Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. I kinda dredged up my old nerd self on this one but the first bits are actually useful.
My style is usually to let people feel like they have at least some control. It tends to give people a sense of comfort believing they have agency in their life. Brutal oppression tends to make equally brutal rebels, I think, assuming you don’t just kill them all, which is probably counter-productive if you need them for something. Give someone a square off the chocolate bar and they may be quite satisfied with that while you get to keep the rest. They may even fight to defend their chocolate provider.
It sounds like you may have been concerned about how to specifically apply baneful magick, given that you are confident in the effectiveness of your curses. Not every ritual needs to be a death curse. You do not break a butterfly on the wheel. If all you need is a strategic moment of weakness so that you can accomplish some goal, then you can ask for that. I think that one aspect of becoming a skilled occultist and dark magician is learning how to control and limit your curses.
Perhaps curses aren’t what you lack, but influence magick. Influence is perhaps the most useful thing magick has taught me. I knew a thing or two before, but magick opened my eyes to levels I couldn’t have possibly imagined before. If you understand how emotions influence human behavior, and are able to accurately and reliably sense emotions in yourself and others, and are able to execute the behaviors you need to exhibit to cause the appropriate emotional states to arise in others, then there yah go.
If it is indeed true that you derive the most pleasure from the manipulation of reality according to your design, then may I again suggest influence magick.
I am also not exactly the biggest fan of the psychiatric institution. The worst of them are frauds who think that a biology degree and a graduate education immersed in the paradigm of biomedicine somehow grants you an understanding of the mind and human behavior. No, I am not impressed by your few years of psychologically uncomprehensive residency. You can fix up my body, but I’m keeping you the hell away from my mind. Their reductionist materialism doesn’t even align with modern psychological findings by radical materialist scientists. Recent studies have made it clear that the mind influences the body, and the body influences the mind. Hell, your gut bacteria influences your mind, and placebo drugs are effective. If you really want to claim that all mental activity is directly 1:1 correlated and caused by underlying neural activity and that a sufficient understanding of neuroscience would allow us to observe a brain alone and tell exactly what is going on inside a mind, then you (not you the hypothetical reductionist materialist) best get to proving that cause right now there is no empirical evidence to defend this position. Sure, you can Occam’s Razor all you want, but if evidence arises that demands an expanded theory then you have to expand the theory. Try and shave first, but sometimes knowledge expands beyond previous boundaries. I don’t think Einstein was a fraud, and he certainly caused some theory expansion.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I also believe that labelling certain personality characteristics and patterns of behavior that do not conform with widely accepted cultural social norms as disordered and in need of correction to be problematic. The criteria that something have a significantly negative impact on one’s ability to function socially and professionally in society or have a significantly negative effect on one’s mental well-being as the benchmark for determining mental disorder (mental illness is not the term psychologists use these days because the mind does not catch diseases, it becomes disordered) are, I believe, reasonable enough, so long as you don’t impose too much of your own values onto people who function and enjoy good mental health just fine with different lifestyles than do the majority.
Society is plagued by ignorance when it comes to psychological topics. I can’t claim to know what psychology education is like for most universities, but it doesn’t seem great. I don’t say this as an ego thing, but I attended one of the best universities in the world with one of the best psychology departments. I think my education was pretty good, but this knowledge has yet to even trickle down to the state schools, let alone elementary or high school education and so the wider public. Reasons for this are many and varied, from funding to ignorant, stubborn egomaniacs who can’t handle the idea that an academic discipline with a women majority can provide knowledge, both general theories and useful knowledge that can be applied within other disciplines. Yeah, your teaching is dogshit. Let us show you how it’s fucking done. I wouldn’t need to be so aggressive if you weren’t so close-minded.
It is good that you recognize that you are magick.
It’s cool that you have some hypothetical constructs or whatever it is that philosophers call their version of that (the definition of science is a philosophical question, not a scientific one - I get plenty of flak from the STEMlords too philosophers don’t you worry (it’s a good thing that historically flak was laughably ineffective)). The thing with having philosophical arguments though is that you can’t expect anyone with some shred of philosophical training to take you seriously or even read your stuff if you keep your ideas inside a bunker and away from scrutiny. If your arguments are false or not valid, then they’re false or not valid, that is what it is.
Fuck it let’s just do it. Your definition of “universe” seems to exclude all metaphysical objects without a physical existence. So what about mental objects, or spiritual objects like spirits? Does your definition of “universe” intentionally include an implied strict materialism? If you start talking about set theory then I’ll start having cannabis-infused discussion flashbacks from college. Your definition of “science” excludes the study of all phenomena that occur in variable but statistically significant, reliably observed patterns. So by your definition of science, pretty much all of physics is not science (nor is psychology), especially when you consider quantum phenomena, which to my exceptionally limited understanding all exist as probability states that are reactive to human observation, to be the “lowest level” that underlies everything else in physical existence, including supposedly rock-solid “laws.” My college girlfriend was a physics major, and I remember “quantum weirdness” being an actual term that physicists use (and not just crackpot theoretical types), so there’s that, but presumably this is a thing that can be reliably observed over and over again under controlled conditions, so it’s like empirical and stuff. Maybe I’m partially doing this because she didn’t respect my work either. The rest of me just likes writing and I’m kind of in a life transition period, getting transported and whatnot. I probably should be writing my Loagaeth lines.
I could go on, but if you really want to argue on the internet, please address what I just said. You can use the quotes things if that helps you keep track of what’s going on. That’s a good learning principle. There’s no reason to introduce arbitrary difficulty that doesn’t facilitate the learning you are attempting. Bad teachers seem to just LOVE introducing arbitrary difficulty for no fucking reason, and my god is it annoying.
I’m all for people learning to be better intellectuals, but there’s no point in re-inventing the wheel. You aren’t exactly the first person to propose a philosophy of science, or religion. Be innovative, sure, and that means making something new, not trying to develop things that have already been done and thoroughly scrutinized and tested by other people. But then you have to accept the profundity of your own ignorance, and that you will be wrong a lot. Some people can’t handle that and so double-down ultra hard on their ideas over and over again and completely resist any change. At this point I just laugh at my old ignorant self and am comfortable with jokingly calling myself stupid cause I enjoy learning and realize that mistakes are inevitable and what make it interesting. It’s just the shitheads who insult you and demand immediate absolute perfection who ruin the fun.
Just to be clear, I don’t mean to attack you personally or anything like that. I sometimes miss talking philosophy is all. Not that I really know much of anything about philosophy. I mostly just listened and chimed in when I had something to say.