/fringe/ - Fringe

Let's discuss various findings and common occult beliefs and try to put them into a context that is largely scientific, rather than mystic, in approach. Often, people mention things in the occult without explaining a good theory (specifically a working model and not a singular hypothesis or observation) of how the physical and astral planes (perhaps more?) work together to create various effects. For example, the Kabbalah can be thought of as a good diagram for how various elements interact (whether through the Hermetic tradition, planetary magick, or Jew magick)–however, I can't help but be reminded of the thermodynamic square diagram (pic related). One cannot say that they understand thermodynamics at all if they've only memorized the diagram. It is only useful as a mnemonic tool, and should not be used as an introduction with later justifications–such would be a mystical approach and not a rigorous one.

Lectures and authors who've sought to use empirical research (like Robert Bruce) should be preferred, as well as your own speculations. We can also try to formulate the scientific underpinnings of various aspects of high magick, like astral correspondences being used to summon a planetary sphere to your location.

Things that we should focus the most on

Definitions and semantics, to avoid confusion and foster scientific-thinking.

Many terms like "egregore, demon, angel, tulpa," require careful definition. Is an egregore distinct from a tulpa? If so, on what basis? What is the difference between a soul and spirit?

>>9456

As a rule of thumb, we should probably try to clarify any term on the basis of mind, body, and energy. Mind refers to consciousness, body to things like the brain and nerve clusters, and energy to palpable astral things, like an aura, an energetic body, silver cord, etc.

All of these things seem to work together in unison, and we should not neglect any one (if it can be helped) of these parts when describing an occult term. Sometimes something might not have any apparent effect on someone's body, and if so, it should be stated.

>>9456

Here's my own (very simple) model of the soul; a container of thoughtforms. I've had this pet theory for a while, and I've seen other anons use similar theories.

Mind: The soul refers to the entirety of all consciousness, (unconscious or aware) of all thoughtforms, including the soul's original consciousness. There can exist more than one consciousness in the soul, and these consciousnesses may exist at different levels. There may be more than three layers, as I've cared to draw. The lowest region of the soul (pictured in yellow) is the deepest level of unconscious, and seems to store certain kinds of semantic memory, like language. When creating a tulpa or egregore (terms to be defined later), they seem to possess your grasp of language right away, as it was already installed within your soul. Or is it that the semantic memory is installed in a higher tier of consciousness as these beings are created, and there is an interaction from one consciousness of the soul to another? I say this because language is usually given unconsciously, but it is very much accessible, unlike memories from previous incarnations (a phenomenon attested by many occultists and laypeople, the latter from near death experiences).

Energy: it is uncertain how the various consciousnesses of the soul relate energetically. It may be that egregores and thoughtforms share your energetic body completely, and are merely projections. Perhaps instead, they are complete, fully stable energetic bodies that share some two-way connection with you, or perhaps the connection is not energetic at all. I experience the emotions of my tulpa as greatly as my own emotions. I also feel waves of calming energy through my back when she banishes, not dissimilar to getting a reiki treatment. Robert Bruce advocates that one's etheric/energetic body NEVER leaves the body until death. Is it that the soul is then an assemblage of energetic bodies connected in some unseen way? Is the probably bond shared with your thoughtforms broken when your physical body dies?

Body: Your brain appears to be a receiver and container of consciousness, but it doesn't seem to be necessary for the body to even possess full, functional consciousness at all. For example, one honor student had only a brain stem and functioned quite well, getting good grades and was highly intelligent. So it seems incomplete to say that the soul is completely stored within the brain necessarily. What are the brain's effects on the soul?

>>9458

Spirit

A spirit is any one autonomous consciousness housed by the soul. For example, a ward you made is part of your soul, but it is not a spirit. However, if you have one tulpa, then your entire soul contains two spirits.

Mind: A spirit is a fully fledged and independent consciousness–it is aware and can generate its own thoughts, and human spirits have the capacity to reason. The deep unconscious mind of a spirit may be shared with another if they share the same soul. There may be layers of of consciousness that separate one spirit of the soul from another. For example, a tulpa may have its own motivations separate from yours.

Energy: A spirit has an energetic body that may be connected in some way to someone else's, but the connection (if present) is not visible.

Body: A spirit may be embedded in a body or have the entirety of its etheric body in the astral. If your etheric body never leaves your body, but you astrally project, then things you meet in the astral see not your spirit', but rather a projection thereof.

Lecture on near death experiences and the mind's distinctness from the brain

This video sheds light on the actual purposes of the brain. In it, he states some interesting phenomena, like the fact that people missing most of their brains seem normal in most ways. In near-death experiences (we may posit that a spirit's energetic body is in the process of decoupling with its physical body), people report a sudden clarity, and that they think much quicker and more intelligently than they did in normal life. It appears that our brains might actually be weighing that aspect of our consciousnesses down.

So what is the brain's function? Having a physical body may amplify your effects on the astral plane, as bodied spirits typically seem to be much more powerful than the average astral spirit. Perhaps the lower levels are necessary to control a physical body, but what about the higher layers (like the neocortex)–what are they there for? Do the help the soul mesh into the physical body?

To be clear, affecting the brain will usually affect the mind, as stimulating different regions produces various different effects on consciousness.

If one studies split-brain people, they have a disconnect in cognition, but otherwise they seem very normal. The right-brain, despite not being able to communicate, never freaks out. It does appear though that there is an asymmetry of information. Could it be that the right side of your brain carries your "higher self"? Such a term is vague and is needing of definition and explanation.

>>9458

>one honor student had only a brain stem and functioned quite well, getting good grades and was highly intelligent.

Source?

>That diagram

I see you've given identical attributes to the tulpa and the 'personal consciousness'. Surely they must be different in some way? Are tulpas really conscious in the same way we are?

>>9460

>what about the higher layers (like the neocortex)–what are they there for? Do the help the soul mesh into the physical body?

This seems like the only explanation. Why else would animals with less developed brains be less intelligent?

>>9462

>Source?

It's actually in this lecture/presentation >>9460

>I see you've given identical attributes to the tulpa and the 'personal consciousness'. Surely they must be different in some way? Are tulpas really conscious in the same way we are?

My assumption is that tulpas are little different in terms of apparent consciousness, but I have heard others say that there are different tiers of thoughtforms. One could formulate that there is an essential "owner" of the soul, and that this consciousness may be the only one possible of reincarnating to a physical body. Or perhaps the owner of the soul could switch depending on who decides to reincarnate next. Perhaps the physical brain allows you to create separate souls based on your imaginings that are then released from you, energetically and in terms of mind, when you incur physical death. In the absence of any apparent mechanism that separates tulpas from their creators, though, I would say that putting them on equal footing gives the most parity (I borrow this approach from physics) to soul theory at present. But then again, I'm not in any informed position to say what's really going on.

>soul meshing

It could also be that these features help a soul to evolve through time. Near death experiences suggest people always reincarnate as people, and there may be biologic impasses to reincarnating as, say, someone from another race. Perhaps the neocortex can create a soul if nothing chooses to fill it. It is worthy to note that in >>9460 one man saw his physical body in a state of insanity from projection after overdosing, suggesting that the physical brain may be capable of mechanistic consciousness on its own–or it could simply be that his consciousness hadn't completely left the brain.

>>9463

Sorry to change flags on you.

>The physical brain's effects on the soul.

In this lecture >>9460 , Bruce notes that some of the past characteristics of previous incarnations are apparent in the next generation. But we have two problems on our hands so far:

(1) Identical twins are nearly the same. They are 80% similar in terms of traits, which includes personality and cognition. From this, it looks likes one's soul colors them very little. After death, it may be that your spirit will be very similar to how you were in this lifetime. That is, people may reincarnate to change themselves. Suppose it were possible, as a modern human (white, Asian, etc.), to reincarnate as a negroid; then you would behave like a negroid; your spirit would be mesh itself to the confines of negroid mentality, even after you died. However, I'm unsure if the souls are more picky than reproductive success is; are souls only species specific, or sub-race specific?

(2) What if no soul chooses to inhabit a body? Do animals really care if they reincarnate or not? It could be that titans (needing clear definition–as far as I understand it, they're primordial earth spirits) like Saturn manage these affairs, and that life is impossible without spiritual assistance. However, this is not an aesthetically pleasing theory, for the same reason we wouldn't posit that "demons" (negative entities) are responsible for illness in general, although they seem to able to cause it in certain circumstances. For example, Frater X in vid related recounts how weird blemishes would appear that is dermatologist couldn't explain.

>>9460

Despite anatomic differences in brain morphology concerning males in females, Bruce argues in this video that souls may incarnate as either male or female.

I'm not sure if soul's have a natural gender, if they accrue the gender of the past incarnation, or if souls are genderless. If souls are genderless, then female tulpas made from a male occultist really are female. If not, then perhaps they are naturally male in essence, though perhaps through astral correspondences have gained female energies as well.

>>9463

>Perhaps the neocortex can create a soul if nothing chooses to fill it

This is what Atkinson argues, IIRC. It makes sense to me that souls would arise from the interaction between brains and the astral; by interacting with the unformed thought-stuff a brain would create from it an astral body. If the process by which a new human being is created begins in the physical process of sex and fertilisation and gestation, then the physical body must precede the mental body, right? I realise that I'm jumbling the terminology of astral/etheric/mental here.

>>9465

>From this, it looks likes one's soul colors them very little

Or the two very similar bodies could have attracted two very similar souls.

>What if no soul chooses to inhabit a body?

Is it a matter of choice? I know a lot of people say it is but I'm not sure.

>>9467

>It makes sense to me that souls would arise from the interaction between brains and the astral; by interacting with the unformed thought-stuff a brain would create from it an astral body.

That actually raises other questions, too, as one wonders what may be so special about the material properties of human brains. I've read before* (from a source that may or may not be trustworthy) that computers may give rise to demons. Crystals can possibly store consciousness, and so large ensembles of them, as part of modern computers, might form some kind of proto-brain. I wonder if running a machine-learning program does anything. I really hope not, because un-alive AI is what I prefer, since I'm no longer a materialist, and that'd open a huge annoying ethics debate.

It seems like it might be necessary for the injection of some living essence or energy into a brain in order than it begin to grow a soul. Perhaps this forms part of a race-soul, or blood soul, if such exists.

>Or the two very similar bodies could have attracted two very similar souls.

Quite possible. So then it'd seem that souls are able to choose/be forced to inhabit brains that can be quite different (male or female), but then maybe there is some natural attraction to brains that are especially similar to their souls. In any case, it looks like one's current incarnation shapes their spirit drastically.

>Is it a matter of choice [to incarnate]?

Not sure at all. I've also heard people say that it is, but also some that it's not, as in their spirit decays after leaving the physical body, and seeks a new one. Maybe their soul decays too–I don't know. I'm not sure if spirits decay, or merge back into the seat of their soul after death, but there are accounts of particular spirits from long ago, like Saint George. Another thing I heard from an anon: it could be that gods or planetary consciousnesses helped them out to maintain their current state.

What I hear from Bear Heart (but I cannot support this claim with ensemble-based evidence–only testimony) is that Saturn rules over earthly incarnations. Bruce in that lecture mentioned that the average time between incarnations of those who could remember past lives was twelve years. However, there was a child who remembered being an airplane pilot in WW2 who did not incarnate for a full sixty years.

I'm still looking for the main cause for reincarnation. Perhaps most strongly prefer the astral, and new consciousnesses are regularly made. In modern times, with computers, things are getting more interesting though, and I don't know if spirits can spend their time enjoying programming and YouTube videos.

* http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/demonet.html

>>9468

Oh, and I meant nothing particular when I said "demon." I really don't know what a good definition for this might be.

Bear Heart once said that demons are essentially everything that's not an angel or god (of the all), with angels being like god/prime creator's programs. That is, demons have free will, and that would make humans demons as well. I've heard that this is apparently similar to Islamic beliefs, which makes it a bit of a dirty theory in my eyes–but that won't hamper its truth or usefulness as a definition.

Perhaps demons could refer to things that are simply negative spirits, NEGs, or STS (serive to self) entities. Maybe anything that leaves a cold breeze when it passes by, and not the warmth you get from good spirits.

Losing 90% of the brain, yet still lives a normal life:

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

Consciousness without a neocortex:

http://willamette.edu/~levenick/cs448/Merker.pdf

Woman adapts to having no cerebellum (issues, but not severe):

http://willamette.edu/~levenick/cs448/Merker.pdf

So it looks like the brain isn't as important as one might think, but still plays a crucial role.

Here's a very bizarre thing that seems to support a materialist conception of consciousness: people who are blind from birth seem to allocate cognitive resources elsewhere, sometimes being able to echo-locate.

But how about those cases where missing those regions of the brain makes you mentally retarded, or dead? I'm not sure at all what the brain was evolved for in all cases.

>>9484

>Here's a very bizarre thing that seems to support a materialist conception of consciousness: people who are blind from birth seem to allocate cognitive resources elsewhere, sometimes being able to echo-locate.

I don't see why that supports materialism. Everyone knows that brains are malleable and can be adapted to new functions.

>>9486

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I meant to say that, viewed naively, it would point more intuitively for the materialist stance. Like, some theories may have predicated results, whereas others sometimes find themselves in need of ad-hoc arguments. Let us take these things and use them as a central point of a theory, then.

Anyway, things like "blind people [bor blind] don't have sight in their dreams," and such have been implied by quasi-normies to count against my arguments. What's interesting is that blind people who have a NDE experience vision.

Other questions arise, too, like the fact that different organisms have different senses, so the same astral setting could be perceived differently by different organisms. Bear Heart claims that this may extend to the appearance of entire astral creatures, as well, like trans-plutonian beings, who often look downright Lovecraftian.

>>9488

predicted* not predicated

>>9484

Another interesting story is a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain, basically experiencing her brain format itself from the perspective of someone who knows the inner workings of the brain.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight?language=en#t-46809

Haven't read her book, but she went from a kool-aid drinking scientist to someone who sounds like she's straight out of the new age movement, people listen to her because she was a scientist in what amounts to her "past life".

I think a main problem most occultists have is that they mistakenly think that aether/prana/chi is fundamentally different from what science calls energy.

Aether is simply a more subtle type of energy, so subtle that scientists have been unable to detect it.

>>9512

>so subtle that scientists have been unable to detect it

Indeed, scientists are aware that currently detectable matter/energy only accounts for 5% of the mass of the known universe. 27% is hypothesised to take the form of 'dark matter' and the remaining 68% that of 'dark energy'. Naturally a lot of people have speculated that dark energy = prana/chi/ether. Here are some articles on the subject:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Dark-Energy-and-the-Paranormal&id=3514979

http://scienceofwholeness.com/the-awesome-powers-of-dark-energy-and-matter-a-new-cosmology/

http://www.esolibris.com/articles/science_spirituality/dark_matter_01.php

>>9521

>Trash thread.

t. the biggest shitposter on this board.

Fuck off.

>>9534

>Caring so much about your shitposts that you go back, delete them, and remake them

Pathetic. If only you put as much effort into learning so you could actually contribute something. If you insist on making these relentlessly negative posts, at least learn to sage.

>>9534

What magical system do you say is better for a beginner to study.

>>9542

Educate yourself on all of them, instead of committing yourself to one before you properly understand it. Learning the similarities and differences between the systems is useful even if you end up only pursuing one, as the stuff they agree on is clearly more reliable than the stuff they don't. Dismissing a broad discussion because it contains passing mentions of things you don't like, like that guy did, is massively unhelpful.

>>9456

you might like this: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_astralplane03.htm

I don't know how accurate it is, but it makes sense.

>>9554

Yeah, Study anything on subject. If you look only at one source/system, you become biased for that one only, neglecting other knowledge.

Where does the Astral fit into the higher dimensions of string theory?

>>11405

>String Theory

>anything but complete bullhsit like ((Eintien's))) relativity

So what things 'die' and which things continue to exist after RIP

Is there a part of our ego that can exist in the nonphysical? Does the astral/etheric body contain it's own ego?

I would imagine if you never learn to astral project you will blindly reincarnate or something but what exactly would be the mechanisms behind this phenomenon?