[NT] Ask an NT witch anything.

[greenfairy]

Can I get some specific examples of ideas which are impractical, and why please?

 

[Ginkgo]

Where? where have I made false dichotomies?

I just thought it was relevant.

Earlier you were explaining your empathic abilities, psychic abilities, and your connection with other living things and even the earth itself. You also mentioned your confusion. I also believe that everyone has potential psychic abilities that depend on intuition, but I also believe that those who are proud and egocentric about it will naturally find that their abilities wane. You seemed to confuse yourself with others; developing a hygienic ego and sense of self in relation to the rest of the world, rather than dependent on the rest of the world, I believe may let you tune in to others with a greater degree of accuracy. A simple step in the right direction might be to recognize the psyche/soul as independent of the body, yet a driver for the vehicle that corresponds with the vehicle. In other words, they depend on each other to complete the mind+body, yet still exist independently of each other. Zen, yes, but not esoteric at all. One of the aims of the occult is to marry science and spirituality. I believe that each practice has its place, and without recognizing them as independent methods of understanding The Ultimate Reality, as you put it, it is unreasonable to expect to understand them as a couple, each dependent on the couple. Science does not neglect spirituality and spirituality does not neglect science.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Just because ideas are impractical at the present moment does not mean they are useless, as they advance our knowledge, and with the advance of knowledge, we can impose greater order upon the world in the future, as the sorcery of today becomes the science of tomorrow! The magic of philosophy will take us to those new worlds that never were in our time, though the journey is long in the coming.

edit - Witches are wiser than wizards, because they are less arrogant in their command of their powers, as we wizards think we are the world's greatest, and we are!

 

[greenfairy]

Just because ideas are impractical at the present moment does not mean they are useless, as they advance our knowledge, and with the advance of knowledge, we can impose greater order upon the world in the future, as the sorcery of today becomes the science of tomorrow! The magic of philosophy will take us to those new worlds that never were in our time, though the journey is long in the coming.

edit - Witches are wiser than wizards, because they are less arrogant in their command of their powers, as we wizards think we are the world's greatest, and we are!

What he said.

 

[greenfairy]

I just thought it was relevant.

Earlier you were explaining your empathic abilities, psychic abilities, and your connection with other living things and even the earth itself. You also mentioned your confusion. I also believe that everyone has potential psychic abilities that depend on intuition, but I also believe that those who are proud and egocentric about it will naturally find that their abilities wane. You seemed to confuse yourself with others; developing a hygienic ego and sense of self in relation to the rest of the world, rather than dependent on the rest of the world, I believe may let you tune in to others with a greater degree of accuracy. A simple step in the right direction might be to recognize the psyche/soul as independent of the body, yet a driver for the vehicle that corresponds with the vehicle. In other words, they depend on each other to complete the mind+body, yet still exist independently of each other. Zen, yes, but not esoteric at all. One of the aims of the occult is to marry science and spirituality. I believe that each practice has its place, and without recognizing them as independent methods of understanding The Ultimate Reality, as you put it, it is unreasonable to expect to understand them as a couple, each dependent on the couple. Science does not neglect spirituality and spirituality does not neglect science.

Sounds reasonable. I don't see where my ideas are being impractical though. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Ginkgo]

Sounds reasonable. I don't see where my ideas are being impractical though. Thanks for explaining.

Well I think beliefs are largely practical in how well you can communicate them. The defined nature of Christianity, for instance, is what has led to it being clear enough to even apply to political context; it is also the world's dominant religion. It's based on a large body of thought that's already been sewn together. I believe that there are many different paths in following the same unknowable God, but at the end of the day, monism and the common spiritual motifs we find in the world's traditions will be just as reductionist as a singular practice of Christianity. The biggest difference may be that understanding the big picture of monism demands time and effort; we typically can't afford to communicate this overarching message, which means that it's usefulness is limited. However, the usefulness is even more limited by the limited number of people in your area you might practice and discuss with. To really bear your fruits, I would think you would have to be fluent in many languages.

 

[greenfairy]

Well I think beliefs are largely practical in how well you can communicate them. The defined nature of Christianity, for instance, is what has led to it being clear enough to even apply to political context; it is also the world's dominant religion. It's based on a large body of thought that's already been sewn together. I believe that there are many different paths in following the same unknowable God, but at the end of the day, monism and the common spiritual motifs we find in the world's traditions will be just as reductionist as a singular practice of Christianity. The biggest difference may be that understanding the big picture of monism demands time and effort; we typically can't afford to communicate this overarching message, which means that it's usefulness is limited. However, the usefulness is even more limited by the limited number of people in your area you might practice and discuss with. To really bear your fruits, I would think you would have to be fluent in many languages.

Interesting perspective.

I don't think there is one truth, rather that reality is composed of all realities combined. There are patterns reproduced in nature and existence, and underlying principles, and these can be universally known and recognized. In the days before modern science was invented, this is how people navigated life. They looked at patterns and principles, and applied them to their personal experiences. There is no universal dogma. Christianity's widespread success is largely due to people worshiping the written word and existing hierarchical social structures rather than thinking for themselves. Not that I'm down on anyone's personal Christian viewpoint; a personal spiritual experience from Christian point of view is valid, and effectively teaching some of the underlying principles of reality and harmony is valid (but I don't think Christianity does a good job of this); but religion, especially of an exclusive nature is inherently flawed and limited. There's an immediate flaw in logic. If reality is composed of the picture you get when you combine all viewpoints (like trying to map a mountain with a team of people- you need the findings of all of them), believing one experience of the divine and path to truth as valid to the exclusion of all others is necessarily false.

 

[Ginkgo]

Interesting perspective.

I don't think there is one truth, rather that reality is composed of all realities combined. There are patterns reproduced in nature and existence, and underlying principles, and these can be universally known and recognized. In the days before modern science was invented, this is how people navigated life. They looked at patterns and principles, and applied them to their personal experiences. There is no universal dogma. Christianity's widespread success is largely due to people worshiping the written word and existing hierarchical social structures rather than thinking for themselves. Not that I'm down on anyone's personal Christian viewpoint; a personal spiritual experience from Christian point of view is valid, and effectively teaching some of the underlying principles of reality and harmony is valid (but I don't think Christianity does a good job of this); but religion, especially of an exclusive nature is inherently flawed and limited. There's an immediate flaw in logic. If reality is composed of the picture you get when you combine all viewpoints (like trying to map a mountain with a team of people- you need the findings of all of them), believing one experience of the divine and path to truth as valid to the exclusion of all others is necessarily false.

I think I understand what you're saying, but isn't the reality that is "composed of all realities combined" a single path? How are alternative realities actually alternatives if you're excluding your first option? I believe that human beings do have inherently patterned platforms on which they interpret the world; this, I believe, is for a reason. Well, religion is only "flawed" if you expect it not to be religion. It sounds like you're referring to fundamentalism when you say "religion". People tend to worship dogma regardless, but some also read texts precisely because they are thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they choose to believe. The difficulty, then, is one that falls on the individual to actually take ownership of their ability to think, not religious text itself. I do agree with you, if you are talking about fundamentalism, that fundamentalism is a form of text worship. There are profound things to be seen in the symbolism of the text, if one is willing to see the recognition of symbols in a sort of osmosis learning process, rather than trying to actively make the symbols like what an overzealous elementary school English teacher might do.

 

[greenfairy]

Ok. Reality is not a path. Reality is existence. Matter, space, and energy exist. This is objective reality, and has nothing to do with our perception. Being that we are individuals limited in our perception by a physical body, we are necessarily biased by our own experiences and environment.

Religion, spirituality, philosophy, and any path, are completely relative to human existence. They have no relevance to trees, rabbits, or Jupiter. Truth and rightness are subjective. Truth is an idea, not a material object or a living thing; therefore it depends on beings with cognition in order to exist. Because truth is an idea in the minds of beings, it is only relevant to those beings. Meaning that any idea is filtered through the subjective lens of the one in whose brain it resides. The purpose of religion, spirituality, philosophy, and paths is to help individuals live their lives in ways consistent with their well being, and thus increase the collective well being. Any path then, if it becomes enacted by an individual, will suit that individual's needs (or not be used, and thus cease to be relevant). Thus, since these things are composed of ideas in the minds of individuals enacting them to suit their individual needs, there is no one "right" path.

Reality is objective because it includes both animate and inanimate. It is existence. Therefore it is its own individual entity, but includes all others.

1+1=2 (which equals a third entity) +1 =3

Yin + Yang = yin yang symbol (1-->2-->3)

See?

 

[Ginkgo]

Ok. Reality is not a path. Reality is existence. Matter, space, and energy exist. This is objective reality, and has nothing to do with our perception. Being that we are individuals limited in our perception by a physical body, we are necessarily biased by our own experiences and environment.

Religion, spirituality, philosophy, and any path, are completely relative to human existence. They have no relevance to trees, rabbits, or Jupiter. Truth and rightness are subjective. Truth is an idea, not a material object or a living thing; therefore it depends on beings with cognition in order to exist. Because truth is an idea in the minds of beings, it is only relevant to those beings. Meaning that any idea is filtered through the subjective lens of the one in whose brain it resides. The purpose of religion, spirituality, philosophy, and paths is to help individuals live their lives in ways consistent with their well being, and thus increase the collective well being. Any path then, if it becomes enacted by an individual, will suit that individual's needs (or not be used, and thus cease to be relevant). Thus, since these things are composed of ideas in the minds of individuals enacting them to suit their individual needs, there is no one "right" path.

Reality is objective because it includes both animate and inanimate. It is existence. Therefore it is its own individual entity, but includes all others.

1+1=2 (which equals a third entity) +1 =3

Yin + Yang = yin yang symbol (1-->2-->3)

See?

Is your path right for you?

 

[greenfairy]

Is your path right for you?

Yes. And to the extent it is not, it will be changed in accordance with my awareness of the fact.

 

[JAVO]

Religion, spirituality, philosophy, and any path, are completely relative to human existence. They have no relevance to trees, rabbits, or Jupiter. Truth and rightness are subjective. Truth is an idea, not a material object or a living thing; therefore it depends on beings with cognition in order to exist. Because truth is an idea in the minds of beings, it is only relevant to those beings. Meaning that any idea is filtered through the subjective lens of the one in whose brain it resides. The purpose of religion, spirituality, philosophy, and paths is to help individuals live their lives in ways consistent with their well being, and thus increase the collective well being. Any path then, if it becomes enacted by an individual, will suit that individual's needs (or not be used, and thus cease to be relevant). Thus, since these things are composed of ideas in the minds of individuals enacting them to suit their individual needs, there is no one "right" path.

Doesn't this limit truth to what humans can comprehend? What if there are other beings or a being who can comprehend more? If truth is relative to the perceiver, then does the truth of the lesser cognitive being override the more encompassing truth of the greater cognitive being?

 

[Ginkgo]

Yes. And to the extent it is not, it will be changed in accordance with my awareness of the fact.

Isn't that still your path?

 

[Coriolis]

Hmm...I like the New Age crowd; I just find their spirituality to be...incomplete somehow. I love all the yoga and healing work and positivity and non-judgment. But it seems a bit non-grounded. It kind of seems to emphasize transcendence. I know Christian mysticism does. That's what my mom is into. It's all about love, forgiveness, and you not being a body just a soul under the illusion that you are separate from God. Her path has a lot of good things to teach, and I'm glad it works for her, but it's not for me. I'm happy living on the Earth. I like my body. I'd prefer to live in harmony with reality than try to escape from incarnation. I like a spiritual path that allows me to directly connect with the Earth, animals, nature spirits, and my primal human self. I acknowledge both the "dark" and "light" sides of existence, and think they are just 2 sides of reality. You can find empowerment in both as long as you use it for balance and not destruction. New Age seems only to focus on the light. Light, love, light beings, send light, blah blah blah. I'm too fae to get into that. We can't live in a world only composed of light.

This has been my experience as well. Acknowledging the dark and accepting it as just as good and necessary as the light is a significant difference. Darkness has been incorrectly equated with evil for far too long, with far-reaching consequences. As one of my teachers explains, one is just as blind in a room flooded with light as in complete darkness. It is in their combining to create contrast that meaning is found (consider these words on the screen).

One thing I could never do is find a coven or even stick with the rituals in Wicca. It felt too...'this is how it should be'. You seem to indicate somewhat going through the motions as well, for the sake of the group...or am I misunderstanding that? I do admit it's pretty lonely to walk that path alone, but somehow I couldn't even practice together with a fellow ENFP witch. That's why I say..this is intensely private to me.

How on earth did you manage to a) find people that are likeminded enough to form a coven with and b) get accustomed to sharing a path, as a witch's path seems so darn individual (not to mention the personal experiences, perspectives and beliefs on the matter that can clash)

As Greenfairy explained, I joined and remain part of a group largely to facilitate learning. I discovered I was a pagan through reading a sequence of books in what was almost a spiritual scavenger hunt, each leading to the next and answering questions prompted by the previous. The last book prompted the question: so where can I find people who believe and practice this faith today? The next step was not a book but a website, of a group hosting a public ritual. I visited, then emailed the priestess, then joined a study group. I felt an instant kinship not simply with paganism, or wicca, but with this particular group whose practice of wicca is different than most. The light/dark balance is a big part of that, plus a bit different view of the archetypes. Also, their approach was very intellectual and rigorous, while stressing personal responsibility. We had the most amazing rituals - the energy, and the sharing on multiple levels.

I eventually moved away from a critical mass of group members, and now practice with an eclectic group containing 3 from the original tradition. It is less satisfying in that it is far less rigorous, more scattered, not as deep. I do it because I find the group work helps keep me "honest", gives me a sounding board for questions, and to hear other perspectives. Yes, I do alot alone, but for sabbats and an occasional esbat or handfasting, etc. I find benefit in the group.

Are these answers sufficient for the NT's, or do more than a couple of people think I'm batshit insane? haha Because I welcome intelligent debate on the subjects, as long as it's respectful and open minded.

Your answers are responsive and interesting, but frankly don't seem very NT.

Why does the epistemology of your belief system seem to be almost completely based on subjective truths? I recognize that the subjective world is just as real as any other, even if it doesn't correspond with the objective world. But isn't it the nature of belief to have faith in something external, even if it's not tangibly verifiable? Anything else is more or less just knowledge.

The epistemology of every belief system is based on subjective truths. That is what makes them belief systems and not science. If anything, pagan spirituality is much more grounded in objective reality since it is anchored in the physical world of nature. The solstices and equinoxes are astronomical realities for everyone, whether they choose to observe them or not.

Do you find you use a lot of props? I find that as me goes on..the more I look at props, the more they get in the way and distract m. I still use candles, sometimes incense and crystals at times but...most of the energy work I actually do doesn't have the spell-format you'd expect it to have. It's more..gut instinct to the situation, using intuition, empathy and other skill sets.

I don't even officially observe the sabbats anymore. I do make it a point to reconnect with the season when it shifts but..that's done by walking through the garden while mulling thinsg over in my head, noticing the changes and well...syncing up with Nature again, as such.

I have never been good enough to dispense with the props and schedules (or perhaps that is just my TJ take on things). The trick is to find the right props and schedule for me. I do fine with my group ritual, but a big stumbling block has been to find personal ritual that works. I have pared it down quite a bit, but the aesthetics and the repetition really help me, at least for now, as do a few well-chosen tools.

When I say "faith", I don't refer to a religious body of thought, but rather having the will to accept something other than manifestations of your psyche. Or am I reading you wrong? Do your beliefs affect your life in a demonstrable way because they are reflected in how you view the world?

This is a very good way to describe this. My beliefs affect my life very much. Not only are they reflected in my world view, but they influence that view as well. If they did not, I would question the worth of following a spiritual path at all.

I don't think there is one truth, rather that reality is composed of all realities combined. There are patterns reproduced in nature and existence, and underlying principles, and these can be universally known and recognized. In the days before modern science was invented, this is how people navigated life. They looked at patterns and principles, and applied them to their personal experiences. There is no universal dogma. Christianity's widespread success is largely due to people worshiping the written word and existing hierarchical social structures rather than thinking for themselves. Not that I'm down on anyone's personal Christian viewpoint; a personal spiritual experience from Christian point of view is valid, and effectively teaching some of the underlying principles of reality and harmony is valid (but I don't think Christianity does a good job of this); but religion, especially of an exclusive nature is inherently flawed and limited. There's an immediate flaw in logic. If reality is composed of the picture you get when you combine all viewpoints (like trying to map a mountain with a team of people- you need the findings of all of them), believing one experience of the divine and path to truth as valid to the exclusion of all others is necessarily false.

The blind men and the elephant again. There is one reality, that is too vast and complex for any one person to comprehend it fully. In fact, each of us can only comprehend and experience a small part. The more we listen to and learn from each others, the more parts we can glimpse. As for Christianity's widespread "success", it seems due as much to having been a state religion for so long, as to any inherent worth.

Isn't that still your path?

One might as well ask the cardiac patient: are your medications right for you? If they are not, the doctor will figure this out after the next round of blood tests, and change the meds. The result is still the same patient's meds, corrected based on a reconsideration of data and circumstances.

 

[Ginkgo]

One might as well ask the cardiac patient: are your medications right for you? If they are not, the doctor will figure this out after the next round of blood tests, and change the meds. The result is still the same patient's meds, corrected based on a reconsideration of data and circumstances.

I could have sworn we were speaking in the present tense. Yes the nature of truth is subjective, but what I meant by "subjective truths" was a truth about something believed to be subjective, rather than outside the subject. She said she didn't believe in God or in deities in any way other than that they were mere concepts or fluid, psychological manifestations. As though the object in itself was just a subjective impression.

 

[greenfairy]

Isn't that still your path?

A path is like a rope, made up of many actions, thoughts, and goals. At which point do you call it a single entity? It is singular in that it is the collections of actions I choose to take. But you can't reduce that down to a single path for everyone, because no 2 people have the same collective set of actions.

 

[greenfairy]

Doesn't this limit truth to what humans can comprehend? What if there are other beings or a being who can comprehend more? If truth is relative to the perceiver, then does the truth of the lesser cognitive being override the more encompassing truth of the greater cognitive being?

We can't be sure these beings exist, so it would be impractical to make the assumption. In any case, if they do and we don't know it, they are irrelevant to us.

 

[greenfairy]

I like your ideas, but I think they're too subjective/impractical to be expressed outside theoretical exchange. I think you're offering false binaries when you pit the destruction of the environment or a decision towards harmony and communal well-being. It's not that simple.

Again, I like where you're coming from, but I think you're focusing on the negative aspects of human progress, insofar as we've been unable to eradicate them (I'd be interested to hear concrete alternatives, if you've got 'em) that inevitably happen when human beings work towards the successful propagation of our species these last 80,000 or so years. Again, if you've got a better idea, please share away.

I'm not saying that it's acceptable to allow suffering and misery to occur unchecked; just that we shouldn't scrap the entire system because our byproducts are contaminated..or that the option to suddenly eradicate these terrible existential maxims can happen as easily as I think you're offering..

I'm open to possibility, though..


The point of my previous post was that humanity has survived; that society is simply a statement of what people do when resource acquisition and reproductive prerogative combine over time into a cohesive system of cooperative human effort. To say that 'society is screwed' is to fly in the face of human history..

I don't mean to imply that there are only 2 options. I mean there are 2 extremes on a spectrum most of the time, and in choosing our actions it is helpful to choose the one which is the most beneficial. Creative thinking outside of the box is definitely a good idea.

I don't think history has all been one big mistake. It has been a learning process. We've experimented with different actions, policies, environments, and ways of being, and we're at a point where we've done pretty much everything destructive there is to do without wiping ourselves out; and it's time to face the fact and do something different. I don't mean "scrap the entire system," rather change it piece by piece as we find new things that work better than the ones we have. What we have has so many parts, it would be hard not to do it this way. And we don't have to do it all at once, it's just that some things warrant more immediate attention.

 

[greenfairy]

So how do you feel about The Secret?

I don't really feel one way or the other about it. I think it has some truth to it. I think we create our realities based on our state of being, and our thoughts and emotions. But I think there is a lot more to it than what The Secret tells. It would have to be simplified to a great extent for the general population to accept it.

 

[greenfairy]

This is because an evil organization called the Illuminati controls everything in our world. Of course, it is just a conspiracy theory, not a fact, but I think it is a good explanation for the prison trapping all of us.

Oh I don't think people could organize themselves that efficiently. But I do think the real power structure is something very few people see.