Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

Are there objective aspects of magick? Or is it all just a personal phenomena that finds someone which ironically happens to be defined by their will?

Is performing magick, getting up in the morning and putting pants on or moving objects by thought? How does magick address the dna and snowflake?

 

I forget now why it was banned. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast a few months back - I think he might have talked about it then. I think it was an aspect of what I mentioned earlier about scientists who go against the current dogma get vilified.

Sheldrake's main claim to fame apart from his impeccable academic credentials, is his theory of morphic fields/ morphic resonance. I'm sure there's stuff on youtube where he explains it.

 

Now were getting more to the depth of experience. I think in comparison to what you've gleaned here that it is a mistake to think we are immune to every misstep. Mastery is to come as you please, to pick it up or lay it down at will, but the it is always the same, a series of sensations some of which we may call pleasant and some not so or we may refrain from qualifying a sensation all together.

 

Yes there are objective measures to Magick. As has been stated, the rubber hits the road with whether one is achieving and living out their Will or not. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. That's about as objective as you can get. It's a way of living. An approach to life. It's a science of its own method. Who's to say that it's not a legit method, just because its method isn't the Scientific Method?

And the point about DNA is exactly why at some point Science will bump into Kundalini. DNA will be part of the discussion with regards to Kundalini.

 

Can you hear me chinacat? Be discerning and absolutely reverent in your approach to life. This way you become intimately familiar with all of your creative functions. If not you will spend your time frivolously and be dissatisfied because the truth, esoteric knowledge, sets you free to be easy in your dealings with everything, happy To follow sensational outlooks only confronts other sensational outlooks and you rise and fall on those reflections, or you end up goofing off. Don't dabble in magic, be a magician. Be a happy learner.

 

So now Magick can go against living out the will ? You've just made the concept much more unintelligible.

 

Well you just made it one. Stop trying to program the trip.

 

Sheldrake understands that one's consciousness and the power of attention is vital. So if one's consciousness has an effect on a human by looking at them from behind, then why wouldn't one's consciousness have an effect on a magical ceremony, especially if the focus of the intent was very potent? And how come Quantum Science isn't already enough evidence that consciousness effects what happens in reality?

 

what does that even mean, "so magick can now go against living out the will"? What? I didn't say that. What do you mean, guerillabedlam?


thedope, I'm sorry but no I don't understand all that you're getting at.

 

You can focus on his confusion if you want. Or you can assist him in understanding. Just teach what you know. We only learn what we wantt to learn. He will say piss off or good idea depending on how creatively you approach this, practical magic.

 

Experience and knowledge are the same thing in a sense. I don't mean intellectual knowledge here, but the lived knowledge of the shaman. Nobody is immune from taking a mis-step, or even a series of mis-steps.

The best process to adopt is one of constant reintegration. Even if I was enlightened yesterday, doesn't mean it can't be thrown down in one instant today.Just one bit of information is all it takes. But it's the interplay of yin and yang. Light and shadow.

 

And I don't know why you are being a sorry ass I don't understand what specific thing you are talking about, doesn't make me sorry, just curious.

 

Well if you start with the preposition that knowledge is being shared those two are assumed.
Question reintegration from what separation?

 

I'm glad at least somebody out there as a Scientist sees that the Scientific paradigm is kind of dogmatic in its approach. Even from the very beginning it used the notion of Alchemy and Magic as witchcraft and evil to its advantage to kick it aside and push forward its own materialism agenda. Science is too full of itself to even recognize that it is dogmatic.

 

here's a more thorough video of Sheldrake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1SLQwHDog

 

Data that was previously not known. Something from quantum biology for example might introduce new possibilities into one's thinking process. Paradigm changing discoveries require a kind of process of reintegration. One new fact or experience may change all our supposed knowledge. Like in alchemy.

 

Quality video, definitely some interesting thoughts. I learned some things particularly in regards to the speed of light. That's fascinating that there has been discrepancies regarding it, because in pop science it is presented that it's been a fixed constant since Einstein.

As far as our perceptions, I think he undermines ours and especially other animal's senses. Sheldrake presents the sensing another animal that can't be seen phenomena solely from a visual sense, he doesn't accout for auditory senses as well as olfactory senses, which likely are stimulated and send message to the cerebral cortex giving this awareness.

I don't think he'll say either to me, he'll more than likely not address the response and take it off another loosley related tangent.

 

Good choice. The Rogan interview is also worth the time investment.

 

That's true, we increase our chances on communicating knowledge by making it easy listening.

 

In fairness, I think you'd have to read some of his work to gain a proper and deeper understanding . Giving a talk like that doesn't allow for extended discussion, or citing much evidence to back up his views. His latest book, which I read with interest was published in the UK under the title 'The Science Delusion' - obviously a kind of response to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. In the US it was published under a different title.

The thing to bear in mind about Rupert though is that he is a serious Cambridge scientist. He also discovered a hormone associated with plant growth. So we're not dealing here with some pseudo scientist type.
There are things he says with which I don't agree, but he's an interesting person.