My story is very different but similar in the main points - hateful female intention and strange ‘magical’ entities.
In my case it took an gipsy woman to make the diagnosis and help me get rid of it.
That process was incredibly awesome. Without it I could have never mustered the courage to create a God.
I guess you could say that in some sense my God creation is a reaction to my experience with demons.
You were helping a client dig a hole in his yard?
This sounds like a cool story.
I believe in Gods because I believe in values as the ontological primary. In my book physics is a result of the tendency to value.
I don’t mean conscious valuing, I mean responding to stimuli in terms of their consequences on your being. Something which all particles and entities do. (Those who don’t cease to exist)
This led me to interpret the act of valuing as an ontologically primary act, and to make myself extremely conscious of it. I then noticed I could influence events very dramatically by thinking about the elements in them in a certain way.
Then I realized I could even influence events that had no ground in reality yet by creating a ground for them mentally and emotionally.
In this sense, this demon you discuss would actually have a parent which is a God - in this case, female hatred of men - the Greek Hekate is a representation of such intentions.
The God of my intention did not yet exist as I am a new kind of species.
I am aware of this, unlike many - the times are no longer the same quality as they were 100 years ago. Mankind has become a god-like being, under the weight of which most people have become totally apathetic, capable only of relating to the world lamenting about their slavery.
I made this God for the benefit of many who are now still slaves, ‘masters in slave-hides’.
You would believe such an entity on its word?
I’ve tried that out in the past, didn’t really work out to any kind of advantage.
Demons are perfectly parasitical of your imagination, drag out anything that is available in your mind to serve their wish to enage in your energies.
Yeah, I was working for a concrete cutter and he had to rush to the store to buy some parts. I stayed behind to help the client dig the hole. The hole was along the side of the house. The concrete we were going to cut was on the side of the house for a basement window.
Can you give me an example of this?
This god being that which ruled over my ex?
And how does this god help them?
Remember, FC, I’m making all this up. I decide whether he was telling the truth or not.
I could but these are all pretty touchy situations. God works through humans and their values. Whether one attains them or the other. There’s always someone involves who loses. Someone I don’t like.
So I’m pretty careful not to think about it too much.
No it rules over you (if your story is real enough for me to understand) because your ex invoked it in hatred of you.
It facilitates their power transactions in several ways.
It makes them aware with each act that it is an act of power
it makes them aware through these act-knowings that power is mercy, and that restriction is mercy when abundance has lost its royalty. It helps man to choose his moments. To rise to the occasion. But the occasion has to be in terms of the Cardinal Virtue.
Perhaps I will call my New God Cardinal Cross.
Then it’s just a character in a novel you’re not writing.
Would it be fair to say this god brought the demon alive within me? Remember the demon was there long before the psychedelics, long before I ever met my ex-girlfriend–it just wasn’t a supernatural autonomous agent before then.
I’m not writing?
I was more confused about what you meant by “narcissist”. Were you talking about me or the Hebrew god? If me, how so?
Oh. Yes. You’re a total narcissist. Hated how you copped out of that RM thread. No depth or real interest, just trying to show off. Super boring type discussion.
You mean Jame’s Rational Metaphysics thread? Showing off? Of course! I always try to show of. I’m a dramatist. Depth or interest? I did have these at first but when it became clear to me that James was only building his theory at a superficial level, I lost interest. I didn’t see any depth so I stopped looking for it. Boring? I hope it didn’t start out boring.
I never thought of these as being signs of narcissism. Interesting that you see it that way. Am I at least a likable narcissist?
You never even came close to understanding the first principle of RM. It was perfectly obvious from the second post you wrote that you had absolutely no intention (possibly capacity but you didn teven try) to think about it. Seriously, that’s what was offensive then and what kept being confirmed with every superficial error you posted.
I cant believe you’re proud of your approach.
Yes, ultra-boring form the start.
Not at this juncture.
I dislike it when people are frivolously misunderstanding profound subjects and seem to think that they are being clever.
That should be obvious enough. Maybe take more than a tenth of a second to think about it.
I can guess, for example, that the reason you called me a narcissist after suggesting that the ten god who were all named YHWH were the band of angels I saw in my psychedelic visions is that I was trying to trump your view with my own. I must be a selfish prick. Really, all I thought I was doing was trying (jokingly) to meld our two views together (they’re just ideas after all).
But I have no idea if I’m right or wrong.
If I were to guess as to what you’re doing, it would be that you’re just trying to give me a hard time. If you’re really that outraged at the way my discussion with James went down, I’d have to say you’ve got some issues.
Felix - I was first just trying to tell Gib that he was looking at this whole thing very differently than that is required to understand it. Perhaps you are familiar with the origin of the term Narcissist, perhaps not. If you are, and if you had been following the discussion, you may have been able to place it in context. But I respect that your time is limited and sometimes have to make impulsive and partial decisions.
That’s true.
Do you happen to know when this happens?
I mean: how does a mind fragment, and how does the fragment attain its own identity?
At tulpa.info they talk about forming a new identiy. There they call it a tulpa. I believe this all happens due to the memory of the brain. We have way more memory than we may think, and we can store more than one ego. However, the ego needs months to form, and forms allot faster if it is used, or is connected to some function or emotion.
If gib’s daemon was a shard of himself which he had rejected, if it was still tied to his suppressed desires, it could grow from that. If he talked to it that would also make it grow, until it became a secondary subconscious ego.
At the website people made new egos as friends. That was the goal, anyways. If the created internal thoughtform became mean or something they didn’t want, they call that ‘deviation’. One of the people at the website graced me with his personal experience, and said that when he tries really hard he can physically see the tulpa which he had made. So some people can even see that shit, it seems. He said it took him 3 months, and he talked with it allot and used visualization too.
We can influence our brain in such radical ways. Of course we never ‘physically see’ things really - we just translate photons into neural activity and then acquire a visual notion. But I think that the personality is deeper than what we may conjure up in such conscious ways - it is rooted in structures we could never perceive, as our perceptions, or interpretations, are all rooted in that structure. Kants basic problem, one he never came close to resolving or even acknowledging. A problem Nietzsche acknowledged directly as unresolvable - doing away with the interpretation of it as problematic, and positing it now simply as reality, and (thus, per Nietzschean spirit) desirable.
