less of this. We seem to want one mental construct to win out over the others. Since this not the way the world actually is (without necessarily assigning the world actual existence outside of the mind), in that the world observably manifests in tremendously various ways, then we form what are called beliefs, which actually are mechanisms by which we attempt to hold all of existence which seems to contradict said beliefs outside of consciousness. There can be value in the process of clarifying beliefs, since there are more and less clear ways of seeing, but in the drive for clarity we often lose contact with wholeness.

 

The assumption is that we will be more complete and more effective if we can become more coherent in our mental models. Thus we allow as few contradictory beliefs as possible. I would suggest that this is misapplied energy (although it can produce profound effects in the world, and can also lead to a dropping of a great number of unnecessary beliefs), and that a more fruitful path is to let go of as much of our beliefs as possible, since they are essentially a mechanism by which we limit our conscious experience. This is not to say that limitation is bad, or that having coherent beliefs does not have its uses, but it is to say that we can function quite well with no beliefs at all. When I say no beliefs, I am not referring to the kind of belief that generates experience. I am referring to the kind that blocks experience. The kind that generates experience may be fun to play with from time to time, but it also the mechanism by which there is anything appears at all. In that sense, belief is necessary, but as we saw above with light, it often seems to be contradictory. It is the assumption that we would be better off choosing one belief over the other that closes our eyes to the greater beauty and wonder of what we, and all else, is.

 

To take it a step further, there isn't really a distinction between the type of belief that limits experience and the type that generates experience. They are more like a continuum. As such, we don't really need to get rid of any belief, since they are all the means by which manifestation happens.

 

I am tempted to say something about it all boiling down to a desire to control, but its not even that.

 

There is something else going on, of which beliefs are an epiphenomenon.

 

What would happen if you gave no effort to belief modification? Would your beliefs freeze or become more fluid or neither? How would that affect your life?

 

I've noticed that one of my most prevalent assumptions is that something obscures truth. It both fun and revealing to question it, in the midst of experience, since it doesn't leave me with new beliefs and opens me to more of reality.

[三江源]

The assumption is that coherency is primarily achieved through beliefs, or that the most valuable thing is the mind.

 

 

Yes! As a taoist practitioner one doesnt live within that mindset. Thanks for taking the time to articulate all that Todd.

 

we have a strong tendency to try to eliminate contradiction, and hence to see/experience things in limited ways

 

this 'logos' mode is 'male',and is the dominant mode which commonly commands respect. the feminine mode is diffuse, hence often women are derided for 'not making sense' or 'a woman's perogative is to contradict herself' or 'women are so confusing'...

 

being unable to hold contradictory positions is very 'respectable' in mainstream society but as you suggest, not so valuable in any place where the getting of wisdom is more creative.

 

being able to move along a spectrum of possible responses and thoughts and not adhere, to not grow mental adhesions... a more organic interaction.. how different the world would be if that were valued as a sign of sophistication.

 

I guess one of the reasons it is avoided is re. moral issues.. the masses are not trusted to make wholesome decisions if they find their own point on a compass in any given situation, so we are taught to be black and white in our thinking and revere the indoctrinated head within and without.

[goldisheavy]

Alright, I've been mulling this one over. Kind of thinking about it and also not thinking about it (I often attempt both, not sure which produces any results, but anyway...)

 

 

"Right. The degree of sincerity is always important. Not every materialist is as committed to that worldview as every other. For some people the belief in the material nature of phenomena is backed by many interdependent beliefs that are also strong, deep and sincere in their own right. For other people, that network of supporting beliefs is smaller and shallower.

 

But if materialism is only a pretense, then a person is not a true materialist in the first place. "

 

You've started with words that complicate already. A "true" vs not a "true" materialist. Are you saying that "truth" is measurable by degrees of sincerity? There's a long road to go down about truth and I'm not sure it's a good one to attempt in a discussion about magic...

 

But anyway, if you're calling a "materialist" as you see it and a "pretend" one (that you can't see) something else, well why not just call it something else? Maybe an 'insincere materialist" or "a maybe materialist" because you said you don't know how they experience it.

 

I don't see the truth as necessarily something that's polarized into 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. I see things as shades of gray, as hues of color, as belonging somewhere on a continuum, or on a spectrum of values. Something can be 90% true, or somewhat true, or false for a small but significant reason, and so on. That's how my mind operates.

 

So why don't we just call the pretend-materialist something else? Well, it's actually a complicated question. First, we have to honor people's self-reports to some degree. So if someone says, "I am a materialist" that's a self-report and we have to at least try to give it the benefit of the doubt. At least.

 

Alternatively this is what the person really believes about oneself but is mistaken. It's possible to be sincerely mistaken about oneself.

 

So because of all these possibilities it's not always wise to "just call it something else."

 

I'm not very good at the argument thing because there's too much in every single word to deal with.

 

Here's how I handle the problem. I read what you say and allow the meaning to sink in, then I forget the words and reply only to the meaning.

 

I don't focus on the words unless the words are crucial in some way. I find that often the meaning is somewhere between the words, but yes, sometimes a single word is dramatically important to the meaning of the whole post, so it becomes important to investigate the word.

 

My rate of success depends on how much of a hurry I am in to respond. If I am just itching to respond, there is a chance I won't properly assimilate the meaning and just respond to the words instead.

 

"It's true for me because it's my belief and it's not likely going to change either. Nor do I want to change it. It's also going to be true for a lot of people because the people I meet here are not too far off my intent, because all meetings represents coincidences of intent, remember?"

 

Yeah, not sure about this one either. Are you're saying truth for anyone is only belief and you'll hang on to that whatever happens and you don't want to change it? Or are you saying it's just that the way you see truth is like a belief? And you didn't say why?

 

I don't want to say I have some belief I will absolutely never change. However, I value some of my beliefs more than others. I see some beliefs are less likely to change. It doesn't mean that I will absolutely never change them. It just means when I look into the future, I don't currently see any reason for change. So when I told you I am not likely to change some belief, I gave you a current time estimate, if you will. As with all estimates, it's not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

 

I like to see all my commitments as temporary, and this includes philosophical commitments above all. Anything less and it turns into a prison for my mind, and I don't like that feeling. I like to think that all the doors are open, rather than welded shut. So if I get bored or need to move on for whatever reason, I just close one door and open another. I don't want to think I am permanently stuck in my mind in some way.

 

And lots of other people are going to agree with you because you've intended they will?? And you're only meeting people whose intent coincides with yours? But you didn't say whether it was coinciding to agree or to disagree...I dunno, I think I come on TTB's quite often because I think that having disagreements furthers my thinking and contemplation. Is that what you meant?

 

People are not ever 100% identical. Not even the so-called "identical twins" are identical. With this in mind, obviously we all have something in common. Coincidence of intent doesn't have to be interpreted as a perfect identity between two people in time. It's this 0 or 1 bifurcated thinking again, imo.

 

Disagreements are most pleasurable and most productive when they are centered around a common base of agreement. That's just my experience and opinion. For disagreements to be productive, it's best that they are small or manageable. If some disagreements are dramatic, then such disagreements may cause too much psychological trouble to be productive. But the tolerance to a specific severity of a disagreement is like the tolerance to a specific degree of pain, it varies from person to person.

 

"People can't practice qi-gong if they don't believe in it. For many people qi-gong is just crazy juju and they won't even get the slightest motivation to even try practicing it."

 

Well this is weird, because I didn't believe in it either and I came to it as a practice out of necessity. Oh it's very probable that for many people it's crazy juju and yet I suspect not doing it is probably also just as crazy juju. I'm not aware of any specific belief I have related to qi-gong except the ones I've been using to actually do it. But then I haven't analyzed it that much yet. It's really just experimental.

 

Yes. It's not 0 or 1. A person can have a non-zero degree of openness to the idea of qi-gong. For example, the person is healthy and 5% open to the idea of qi-gong. This person doesn't try qi-gong. The same person gets sick, exhausts all treatment options and suddenly the same 5% openness is a huge opening instead of just a tiny one. That's just one example. The point is that we are not 0 or 1 people, right?

 

"I can't see you having any problems. I think it's mostly your insecurity speaking just now. You're just as mind-driven as anyone. "

 

Like I said

 

Great.

 

"If that's the intent, then eventually yes."

So, just as an intention experiment. How about you change your materialist belief? The you can change it back (if you want, apparently)

 

Well, I am actually in the process of doing so, but it's not so simple, right? Turns out as I begin to change it, other things I cared about get impacted. Then I have to decide whether or not I am ready to give up those things (or ready to change them to the point of non-recognition). When I am ready with the whole thing, I will change, or I will discover that I've already changed.

 

In many ways I am already less of a materialist than a lot of people.

 

 

"Observe and you'll see."

I am observing, constantly, and IME I can't say that there's a "higher" element, or carts before horses. Besides, I'm trying to get them to be in tune with each other so emphasizing one or the other just maintains the silly split I'm getting rid of.

 

OK, so you're getting rid of the split. Obviously you're more powerful than the split, you're more alive than it. The split is just sitting there and waits for you to change it.

 

"Yes, it's one of the ways."

Other ways being?

 

Contemplation, meditation, lucid dreaming, divination, magic, hypnosis, sports, science, craftsmanship, and many more.

 

"It doesn't depend because by definition we assume that the horse is more alive, and thus more precious than the carriage. If you think the carriage is more alive and more precious then you simply change how I will phrase my point without actually changing the heart of my point. The heart of my point is that something is more alive than something else. Something leads. Something else follows. That which leads is more powerful, more alive, and more precious. Don't get lost in words. Look only into the heart of the meaning."

 

Well, that's what I already pointed to above. And I don't assume either is "more alive". I think that's the point of qi-gong.

 

You are more alive than all your assumptions. If that wasn't the case, you'd have no power over your assumptions.

Edited May 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I understand that the above paragraph was part of larger explanation of how people can believe things ineffectively, and how effective beliefs are necessarily coherent with other beliefs. However, I thought I detected a hidden assumption in this paragraph. Please let me know if I am wrong.

 

The assumption is that coherency is primarily achieved through beliefs, or that the most valuable thing is the mind. A counter proposition is that coherency just is, even in the presence of seeming contradiction,

 

The trouble with this way of thinking, is that while it's nice and fuzzy and mystical, it fails to explain why people embrace some beliefs and not others. Your "explanation" is to say, "it just happens." It's basically a non-explanation.

 

or that the most valuable thing is not the mind, or at least not more the mind than anything else, even if that anything else is nothing at all. At times, recently, it seemed that you were speaking from this perspective. I'll just flesh it out a bit to see if we happen to disagree.

 

If coherency just is, despite seeming contradictions, then one would not necessarily need to be stupid in order to entertain contradictory beliefs at different times.

 

Entertaining a belief is not the same thing as committing to it in your heart. The difference is crucial.

 

The trick is in recognizing that the contradiction is primarily, or only, a matter of seeming. An example of this is the seeming particle/wave duality of matter/ energy (another seeming duality). At times light can seem to be a particle, and at times it can seem to be a wave. Is it actually two different things? I would suggest not. It actually contains both, seemingly contradictory properties, which are observed under different conditions.

 

That's a bad example, because you're externalizing beliefs. I want you to re-internalize them again. So in your example, instead of saying the wavicle is both, and the contradiction is only seeming, say something like this:

 

"A scientist who is deeply committed to the view that all physics are explained solely through particles and nothing else is not going to embrace the idea of light sometimes acting as a wave." If you say this, then you start to understand what I am talking about. I am talking about the inner workings of the psyche. I am not talking about something we normally consider external to ourselves.

 

Further, the scientists are not usually committed to the scientific theories as deeply as they are, say, to the scientific method itself. You can convince a scientist to drop some scientific theory in favor of another, but what is the likelihood you'll convince some scientist to altogether drop the scientific method? I'd say the likelihood, while not 0%, is much, much less.

 

So again, this goes back to my original point.

 

It is only the underlying assumption that a thing must fit into one category and not the other that causes the seemingly contradictory observations to cause cognitive dissonance. Light is not actually a particle and it is not actually a wave, but it is not not particle and it is not not a wave. It just is. The issue comes up when we become certain that one aspect of how it is sums it up in totality. This closes our eyes to other aspects of what it is.

 

The same phenomenon goes on at all levels. We don't need to consider light and physics experiments. Just take any person that you know. You may think that you know them, but how often do you end up surprised?

 

Rarely. But then again, I dare say I am good at knowing people because I am good at knowing myself.

 

Of course I get surprised from time to time. Thank heavens.

 

And again, in this example you've presented people as external objects. And I want you to re-internalize the debate. I am talking about your psyche here. I am not talking about the superficial objects and superficial beliefs. All our beliefs about other people the way you've meant it, are superficial ones.

 

For example, would you believe that some person lives without a heart? No, you wouldn't. Even if evidence was presented, there is a good chance you'd call the evidence a hoax. Why? Because you have a huge, deep belief that all human bodies have hearts in them. This is an example of a non-superficial belief. It's hard to change this kind of belief, and for many people it's practically impossible to change it.

 

It's important to keep in mind that the important thing here is not other people or hearts in their bodies, but you. I am talking about your psyche here and how it operates. I am talking about which beliefs you'll allow to be challenged and which ones you won't.

 

What they just did or said did not fit into your understanding of them. You may not even notice if you believe your understanding to be total. This principle also scales to simpler objects (as tricky as the word object may be). Take for example an apple. It can simultaneously be red (on the outside) and white (on the inside) and brown (in the bruise) and sweet and juicy, and firm, and crunchy, and soft, and tasty and sour, and whole, and separated from the tree that it grew on, and lacking in any separation from anything at all, and unreal and real, and nutritious and poisonous, and any number of other categories that we choose to identify it with. All of these descriptions say more about us than about any "apple". The same principle can be applied to vastly more complex objects, such as life, or existence, or even mind. (You might have noticed that this was what Alan Watts was getting at in the video Steve posted)

 

As stated earlier, the issue is not so much that we are capable of perceiving any given entity in innumerable, often seemingly contradictory ways, but that we have a strong tendency to try to eliminate contradiction, and hence to see/experience things in limited ways. We tolerate more variety of perception with objects that we interact with through our varied senses, but when it comes to mental constructs, which are more removed from our senses, then we tend to tolerate less of this. We seem to want one mental construct to win out over the others. Since this not the way the world actually is (without necessarily assigning the world actual existence outside of the mind),

 

Who is we? I prize coherence for its beauty and explanatory power. Coherence itself doesn't contradict the mystery as you seem to think. You think if someone has a coherent mind such person is incapable of noticing the wonder of the world. See how you got caught in your own net?

 

in that the world observably manifests in tremendously various ways, then we form what are called beliefs, which actually are mechanisms by which we attempt to hold all of existence which seems to contradict said beliefs outside of consciousness. There can be value in the process of clarifying beliefs, since there are more and less clear ways of seeing, but in the drive for clarity we often lose contact with wholeness.

 

The assumption is that we will be more complete and more effective if we can become more coherent in our mental models. Thus we allow as few contradictory beliefs as possible. I would suggest that this is misapplied energy (although it can produce profound effects in the world, and can also lead to a dropping of a great number of unnecessary beliefs), and that a more fruitful path is to let go of as much of our beliefs as possible,

 

I suggest the opposite. I suggest that trying to let go of beliefs is simply a lie. It's like trying to let go of gravity. It just doesn't work. If you want your life to change, you have to get dirty. You have to examine your beliefs. You can't just let go. Do try though and let us know how far you get.

Edited May 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

Cat,

 

Thank you. I see both the masculine and feminine approaches as both positive and negative. I value coherency of thought in many situations, especially in communication. However, the drive to coherency can lead to blindness/rigidness. I also value broad and flexible vision and non-contention. This tendency can lead to the accumulation of rotting views (don't know how better to phrase that). I don't see the two approaches as opposed. I actually see that both can manifest in a person at the same time and that they can actually strengthen one another. It is more a matter of how healthy our manifestations of the masculine and the feminine are.

 

GIH,

 

The main place that we seem to differ is that I see coherency as existing most clearly in a level that is more fundamental than beliefs. Contradictory beliefs do not affect this more fundamental coherency. As such, the effort to get all of one's beliefs to match up is misguided, or at least superfluous. If one seeks coherency, it is not to be achieved through explanation or belief. It already is.

 

Most minds don't much like this. Other minds do like it. It doesn't really matter whether a mind likes it or not, since it doesn't have much to do with the mind. Liking or disliking are both ways that the mind tries to avoid the reality of what is.

 

Did you, as you conceive of yourself (assuming you conceive of yourself), choose all of your beliefs? Are you actually conscious of how you chose each one of your beliefs? You suggest that it is difficult to change beliefs, so I suspect that you may not actually remember choosing your beliefs. If you did not choose your beliefs, then where did they come from?

 

It is relatively easy, even for a child, to come up with some story about where his beliefs came from, but if he doesn't actually remember it, then it is just a story. Even if it is remembered, then it is still a story. Where did each of the elements in the story come from?

 

Very quickly we come to mystery. Except mystery is not actually somewhere out there-- it is right here. It doesn't matter what our beliefs are, the mystery is still present. Even if we change our beliefs at a level that greatly affects our experience of the mystery, the mystery is still there.

 

The emphasis on outside and inside comes from giving greatest value to the mind. Since the mystery does not have a location, where is there inside and outside?

 

Also I do not find it necessary to have a belief about people living with or without hearts. I don't really care what you think in this instance and I am open to being surprised by experience. Some things are more probable than others, and as a betting man, I'll bet on the heart in any given person that I see alive. Assuminig I didn't bet too much, I wouldn't mind losing.

 

As an aside, I am interested in your experience of lucid dreaming. I have heard of people who begin to fulfill sexual desires through their lucid dreams, but who, over time, begin to lose control of their dreams, even though they remain lucid in them. Whereas before, they would choose the person and the situation, over time the dream constantly begins forcing itself on the dreamer. My theory is that this is the result of trying to control the dream and is the same mechanism by which our waking lives seem to be outside of our control. Basically, the artifact of consistently trying to control something is that sooner or later it becomes violently out of control.

 

Have you noticed any such mechanism? I suspect that you might say that the dreamer just hasn't gone deeply enough into their beliefs, and so they lose control. Once they get their beliefs coherent then they will have perfect control. But in your experience of your dreams, do you have perfect or ever increasing control? Wondering if I might be surprised.

[goldisheavy]

GIH,

 

The main place that we seem to differ is that I see coherency as existing most clearly in a level that is more fundamental than beliefs. Contradictory beliefs do not affect this more fundamental coherency. As such, the effort to get all of one's beliefs to match up is misguided, or at least superfluous. If one seeks coherency, it is not to be achieved through explanation or belief. It already is.

 

You're not contradicting what I am saying, but you seem to think you do. Let me correct a few things you say.

 

First, you make a clear distinction between beliefs and what lies under the beliefs on a deeper level of the psyche. I don't make such a distinction. So right then and there I have one less polarizing and bifurcating line running through my psyche than do you.

 

Second, yes, ultimately everything is indeed coherent. I know this. My entire method as I present it here is aimed at allowing people to feel it and to make use of it in day to day life.

 

So for example, let's say I am freezing in the winter. Ultimately I am not actually freezing. Someone like you would say that. But I don't feel it. I feel like I am freezing. So it does me little good to know the ultimate truth if I can't make use of it in day to day life. You answer, stop trying to use it. Just let it be. And I am answering, "When I use things" that's just the flavor of my "let it be." In other words, when I am going about here and there, I am not going anywhere, I am already at rest from your own ultimate perspective.

 

What I explain here can make people's lives better. What you explain can help too, but it won't help as much, because you're basically presenting the mind as two realms which should not be reconciled against each other. In the superficial realm there are contradictions and in the ultimate or deep realm, there are no contradictions, and you don't need to do any work. Just relax, everything is fine as is.

 

Well, if accidentally break your arm, how would you like it if instead of setting your bones and sawing up your skin I told you "just relax"? Because in a sense, that's an appropriate answer, isn't it? I can just say "just relax" your pain is non-pain. In fact, when I greet you, I can just punch you. Why so? Because it's all the same at the ultimate level, isn't it? And yet out of compassion I do not do that? Why not?

 

So obviously compassion involves something more than just telling people not to worry about anything.

 

Most minds don't much like this. Other minds do like it. It doesn't really matter whether a mind likes it or not, since it doesn't have much to do with the mind. Liking or disliking are both ways that the mind tries to avoid the reality of what is.

 

Did you, as you conceive of yourself (assuming you conceive of yourself), choose all of your beliefs?

 

I choose the direction in which my beliefs develop. I choose which way I lean.

 

Are you actually conscious of how you chose each one of your beliefs?

 

If you mean, am I conscious of all my leanings? The answer is no. It's part of my practice to become more conscious in that way.

 

You suggest that it is difficult to change beliefs, so I suspect that you may not actually remember choosing your beliefs. If you did not choose your beliefs, then where did they come from?

 

I did choose them and I remember when. I choose them every time I re-affirm them with equal vigor as the moment before. If my vigor starts to drift, that's my choice in action.

 

It is relatively easy, even for a child, to come up with some story about where his beliefs came from, but if he doesn't actually remember it, then it is just a story. Even if it is remembered, then it is still a story. Where did each of the elements in the story come from?

 

It's not important where they come from.

 

As an aside, I am interested in your experience of lucid dreaming. I have heard of people who begin to fulfill sexual desires through their lucid dreams, but who, over time, begin to lose control of their dreams, even though they remain lucid in them. Whereas before, they would choose the person and the situation, over time the dream constantly begins forcing itself on the dreamer.

 

I've never personally experienced this.

 

My theory is that this is the result of trying to control the dream and is the same mechanism by which our waking lives seem to be outside of our control. Basically, the artifact of consistently trying to control something is that sooner or later it becomes violently out of control.

 

My theory is that our intentionality has a natural balance. If we engage our intentionality too aggressively in a way that seeks to rape things out there into compliance, then we get exhausted and the backlash follows.

 

At the same time, if I pick up a stone and move it, then I relax, the stone remains in its new position. This modest use of intent is rewarding and natural. In fact, if you don't allow an outlet to your intent at all, that is a form of control. It's a form of an inner rape, which will in and of itself explode in its own right.

 

In other words, if you try to over-influence the externals by trying to change too many things too often, then there is a backlash.

 

But if you try to over-influence the internals, by cutting short, disciplining, or over-relaxing your intent, then there is a backlash as well.

 

Have you noticed any such mechanism?

 

Not at all. What I've noticed is that eventually the dreamer becomes simply satisfied. For example, you want ice ream. You start eating ice cream. Just how long can you keep eating? Not forever, right? Well, if you start fucking cute girls in your lucid dreams, how long is that going to be interesting? Again, not forever.

 

So what I've noticed is that the level of interest varies based on satisfaction. When you're completely satisfied, you don't need to control anything at all -- but this isn't something you can fake by imploring people to stop messing around. You really have to eat that ice cream and fuck those chicks, or it won't really work. In the worst case scenario you have to reach the same satisfaction through the sublimation of desires. But it's the same shit in a different wrapper, as they say.

 

I suspect that you might say that the dreamer just hasn't gone deeply enough into their beliefs, and so they lose control. Once they get their beliefs coherent then they will have perfect control.

 

Get beliefs coherent? That doesn't sound right. It sound like it's something you do in three weeks to 6 months. That's just not how I look at it. Examining one's own beliefs to see if they are coherent or not is not something mechanic. I don't recommend you do it 6 mins in the morning, or twice a day. It's not something that should be made routine in a kind of dead manner. It's not really an exercise. It's more like a lifestyle or an attitude.

 

But in your experience of your dreams, do you have perfect or ever increasing control? Wondering if I might be surprised.

 

To an extent the control increased until I bumped up against my own limitations. So for example, flying was easy, and overtime I got better and better at it and I fly in more and more arbitrary ways. For example, I used to have to flap my arms to fly. I don't have to anymore. I used to feel as if I was overcoming some resistance in order to fly. There is less resistance now. In fact recently I flew feet first into the sky, without flapping my arms, just to show off how powerful I am these days.

 

However, some things are hard. For example, when I tried to walk through a wall, I just hit my head and body and bounced off. I knew I was dreaming but there was no walking through the wall for me.

 

So I had to stop and do a deep contemplative meditation into the nature of the wall to get myself to move through it. I did get it eventually, but it was much more difficult and much more strange than flying. Why so? It's obvious! I just believe much less into walking through walls than I do in flying. Flying doesn't screw with the internal consistency of objects, walking through walls does. Of course this has to do with my belief into the internal consistency of objects.

 

In any case, when I explored my dream world I noticed my dream world sometimes would became more challenging in a way that was seemingly designed to disabuse me of all my preconceptions. It wasn't so much as a denial or backlash. It was like the mind was teaching me. So for example, I've had a number of spectacular failures when I did a dream test only to conclude I wasn't dreaming. Then I would wake up with the flawless memory of what happened. Then I realized there was no difference between dreams and reality. If I can have dreams that are so visceral and so perfect that they fail every single dream test, then that's a lesson from the inner guru. It's not a backlash. Why not? Because just in the next few dreams I could fly around again and do whatever I want. So what happened wasn't a kind of "fuck you". It was "check this out... what do you think of this?" That's what it was. It was like a conversation with my own inner mind!

 

I have a great relationship with my inner mind. We are best of friends. So I am never blocked and I don't get any backlashes ever. If something can't be done it's always some kind of lesson that I need to learn, no exceptions. I've always been able to do anything I wanted shortly after the lesson was over.

Edited May 27, 2011 by goldisheavy