general supernatural exploration - part 1

[Mr G]

I must say that you've piqued my interest with your immaculate consumption technique. Don't know why it hasn't occurred to me to indiscriminately flood my brain with other people's mild drivel in stead of my own inane unsense. Just think of the energy savings! And I'm not joking either. Don't know if it's a path with a heart, but it's a path. Have you seen the South Park episode where Stan becomes cynical? Everything he used to like literally turns to shit. I feel like that. I'm going to lower my standards and plough headlong through mediocrity. And I bet I'm going to love it.

Furthur!

[Mr X]

hello mr g,

i wouldnt say immaculate consumption is and technique. it is just the holding pattern. it is more subtle, listening to elevator music and not wondering if the elevator will fall.

what if your one good idea is an reaction to something else. that might be missed if consuming yourself instead of something else. or the other way around. so i dont recommend it, and i dont not recommend it. my experience and your experience could differ wildly. is it the one good idea to keep an eye out for, or the one good action.

Don't know if it's a path with a heart, but it's a path.

thats all it is. i think you would find quickly, it is not all indiscriminate, as it is you choosing what to consume. dont get caught in the trap of only using digital media. museums and art are good, and even the mix of both, church. the bigger old ones are good, but just anyone, get in as it starts leave before it ends. just mix it up so you are not in and echo chamber.

some cynicism and meatism even some nihilism seems healthy. everything turning to shit sounds depressive. maybe sorting through the bad for the good is an analogue for seeking agent infini-g. plough long and hard mr g, and prosper.

i wonder what weird and strange techniques we could come up with. "forum4 guide to exploring the supernatural and the life brain, the hard way."

mr x.

[Mr G]

This is a most interesting development.. But can you tell me one thing.. Do you know what the holding pattern is holding out for? In sport it could be used to "sit on a lead" or to play out a temporary disadvantage like a sent off player or injury, or to regain "composure" after taking some knocks. I can profit from both options 2 and 3. It doesn't matter, just curious. Also, do you have an idea of how long it will last, and what you'll do after?

[Mr X]

hello mr g

it is hard to describe even the most simple things. fun to try. as an result of casually talking about the holding pattern with you, i have had too at times pause the holding pattern to think my own thoughts about the holding pattern. so i had the answer to your question before you asked it, and am happy you asked.

put on your cynic cap then put on your ascended master of not giving and fuck hat over that.

Do you know what the holding pattern is holding out for

nothing.

you pay into it with ticks of the clock, with the agreement that you get nothing in return. like waiting, for nothing.

nothing is like the bass line. but more can be added, if desired. while you wait for nothing what would you do. sit and listen to the clock tick, or pass the time some other way.
when it comes to the nothing of the holding pattern, i like the lack of meaning fate or destiny. "not today, everything". i like that even good quality cynicism can be turned on itself, resulting is liking something.

why is there nothing, instead of something.

the sports ideas such as regaining composure, i could imagine it being used for that. only just, and not in isolation.

holding pattern lasts as long as you let it. i dont know what i would do.

what is it about the holding pattern that makes you so interested ?

mr x.

waiting for nothing doesnt have to be the worst thing in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0kHmyZUEHg

ps.

[Mr G]

It has an castaconceptual aspect to it, only better. Original, even. Something like facing oncoming time, or being impeccable. But it's much more subtle. It doesn't require much discipline, just a gentle reminder. "What else is on." Not just on tv. "What's that, there?" You may be a genius, or something  . I've been looking for a way out of this inverted mirror ball for a long time. I find it somewhat farcical to think of me... -me- ...as a warrior, or impeccable in any way. But as a consumer? I can dig that. I've had a fun few days, I just hope I can sustain it. I hope I don't forget about it, or start philosophizing internally about it. Also, it's not a big deal. But it's great. Thanks.

 

[tally-ho!]

x man: maybe it is as much puppies, laughter and friendship, as it is cancer, violence and supernovas. an non omipotent god that just started the sim but cant change what happens is equally terrifying.

about 26 years ago i danced  for someone on the question "why is there evil?", after noting to him that usually i would avoid impersonal questions,  but for him, for that person, the question IS personal [?]; the answer was- as much as i remember, and as much as i'm allowed to tell in public an answer to someone's personal question: a pain in the shoulder (which i felt, physically) prevents Yah from doing big circular motions with one of his arms, causes him to do small circles instead.

[knew already - my own recieving, or seeing? not communication, dance or otherwise - that he's not omnipotent. this dumb idea was spread by guys who tried to blame him for their own evil deeds]

on later occasion yah surprisingly interfered in my internal dialogue (very rarely he would, very rarely so verbally): "you see? power corrupts - if i break my own or other's formulated lows, [=lows are made by the groups to which they concern, local populations, and Spirits of Areas are the policing forces] i'll get corrupted as a result. what is worse - a world in which i can't interfere directly in evil doings, or a world with a corrupted evil god?"

he too couldn't have carried the ring...
only frodo could.

but what puppies have to do with cancer or supernovas, 2fd?

[Mr X]

hello mr g,

You may be a genius

that would explain why my employer sometimes calls me einstein. as an possible genius expert, i should purchase some elbow patches for my jackets.

castaconceptual is interested. as former casta readers, for the rest of our lives concepts like limiting self obession or changing internal monlouge will spark some recognition and association with casta. even though the concepts are simple and general. for non casta readers talk of internal monologue or the perils of self obsession are just that, conversation about things everyone understands.

it would interested to see how various former readers and former beliefers see such concepts after so much elapsed time. there has to be at least one person who said "casta is a fraud, i am going to go back to being self important". just and interested thing.

even if warriors were real with all their impeccable and magic like in the storys, few people would qualify.

mr x.

ps.

ms z, why would yah have an shoulder ?

[tally-ho!]

ms z, why would yah have an shoulder ?

ouch, that cold shoulder hurts... but i guess i deserve the Reprimand, sir. eye, eye!

[Mr X]

hello ms z,

a world in which i can't interfere directly in evil doings, or a world with a corrupted evil god?

how would you be able to tell the difference. in both versions puppy dogs would get cancer.

it is not an cold shoulder. in an thread where we are wondering if anything supernatural even exists, saying "oh by the way god, the guy who created the universe, he told me this and he has an hurt shoulder" , how am i meant to respond.

it does seems unlikely that the creator of the universe worked its way into your brain to tell you it cant do anything. if it cant interfere in evil doings, can it interfere in goodly doings ?

that is your experience and report, i appreciate it, but dont expect others to automatically agree just because you feel strongly about it. and dont be offended if others do not agree.

as most supernatural lore is based on eyewitness testimony, it brings the idea of how do we determine the good from bad, how do we explore the supernatural.

non omnipotent god is interesting.

frodo was not that great an ring bearer. samwise was an good ring bearer bearer.

mr x.

ps.
aye aye ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NW29q6C4Do

[Mr X]

how do we explore the supernatural ?

this is not one with an good answer. we could listen to people, read watch listen to their reports. research written records, watch crappy tv shows, learn the general lore. .and it all results in lots of words spoken and listened to, is that exploring ? is hearing about something exploring.

so i propose we add some sort of interactive actiony bit to this thread. questions can be added to the first post, and proposed actions can be added. for example, z, you belief in god, is there and action or technique or some sort of activity that could lead to some sort of experience of your god.

i think it would be interested to try out stuff, without beliefing in it or being invested. just looking for direct experience, wether is is strong weak or novel experience..

i was think about this due to talking with g. constant consumption is version 2 of and older thing. version 1.5, which was un named, was and reaction to the terrible brutal version 1.

1.5 was pretty simple. try to find a ghost. no cameras or voice recorders or anything. a torch, some water and an knife. be alone. no thoughts of capturing and ghost and proving ghosts. only to capture it as your own experience.

you can do the old trespass, or you can pay people to have the place to yourself. with the trespass there is the chance of meeting something worse than the dead, teenagers. they might make fun of you, or they might offer you pot. there is also the chance of junkies and crazys. and hobos, they are good to talk to.

being alone in the dark, quietly exploring and supposedly very haunted location, gently following every bump and creak, swearing there must be someone else there, in the room you were just in were there was noone. if an disembodied voice were to occur i wouldnt hear it due to my heart in my ears. be calm, quiet and cool, try to find a ghost. dont think.

i havent done that recently. researching and considering the location was fun, but the experience was more than that.

mr x.

ps.

i am dissapointed at the lack of participation from j and t in this thread.

ppss.
having answered and question i add the question -

what is love, or what does love got to do with it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2h4PhgobI8
mr x.

[ju4o]

"... participation from j ..."

Hey I am here and reading this thread with interest.  Maybe not really understanding much of it, for example the consupmtion stuff, but hoping that as the thread develops it will gradually become clearer to me.  Anyway, as regards the main theme, my recollection is that you are going to read Sanchez and we are scheduled to debate it when u have done so.

"we are scheduled to argue about sanchez next year mr j" (24th dec 2014)

[Mr G]

what is love, or what does love got to do with it ?

In a meat sense (but not meant cynically), I think it's probably hormones that affect certain areas of the brain where certain subsections of the main meatprogram is stored. These subsections include, but is not limited to:

Pair bonding (to facilitate mating and child rearing)
Maternal / Parental bonding (to promote survival of the genes)
Team bonding (probably a hunting thing)
James bonding (a cheap, silly joke)

From wikipedia, on the hormone Oxycontin:

Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "bonding hormone". There is some evidence that oxytocin promotes ethnocentric behavior, incorporating the trust and empathy of in-groups with their suspicion and rejection of outsiders.

In a mystical sense, one can do no worse than to quote "the wickedest man in the world":

"IT IS WRITTEN that 'Love is the law, love under will.' Herein is an Arcanum concealed, for in the Greek Language [Agape], Love, is of the same numerical value as [Thelema], Will. By this we understand that the Universal Will is of the nature of Love. Now Love is the enkindling in ecstacy of Two that will to become One. It is thus an Universal formula of High Magick. For see now how all things, being in sorrow caused by dividuality, must of necessity will Oneness as their medicine... Understand now that in yourselves is a certain discontent. Analyse well its nature: at the end is in every case one conclusion. The ill springs from the belief in two things, the Self and the Not-Self, and the conflict between them. This also is a restriction of the Will. He who is sick is in conflict with his own body: he who is poor is at odds with society: and so for the rest. Ultimately, therefore, the problem is how to destroy this perception of duality, to attain to the apprehension of unity.
- Aleister Crowley, "De Lege Libellum"

(Wickedpedia)

(not really)

I hope other participants can provide more positive inputs on this matter.

Regarding the ghost hunting thing: No way, Xosé. I don't believe in ghosts, but that doesn't mean I'm not scared of them. I can't even watch scary movies. Also, heart attacks: Avoid.

But don't let me stop you...

Talking of inner Countachs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTidn2dBYbY
(search for kung fury if vevo denies you)

PS Since I changed my ringtone to the theme from Knight Rider, I pity the unsolicited sales caller who dares disturb my slumber...

[tosk]

Well, like ju4o (sort of), I was waiting for this thread to get more of a focus.

I will say however, stating that Sam would have made a better ringbearer than Frodo,
is a little silly.

He only carried the ring for, what, half a day?

Hell, I could do that.

<cough>

[Mr X]

hello mr t,

for some focus, try answering and question and asking and question. maybe with some more input we could get more of and base of thoughts on the table, and an better sense of how we each view things. from there maybe the focus or definintion would form itself, or we could determine what and how to explore. if there even is anything to explore.

tangents will happen. the only difference of this thread from the countless times on the internet people have talked about the supernatural, is the participants. thats all we have going for us here, so the beliefs experiences and thoughts of the participants is part of it, if not it. even if it strays into not supernatural things, such as internal monologue or counstasches. if you have any idea of how to explore the supernatural, then please say. surely you have views about this.

mr g, no wonder you cant be an impeccably warrior, isnt that the first thing, dont be an scaredy cat. you need and training montage of watching progressively scarier movies, until you can conquer your fear of conquering your fear of things that go bump in the night. kung fu monk heartbeat lowering skills would solve the heart attack problem i assume.

that tupe and the trailer are amazing. that is one excellent inner countach. i think you are now lord of the tupers. the crowley quote also excellent. inner hoff is great, then i remembered reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDcEu9fjAhk

mr j, you can start and thread for snachez at youre leisure. and i will contribute at my leisure.
there is not much to understand about consumption stuff, it is not supernatural and this thread is not about it. i did enjoy talking about it with g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0D4ekTODuA

x.

[Mr G]

I'm listening to the audiobook of an early AC Clarke novel, The City and the Stars. It's not his best work, but that's fine, it's from the 1940s. It's uncanny how he predicts virtual reality at least 50 years before it became a possibility. He even has a black hole in the story, a good 30 years before that became well known. He's probably most famous among non-science fiction readers (science fiction non-readers? J4?) for the statement "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It's from a set of "laws" called Clarke's Three Laws, which I quote here for some reason.

1.   When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.   The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3.   Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

(Wikipedia)

In The City and the Stars, there is a group of people who communicate telepathically, and all people are able to command machines telepathically. This is a fairly common theme in science fiction, but in my opinion, one of the more far-out notions. I don't know how or if Clarke explains telepathy (I've not finished the book), but in this case I think it's closer to magic than technology.

If we were to try and pseudo-explain telepathy and mind reading, we have to assume that one being's brain is able to receive impressions made in another being's brain. Thus, we must assume that the thought-impressions:

(a) radiate through a medium in a decodable form, or
(b) cause radiation through a medium that cause sympathetic "vibes", or
(c) originate from a common source that is readable by both parties.

If you feel I've left something out, please add to the list. In the first two cases, we have to postulate the medium. It seems unlikely that it would be simple electromagnetic radiation, because I don't think we have the equipment for it. Also, surely science would have discovered this before. In any case, we would have to revive the idea of "the luminiferous aether", or something even stranger.

Another problem with (a) is that we'd have to assume that all nervous systems and though patterns are identical, and that when you think "apple", it generates a coded signal that, when received by me, activates the corresponding thought form in my brain. That would mean that if we monitor your brain, we should be able to point to a bunch of neurons and say: Look, this means "50%", this means "off", this means "day-old" and this means "doughnuts". The scenario seems far-fetched to me.
 
With (b) we can point to "archetypes" as a possible common set of codes. Perhaps when you think of a scary movie monster, part of your brain oscillates at a frequency corresponding to the "bogeyman" archetype. So I may interpret that you are scared of something, but I wouldn't know if it was the Alien, Freddy Kreuger or the Grinch what stole Xmas. So, it may be a useful tool, but not exactly high resolution.

As far as (c) is concerned, that would imply that all consciousness (or large parts) come from the same source, i.e. "God", or something. In this scenario, we might imagine that we are tethered, by an umbilical cord-like thing which extends into an unseen dimension of space, to the holy Mainframe. Here, a thought had by an outer head is relayed to (or relayed by) the inner head, and becomes accessible to another outer head, either by requisition or by hacking.

Well, this post is getting too long, but I look forward to your posts addressing "The supernatural seen as technology".

A good day to all.

PS It is already possible to command machines by thought alone, but I believe this simply monitors blood flow in the brain and that would require that you wear a sensor cap. Come to think of it, that's what Clarke described in 3001: The Final Odyssey.

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

EDIT: Erratum - The sensor cap measures electrical activity (EEG), not blood flow. That would be FMRI.