Energy development mandatory for psionics?

[quote="Nathan"]
On one of OPC website I came up with strong reaction against my believe of energy development importance in psionics. On my blog and everywhere else I teach what I know - that energy development is mandatory for use of psionic abilities. What do I mean, let me clarify:

By energy development, I mean development of the energy body which includes both chakras (energy centres, exchange ports, Tan T'iens) and nadises (meridians, energy channels). Personally, I practise New Energy Ways. I believe that it's impossible for a person to learn how to use or sense psionic energy without developing the energy system first.

My believe is based on personal experiences and simple observation. For the years of my own research I've noticed that people who have never ever practise energy work can't really do anything with psionic skills. But after few months of practising NEW, abilities are starting to develop, sometimes slower, sometimes faster, but they do. The reason why there are people who can do psionic stuff without energy development first is because they have their energy body already developed to specific level - this is what we used to call "born-ons" in the old days :).

Uff, what do you think - is energy development mandatory for psionics or not?
[/quote]

The blurry definitions annoy me and make all following points muddy. In another thread, I mention necessary and contingent factors. To demonstrate what I mean, let us use 1+4=5

We can figure out that 1+4=5 so 5-4=1, but what if we say that SOMETIMES 1 =3 and 4=5. You would get 1+4=5 sometimes and 1+4=8 others. How in the world could one create an accurate and static postulation if the axioms within the postulation are not defined and constantly change?

Of course, that does not happen with mathematics so let me try another example.
All humans are human and some can have red hair. The basis of all future postulations about a human rests upon it identity as a human in which the traits would be contingent upon its state of being a human, but if what defines the state of being a human is not clearly defined, then all postulations stemming from it would be unequally defined leading to conflicting postulations built upon different premises leading to many paradoxes.

Thus, the first challenge would be to define psionics and psionic skills. Common definitions in the OEC are very shallow and have many paradoxes when one examines it critically, in my opinion. Now, psionics is commonly defined as a type of art which creates a correlation between mind and "psychic" phenomena via reducing everything to a metaphysical energetic model of sorts, but that, in itself, has many problems when one takes a purely metaphysical look at thought and consciousness.

The word consciousness suffers the same ambiguity for it simply refers to mental state of being, thus, in psychology a state of consciousness is simply a psychological state of being which is an abstraction of the brain, itself. In the metaphysical sense, consciousness would refer to the ontological ascription of this state of psychic being as an actual thing with real properties in itself, thus, a thought is not an abstraction, per ce, but it is seen as an actual thing within its abstraction leading to dualistic philosophies of state of mind. Parapsychological research operates, mainly, from a dualistic philosophy of mind in which there is a correlation of state of being, in this thing, and another thing due to the assumption that mind can read out and do things on its own. 

Long story short, it is found that all psychic phenomena are extrinsic to the consciousness of the person in which the consciousness of the person is a necessary component. Various invariances with physical constants lead to the inference that the intensive property on which the effects are extrinsic dictated is beyond that those physical constants, altogether, leading to the idea that whatever it is is brain independent, thus, consciousness leads to that state of being which constitutes the very primal aspects of "thought". If these things are not defined per their properties, discussions of them become muddy.

Setting a type of metaphysical energy as a necessary condition is seen as false when one traces the start of where any verifiable manifestation of psychic abilities manifest; the psyche of the person. You reach the same conclusion when one looks at the thing manipulating the energy. If that model is seen as true, you would have the properties of the thing manipulating the energy, for the energy can not be manipulated without the involvement of the person, thus, the necessary condition for that manipulation are the properties of that thing, itself. One would be forced to construct a model to explain the interaction of the realm of psyche with that ream of energy and find some way to link it to end manifestation in the physical world. This can actually be seen in esoteric metaphysical ontological descriptions of this. Since the psyche is necessary, energetic development would not be mandatory.

Your usage of psionics and psionic abilities is very vague. I was going to respond with examples of why I thinkl this is wrong via a list of abilities I have without ascribing any energetic model, but then I realized that I could not properly do that due to you not properly defining psionics and/or psionic abilities. Also, I am aware this is metaphysical discourse, but any mention of any type of psionic energy turns a conversation to do that since any concept of psionic energy is purely metaphysical in nature even if its dressed up in scientific jargon, for there is no empirical evidence to support the concept of any type of psionic energy.

Personally, in terms of utilization of psychic abilities, energetic systems are too simple for me. I find beauty in complexity which is part of why life amazes me so. Ever see a chemical equation written for the most basic of biological processes? Ahhhh... Just beautiful. That being said, I favor an ontological arrangement and grouping of entities within general realms/circles which generally leads to more aesthetically pleasing things in its artistic or linguistic expression. Development in the energetic sense, assuming a thing is real, would be so simple and not mentally challenging nor aesthetically rewarding. 

1. If you believe that the concept of energy system is making psionics not complex enough for you makes me thing we have nothing really to discuss. No, really - the energy system, the way energy flows through space, this is damn complex so please don't try to say otherwise or it will be proof for me that in reality you have never explored the subject in details.
2. You say "metaphysical" - you haven't paid much attention to philosophy, have you?

Now, if you're a car, and your energy system is your engine, and there's plenty of fuel around you, how can you operate if your tubes are plugged? ;) This is how energy system looks like when it's undeveloped - the energy can't flow through channels. And how can you really manipulate the energy if it can't flow through you?

[quote="Nathan"]
2. You say "metaphysical" - you haven't paid much attention to philosophy, have you?

Now, if you're a car, and your energy system is your engine, and there's plenty of fuel around you, how can you operate if your tubes are plugged? ;) This is how energy system looks like when it's undeveloped - the energy can't flow through channels. And how can you really manipulate the energy if it can't flow through you?
[/quote]

If it is not metaphysical that would make it natural meaning that it can be empirically observed a posetri and not known a priori. Numbers are metaphysical entities due to their underlying nature being built upon reason, intuition, etc. that can only be known through logical induction built upon rationalism. They are mere abstractions. Science, built on logical positivism, sought to strip these things of its ontic existence as any more than epistemic and epistemological markers of descriptions of objects known through empirical observation in which these observations made up the axioms of a hypothesis, postulation, theory, etc. While the framework of induction can create the basis of a hypothesis and theory, the scientific method has a built in function of experimentation in which the thing is tested via a type of deductive experimentation versus a purely mathematical proof via induction.

That being said, the basis on which these "energy systems" and "energy bodies", as you called it, can be known is through a noetic sense of a source that is independent of physical senses, thus, it is not empirical knowledge or even rationale knowledge. It would be noetic knowledge which would not fit into empirical knowledge. Technically, it would constitute a type of innate knowledge, gleamed from a source other than physical senses, on which things are intuited and then deduced, which is not empirical in nature nor can it be empirically measured and quantified, thus, making its nature as such as that it can not fit into scientific inquiry. Thus, it would belong to metaphysical epistemological inquiry, so why you balked at my label of metaphysics is unwarranted. 

Your definitions were not further defined. Are you setting psionics is energy manipulation, purely, in which effects are achieved, or are you setting energy manipulation and psionics as separate branches in which energy manipulation can be a necesary condition for psionic abilities. What are psionic abilities, themselves?   

Let me give you an example. Say we can walk. There are many ways to walk. Are you ascribing the nature of walk to walk or are you ascribing two forms of walking:

the psionic walk
the something else walk

In order to do the psionic walk, one would do things necessary to do the psionic walk, BUT the psionic walk is not the basis on which all can walk, for there would be many ways of walking. Are you setting the basis of what you are calling energy manipulation as the basis for all other things? If so, one would run into the ontological problem of what is the thing doing the energy manipulation. The entire thing devolves into a circular arrangement of continuously divisible objects all circling and running into each other.

[quote="Nathan"]
1. If you believe that the concept of energy system is making psionics not complex enough for you makes me thing we have nothing really to discuss. No, really - the energy system, the way energy flows through space, this is damn complex so please don't try to say otherwise or it will be proof for me that in reality you have never explored the subject in details.
[/quote]

You are simply arbitrarily stating your opinion without any kind of support within a framework which reminds me of the Cartesian Circle.

I am assuming the New Energy Ways part of your post is tied, in part, to Robert Bruce's work. If you pay close attention to his adaptation of those beliefs, you will notice a similar ontological mapping when one looks at the significance of varying subtle bodies and realms and planes he describes. If that is indeed the work, I can tell you that I read it many years ago when I was 16 I think... 

To me, trying to find the underpinnings of mind-mind or mind-matter interactions, assuming that the ontological mapping of energetic systems is real, is like attempting to find the underpinning of the emergent properties of what constitutes the smallest parts of matter with classical physics, alone.

I am not an energy worker in any shape, way, or form, yet I still am capable of very potent psychic feats. While I DO have natural aptitude, a lot of progress was done by enforcing and supplementing what was there in ways outside of that energetic framework that you are proposing, so your idea that people who can naturally do things with an already developed energy body loses its universal aspect considering that it does not apply to me creating an anomaly in it pointing to an underlying paradox of sorts, for it it were true, it would be true with me, as well, but, as I said, it is not, thus, there is something wrong in it that needs to be reworked by setting it as contingent and emergent of a more basic part. 

If you are into New Energy Systems it is true that its easier to perform Psionics. An example of that are Energy Systems from Martial Arts where the Practicioners can heal or break solid stuff like wood and bricks.

But its not obligatory to be initiated to such a System so you develop Psionic Powers. In plus, you guys forget Wild Talents, people who exhibit such Powers without being related to anything similar before.

That is my opinion on this matter.

Cobalt.

[quote="Cobalt"]
If you are into New Energy Systems it is true that its easier to perform Psionics. An example of that are Energy Systems from Martial Arts where the Practicioners can heal or break solid stuff like wood and bricks.
[/quote]

I can heal and psychokinetically break things. The only difference that I can think of is not utilizing my body as a focal point, per ce. I use a more teleological model when doing things which focus on reification of abstractions and usage of logograms which symbolize mental states. I am aware that a thought is not a physical object and a physical object not a thought, so it can be ontologically, and dynamically, argued that what one calls a metaphysical form of energy is a type of buffer in between, but, still, it would be emergent of that overlaying thing negating its nature as a necessary condition. It reminds me of attempting to find a classical, or even orthodox quantum, theory for such things as psychokinesis, somewhat, whet it is obvious that there is another piece of the puzzle in which it is rooted. It also can be related to theological thought. Say, for example, we say that all things are possibly ONLY though the Gold Club god of Deihiti. What if a person does not believe in this gold club deity, yet he still is able to exists and function. A rebuttal, from the proponent of the deity, would be that just because you are not aware of using the all powerful energy of Deihiti, does not mean that you are not using it to exists and function, but is that not, in itself, fallacious, because its ascribing existence to something due to its... non existence?

Progression with my psychic abilities, coupled with reigning control over the ones I already have, seems to be tied to my psychological and intellectual development and NOT any energetic development.

In my opinion, this thread seems to be pushing only ONE way to develop in which its based upon the author's beliefs. There are many ways to develop. While it is not my chosen system, there are people who develop under energetic systems and some who do not.

It is true that not all people who follow those Energetic Systems exhibit a talent for Psionics. But this way they become more familiar with Energy (example Chi Gong).

It is also true that this is the classical approach and there are others as well. One alternative system not tied to Martial Arts is Pranayama Yoga.

I would also like to hear wyvernkyubi to propose a System he knows or follows, because his opinions are interesting.

Cobalt.

My model is that mind is a thing, in its abstraction, that exists within itself. If mind is a thing, in itself, then things from mind also exists, within themselves, as things extrinsic to mind. That being said, abstract objects, in the form linguistic objects, exists as actual things in form. That being said, I use a lot of symbology and graphmemes focusing strongly on the concept behind its underlying meaning. Since such things are extrinsic to my mind, its complimented via psychological exercises and experimentation with states of mind. In other words, such things exists in actual form by existing within my mind which is a thing, in itself, in which it effects the outside world via some type of correlation. It is basically organizing objects within a sub domain within a subdomain that has a correlation with things external to it. I do not necessarily focus on the properties of what those correlations are, for that can not be truly known to me.

I am naturally a telepath and energetic models don't mesh well when one attempts to pin point the location of mind and thoughts within it. It requires an ontological division, by default, and the nature of concepts eludes the model Nathan was proposing. It also generally flops horribly in psychokinesis.

In terms of complexity, organization of abstractions allows for more artistic forms of expression and utilization in the form artistic depictions, elaborate linguistic symbols, and I am currently working on combining it with musical notes as soon as I learn enough about them... (is not musically gifted).

In the end, though, these are merely tools for my mind to use for the power comes from my mind, for that is what starts the chain of events leading to psychic phenomena.

My personality type would not work well for systems which make a body, or the body, a focal point, for I basically live in my head, anyway. I think WAAAAAAY too much and you can generally find me in a book or attempting to organize the new information that was learned in my head. I am not too aware of my body and I am quite clumsy. I walk like I am going to fall over and am a poor judge of spatial distance. I am liable to walk side by side with you and walk RIGHT into you while falling over you at the same time, so I am poorly made for any technique that focuses on body dynamics. I can create a breathing pattern symbolically linked to a mental association of x, such as relaxation, but structured breathing I am lousy at.

I think you should ude your Instinct a bit. Logic is nice but from what I have seen and experienced, Psionics has to do a lot with Instinct and Impulse. My opinion at least.

Cobalt.

[quote="Cobalt"]
But its not obligatory to be initiated to such a System so you develop Psionic Powers. In plus, you guys forget Wild Talents, people who exhibit such Powers without being related to anything similar before.
[/quote]
Indeed, this is what we used to call "born-on" - those people have what appears to be already developed energy system that doesn't require any more development but pure practise.

Systems like NEW should be introduced and practise by those who do not have "innate psychic abilities" ;)

[quote="Nathan"]
[quote="Cobalt"]
But its not obligatory to be initiated to such a System so you develop Psionic Powers. In plus, you guys forget Wild Talents, people who exhibit such Powers without being related to anything similar before.
[/quote]
Indeed, this is what we used to call "born-on" - those people have what appears to be already developed energy system that doesn't require any more development but pure practise.

Systems like NEW should be introduced and practise by those who do not have "innate psychic abilities" ;)
[/quote]

I think the concept of "born on's" absolutely absurd. You also keep pushing this NEW paradigm without any justification as to WHY one should use it and its relation to psychic abilities. You are arbitrarily stating a correlation, whose flaws I pointed out in my above posts, and using this as support of pushing this NEW system.

A part of me very much wants to summarize wyvernkyubi's points with TLDR.  Sadly, I would be lying.

It seems the bulk of the disagreement is semantic, because Wyvernkyubi has problems getting past semantics, or using language direct enough to make others realize this is his primary complaint.  The disagreements of substance, however, arise from very different backgrounds.

Yes, the energy model is simple, compared to any number of attempts at empirically derived explanations.  Simplicity and invalidity are not the same.  The energy model makes assumptions based on (literally) several millennia of intuitive exploration into various phenomena.  This was not empirical, however, realistically, empirical exploration of these phenomena ranges from very difficult to impossible (at this time).  As such expectation that these phenomena will be viewed, explored, or even discussed empirically is truly absurd.

Psionics, is more often than not a casually approached subject.  Whether good or bad, this is the reality, and is further reason to not expect explanations and determinations that would hold up to scientific peer review.  Frankly, Wyvernkyubi, your expectations of relative children surpass my expectations of relative adults.  Your diction is aimed at a specialized class of reader who does not frequent this forum.  Your arguments are largely irrelevant and lacking substance, preferring complex arguments without concrete support.  While I appreciate rhetoric, I particularly don't care for your brand of it.

That rant out of my way, I can explain why you're all being rather silly.  You're arguing over which is blacker, the kettle or the pot.  The energetic model versus the mind model are fairly similar, in terms of mechanics.  With the energy model you develop, use and strengthen energy centers, exchange ports, meridians, etc.; in the mind model you literally develop, use and strengthen your mind.  It's done differently in both systems.  In energetics meditative visualization, breathing exercises, etc. are used.  In the Mind model, study, mental activity, and general fluidity of psyche as a self-sustaining, highly-interactive, component of self.  What seems to be overlooked is that both of these methods overlap.  Development of visualization ability, meditation, control of the body mentally, etc. inflate mental prowess.  The continuous and increasingly greater use of the mind innately gives more shape and continuity to the energetic systems of the body.

These aren't two different models, so much as two different interpretations of what is essentially one model (or, more accurately, two different legs of the same table).  I'm sure there are many more aspects that constitute the complete list of relevant factors, however arguing over which of these two interpretations is more accurate is entirely pointless to practical use.  In terms of ease of use, the energetic model is more easily understood and used for most people, thus earning it my vote.

I just wanted to throw in that, I have little belief in chakras and pretty much most of all that you listed. I'm not against people that do, I just have a different outlook on how psionics would work, and I do PK everyday pretty well.

What I'm saying is, I don't think specific energy work is needed to work with psi, at least PK.

However: Energy Development in a sense could be beneficial for practice.

Those Systems used to be the way the previous generations used to train in Psionics. Martial Arts (some of them at least) have Energy development as the final stage of the training. Meditation Systems, like Yoga, they have stages of initiation into Energy.

What I am saying is that its not obligatory to follow a system to develop such abilities. But I know people who are into those Systems and they exhibit Energy talents.

And saintbob, chackras do exist, same as the meridians and the whole energetic structure of the human body.

Cobalt.

Cobalt, I will agree that chakras [i]might[/i] exist. I will leave it at that. However, it is [b]not[/b] [i]scientifically[/i] proven that chakras do in fact exist.

Scientifically many things have not yet proven true... Chackras have a long history and bibliography of use by other practitioners. We find them in many cultures (India for instance). Their name means "wheel". Chackras, not might, but they do exist...

If you want to see them just take an examination of your aura at an alternative medicine Healer. If you also practice with them in mind, you will see a great progress in your training. An example is the Dan Tien, second Chackra from below (two fingers below the navel) that many Psions use it to create a Psi Ball.

Cobalt.

Technically LTT (Lower Tan T'ien) isn't the abdomen chakra, it's another element of the energy system that differs from primary energy centers :).

I didn't know that Nathan... Thank you.  :)

If I may ask, the LTT, in which system do we find it ? I will PM you for more, because I would like us to exchange ideas.

Cobalt.

Lower Tan T'ien as all Tan T'iens is a term that originate from Tai Chi Chuan and Taoistic point of view upon energy body. It's also a term used in New Energy Ways, and as far as I'm aware of, Dimitri Wereszczagin also included this energy centre in his energy development system.

I'm going to look more into all this tan t'ien talk.. sounds neat.

[b]BTW:[/b] Nathan. Off topic. I have to say, I like your site. [i]AND[/i] you look like Prof. Rush from Stargate universe (fav show) so much you are my new hero, haha.

First of all,  I just want to say I'm in no way familiar with or intrigued by anything related to "New energy" so much as the old stuff that's been around since at least the big bang as far as we know.  ;D

Also, I don't deny that psionic abilities can of course be innate gifts- just as anything else.

[quote]"That being said, the basis on which these "energy systems" and "energy bodies", as you called it, can be known is through a noetic sense of a source that is independent of physical senses, thus, it is not empirical knowledge or even rationale knowledge."[/quote]

I can't help but indulge a conversation about the complexity and empiricism of ancient psychology and physiology otherwise vaguely referred to as "energy work".  There's a boatload of evidence, in my opinion, that the ancient yogis of India, yogins of tibet, and Taoists/Buddhists of China were first and foremost practically minded empiricists.  They were masters of objective observation of not only physiology but also of thought and the places where these two intersected.  In example: Tibetan yogins would use visualization, mudras and breathing to not only survive the harsh climate, but have contests to see who could dry out the most wet linen sheets over their bare shoulders by a lake on a freezing cold night in order to see who had progressed furthest in gTummo or the yoga of inner heat! 

I'm not sure how to interpret them exactly, but kirlian photography does seem to show [i]something[/i] inexplainable, though the interpretation is up to you.  I found the discussion page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian quite entertaining.

More convincing in my mind is the work done to map/record the points of least electrical resistance on the human body.

"Dr. Voll found that if he tested the electrical conductance on any general area of the human body, there was a fairly high level of electrical resistance. This is a curious point since we know that the body has a large volume of electrically conductive fluids within it. But, the skin is very resistant, by its nature to electrical current. Dr. Voll also found that at certain specific locations on the anatomy, the electrical flow is much more conductive, and these points generally correspond to the Eastern Medical Acupuncture points. Therefore, you can use an impedance or OHM meter to test the acupuncture points. This is somewhat simplistic, but it does describe the basic process of EAV."
http://www.davidsontag-dom.com/582833.html

As far as I've explored of the correspondence between chakras and tan tiens-
the idea I think is most intriguing is that while the chakra can be compared to an energetic organ, the tan tien would be more like the mitochondria or battery of the electromagnetic field.

Simple!  Simple?  ...  Would that it were so simple.

I just happened to see this thread and thought I would say that I am the "strong reaction" against his system.

Here was what I said for clarification for those curious.

[quote="stolide"]
[quote="Thion"]
So as it turns out, you haven't worked on your energy system nor opened your chakras. Please, do not expect to get any results if you haven't even cover the basics of basics of psychic development.

For some weird reasons, nobody teaches that in order to get B, you need to get A first. Focus on energy body (try Anka's system or New Energy Ways), the start opening chakras and after a year we can talk :)
[/quote]

Thion does not know what he is talking about. When I first started out, I achieved more than most people on these kinds of sites within a month or so, and did nothing to my energetic body. For some idiotic reason, I was viewed as an "expert" in the subject of combat within 6 months of starting psionics. (Hint: most people in the OEC suck)

Practicioners all over the world achieve much more in magick than most people on these sites, without so much as believing in chakras. If anyone ever tells you that you need a specific belief (intent, willpower, and focus are general ideas, not specific beliefs) in order to practice magick, they are either lying to you, or have no clue what they are talking about. Luckily for Thion, I am not under the impression he is a liar.[/quote]

And then later on, on the subject of the necessity of the use of chakras: "Let's see... [Systems that do not necessicarily include chakras are] Chaos magick, many western systems of magick, runes. You personally use the last, and it entails no beliefs of an energetic body. The first acheives great results with any beliefs you could possibly think of using. All it takes to prove you wrong is any literate being and wikipedia.

The first proves that no given ideologies are inherently superior than others, including the idea of chakras, or using fictional dieties (Cthulhu for example) or invoking pokemon, or calling on the power of my left sock (That one was specifically used by Brilenus). The last proves that you are hypocritical."

Ignoring further caustic digression, what I was essentially trying to say is that a magician can be successful without any belief in chakras. Holding that one's own system is entirely true, and no other could possibly be correct, (particularly in the field of magick, with chaos magick taken into consideration) is foolish at best.

Hopefully that illuminated things for those who care.

EDIT: I. E. [quote="Nathan"]I believe that it's impossible for a person to learn how to use or sense psionic energy without developing the energy system first.[/quote] Reconciling this with the notion of multiple systems of magick working, some of which do not use chakras. To propose that in order to perform magick one must use chakras, while observing people using magick without the belief in chakras is more than a little preposterous.

Stolide, I logically demonstrated to you how that is incorrect. It is logically incorrect in forming an ontological system. This is actually a good link on [url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/]propositional Logic[/url]

Say we say object x has the value of say 2 in philosophy b and  object x has the value of 4 in philosophy c. It can not have BOTH values at the same time nor can it be considered a tautology due to them not being equal to one another. 

x can not equal 2 and 4 at the same time due to the fact that 2!=4. The idea that nothing is true and everything is permitted is a logical fallacy due to the fact that in order to create ANY sort of ontological structure, logically, an object has to have SOME type of properties or traits with which to categorize an arrange.

object x =2 is not equal to object x=4

It logically makes no sense.

There is no empirical evidence to substantiate the body creating some sort of metaphysical energy. Trust me, I have read, and studied, tons and tons of literature when it comes to physiology. There is no empirical evidence for the physical existence of chakras, and two objects that have opposing values can not be considered tautologies of the other. 

My subjective reality is different than your subjective reality. What if I believe x to be true in the form of 4 and you believe it to be true in the form 2. They can not both be true within the SAME universe at the SAME time and we don't live in different worlds/realities. Which one is more truer than the other can be figured out by looking at the contingent properties of the necessary thing. If I said all A's are A's, then it is impossible for an A to not be an A. If I said all A's are based on B's, then it would be B(A), but say we run into an A that is based on C. This would disprove all A's are based on B's due to the fact that there is a A that is not based on B. This would make B(A) and C(A) part of a more fundamental thing. One is not right and the other wrong if they both work, it just means that they are both contingent upon an underlying property.

Let me give you an example. Oxygen, hydrogen, and water are NOT all the same thing. Is oxygen different from hydrogen? Yes, but are they not both forms of matter? Yes, they are, but they are different forms of matter. Does this make oxygen any realer than hydrogen and vice versa? Certainly not. Now, can water exists without oxygen? No. Can it exists without hydrogen? No, but is it hydrogen and oxygen, itself separately? No.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument, for in order for it to be true, we would have to live in entirely different realities/universes when that is not the case. In addition to that, it does not logically check out. I am perceiving you, but if me and you are really not in the same reality, then that would mean that the you I see does not really exists outside of my own head and vice versa. Are you a figment of my imagination? Am I a figment of your imagination? If everything is a tautology of the other, are me and you different people, or are we simply just one person perceiving a difference within themselves? This is how we can say that what you are saying is wrong, for we don't all live in different realities, we have different perceptions of one reality, and everything is not one or the same.   

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted", ironically, is an absolute/universal which would logically mean that everything is contingent upon an over arching/underlying order. In this, it IS stating an an axiom/proposed truth thereby contradicting itself. Your problem is that you are looking at the concepts instead of the logical properties of the concepts, Stolide. It is looking at the abstract without looking at how the abstract fits together.

The conversation is also not about magick, for this is not a magick site. Yes, I am aware of your idea that psi is magick, but, empirically speaking, observing the underlying mechanics of HOW this works is currently beyond us making it a soup of metaphysical postulation in which properties would differ based upon initial axiom. In other words, this is not the site nor the thread. We KNOW that there is an objective world due to the fact that we all live in one universe and not multiple universes.  Yes me and you have different perceptions, but these perceptions are emergent from the physical properties of our bodies which are emergent/contained within the over arching physical world. They would simply be smaller parts in a larger over arching domain/world.

[quote="xakarii"]
First of all,  I just want to say I'm in no way familiar with or intrigued by anything related to "New energy" so much as the old stuff that's been around since at least the big bang as far as we know.  ;D
[/quote]

To clarify, New Energy Ways should be understand as [b]new ways of old energy[/b], not new energy :).

@nathan:  I guess I'm just oldschool.  8)

@Stolid:  Doesn't outright relativism kind of devalue the idea of "truth"

@wyvernkubi:  Are you quite certain we don't live in different universes and if so how can you be certain? 

The myriad random events following the big bang (on the subatomic level, no less) would indicate otherwise. The recent history of physics discoveries and the mathematical elegance of modern theoretical physics' postulation of 11 dimensions of space-time not to mention it's correlation with some well known mystical traditions namely the Sephirot of Kabbalah [i]and[/i] the incredible overlap of doctines seemingly disparate (one easy example being the trinity of Christianity and the Tri-kaya of buddhism)  and the doctrines common to so many esoteric and exoteric groups from every part of the world give me pause; they make me think that maybe there is some truth that is beyond the metaphors and the semantics.

Understanding that every tradition holds a fragment of a mirror reflecting a single light source, that of the sun- we can get a better idea of reality as neither completely [i]subjective[/i] nor completely [i]objective[/i] but in the biomimetic tradition come to a middle way or belief structure that is more in line with the natural world, (that of a feedback loop) which does not suffer the same compulsive quarantine of opposites as does the human mind.

[quote]object x =2 is not equal to object x=4

It logically makes no sense.[/quote]

There are a lot of things that make sense logically, look good on paper, but do not translate into the real world so easily.  With mathematics -as with energy constructs from Celtic "cauldrons" to Hindu "cakras" and Chinese "cinnabar fields" we've overlayed a hyperreal map onto the every-day reality of the senses and begun to experience that reality through the lens of those beliefs, thus producing a neurologically unique experience. (The scent of a rose by any other name does not necessarily smell as sweet, or terrible if you happen to not like the scent of a rose  ::) ) 
What in one persons view is "1" loaf of bread is another's "2" meals and still anothers "-10" points on their trendy carb-counting diet.

Also this had me thinking about this quite logical tidbit from "the devil's dictionary"

LOGIC, n.  The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.  The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion -- thus:
  _Major Premise_:  Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
  _Minor Premise_:  One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore --
  _Conclusion_:  Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
  This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.

You might find page 169 of "Why we believe what we believe: Uncovering our biological need for meaning, spirituality and truth" quite interesting.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bemHuIIWmXAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=why...

I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter if you call it a cinnabar field, a chackra, or Structural Neuromuscular Energy Field; it doesn't matter if you refer to it as "short circuiting the life force in order to build it up and release it like water breaking a dam" or more scientifically "Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation".

The fact remains that something real is going on here.  I'll let you decide what you want to call it; I'm not too worried about breaking down why it's neurologically significant to call something by a particular name or metaphor so much as the practical function and benefit of using a particular "map" to fallibly and empirically decode reality.  ;)

Peace for now, y'all.

http://www.wyndwalkerstudio.com/chakras.shtm

I despise relativism, and what I am proposing is not relativism. What I am stating is that chakras are irrelevant to magick. I am proposing that almost all ideas are irrelevant to magick, in and of themselves.

If I can think of pikachu, my left sock, Dionysius, the third eye, or cthulhu, each to achieve essentially the same effect, then obviously the specific thought is not important. More probably (notice that I am uncertain, and as such am not claiming it to be inherently true) what is important is the kind of thought, and "developing ones energy system" (or thinking that one is anyways) is a type of thought that can be used to some effect in magick.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that it is obvious that what, precisely, one thinks is not important. It is far more likely that what matters is how one thinks it.

*Attempts to avoids obvious connotations*

Clearly, intent, focus, and will are used in magick. Some traditions utilize those three things through ideas of chakras, or nearly forgotten dieties, or fictional characters.

If I am still being difficult to understand, please let me know, and I will attempt to explain it differently.

P.S. If you are attempting to use math in that manner to disprove what I am saying, you do not understand what I am saying. What I am doing is the traditional method of cutting out seemingly irrelevant factors or variables from a theory. The phenom functions the same regardless of the value of some factor x (I.E. the specific thoughts or ideals when thinks of, be it chakras or Egyptian deities). Therefore, some factor x is not pertinent to the phenom.

EDIT: My cellphone functions regardless of the day of the week, therefore the day of the week is not a pertinent factor to my cellphone functioning. Sure, the day is displayed on the phone, but in all other regards it is identical to any other day.

[quote]What I am stating is that chakras are irrelevant to magick.[/quote]

Who's talking about "magic".  I'm talking about [url=http://"http://books.google.com/books?id=i10GqpzQvd8C&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=fall..."]fallibilistic empiricism[/url].

[quote]If I can think of pikachu, my left sock, Dionysius, the third eye, or cthulhu, each to achieve essentially the same effect, then obviously the specific thought is not important.
[/quote]

I agree completely, though discoveries in neurology/neuro-linguistics would suggest that this isn't always the case.  I do not discount the possibility of controlling the results of neurological stimulation through a certain understanding or point of view. I mean only to attempt an explanation as to why some systems place some importance, if any, on particular mental constructs which more easily facilitate the emotional and cognitive impact desired.

[quote]Perhaps a better way of putting it is that it is obvious that what, precisely, one thinks is not important. It is far more likely that what matters is how one thinks it.[/quote]

By this logic the above statement "It is far more likely that what matters is how one thinks" is unimportant because it falls under the category of "what one thinks".  ::)
[quote]PS: If you are attempting to use math in that manner to disprove what I am saying, you do not understand what I am saying.[/quote]

If you think I'd have any interest in disproving the tautology that X=X and 1!=2 then you don't understand what [i]I'm[/i] saying!

[quote]My cellphone functions regardless of the day of the week, therefore the day of the week is not a pertinent factor to my cellphone functioning. Sure, the day is displayed on the phone, but in all other regards it is identical to any other day.[/quote]

And what if your service provider decided to cut off your service or the satellite carrying your transmissions fell out of orbit on that "particular day"?
Are you making the argument that cell phones and the human mind operate within closed systems uninfluenced by external factors?

[quote]If I am still being difficult to understand, please let me know, and I will attempt to explain it differently.[/quote]

Yes, please!  :P

The link you gave me is not working. The term sounds familiar, but I do not recall what it means. Does it relate to pragmatism?

"By this logic the above statement "It is far more likely that what matters is how one thinks" is unimportant because it falls under the category of "what one thinks"."

There are many different ways one can think about a given thing. The common thread amongst different paradigms of magick is focus, intent, and will. The focus, intent, and will can be directed about various kinds of thoughts. I presume that since you are on this site, and do not seem like an idiot, you are aware of different general types of meditations. These frequently involve thinking in different ways, frequently of the same thing.

"If you think I'd have any interest in disproving the tautology that X=X and 1!=2 then you don't understand what I'm saying!"

That was directed at kyubi.

"And what if your service provider decided to cut off your service or the satellite carrying your transmissions fell out of orbit on that "particular day"?"

Then for however long it takes for the repair, my service would be out, however it was the satalite and not the day of the week that was the issue. If every Wednesday the service went out, because it was Wednesday, then the day of the week would be pertinent. If it went out ever Wednesday due to lining up of rotations of celestial bodies on Wednesday, the day of the week would not be pertinent, but the rotations of celestial bodies.

"Are you making the argument that cell phones and the human mind operate within closed systems uninfluenced by external factors?"

No, I am saying that some external factors do not affect specific systems, or at least do not do so to any effect of note. Do sea levels in Japan realistically have any noticable effect on the functioning of my car?

This is my key point: "If I can think of pikachu, my left sock, Dionysius, the third eye, or cthulhu, each to achieve essentially the same effect, then obviously the specific thought is not important."

"I agree completely, though discoveries in neurology/neuro-linguistics would suggest that this isn't always the case.  I do not discount the possibility of controlling the results of neurological stimulation through a certain understanding or point of view. I mean only to attempt an explanation as to why some systems place some importance, if any, on particular mental constructs which more easily facilitate the emotional and cognitive impact desired."

It sounds like you understand what I am saying. There are different connotations of ideas specific to each person that would change the specifics of how a thought effects them, and for those reasons, Cthulhu may work well for one person, while the Crown chakra may do likewise for another. Particular paradigms place their emphasis in different places because the people that follow those particular paradigms have found those emphasises to be more effect. People who do not find them more effective tend to change their paradigm.

Again, I realize I am not precisely the easiest person to understand. If there is anything that still needs illumination, just ask and I will light a candle.

Stolide, you are using metaphorical thinking, which is arational and associative, instead pure logic, which is how I refuted your statement. I am saying this because you keep responding in metaphors. While such thinking is good in the art/working of magick, it does an injustice to the actual concepts. As such, it would require a counter mathematical proof. You argue metaphors in the guise of philosophy which is easily disproven via logic. Furthermore, it is a psionics site and NOT a magick site. But, I will humor you. If you actually delve into the postulations surrounding chaos magick, you will notice that it actually talks about an underlying and fundamental domain which is unyfying. In this, it actually seems similar to Hermeitism/Stoic philosophy (during that era there was much contact between Jewish, Arabic, and Greek metaphysians/magicians due to a slight change in the Greeks position towards those cultures look into Aristotle's Secretum Secretorum). Arbaic magick is more or less astral. Astral in the sense as pertaining to cellestial bodies such as stars and planets. The OEC's concept of astral matches more or less traits of Vedic and Hellenistic thought on the matter.

[quote]
Consider the world of apparent dualisms we inhabit. The mind
views a picture of this world in which everything is double. A
thing is said to exist and exert certain properties. Being and
Doing. This calls for the concepts of cause and effect or
causality. Every phenomenon is seen to be caused by some
previous thing. However this description cannot explain how
everything exists in the first place or even how one thing
finally causes another. Obviously things have originated and
do continue to make each other happen. The "thing"
responsible for the origin and continued action of events is
called Chaos by magicians. It could as well be called God or Tao,
but the name Chaos is virtually meaningless, and free from the
childish, anthropomorphic ideas of religion.
[/quote]

[i]Liber Null pg 26 (classical material of Chaos Magick)[/i]

Let me explain what that means, because you obvious do not truly grasp its meaning. A formal ontology is a set of discrete entities which can be interpreted as objective in their creation or formulation. What do I mean objective? I do not mean empirical, I mean objective as in uniform and static in its properties. A perfect example is language as established within the semantic meaning, syntax, grammar, so on and so forth of that language. It is an object which contains x properties by virtue. In other words, its nature is the same no matter WHAT per that domain. I would advise you to look into Aristotle's treatise called Metaphysics. This is an example of a formal ontology. As such, the properties of that underlying unifying system which gives rise to, eventually, the laws governing the physical world go beyond any religion or any paradigm, but, within Chaos magick, all models are part of that one thing. It does not set tautologies Stolide. This is not unique to chaos magick, but it is tied into most branches of sorcery. Check the Hellenistic philosophies from which Hermetism is based upon, and you will see what I mean. You can actually see the concepts associated with the world "chaos" show up in texts on alchemy if you actually took the time to read it instead of skimming and simply plucking ideas you liked all willy nilly. Your understanding of sorcery is very basic and you seem to get it from misinterpretations of contemporary books on occultism. As I said, before, this is not a magick site, this is a psionics site, but I did humor you.

Your ideas are a logical and mathematical mess and you seriously need to read up more on "magick" if you want to get beyond the rudimentary basics. I have had extensive offline, and face to face, conversations about the art in occultism with  visual artists and musicians. I understand the artistic utilization of the rhetorical device of metaphors and its usage in workings, but I do not confuse that for the actual thing. That is just a way to convey underlying meaning.

Also, there was no point in mentioning your stance in this thread, for this is a psionics and not a magickal site.

Oh, after thought, I did not feel like checking the dates. I am not sure which came first the Stoics are the Hermetics or even if they originated around the same time. 

[quote="stolide"]
I despise relativism, and what I am proposing is not relativism. What I am stating is that chakras are irrelevant to magick. I am proposing that almost all ideas are irrelevant to magick, in and of themselves.
[/quote]

In order for any form of ontology to be created, the entity has to have SOME relation to the other thing/axiom, thus, some level of objectivity has to there; otherwise, there is no stable correlation between the two entities. Objectivity, in this sense, is a stable and uniform relationship. In logical, and mathematical structures, the properties of the entity, in part, are tied to its relative location in that correlation. If A is greater than B, and B greater than C, and C greater than D, the properties of A in relation to D would be that A is greater than D. We know this due to A and D's relative properties. As such, your statement is incredibly stupid, for, in this, you say you despise mathematics and intuition.

xakarii, to keep myself from retyping an entire article, again, at the bottom of my signature is my site. Go there and read "What is Science Part I". I have written an extensive article covering scientific philosophies and empiricism.

Water is from hydrogen and oxygen. We can have both oxygen and hydrogen without water; therefore, water is irrelevant and not important. But, the properties of water are essential to life on the planet of Earth; therefore, hydrogen and oxygen are important but life is not.

Charles Peirce's empiricism:
http://books.google.com/books?id=i10GqpzQvd8C&pg=PA1&dq=charles+peirce+e...

The other link was to a pertinent passage, but it's not terribly important.

Sounds like we're both talking about pragmatism though from slightly different angles.

Charles Pierce's "The tyranny of Words" was the first work I read on the subject and have to say the method is incredibly powerful in its potential application to cut through the metaphysical fluff and get at the "cash-value" (to borrow a phrase from William James) of the ideas therein.

I hear what you're saying indeed, I just didn't seem to get the same idea from the previous post, which is understandable being a rebuttal to such an extreme position as "you must believe what I believe about chakras, it's the only truth!".  ;D 

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly that for some people "Chakras" are a dead hypothesis and therefore useless. Likewise nerve ganglion and electromagnetic fields are a dead hypothesis to those brought up in chakra-schools of thought.

Save the candle in case the power goes out.  ;)  I found this little passage serendipitously and it seems like it could be a floodlight for the discussion.

[quote]Shortly, he concludes that, “The talk of believing by our volitions seems, then, from one point of view, simply silly. From another point of view it is worse than silly, it is vileâ€

xakarii:

Pragmatism *points to Charles Pierce* was the answer to the issue between empiricism and metaphysical branches based upon intuition and pure reason. Nothing more and nothing less. The Pragmatic Maxim, in itself, is very very very vague and the metaphysical undertow, in the discourse, is obvious. It does not make a clear distinction between practical and applicable and issues arise when holding it in light to epistemological limitations. The fact of the matter still remains; there is no empirical and physical proof for any of that and everything else would simply be philosophical postulation or "what if's".

The idea that there IS a mind independent world is an ontological metaphysical postulation the same as if someone said that there was not. Attempting to argue its validity, either way, leads to circular logic since the postulation is based upon empirical knowledge gained through physical experience(s) in which it is assumed to be true. The fact of the matter is that rational/metaphysical knowledge is fallible the same way that empircal knowledge is fallible. There is no guaranter of truth. Descartes got trapped in his Cartesian Circle that way.

Your earlier statements refereed to scientific branches in which no such scientific data has been gathered. By the way, I have access to A LOT of information on biology and physiology due to the fact that I will be getting a BS in a branch of biology VERY soon.

Stolide is talking about utilization/the art of and seems to be saying that is all that matters and seems to be trying to prove this and it is obvious how this would flop on branches that utilize some form of epistemological inquiry. To me, this is really stupid and shallow. That is my opinion. But, as miri stated earlier, such topics are generally casually approached, in these places, so it is to be expected to hear something like that.

I like the website but I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to say, Kyu.  As apart from saying that I despise mathematics and intuition (if that was directed at me, if not sorry for the undue response) I mean only to express a pragmatic point of view as regards tautologies such as have been presented in this thread.

As long as we're exchanging definitions to make our point of view clear I may as well share a couple that you may find germane to the discussion at hand:

[quote]Pragmatic validity in research looks to a different paradigm than more traditional, (post)positivistic research approaches. It tries to ameliorate problems associated with the rigour-relevance debate, and is applicable in all kinds of research streams. Simply put, pragmatic validity looks at research from a prescriptive-driven perspective. Solutions to problems that actually occur in the complex and highly multivariate field of practice are developed in a way that, while valid for a specific situation, need to be adjusted according to the context in which they are to be applied.
The term "validity" is often seen as a sort catch-all for the question whether the knowledge claims resulting from research are warranted. The confusion might arise from the mingling of the terms ‘internal validity’ and ‘external validity’, where the former refers to proof of a causal link between a treatment and effect, and the latter is concerned with generalizability. (In this discussion I maintain the term ‘generalizability’ rather than external validity mainly to avoid any possible confusion between the two terms.) During this discussion I consider that validity is reflected in the question, “did we measure the right thing?â€

Kyubi, you seem to think I ascribe by chaos magick, I do not really. I am not trying to say that chaos magick is ultimately correct. I am trying to say something that coincides rather well with it, however. Just to throw it out there for you, I follow no given system. I read here and there about many, but there is not a set paradigm that I go by. To attempt to show me as hypocritical, or lacking understanding, by showing a claim of mine as contradictory to a paradigm I do not follow is... idiotic.

I am not using metaphor. I am not being irrational. To be perfectly honest, each post that you make further indicates that you have no clue how to apply what you seem to know, and that too frequently, you seem to think you know the meaning of something, but do not.

Applying a given set of reasoning to a different issue (my cellphone example) is not a metaphor. The cell phone does not represent something that it is not. The cellphone is a cellphone. Wednesday is Wednesday. Satalites are satalites.

Also, relativism... Perhaps you should look that up sometime.

In addition, you might not want to assume that you are the only person who has had face to face experience in magick. I started out in magick (psionics technically since you seem to like to make a distinction), in person. I learned most of what I know either from books, or from people off line.

"Stolide is talking about utilization/the art of and seems to be saying that is all that matters and seems to be trying to prove this and it is obvious how this would flop on branches that utilize some form of epistemological inquiry. To me, this is really stupid and shallow. That is my opinion."

I am not saying anything of the sort (presuming I understand what you are saying). I am saying that one does not need to believe in chakras to produce an effect via magick. You somehow extend this to my trying to undermine the existence of mathematics and knowledge. :P

I am certain I told you before, but if you remain unable to understand this basic of a claim, that I have spent hours talking to you about before, I really cannot afford to waste any more time discussing it with you.

Xakarii: glad to hear that I am not too incomprehensible today.

I am not precisely sure what it is that is being said in that quote. Perhaps it is because I am unfamiliar with him. Is he talking about the use of pragmatism to choose hypotheses?

xakarii:

I perfectly understand what you are saying. I am just stating it does not add weight to what you are saying nor negate the empirical part of what I am saying. I have read up on the subject of biophotons. It does not scientifically substantiate/validate "energy systems" or "chakras". The Pragmatic Maxim is nothing more than a Occam's Razor with bells and whistles. It appeals to practicality and applicability in the formation/selection of hypothesis. How this entered into the conversation, I have no idea, since the subject of the thread has yet to be empirically substantiated to be included in any branch of empirical inquiry.     

[quote="xakarii"]
I like the website but I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to say, Kyu.  As apart from saying that I despise mathematics and intuition (if that was directed at me, if not sorry for the undue response) I mean only to express a pragmatic point of view as regards tautologies such as have been presented in this thread.
[/quote]

That was not aimed at you.

For more information on biology, though, check:

[url=http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=68]Directory of Open Access Journals: Biology[/url]

[quote="stolide"]P.S. If you are attempting to use math in that manner to disprove what I am saying, you do not understand what I am saying. What I am doing is the traditional method of cutting out seemingly irrelevant factors or variables from a theory. The phenom functions the same regardless of the value of some factor x (I.E. the specific thoughts or ideals when thinks of, be it chakras or Egyptian deities). Therefore, some factor x is not pertinent to the phenom.

EDIT: My cellphone functions regardless of the day of the week, therefore the day of the week is not a pertinent factor to my cellphone functioning. Sure, the day is displayed on the phone, but in all other regards it is identical to any other day.
[/quote]

Occam's Razor enetered in here, though I was attempting to avoid the philosophical jargon for ease of understanding.

[quote="stolide"]
Kyubi, you seem to think I ascribe by chaos magick, I do not really. I am not trying to say that chaos magick is ultimately correct. I am trying to say something that coincides rather well with it, however. Just to throw it out there for you, I follow no given system. I read here and there about many, but there is not a set paradigm that I go by. To attempt to show me as hypocritical, or lacking understanding, by showing a claim of mine as contradictory to a paradigm I do not follow is... idiotic.
[/quote]

The conversation was not about magick, so, again, I have no idea why this was even necessary. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to empirically say x is y and a is b due to the fact that such things are noetically experienced; therefore, at this time, it is impossible to say if "psionics" and "magick" have different properties, so one should take care to use it in the normative sense of the group that one is speaking to. Those who claim they follow no "path" are stupid, for you follow the human path. What do I mean by this? Simple. Human perceptions, and intuitions, are inductive and weave patterns, models, and paths. In other words, our mind creates a model of the world from perceptions in which we deduce information about something based upon that model. X thing has y taste; therefore, if I taste y, then, more than likely, it will be x or related to x or have some properties of x. Cause and effect is nothing more than a symmetry between two entities which is asymmetric. If A happens in conjunction with B, then B can not happen without A if the relationship is a necessary and asymmetric one. Stolide, this IS a VERY simple model, but a model none the less. A model of paradigm shifting and following any path you see fit is done for x purpose due to its relation to y, thus, your entire point eats itself in a circular mess due to the fact that it has an asymmetric relationship property to it and it is relative to something else within that postulation/premise which are the basis of a model/paradigm in itself.  A paradigm of paradigm shifting is a model of paradigm shifting none the less. I am not showing you as hypocritical, I am showing you as illogical. Your arguments are circular because it bases itself on a circular premise in which x is necessary for y only if it causes y, but what matters is y and x has no relevancy to y when x caused y. In other words, some type of belief is necessary to do "magick", but the belief itself has no value because it is not the magick, itself, but the magick could not have happened without the belief, but if the belief had no value outside of the belief, then how did it accomplish what it did? Psychological models work for utilization, but biology is not based on psychology, so why in the world would you think that any purely metaphysical ontology would be based upon the properties of psychology? This is why purely metaphysical ontologies set humans, the mind, the psyche, so on and so forth as emergent of something else.   

[quote="stolide"]
In addition, you might not want to assume that you are the only person who has had face to face experience in magick. I started out in magick (psionics technically since you seem to like to make a distinction), in person. I learned most of what I know either from books, or from people off line.
[/quote]

I am not saying you are hypocritical; I am saying what you are saying is a logical mess. Also, education in these areas requires more than "psionics" or "magick" alone and is tied to education with linguistics, logic, and philosophy. So, while you may have a natural affinity for something and can do something intuitively, this does not mean you have the entire scope of the education down. I assume I have more formal education in this than you, which is true, because of I have completed college courses on this. While it is not my field of specialty, it did compliment my formal education. Yes, I am aware of yours, too, but this does not take away from the fact that I have already been through, learned, and finished what you are doing at the moment. There are people who are good with art, logic, so on and so forth, BUT they still have to be educated and trained in that particular skill.

[quote="stolide"]
I am not using metaphor. I am not being irrational. To be perfectly honest, each post that you make further indicates that you have no clue how to apply what you seem to know, and that too frequently, you seem to think you know the meaning of something, but do not.
[/quote]

Stolide, I have been able to do a lot of things from a very young age. As I got older, I became interested in the "why" and not simply the "doing". You seem to be concerned with utilization of/the art of. I am not, because I can already DO things consistently. For one, the post was discussing ontological models in terms of constructing mechanics behind it in terms of necessary and contingent factors (not specifically the usage of, for the usage of would be contingent upon that). For two, the post was not about magick. It was about psionics in relation to energetic systems.

There is no place to utilize either one, here, and calling upon pragmatism, again, was unwarranted. I have no idea where Occam's Razor would come in and I have no idea why the other person brought up pragmatism.

Stolide, there is a link to Vsoceity on the affiliates page of this site.

At this point all there is to say is that you are either intentionally misunderstanding me, or incredibly dense. Take your pick.

[quote] For one, the post was discussing ontological models in terms of constructing mechanics behind it in terms of necessary and contingent factors (not specifically the usage of, for the usage of would be contingent upon that). For two, the post was not about magick. It was about psionics in relation to energetic systems.
[/quote]
Is there not some point in history where there was a bifurcation between the concepts of  "magic" and "technology".  Is there not some point at which there can be no verification empirically and thus the decision is up to the "primordial giver" of things taken as "given"?  Do the many [b][i]volumes [/i][/b] of work of varying philosophical tendencies rooted in the pragmatic mode of thought not apply to said choices?  Do  "ontological models" (at least those that would allow for and encapsulate the creation of said ontological models) not fall into the category of things that cannot ever be said to be wholly verified empircally?

I really like how this quote was posted and then ignored outright in the ongoing back and forth:

[quote]Consider the world of apparent dualisms we inhabit. The mind
views a picture of this world in which everything is double. A
thing is said to exist and exert certain properties. Being and
Doing. This calls for the concepts of cause and effect or
causality. Every phenomenon is seen to be caused by some
previous thing. However this description cannot explain how
everything exists in the first place or even how one thing
finally causes another. Obviously things have originated and
do continue to make each other happen. The "thing"
responsible for the origin and continued action of events is
called Chaos by magicians. It could as well be called God or Tao,
but the name Chaos is virtually meaningless, and free from the
childish, anthropomorphic ideas of religion.
[/quote]

Especially striking is this bit:
"It could as well be called God or Tao,
but the name Chaos is virtually meaningless"

Virtually meaningless is worlds apart from meaningless and it indeed does not escape the same trap of attempting codification of that which is beyond codification. 

In Zhuangzi (chuang T'zu) the author addresses this with the story of how men tried to give chaos "Eyes and ears" in an attempt to make it something which they could relate to physically. This of course destroyed the Chaos.

Occam's razor, is the meta-theoretical idea which may or may not be true in a given situation or field of study (trying to apply the principle to a singularity would undoubtedly be in vain).  Occam's razor is used to simplify problems that [i]can[/i] be simplified (ie those with unnecessary entities).

Pragmatism is a meta-philosophical doctrine.  Pragmatism is used to create consistent philosophical systems, not just simplified ones (see John Dewey's instrumentalism).  A pragmatic mode of thinking can be applied without regard to the number of entities and does not necessarily make the problems any more simple.

If you're interested in a holistic idea of pragmatism that's not a dismissive oversimplification of a century of work by dozens of incandescently intelligent individuals then how about: 
[quote]We all build mental ladders to explain how we got to where we are. While the pragmatist asks whether or not it is of benefit to be there, the non-pragmatist admires the ladder.[/quote]

PS:  I'm not trying to take anyone's side in this exchange, only to offer a way in which any apparent differences may be resolved without contradiction. 

The quote by William James of which the important bit is: "The thesis I defend is, briefly stated, this: Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds . . .â€