Skeptic That Evocations Ever Work, Looking for evidence Options

Hello, I am new to the forum.

I am interested in many religious pursuits. I think there are many things that have been proven to develop oneself - such as meditation. However, I suspect that everyone here that thinks they are summoning demons or angels are deluding themselves, and that in fact they are just working in their own imaginations - which may be quite fruitful imaginations.

For instance, I'm thinking of a thread where people casually talked about summoning a demon for sexual purposes. I am sorry but I believe you have an over-active imagination, and that none of those events ever happened. I've read many grimoires, and I think they exist because they are from a time in which man did not know very much, and things which are common knowledge attributable to science were simply not known then. Reading the Verum and asking for scientific knowledge won't work.

In addition, I read another thread on here where the man Lisiewski was discussed. Someone alleged that he was bunk, as he was charging $600 for pupils to learn from him. I agree with that charge, but I think if everyone here would be a little more open minded, the fact that every single group is making that charge against another group (not every single person but you know what I mean), is evidence that none of them work. Lisiewski charges Thelema, people that like the modern methods charge Lisiewski etc

If you have ever summoned a demon and asked for monetary support, and you have convinced yourself that it actually appeared, why don't you simply submit that evidence to the Randi forum for your million dollar prize? (Please note I dislike Randi and think he's totally incorrect, but you get my point).

You might wonder why I'm here, and no, it's not to troll. I am convinced of an afterlife. I believe in NDEs, and I believe in ghosts. I didn't used to believe in ghosts, but I think the evidence for them is strong based upon reports of people that I believe. So, that's why I'm here. I want to be convinced that you're all not just pretending like I think you are. I don't think you will, but I want you to.

I believe that spiritual development is the most important thing a person can do in their lifetime. My personal belief is that some of you have played too many RPGs and are merely engaging in escapism, wishful thinking.

I'm legitimately interested to hear your counters.

PS please check my intro in coffee house if you would like to know my perspective

This post has been edited by arcan: Oct 5 2011, 05:10 PM

An important part of this process of convincing you, because you are special, will be: what's in it for the prover? Lets say someone does take time out of their very likely busy life to go out of their way to make some kind of a demonstration for you. What kind of compensation do you intend to offer?

You've read some grimoires - may I ask if you have attempted any of them?

Your response is predictable, possibly, but consider this: Imagine that you are a basically normal person - you have a career, perhaps a family, you eat, sleep, and defecate like every other human being, and it so happens that as part of your approach to navigating life, you also are a fairly accomplished magician. Let's say, perhaps, that you have even one particular paranormal 'trick'. Or heck, a whole slew of such tricks. You think you'd like an extra million bucks so you take and pass Randi's challenge. Congratulations, a million bucks!

What then? Do you think it stops there? Perhaps you'd enjoy fame, interviews, further testing, time away from the family, a change of career, and now your entire life is wrapped up in this one thing that never, ever goes away, for the rest of your life. Remember when you enjoyed a happy career? Remember when the people around you didn't know that you practiced magic? Remember when no one was paranoid that they couldn't trust themselves around you? Remember living a normal life? Not everyone wants that, even for a million dollars, because one of the wonderful things about managing to become a successful magician is that you become slightly wiser as a person. I would not want everyone who sees me to know that I practice magic, that I used it to build my business - because it's none of their business, and it's better they don't know.

It's not an elitist attitude about who should and shouldn't believe in or practice magic - it's about violent, paranoid, religious zealots being able to maintain some shred of doubt so that they don't go around burning/flailing/exorcising anyone to whom something unusual happens.

It's good to be skeptical. It's not good to expect others to alleviate your skepticism. If you want to find out, do it yourself. You cannot trust the word of any other person on the planet, even these people you think you do trust, because the first person perspective is 100% isolated. We are not given to know the extent of the subjective nature of reality, perhaps it is entirely subjective, perhaps it is entirely objective - we can never, ever know for sure. Well, we can merge awareness, but let's say that on average we'll never know for sure.

Anecdotes are just that, and if you're a true skeptic then you won't take anecdotal evidence. Besides, you've already said what you think about the matter.

Do Magic! Summon up the princes of hell, find out for yourself if it can be done. Be careful, mind you, because I imagine you aren't big on faith in general, but if what you want is proof, do the same thing anyone else who wants proof would do. We're not a bunch of teenagers with no jobs here (well, I mean, not all of us I should say); I don't have time to prove the existence of magic or spirits to the people I see every day - and most everyone here is likely to be in the same position.

Peace

While you might think that Randi's challenge might not be worthwhile, I am sure that many who practice magick in order to ask for things such as monetary gain would not deny it - it's a percentages game.

Fair point regarding not trying it. I tried some of the Ars Notoria prayers to no avail, but perhaps I didn't pray properly. But yes, I have to practice in order to legitimately criticize. I intend to. I intend to go through all the old works and try.

Regarding the last comment on faith...I'm not sure that's justified, because as I take it, magick is something that doesn't need faith, the proof is in the demon pudding staring you in the face, no?

But I'm not a skeptic entirely, not many self-identified skeptics claim to believe in ghosts and NDE's, hah. It's just that, the notion of something being real has high importance for me. I'm not one of those people that believe in subjective truths. By that I don't mean to say that it's not true you're experiencing the color red or something, but that I believe in an objective reality, and that our shared experience of said reality is the best way to determine what's really going on out there. I think of it like a 128 kbps mp3 vs a wav file, the mp3 sounds like the wav, but it's missing some information, and it would be impossible to know for certain what the wav sounds like from the mp3, but we've all got a pretty good idea.

I am looking for reports though, I'm not expecting anyone to come to my place and perform a ritual with me (although that idea would be amazing and fascinating - but it was yours, not mine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) I presume that's what you're talking about when you talk about how busy people are. If it's merely a case of typing a bit as a reply, I think that's a poor dodge.

I am expecting people to tell me some experiences of seeing demons and such. I'm not here to ridicule, I want to know if people legitimately think they saw/touched/talked to a demon or spirit. Again, I believe in ghosts, and that is clearly a case of a purely mental force interacting in the material realm, if true. You claim that people are busy, but I see people go on about experiences, I am just asking for a bit more clarification, I don't see why anyone should feel annoyed or threatened by that, it seems to be what this place is about.

My interests in magic developed from experiments in sympathetic charms and astrological talismans from my early teens onward, and consistently thereafter.

Finding reference to Waite in a small paperback study of witchcraft, I obtained his introduction to evocation of spirits, later in that vein acquired several of its sourecebooks.

My reports on the subject are a matter of public record (for free), and I claim only that it is an accurate representation of my experiences. Whether it has any genuine spiritual or technical value is a matter of opinion.

Some people want proof of the reality of spirits, others ask for help, and there are a million people making some sort of demands of anyone known as a magician.

Funny though, I think of Near-Death experiences as evidence of breakdown in the brain and doubt that ghosts represent anything more mysterious than telepathy.

As Vagrant Dreamer said, all anyone here will do is give you anecdotal evidence, you'll have to find out for yourself. BUT... go to Neophyte Hall, the thread "Worst Mistake Ever", my post is toward the end. Yes, it's real. Be bold but be careful.

While you might think that Randi's challenge might not be worthwhile, I am sure that many who practice magick in order to ask for things such as monetary gain would not deny it - it's a percentages game.

And if someone did, I would personally think they were daft - but, it could happen.

Regarding the last comment on faith...I'm not sure that's justified, because as I take it, magick is something that doesn't need faith, the proof is in the demon pudding staring you in the face, no?

If the demon pudding was staring you in the face, what do you think that would imply about the nature of the rest of creation?

But I'm not a skeptic entirely, not many self-identified skeptics claim to believe in ghosts and NDE's, hah. It's just that, the notion of something being real has high importance for me. I'm not one of those people that believe in subjective truths. By that I don't mean to say that it's not true you're experiencing the color red or something, but that I believe in an objective reality, and that our shared experience of said reality is the best way to determine what's really going on out there. I think of it like a 128 kbps mp3 vs a wav file, the mp3 sounds like the wav, but it's missing some information, and it would be impossible to know for certain what the wav sounds like from the mp3, but we've all got a pretty good idea.

This is definitely an age old quandary. What's real? What isn't real? If two people experience the same thing, is it objectively real? Can you somehow undeniably verify that the other person even experienced the same sounds that you did? Imagine that everyone's eyes are entirely unique - we all experience the color spectrum in a unique way, not shared by anyone. Teacher says, "this is the color red", and everyone looking at it learns what whatever color they are seeing is the color red. You have group acceptance of this 'fact', but you can no more verify their experience than you can verify their very existence. You can barely verify your own experiences - everything is regulated by your brain, which might not be allowing you to see the full picture. In the end, you can only prove that you share reality with anyone else at all inside the context of this experience; not in a universal way.

I am looking for reports though, I'm not expecting anyone to come to my place and perform a ritual with me (although that idea would be amazing and fascinating - but it was yours, not mine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) I presume that's what you're talking about when you talk about how busy people are. If it's merely a case of typing a bit as a reply, I think that's a poor dodge.

Not a dodge - a suggesting that anecdotal evidence shouldn't be enough. After all:

I suspect that everyone here that thinks they are summoning demons or angels are deluding themselves, and that in fact they are just working in their own imaginations

I want to be convinced that you're all not just pretending like I think you are. I don't think you will, but I want you to.

My personal belief is that some of you have played too many RPGs and are merely engaging in escapism, wishful thinking.

Given that you feel strong enough to have beliefs on the subject, are you really going to take stories as convincing proof? You've already mentioned that you've read some of the other threads here, and that you didn't believe them - so I take it, it has to be the right kind of story. Which I think means, a story that matches your conception of what it should be like, yes? If you didn't like those stories, what kind of story would you like?

I am expecting people to tell me some experiences of seeing demons and such. I'm not here to ridicule, I want to know if people legitimately think they saw/touched/talked to a demon or spirit. Again, I believe in ghosts, and that is clearly a case of a purely mental force interacting in the material realm, if true. You claim that people are busy, but I see people go on about experiences, I am just asking for a bit more clarification, I don't see why anyone should feel annoyed or threatened by that, it seems to be what this place is about.

"Tell me a story - I'm not going to believe you, and I think you have an over active imagination if you do tell me a story, but tell me anyway just in case I do get convinced." You do see that this is what you have said so far, right?

If reading I.A.'s livejournal isn't convincing enough, then no one else's stories are going to do it for you. But, I've been practicing magic for over a decade now, and have seen a great many interesting and mindboggling things occur - but even I don't take stories as proof. I'm not claiming IA is a liar - but that I cannot personally hang my hat on someone else's claims. I've been working on the Lesser Key of Solomon now for a while for that very reason. Now granted, I take the existence of demons as a given. For me, the question is the utility of the grimoire.

peace

I am interested in many religious pursuits. I think there are many things that have been proven to develop oneself - such as meditation. However, I suspect that everyone here that thinks they are summoning demons or angels are deluding themselves, and that in fact they are just working in their own imaginations - which may be quite fruitful imaginations.

Interesting, "there are many things that have been proven to develop oneself":who have proven that, Randi? Give me a report where that have been proven. By the way, "to develop" oneself is another form of delisuon, as well as religion which is the biggest but most accepted form of delisuon, is like a bunch of people smoking pot and collectively getting delusioned. Sorry, I should have asked in first place: what is "to develop oneself", what that does means, what for is that?

You might wonder why I'm here, and no, it's not to troll. I am convinced of an afterlife. I believe in NDEs, and I believe in ghosts. I didn't used to believe in ghosts, but I think the evidence for them is strong based upon reports of people that I believe. So, that's why I'm here. I want to be convinced that you're all not just pretending like I think you are. I don't think you will, but I want you to.

Really, why do you believe in those, have you seen them or just because some people made reports. Why do you some peoples' reports and can't believe other peoples' reports, such as the reports of people that summon spirits? What is the scientific criteria that makes sompe reports true and others false? By the way, it wasn't Randi who once said that to check the paranormal phenomenons the scientif standards where not enough? In other words, when he was in front of some situations he can debunk with his "science" then he decided that some other, more strict criteria, should be used!

I believe that spiritual development is the most important thing a person can do in their lifetime. My personal belief is that some of you have played too many RPGs and are merely engaging in escapism, wishful thinking.

Please, define what "spiritual development is" and why is so important? How do you, or anyone else, know that is achieving spiritual development? What is that for after all? Isn't it another form of delusion, another mean of escaping reality and self-indulgence thinking I'm a son of God, I'm closer to God, and will be saved?

This post has been edited by markus: Oct 7 2011, 02:29 AM

As Vagrant Dreamer said, all anyone here will do is give you anecdotal evidence, you'll have to find out for yourself. BUT... go to Neophyte Hall, the thread "Worst Mistake Ever", my post is toward the end. Yes, it's real. Be bold but be careful.

cheers

Interesting, "there are many things that have been proven to develop oneself":who have proven that, Randi? Give me a report where that have been proven. By the way, "to develop" oneself is another form of delisuon, as well as religion which is the biggest but most accepted form of delisuon, is like a bunch of people smoking pot and collectively getting delusioned. Sorry, I should have asked in first place: what is "to develop oneself", what that does means, what for is that?
Really, why do you believe in those, have you seen them or just because some people made reports. Why do you some peoples' reports and can't believe other peoples' reports, such as the reports of people that summon spirits? What is the scientific criteria that makes sompe reports true and others false? By the way, it wasn't Randi who once said that to check the paranormal phenomenons the scientif standards where not enough? In other words, when he was in front of some situations he can debunk with his "science" then he decided that some other, more strict criteria, should be used!
Please, define what "spiritual development is" and why is so important? How do you, or anyone else, know that is achieving spiritual development? What is that for after all? Isn't it another form of delusion, another mean of escaping reality and self-indulgence thinking I'm a son of God, I'm closer to God, and will be saved?

Search pubmed (a scientific database) as to work on meditation. There is a lot, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of meditation is strong in a variety of ways, such as lessening stress and promoting happiness. The neural basis for meditation has also been highly studied.

With regards as to what it is to develop oneself...well sure, there's obviously some subjectivity there, and there's meant to be. I'm not sure that lends credence to subjectivity in the realm of objectivity. But if that's not what you're getting at, then yes, I agree.

If you're asking me why I'm more likely to believe the reports of a paper on pubmed than someones personal experience of seeing a demon? Well for one, I am familiar with the scientific peer review process, I know that experiments have to be repeatable and verifiable by anyone who tries, and that many people look over data before submitting something for publication. The claim of seeing a demon or any experience at all with demons seems a bit more of a paradigm shift, and paradigm shifts usually require extraordinary evidence. That being said, I see your point, and like I told Vagrant Dreamer, I'm certainly going to give it a shot, an earnest one. Still skeptical though. But let me reiterate, I believe in ESP due to strong scientific evidence.

There are a lot of people on the internet that are spouting bullshit, or are perhaps insane or something similar...it's a totally unverifiable atmosphere, I think one would do well to be skeptic of many things that are said here, regardless of their content.

Finally you say, 'what is spiritual development, and why do you think it's so important, isn't that just a way of saying you're closer to God or something and just further delusion'. Possibly, but not necessarily. I think the term spiritual development can be taken sufficiently liberally that it actually doesn't necessitate one type of thinking. I can imagine a spiritually developed atheist. I think i'ts more of a notion of moral theory than religious theory.

Hi Arcan,
Basically my questions were rhetoric ones. For instance, meditation: Do you think that meditation and spiritual/esoteric/magickal practices are in need of the scientific paradigm for validation? These techniques have proven by themselves their worth centuries before the very “science” word was ever said.

What I see here, don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to offend you, is the “scientific fanaticism”, as pernicious as any other fanaticism. Science is a useful tool, is not the only tool. Science, perhaps more precisely Epistemology is a cornerstone of our rational way of grasping reality, no doubt about that. But science per se is filled with holes, do not have answers to many, many things, before science can understand and explains some phenomenon, people who report them are classified as nuts or liars, put into a psychiatric ward or at the garbage in the backyard of society; then science realize –for instance- that acupuncture is a valid therapy and then, only after that “validation” acupuncture is no longer a superstition of ignorant people and becomes sanctified by the priesthood the scientiscism(sorry, but couldn't resist the temptation).

I think that all, or at least most, of us who practice magick have some educational level, some degree of contact with the basics of the scientific paradigm and understand it, and not despite of that as it may seem, but because of that we practice magick and we see the spiritual world as part of our reality, in fact many of us see a multiverse. We understood time ago that the concept of reality is highly biased by the limitation of our senses: it is only real what we can see? But how much the human sight can see? So, UV and IR rays don’t exist because I can’t see them? Microwaves don’t exist because I can’t see them? As well as magnetism, but I can feel magnetism,. So, what is the true scope and validity of the scientific paradigm: the realm of the known reality, the known reality can only be grasped through the evolution of the material instruments used by science to apprehend that reality, short of that there are theories waiting for tests to be confirmed, but many have to wait for those instruments to be tested. In other words, science has its technical limitations, not to mention conceptual limitations too, when science develop instruments can “discover” fragments of reality previously unknown, but not all non-existent, they were always there just the scientific eye wasn’t capable of seeing them.

On the other hand, the spiritual world is not only populated by the so called demons( a big trash bag were different spirits are thrown together), I would like to ask you to try to go to a Misa Espiritual(Spiritual Mass in English): this is performed by ATR practitioners, go there, wait until a dead spirit(sometimes an Orisha or Enkisi, Loas in Vudu) rides a person and tell you about things you only know, or predict things that will happen to you and those things actually happen after a while. Or try to develop your astral sight and see by yourself the spirits. Or be unfortunate (maybe lucky?) enough to suffer the attack of spirits and then make a reality check with the scientific paradigm…after a short while you’ll see its limitations

arcan



As I know it, evocation is not about causing metaphysical entities to become physical – such that I can discern them with my body, and such that I give those entities commands for them to go about manipulating events and people in the Physical Plane. I know that is what all the novels, television shows, movies, games, etc… insist that evocation is about. I know that is what many people who tell incredible tales about their evocations insist it is about. Yet, regardless of what such popular entertainers proclaim and preach, that is not what evocation is about to me.

That means I do not deludedly believe that I am doing, and I am not trying to pass myself as doing, what fictional versions of Mages are portrayed as doing evocation.
And that means I do not evoke for the same reasons as those fictional versions of Mages.



For me, evocation is about ritually isolating an entified aspect of my mind - then either subsequently eliminating (banishing), or instead appropriately adjusting, it according to my purposes. The entire process systematically occurs as a careful cultivation of an awareness that enables me to experience, and interact with, those entities using the same analogues to physical perception which occur during intense "lucid dreaming". In fact, it could be said with accuracy that the evocation process for me is a tightly controlled and consciously directed "lucid dream" while my body is wide awake. Unless banished, the entity remains active enough for me to converse with it. The conversation enables me to analyze that entity’s effectiveness, challenges, fitness, its perspective of what’s going on in my developing microcosm of the Mental Plane, etc… and (if the situation warrants) to give it instructions (rewrite its code) to be more effective in light of what I learn. Once all that is done, I invoke the entity (and thus bring it “back online”), then return to an everyday state of consciousness and awareness and scrutinize the effect of the working.



That is no frivolous process. I cannot afford to make grevous errors, because doing so really can result with intense neurosis - even to the point of instigating severe psychosis and other categories of truly disturbed mentation. And that also is neither a game of “Let’s play pretend!” nor any other sort of casual, vague, willy nilly sort of “imagination” exercise - or whatever term is popular these days for referencing fanciful, escapist, and/or inconsequential “wool gathering”.

The entire point of evocation for me is for very finely and consciously cultivating metaphysical growth with impactful exactitude, which increases my self-mastery for engaging relationships (including others and the environment in the Physical Plane) with excellence.


So yes, evocation works for me.

arcan
As I know it, evocation is not about causing metaphysical entities to become physical – such that I can discern them with my body, and such that I give those entities commands for them to go about manipulating events and people in the Physical Plane. I know that is what all the novels, television shows, movies, games, etc… insist that evocation is about. I know that is what many people who tell incredible tales about their evocations insist it is about. Yet, regardless of what such popular entertainers proclaim and preach, that is not what evocation is about to me.

That means I do not deludedly believe that I am doing, and I am not trying to pass myself as doing, what fictional versions of Mages are portrayed as doing evocation.
And that means I do not evoke for the same reasons as those fictional versions of Mages.
For me, evocation is about ritually isolating an entified aspect of my mind - then either subsequently eliminating (banishing), or instead appropriately adjusting, it according to my purposes. The entire process systematically occurs as a careful cultivation of an awareness that enables me to experience, and interact with, those entities using the same analogues to physical perception which occur during intense "lucid dreaming". In fact, it could be said with accuracy that the evocation process for me is a tightly controlled and consciously directed "lucid dream" while my body is wide awake. Unless banished, the entity remains active enough for me to converse with it. The conversation enables me to analyze that entity’s effectiveness, challenges, fitness, its perspective of what’s going on in my developing microcosm of the Mental Plane, etc… and (if the situation warrants) to give it instructions (rewrite its code) to be more effective in light of what I learn. Once all that is done, I invoke the entity (and thus bring it “back online”), then return to an everyday state of consciousness and awareness and scrutinize the effect of the working.
That is no frivolous process. I cannot afford to make grevous errors, because doing so really can result with intense neurosis - even to the point of instigating severe psychosis and other categories of truly disturbed mentation. And that also is neither a game of “Let’s play pretend!” nor any other sort of casual, vague, willy nilly sort of “imagination” exercise - or whatever term is popular these days for referencing fanciful, escapist, and/or inconsequential “wool gathering”.

The entire point of evocation for me is for very finely and consciously cultivating metaphysical growth with impactful exactitude, which increases my self-mastery for engaging relationships (including others and the environment in the Physical Plane) with excellence.
So yes, evocation works for me.

Interesting. I think this definition is a little more amenable to my tastes. I know that hypnotism was once thought to be bunk, but now is an established scientific practice, and, while hypnotized, people could be told that there are entities around which don't exist, that they would 'see' and react to. It seems similar. That being said, do you 'see' your entities, or do you hear them, feel them, or any combination thereof?

You won't find the sort of evidence you are looking for. This isn't because evocation doesn't exist, but rather because it follows a process which exists somewhat outside of the Cartesian model.

Broadly speaking, evocation follows two steps.

a} Exploiting a number of different factors and variables, (planetary day, planetary hour, incense/metallic correspondences and so on) and with various other forms of preparation, you summon a spirit. If you are successful, that leads to a sensory experience (interaction with said spirit) which in and of itself, is entirely non-falsifiable. You have no way whatsoever of knowing whether or not it is an objective reality, or whether it is a hallucination taking place entirely within your own head.

b} Events later coalesce in physical/consensus reality, and apparent synchronicities occur, in such a way that you obtain the result originally asked for. The skeptic will postulate that such events would have taken place entirely on their own, whereas the magician is generally more inclined to believe that it was the work of the spirits. Again, in the case of a singular operation, this is non-falsifiable, but after a series of operations have been performed, and consistent results obtained, if one is truly honest, the materialistic hypothesis of complete randomness tends to break down.

I would also appreciate it, personally, if this forum was not defiled by the mention of James Randi. He is a deeply intellectually dishonest, and fundamentally dishonourable human being, and the attitude of him and others like him has done enormous damage to science's otherwise good name.

As far as I am concerned, people like Randi and Carl Sagan are not scientists, and have no right whatsoever to call themselves such. I feel quite passionate about this issue, as I am sure you can detect. Magick absolutely *is* a science, as Bardon maintained; but it is not one in which every single step in the chain from cause to effect is always precisely understood, in an entirely linear manner...at least when one is beginning.

Interesting. I think this definition is a little more amenable to my tastes. I know that hypnotism was once thought to be bunk, but now is an established scientific practice, and, while hypnotized, people could be told that there are entities around which don't exist, that they would 'see' and react to. It seems similar. That being said, do you 'see' your entities, or do you hear them, feel them, or any combination thereof?

Similar - and definitely different.

The entities I evoke do indeed exist.
After all, they are integral aspects comprising the ecology (and functional in the economy) of my innerspace.

Evocation is the ritual tool I use for "taking them offline" and formally assessing and adjusting the efficiency of their function.
Invocation is the ritual tool I use for "bringing them online" to operate with upgraded dynamics.

So it's not the same as any sort of mere hypnotically induced daydream involving events or things which have no effectiveness or purpose other than entertainment.

Since the ritual process is akin to a consciously induced, tightly controlled, and impactfully focussed lucid dream, I "see" them, and "hear" them, and with some there is an associated scent to "smell" them. But make no mistake when I say that, I'm talking about using inner sight, inner audio, and inner smelling - I'm not talking about seeing, hearing, and smelling them using the physical sense organs of my body.

As I mentioned before: for me, evocation is not about causing metaphysical entities to become physical, such that other people would see, hear, touch, smell, etc... them with their physical senses.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 5 2011, 08:05 AM

I used to be frustrated when I started with magic (hence the thread "Can you really do anything?") but I have had the good luck of getting to experience what I wanted to later. It really does take time. Even though magic is certainly not made up (Lol in my opinion of course) it is safe to say that it is also not what you think it is, or even what you think it isn't! Until you actually experience a particular type of magic, you will probably expect something totally different than it is. It's like this for nearly any subject. I would be careful when considering magic in the "show me NOW" type of attitude because it really can be dangerous. Israel Regardie always gives good warnings.

Results come after a fairly long time of dedicated work. But that's a good thing because it is important to be stable and strong, as all legitimate books will mention. Beginning in magic REQUIRES a certain amount of prerequisite work to be done. Magic also works regardless of whether you believe it or not, even though I do think that later on faith is important for other reasons.

If you want to experience magic, then advance carefully, like you would with firearms training or driving. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Dec 5 2011, 09:41 AM

Interesting. I think this definition is a little more amenable to my tastes. I know that hypnotism was once thought to be bunk, but now is an established scientific practice, and, while hypnotized, people could be told that there are entities around which don't exist, that they would 'see' and react to. It seems similar. That being said, do you 'see' your entities, or do you hear them, feel them, or any combination thereof?

I'm sorry but evocation has nothing to do with hypnosis, and that worn out paradigm that the "spirits are just portions of the mind" is terrible wrong. To have hypnosis as "an established scientific practice" doesn't adds up anything to the discusion, you could also have mentioned inhaloterapy for that matter. I'm getting closer to the point of thinking that those people that endorse the "is all in your mind" have never, ever, evocated anyhting, and a spirit doesn't needs to physically manifest neither. Just try to go a Misa Espiritual(a spiritual mass, practiced by ATR practitioners) and after that tell me if when a dead guy gets into the “medium” and describe each persons’ house in detail, and tells publicly to each one their most precious secrets if that is a portion of your mind, or even worse if that is a portion of their minds projected into the medium’s mind, even more the dead tells that will happen or give solutions to each one that is present and those solutions turn out to work and solve the problems of those addressed, is that a portion of their minds too? Or when an Orisha or Nkisi mounts someone and tells a lot of things that you never imagined and after a couple of days those things become facts for you and many others present. Likewise, have you ever evoked a spirit and the spirit told tell you things you ddin’t know or imagined, or gave solutions that were out of your own gnosis. I have filmed some of my evocations, lot of orbs, red orbs rounding my circle when I call Mars, also some spirits that have shown up, even though I never look for physical manifestation, is not necessary. My close circle have seen those films, some of them have personally experienced the spirits along with me in rituals, so what is on the films is also part of our minds? So, no one can tell that based on the biased and bumpy science that spirits don’t exists, at the end what is science? Is science entitled to get the place of the human and become another religion blindly followed where the minimal common sense and analytical synthesis is sacrificed just to comply with its paradigm? No, not all, there are people who fall in that mistake, science is just another tool, with its shortcommings and it uses, just that.

Wait a minute, here, markus

I didn't see anyone insisting that you must consider evocation, spirits, etc... according to a mental model.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 7 2011, 08:32 AM

I'm sorry but evocation has nothing to do with hypnosis,

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the ways in which I was comparing them.

First, I was comparing the general scientific perception of hypnosis towards the hypothetical sense that general scientific perception could perceive magick.

Secondly, I was saying that the potential exists in hypnotism to create the belief about external entities that do not exist -- that is an example of the power of the mind to generate the ability to interact with things that don't exist 'objectively'. I could have just as easily said hallucinogens allow you to do the same thing.

Thirdly, since you are a believer in the objective existence, I don't see why hypnosis has to be different really. If you're familiar with Edgar Cayce (and I would think many people here are), he had all of his 'near death experiences' while under hypnosis, and he (and many other people) certainly believe that the information he received during those experiences was objective. Many people have told me that the purpose of the ritual is to induce a trance-like state in the practitioner, that will allow the mind's subconscious to take over - do you not believe this or act like this in your evocations? If not, how do you treat the ritual? What is your mental state during a successful evocation like?

Whether or not these 'entities' conform to the general 'scientific worldview', I cannot say, but I am framing the way that they can fit within that paradigm.

Regardless, interesting post. Obviously you feel pretty passionately about this, I probably would too. Why do you only let certain people see these videos?

And regarding scientific comment - well a lot of people clearly want to rate this as a science, but I think a lot of other people would have some problems counting anything that is non-falsifiable as science. Just because it isn't non-falsifiable doesn't make it not true, it just makes it not science. So says Karl Popper anyways and I think he's generally looked at as being the go-to guy for modern philosophy of science. If your point with 'what is science' is to point out that yeah there's a whole field devoted to that question, of course that's true. My point is that there are some pretty big claims made by the nature of evocations. With a field that by many people's own admissions, doesn't offer concrete evidence, it isn't necessarily the best place to be trying to counter the current scientific paradigm, if you can say everything it says, without making anyone throw away a paradigm, you might be able to get people into it more, and maybe who knows, after they've done that, they'll toss the model.

This post has been edited by arcan: Dec 10 2011, 08:51 PM

Many people have told me that the purpose of the ritual is to induce a trance-like state in the practitioner, that will allow the mind's subconscious to take over - do you not believe this or act like this in your evocations? If not, how do you treat the ritual? What is your mental state during a successful evocation like?

The magical ritual is Transcendental and not Trance-Inducing. The magician, fully aware and in possession of all reasonable faculties, declares sacred oaths and words that convey his innermost conceptions of the ultimate authority behind his spells and conjurations. Mantras and chants, runes and geometrics, and all the litanies of divine names represent best-guess approximations of how to endow esoteric gestures with occult power.

Great pledges are made on the part of the magician, especially in the Lemegeton but also in the other classical grimoires. The magician declares himself the servant of Jehovah (for example) and in so doing gives the spirit leverage over him in regard to any sort of immorality. What spirit would answer a man who gave no ground? In making the conjurations, there are several other such pledges made, and these are a dim part of ceremonial magic.

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the ways in which I was comparing them.

First, I was comparing the general scientific perception of hypnosis towards the hypothetical sense that general scientific perception could perceive magick.

Secondly, I was saying that the potential exists in hypnotism to create the belief about external entities that do not exist -- that is an example of the power of the mind to generate the ability to interact with things that don't exist 'objectively'. I could have just as easily said hallucinogens allow you to do the same thing.

Thirdly, since you are a believer in the objective existence, I don't see why hypnosis has to be different really. If you're familiar with Edgar Cayce (and I would think many people here are), he had all of his 'near death experiences' while under hypnosis, and he (and many other people) certainly believe that the information he received during those experiences was objective.
Whether or not these 'entities' conform to the general 'scientific worldview', I cannot say, but I am framing the way that they can fit within that paradigm.

Regardless, interesting post. Obviously you feel pretty passionately about this, I probably would too. Why do you only let certain people see these videos?

And regarding scientific comment - well a lot of people clearly want to rate this as a science, but I think a lot of other people would have some problems counting anything that is non-falsifiable as science. Just because it isn't non-falsifiable doesn't make it not true, it just makes it not science. So says Karl Popper anyways and I think he's generally looked at as being the go-to guy for modern philosophy of science. If your point with 'what is science' is to point out that yeah there's a whole field devoted to that question, of course that's true. My point is that there are some pretty big claims made by the nature of evocations. With a field that by many people's own admissions, doesn't offer concrete evidence, it isn't necessarily the best place to be trying to counter the current scientific paradigm, if you can say everything it says, without making anyone throw away a paradigm, you might be able to get people into it more, and maybe who knows, after they've done that, they'll toss the model.

OK, what I tried to remark was that, IMHO, the points that you made have nothing to do with the discussion or my point of view that spirits exist per se. That's why I said that to mention hypnosis was a relevant as to mention inhaloterapy. What Cayce received and how he received it is also pointless, is not about the existence of spirit, in any case keep in mind that Cayce usually went into deep trance states but those deep states are not necessary to communicate with spirits, so his case is a very particular one. And I avoid to use expression "objective" existence.

You make an interesting point here:

Many people have told me that the purpose of the ritual is to induce a trance-like state in the practitioner, that will allow the mind's subconscious to take over - do you not believe this or act like this in your evocations? If not, how do you treat the ritual? What is your mental state during a successful evocation like?

I do an evocation as plainly as when calling anyone who I want to talk to, but keep in mind I don't care if the spirit shows or not, I just go astral and for me is enough. Nevertheless sometimes they show by themselves. Of course I do "X" ritual step by step, but I can get into another level of conciusness very easily, do not need a ritual framework to do that. Now, I do not consider that to be hypnosis, hypnosis is quite a different thing, you can't classify each and every altered state of conciousness under the label of hypnosis. I can give you an example of a ceremony I did with my wife, this particular ceremony was lenghty, with many steps, the sort of ceremonies I don’t like at all, I have to read, then meditate, then walk around, read again, and so on, over and over again. Everytime I closed my eyes I was in an astral temple (not mine) with some deities and other spirits, well after the ceremony I asked my wife about it and she described everything she saw and what she described was exactly what I was seeing at that moment, even more I was taken to an inner temple that she wasn't allowed into and she described the beings that escorted me to that place and how it look from the outside. We were both in two paralell words at the same time, we were simultaneously doing things here and "there", she saw what I saw. Is that hypnosis?

Regarding the videos, after I filmed these ceremonies I realized it was disrespectfulto the spirits to do so, even more to show them would be like showing a sort circus freak for people's amusement, that's why I showed it to a very limited number of persons and no one else.

I agree with your comments as science, to some extent your approach is similar to mine. The problem is that for many people whatever that doesn't fits the scientific paradigm is not real, is almost as to deny the very existence of some phenomena just because there's no scientific explanation for it.

On the one hand I'm not trying to counter the current scientific paradigm, for me the scientific parading has nothing to do with magic, as well as it has nothing to do with art, or caligraphy or many other things. Magic do not need the scientific paradigm at all, for anyhting, magic is a very ancient practice, very ancient art, authenticated within its own paradigm and more important by millions and millions of people through the human history, and with this I mean people who have seen results using magic. To try to judge magic from the scientific point of view is as valid as tro try to judge a particle accelerator with the tools of literary analysis. On the other hand, if science lacks the knowledge and/or the technology to valid phenomena that occur in the realm of magic that doesn't invalidates magic. Just keep in mind that, for instance, physics still is trying to grasp many different forms of energy, some can measure, some can't be explained by the current state of physics, the lack of a scientific theory or at least hypothesis doesn't denies the existence of the phenomena.