Big Question/ rant

This is a question about all types of spirits that is supposed to raise thoughts about the legitimacy of our craft. I am not saying that everything we believe is false or that the spiritual does not exist, this is merely for debate. What if the spirits are not who they say they are? How could you tell that we aren’t all being played for fools and tricked away from truth? This can go for any belief system or religion. Another question is one asked many many MANY times by skeptics, how do we know that it isn’t just in our heads?

Now my take on it. No one can truly say that when we summon King Paimon that it isn’t really an even lower being trying to fuck with us, but we have faith and that is what matters. As for the question of whether or not it is in our heads, well it kinda is. That is where everything happens. Everything we see or hear or touch or taste or smell is all just an interpretation of the world around us that is heavily filtered. There isn’t really light nor is there texture. It’s just particles all moving around at different speeds. And the same can be said for the spiritual world, it’s just a part of life as any other, but we must learned to experience it, whereas our physical senses are natural to use. As for proof, someone I met online who didn’t know my name prior, astral projected and asked me in my sleep. Which he later then told me.

These is just a few philosophical questions that have been in the back of my mind and I decided to share :slight_smile:

6 Likes

Hiya OP! You bring up a good point- until you get tricked firsthand, there’s no real way to tell the difference! It’s a seller’s market. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I have been given dreams, where I should have known I was being tricked by a being.
I was also rewarded when I realized the true characteristics of what I was dealing with… with hints that I was going in the good direction, and then he showed to me, many hints about what he really was… I’m still trying to decipher them.

I take it as a test of our Sight.

1 Like

They’re kind of not. It’s like how in physics, we create theoretical models of reality, based on inspiration and observation, that we can use to predict results. The measure of whether a model is successful, is whether the results it predicts can be measured to actually happen in observable reality.

So, the spirits are more like what WE say they are. We create models and theories of who they are and what they look like, based on inspiration and observation, that we can use to predict their behaviour and results . So when you ask this:

How could you tell that we aren’t all being played for fools and tricked away from truth?

The answer is results.

Not faith, philosophy. Faith is emotion-based and can’t be debated rationally. Philosophy can.

No one can truly say that when we summon King Paimon that it isn’t really an even lower being trying to fuck with us

Sure you can. RESULTS, man. Lesser entities give crappy answers and even crappier results. If King Paimon gave poor results do you think anyone would give tuppence whether he wanted to be called King or not? No they’d tell him to get over himself and go talk to someone with power and his name would be forgotten.

Everything we see or hear or touch or taste or smell is all just an interpretation of the world around us that is heavily filtered. There isn’t really light nor is there texture.

Well, I’m not sure about that. Using the filter analogy, putting a red filter in front of a white light source doesn’t make the red less real - you’re not ‘interpreting’ it to be red - it IS red - it means you have been blinded to the other colours.

As for proof, someone I met online who didn’t know my name prior, astral projected and asked me in my sleep. Which he later then told me.

And that, is a result. :smile:

4 Likes

This is taking a very utilitarian approach to the epistemological question [how do we know what we know?], which isn’t bad… but it has it’s flaws, make no mistake.

Lies can have many good results in the long-run, it can support multi-generational families. I know this from experience.

The outcome which comes from adoption of a model is just that… a measure of the practicality of the knowledge, but not it’s validity as a True knowledge…

You know that adopting X and Y knowledge will lead to Y and Z, but you still don’t know if X and Y are true… You just know that adopting them is useful.

Now when it comes to spirits… the scientific approach… that is, taking notes as much as you can, and seeing patterns through that, making your own models and all of that… predicting things… that’s really good. I don’t know of a method better than that.

If King Paimon gave poor results do you think anyone would give tuppence whether he wanted to be called King or not? No they’d tell him to get over himself and go talk to someone with power and his name would be forgotten.

That’s giving too much credits to people.
With this reasoning, you could as well justify many cults… some people can easily be fooled into thinking some humans must be feared or followed blindly… now if we talk about something like a spirit?

Maybe they were right to be scared, but it’s not as strong as an argument. There are better ways.

Not faith, philosophy. Faith is emotion-based and can’t be debated rationally. Philosophy can.

There are philosophical doctrines which are pretty much a reaction from rationalism. Romanticism is basically such a doctrine.
It can be debated, of course… but so can Faith. There’s nothing preventing you from questioning your Faith.

I don’t understand what you meant by that.

Philosophy as a discipline certainly isn’t inherently rational, it might be associated with that in the minds of most, but many question the structure of what many would refer to, as ‘rationalism’, and become extreme skeptics, for example.

We have to even define what we mean by rationalism. What’s the axioms underlying the validity of rationalism?

While yes… these things can be debated, so can faith.

Which people? It’s the observed behaviour of humans generally that they have evolved to survive very well by repeating what works and discarding what doesn’t.

There was thread just this week exemplifying this, where by the content of what an entity said it was the unanimous opinion of respondents that the entity was a lesser entity and should be banished. If King Paimon behaved the same way, it would be judged the same way and banished.

Lies can have many good results in the long-run, it can support multi-generational families. I know this from experience.

This is true. However, you’re talking about lies where people did not have the opportunity to verify. This is not the case for daemonic gnosis coupled with the information sharing available via the Internet.

The higher entities provide quality of information that does not rely on deceit, it’s impressive, arguments hold water and the information can be fairly universally verified… lesser entities info can be easily shown to be useless, incorrect, emotional or lacking in quality of thought and/or content.

<e: “If King Paimon gave poor results do you think anyone would give tuppence whether he wanted to be called King or not? No they’d tell him to get over himself and go talk to someone with power and his name would be forgotten.”
@FerbanMadyama With this reasoning, you could as well justify many cults… some people can easily be fooled into thinking some humans must be feared or followed blindly

That comparison makes no sense. Because of consent. Humans can violate consent, and lie, coerce, threaten, persuade and physically/mentally/emotionally abuse others into joining and staying in cults, and that’s how the cults survive, by power games. It’s not even remotely close.

King Paimon can’t do that. He can’t violate consent, it’s a planet of free will and there’s no threat he can make and he doesn’t - that’s another marker of a higher entity not a lesser one in fact (the lesser ones can’t follow through without permission either) . When did you ever hear of a daemon saying it was going to take someones kids away if they don’t fuck the priest? Without being able to meet people’s asked for needs he’s got nothing. He doesn’t emotionally and mentally abuse people into calling him King, he asks that or he doesn’t work for them, and they can voluntarily end the relationship and walk away at any time. Not so in a cult.

And no, I would not say that cults provided results at all, except in mundane ways that any human can because, human, with hands and guns. In spiritual terms, for the ascension and spiritual welfare of it’s members, they don’t deliver.

There are philosophical doctrines which are pretty much a reaction from rationalism. Romanticism is basically such a doctrine.

Fair point. That was an emotional reaction on my part to being told someone thinks I have a faith; I don’t. :slight_smile:

Which people? It’s the observed behaviour of humans generally that they have evolved to survive very well by repeating what works and discarding what doesn’t.

My point wasn’t about evolution but the validity of knowledge itself.
What may work, may work. What I’m saying is that what may work, has no intrinsic correlation with what is True.

Hence, the existence of practical lies.

There was thread just this week exemplifying this, where by the content of what an entity said it was the unanimous opinion of respondents that the entity was a lesser entity and should be banished. If King Paimon behaved the same way, it would be judged the same way and banished.

By everybody in this world? By most people in this world? Taking a small size and applying to Humanity itself, is speculation at best. I have seen people being easily tricked. I have tricked people.
Sometimes, everybody in a small room… like 5 people at once.
I don’t know if there is any experiment done on a large size… or even a significant size with enough control to have a logical conclusion. I really don’t.

Just because I successfully tricked 5 people, doesn’t mean that I can trick 8,000,000… people… and it’s the same in the opposite.

The higher entities provide quality of information that does not rely on deceit, it’s impressive, arguments hold water and the information can be fairly universally verified… lesser entities info can be easily shown to be useless, incorrect, emotional or lacking in quality of thought and/or content.

My point was not that demons can lie here, you misunderstood my point and this is my fault. I didn’t articulate it well enough. Sorry for that.

I meant that the model itself could be a lie, and it could be good at predicting but still not be True.

Imagine some sort of lie within a family, it works with a model where the lie is true… with which you can predict many things occurring here as well… the behavior of some people, what some might say, but ultimately… it could just be an illusion and a very deceptive one, where your senses are just being tricked.

Just like a model could work at predicting many things, but not reflect the actual knowledge.

Is it better, now?

“What if spirits are not what we think they are?” is what I was talking about.

Having a model where we can predict so much is what is… a useful model, but not necessarily a True one.

We can collect as much information about the causes and the effects of any spirits, the model we build around to explain them can be very misleading as to what is actually happening.

It’s a form of “fallacy of composition” where one confuses the whole for a part of it.

A model can be extremely good at one part but fail totally at something else… as in good in practicality but bad at being true.

That comparison makes no sense. Because of consent. Humans can violate consent, and lie, coerce, threaten, persuade and physically/mentally/emotionally abuse others into joining and staying in cults, and that’s how the cults survive, by power games. It’s not even remotely close.

First my point was not that King Paimon was the King of a cult, because it basically seems to be what you are replying to… a point I didn’t make.
My point was that people CAN BE tricked into believing some dude must be feared beyond rationality, or be followed blindly. It’s fact and if this is true, they can be tricked to follow spirits as well. It doesn’t prove that the spirits are powerful just because they have some sort of reputation.

Now second, you are just generalizing cults. Not all cults work by violation of consent.

Christianity for example… many take a man as a God… and no, they were not the result of some kind of crusade, many converts exist and convert without any sword under the throat, and unless you can prove that all have been converted by violation of consent… your point is weak.

My father actually converted to a cult peacefully recently, without any violation of consent, and treats an iranian guy like he is never wrong because he has convinced himself that this is the truth.

My point is that people can be tricked, make no mistake.

Your argument using people’s respect for a spirit, as argument for the reality of his power is just a weak argument.

He doesn’t emotionally and mentally abuse people into calling him King, he asks that or he doesn’t work for them, and they can voluntarily end the relationship and walk away at any time. Not so in a cult.

Ok. That still wasn’t my point. My point was about people being able to be misled.

Until you can prove that all conversions come from some sort of emotional abuse or mental one, it’s just not a strong argument at all… even your point that cults intrinsically come from forms of abuses.

I had my own conversion experience as a young teen, and I can basically refute what you are implying about cults.

It didn’t come from any sort of abuse, but just self-delusion… like fallacies built around aesthetics [using beauty to attract you to the concept of something being true], and interpreting things in this world as sign of the strength of the deity, and it’s reality… and it could predict all things. Make no mistake.

If things didn’t work out, it was due to the deity’s wisdom he knows what he is doing, he has a plan for all. If things did work, it was due to deity’s wisdom and it’s a proof of his strength.

That was my point. You can predict the world, but it can still be false.

There was no one forcing me anything. I was almost entering the cult, and nobody was aware of it around me.

Now I am not saying that this is the reasoning going behind King Paimon’s respect… in case my point wasn’t clear. My point is that we self-delude ourselves, we can do that.

Using people’s respect for a spirit as proof of it’s power isn’t wrong logically… but weak as argument.

Fair point. That was an emotional reaction on my part to being told someone thinks I have a faith; I don’t. :slight_smile:

I don’t know about that. You have to define what faith is. Faith doesn’t have to be unproven things, you know?
The idea of a human without faith seems absurd to me, and it might due to my definition of faith:

Faith is what we possess when we believe something, and beliefs are anything we consider as True.

It could be about axioms… like unproven things. It could also be about conceptual systems based on axioms… like logic based on unproven things. It could also a hybrid of both… which I would say is what most people I met believe in… I think.

Without faith, there is no certainty in anything. A human without certainty is a pure skeptic. They don’t exist in any world. Only as concepts.

A: Why move your leg if it might explode something in your right arm?
B: Because I don’t have memories of that happening and I haven’t heard anyone talk about this.

A: What if your memories are just memories implanted in your mind and so are all people?
B: …

Even the act of trusting memories, and your senses to a degree… is an act of belief about unproven things.
Because you can’t verify your memories with anything, and your senses with anything… because it’s all you have.
You might use other’s senses as proof to yours, but it’s all through your senses.
Even the concept of the other as a conscious entity cannot be proven.
Everything can be proven only through omni-empiricism [like total experience of everything], which would solve the whole thing. Hence I talked about men with no faith. I can only pronounce me about man… as long as you are a man, you have a faith… or you would experiment many things, and it would probably lead to your death. Except if you are super lucky.

But everyone is guided by their faith. Some faith are better than others.

But it’s like you could prove your belief, by your belief… like say that your memories about your experiments with the spirit are right, because they happened according to you… but it’s like trying to prove the bible, using the bible.

It makes no sense.

Maybe I’m missing something, though.

I thought this thread was going in another direction ie; the spirits not being who we assume they are, but they aren’t correcting us either (some deception). I didn’t see the results based argument coming. I thought @gluttonfree was more so getting at the possibility of deception beyond just their identities and character, but even their purpose.

Either way, I agree with @Qayos. I’m having this odd de ja vu feeling while writing this. Could the spirits be fucking with me because we’re on to them?

1 Like

Theres also the fact you could be a Master of Fabricating this all in your head, simply because your psychic communications almay not be up to par.

You have an experience, then assume its an impostor or parasite…but what if that is fabricated and you arent just dealing with the energy of chaos. You have to be sure by having proper astral psychic senses.

1 Like

That doesn’t make sense either. The model can’t be a lie or it’s predictions just won’t work, you can’t have both.
I didn’t explain what a model is:
Apart from the fact that no model will be perfect, a model will always be based within a strict frame of reference and have an underlying set of assumptions that allow it to work in a given context. Which means outside of that context, of course it will no longer be “true”. A different framework will require different models.

For example, in one frame of reference I am siting still and my current speed of motion is 0 mph (with respect to the earth’s surface)
But in another, I’m flying though space at about 1000mph (the Earth’s rotation)
In yet another, I’m flying though space at 107,000 mph (earth’s orbit round the sun)
… there’s more…

So if I say I’m sitting still am I lying? No. None of them are lies. They are all correct within their given frame of reference (in brackets)

My point was, there is no truth with a capital T, and if there was, it would not be relevant at this level of reality. The best we can get, from this vantage point, is a model, and the best you can do with the models is refine then with as much info and as many people’s verification as possible so that you can trust them when you implement them as a solution.

That’s why I started my post with “They’re kind of not”… in response to “are they who we think they are”.
And there’s a huge difference between "reasonable approximation: and a “lie”.

I would argue that a current in magik is a model. So when I further said, the spirits are what WE say they are - we project, guess, and make reasonable approximations that work for us within the context of that current. No lying required.

Obviously not since you only have your own single experience to go by. Get educated. Your experience is not everyone’s and you got lucky.

2 Likes
  1. Are you deliberately talking at cross purposes? I was referring to 2. below, and you are referring to 1. which I never disputed. Try again.
  2. Why do you keep writing truth™ with a capital T? That’s not a thing. Also it looks very silly as if you think there can be a universal truth for all people, and that there isn’t is probably the only truth that is. Please stop bastardising English grammar.

image

1 Like

Dude you totally ruined my joke.

:smirk_cat: nice joke

Deception of purpose… hmn, but why would “they”?

And here’s my feeling on that and why I put “they” in brackets - they are not different than us. We - humans - ARE all celestial daemons too. We’re all on the same team. Some of us incarnated and are working it from the bottom up, and some of us are working it from the top down.

“They’re” not doing it for free out of the goodness of their hearts or some devious ulterior motive - WE are all doing something together that we decided was worth the effort.

gluttonfree,

Banish. Evoke. Use a Seal.
You’re a God (now and in the making) so don’t give or take any shit!
If you persist - sooner or later - you’ll know that spiritual entities (of all sorts) exist.
Faith is a mixture of ignorance and hope. By doing, fucking it up, sorting it out and honing your gifts and abilities you get to a point where you know. When things happen in the real, physical, pedestrian world - you know! You can also ‘feel’ it.
Keep at it. The road is long.

Al.
P.s. It’s not for me to comment on user names, so in your case I just won’t.

3 Likes

You are the one who made claims about cults.

I am the exception from your projections about what cults were. I never claimed cults were X and Y, you gave intrinsic characteristics about it. I never made any claims about cults.

Now… what? “Get educated?”

That’s childish, now. I am not continuing this conversation any further.

Certainly not if you can’t understand the simple distinction between practical model and a model reflecting the truth about something.

Not that you are bad or inferior, but you don’t show any sign of wanting to exchange rationally to find anything really.

You make claims about cults, and you use that as an argument to something I never claimed [the universalism of my experience… like when did I even claim that, dude?]

Just because I successfully tricked 5 people, doesn’t mean that I can trick 8,000,000… people… and

it’s the same in the opposite.

You didn’t read this, did you?
At this point, you’re not talking with me but your interpretation. The first time, I understood, but now, second time… when I clearly elaborated? Man, you’ tripping.

it’s the same in the opposite.

Like I even wrote this.

I just have other things to do, for tomorrow. So… yeah, bye.

My point was, there is no truth with a capital T, and if there was, it would not be relevant at this level of reality.

I was talking about Truth capital T.

You basically articulated what I was talking about, in your own way.

And there’s a huge difference between "reasonable approximation: and a “lie”.

It’s either True with capital T, or not. To be True, it must be. To be a lie, it doesn’t have to be a total lie, but only contain a few false things.

If can’t be not true, but not be a lie at all. It’s pure definition now.

I was not talking about approximation but depiction of reality. I said, it could be true in terms of prediction but not in terms of depiction.

You talk about things as if I said anything about them.

My point was the good predictive models are just that… good predictive models, and it’s basically what you expressed in terms of ‘frameworks’… I am not arguing about frameworks being good or not for predicting but for depicting the Truth.

I even gave you an example of a model good at prediction but not good in it’s depiction of reality… which you basically ignored because it shows the flaw in the idea of taking a utilitarian approach to the epistemological question.

Now you claim there might even not be a ‘capital T Truth’… basically proving what I was talking about.

Now the idea that capital T Truth doesn’t exist is as hilarious to me, as the idea of men without faith… now for you to stick to me using ‘Truth’ with capital ‘T’ as if it had so much importance in the debate…

Bro, it’s a capital letter which I mistyped. It happens.

English isn’t my native language. Even if it was my native language… as if it was the main point of the debate?

“What If I wrote like this?”

You would say:
“You are bastardizing the English language, and you look silly if you think there is an universal If… there can be many different ifs for all people…”

Like bro… it happens when you type, you mistype stuffs.

I won’t try to prove the existence of what you call, capital T Truth… my point was that models who can be good at predicting stuffs aren’t intrinsically correlated to capital T Truth… which you basically admitted now and you are even doubting it’s existence.

It’s an interesting topic but it’s off-topic.

Are you deliberately talking at cross purposes? I was referring to 2. below, and you are referring to 1. which I never disputed. Try again.

Dude, I even mentioned I was commenting with my meaning of the word. It could mean many different things.
I deliberately did what? You didn’t even define your terms, bro. I am not a psychic. Make no mistake.
If you want me to understand, you have to define terms… especially with terms like this with so many interpretation.

If not, I make my own comment if X meant A or B. It’s as simple as that.

Thanks for the debate, still. Take care.

Just noticed a mistake, in the way I phrased this.

I meant, “it can’t be not true and not be a lie. If it’s not true, it’s a lie. Maybe not a full lie, but still a lie. That’s pure definition.”

A’right. So you can actually understand if you’re interested.

Now, I’m good to go.