Page 1 of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#34716 - 01/28/10 05:52 AM Set: What does he want?
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
I have been reading public documents from the Temple of Set Official Site and I have a question for Setians on this forum, among whom the most prominent is Doctor Aquino as far as I know.

What does Set want?

So far from my reading I think your answer would be:
1. Suitable companions
2. The eradication of stupidity to whatever extent possible

In asking this question, I view myself as having entered your lair, and I voluntarily bind myself to the third of The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. I obviously can't speak for anyone else in that regard.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34750 - 01/28/10 06:15 PM R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
What does Set want?

Acknowledgment, respect, and appreciation. And I gather he would rather not see humans abuse the Gift of Set, e.g. isolate self consciousness and all that flows from it, though it is inherent in the Gift that it is not preconditional, and is irrevocable.

Things were much simpler back in the Church of Satan days ...

 Originally Posted By: HPL, The Shadow Over Innsmouth
Never was nobody like Cap’n Obed—old limb o’ Satan! Heh, heh! I kin mind him a-tellin’ abaout furren parts, an’ callin’ all the folks stupid fer goin’ to Christian meetin’ an’ bearin’ their burdens meek an’ lowly. Says they’d orter git better gods like some o’ the folks in the Injies—gods as ud bring ’em good fishin’ in return for their sacrifices, an’ ud reely answer folks’s prayers ...

Hey, yew, why dun’t ye say somethin’? Haow’d ye like to be livin’ in a taown like this, with everything a-rottin’ an’ a-dyin’, an’ boarded-up monsters crawlin’ an’ bleatin’ an’ barkin’ an’ hoppin’ araoun’ black cellars an’ attics every way ye turn? Hey? Haow’d ye like to hear the haowlin’ night arter night from the churches an’ Order o’ Dagon Hall, an’ know what’s doin’ part o’ the haowlin’? Haow’d ye like to hear what comes from that awful reef every May-Eve an’ Hallowmass? Hey? Think the old man’s crazy, eh? Wal, Sir, let me tell ye that ain’t the wust! Yew want to know what the reel horror is, hey? Wal, it’s this—it ain’t what them fish devils hez done, but what they’re a-goin’ to do! They’re a-bringin’ things up aout o’ whar they come from into the taown—ben doin’ it fer years, an’ slackenin’ up lately. Them haouses north o’ the river betwixt Water an’ Main Streets is full of ’em—them devils an’ what they brung—an’ when they git ready ... I say, when they git ready ... ever hear tell of a shoggoth? ... Hey, d’ye hear me? I tell ye I know what them things be—I seen ’em one night when ... EH—AHHHH—AH! E’YAAHHHH. . . .

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34765 - 01/29/10 06:02 AM Re: R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
What does Set want?

Acknowledgment, respect, and appreciation. And I gather he would rather not see humans abuse the Gift of Set, e.g. isolate self consciousness and all that flows from it, though it is inherent in the Gift that it is not preconditional, and is irrevocable.


Thank you for the response. Most informative.

I think the above resonates with my two guesses, namely, that Set, as depicted by the ToS, wanted suitable companions ("acknowledgement, respect, and appreciation") and to eradicate stupidity to whatever extent possible ("rather not see humans abuse the Gift of Set"). So I have some confidence that I'm in fact understanding what I was reading at the ToS web site.

This puts me in mind, metaphorically, of LaVey and the one he apparently considered a suitable companion, namely, Togare. By no means am I someone who exhaustively researches all the little details of LaVey's life as documented, trying to determine which parts were factually depicted and which parts were fanciful. I simply don't care. But the image of LaVey and Togare has always been a fruitful one in my mind, a powerful symbol, useful in my self-making.

I've said before that often the object of a cult of personality may be a Satanist while his duped disciples most decidedly aren't. What fascinates me about LaVey is that his message drew to his side as many lions as sheep. I view yourself and Jake as lions, regardless whether any of us always agree about everything. Why should any two people always agree about everything? Such only occurs when one is dominant and the other is submissively (and often unconsciously) self-brainwashing.

So in my mind's eye, when reading the ToS materials, I see Set as, symbolically, LaVey, and the Setian as Togare, a lion viewed by Set as a suitable companion, with the eradication of stupidity being a key leonine attribute.

I hope you take all of that as respectful, which is how it was meant, as I promised to bind myself to the third of the 11SRE, and also, frankly, because respect is my default posture when conversing with a Satanist, a variation of Tit for Tat and a sincere mental attitude.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34778 - 01/29/10 12:50 PM Roar! [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
I view yourself and Jake as lions, regardless whether any of us always agree about everything. Why should any two people always agree about everything?

Hi Jake!

As previously noted, I think Jake is a gentleman [lion] of integrity who saw, took, and contributed the best during the time in which he encountered ASLV. I think he would have done the same had he been involved pre-1975, for that matter. We play with the hand of cards we've been dealt, as it were.

 Quote:
So in my mind's eye, when reading the ToS materials, I see Set as, symbolically, LaVey, and the Setian as Togare, a lion viewed by Set as a suitable companion, with the eradication of stupidity being a key leonine attribute.

Set is a neter, a metauniversal principle or Form. Satan as we understood him back then was less of a Form, more "personally accessible & involved", as you can see from the SB/SR, etc. Anton as his HP was his Earthly representative, plain & simple, per his formal title "High Priest and Exarch of Hell". So in that sense Anton was not quite Satan, but no mere human either. If you can grok that, you can grok the 1966-75 Church & Priesthood.

The High Priest of Set, in accordance with our apprehension of Set, has always been something much more indistinct. Call the office a whisper against the cheek of the Æon, if you like.

 Quote:
I hope you take all of that as respectful, which is how it was meant ...

Of course, as long as you stay away from Jake and me with that cattle prod.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34879 - 01/31/10 07:34 PM Re: Roar! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



‘Set is a neter, a metauniversal principle or Form. Satan as we understood him back then was less of a Form, more "personally accessible & involved", as you can see from the SB/SR, etc. Anton as his HP was his Earthly representative, plain & simple, per his formal title "High Priest and Exarch of Hell". So in that sense Anton was not quite Satan, but no mere human either. If you can grok that, you can grok the 1966-75 Church & Priesthood.’


‘"Set" is just the ancient Egyptian representation of the Principle according to which each one of us possesses and exercises a unique sense of isolate self consciousness and the perspective & discretion which inherently follow from that. Setians call that the Gift of Set. The 1966-75 Church of Satan called it the Black Flame. The Greeks called it the Promethean Fire. JudæoChristians call it the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You can call it anything or nothing as pleases you, as long as you don't scare the cats.’

I have pulled out the two quotes above by Dr. Aquino because they seem to me to be quite beautiful and overwhelming in their conception.

I feel I can begin to approach and begin to appreciate Dr. Aquino’s philosophy of Set through the study of Plato. I may be wrong here.

The Theory of Forms seems to me to be a good place to start in approaching this, as I have a limited knowledge of ancient Egyptian belief systems.

Universals and particulars are the keys here, in my view.

A Platonic form is a universal.

Each individual and particular human being has the capacity to think; to be conscious; to be self – conscious (isolate self – consciousness)

Set represents, (that’s important.) Set represents.

What is represented? What does Set represent?

Set is a universal, a form, a metaphysical principle.

If all individual humans possess or potentially possess self – consciousness, than Set represents this universal capacity or potential.

Some questions:

Is theism even a relevant term to use here in relation to this philosophy, in relation to Set?

Is individual isolate self – consciousness derived from Set (as the form or principle of self – consciousness?) Does human consciousness somehow emanate from Set as the particular is stamped or organised by the universal?

If Set is the Platonic (meta - universal form of consciousness) form or idea, than does “he” also partake of consciousness and self awareness in some sense?

Does “he” occupy time and space in some sense?

Top
#34958 - 02/01/10 05:58 PM Re: Roar! [Re: ]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



The Cartesian method of doubt will probably be quite well known to many members.

Descartes wished to organise and order science and mathematics by grounding it in the self evident first principles of philosophy.

Whether Descartes did this successfully is certainly up for contention. The Cartesian method itself, however, is interesting.

The process of methodical doubt is quite famous. One was to doubt the validity of the objects presented to the human senses because the senses could be prone to error.

The famous example of the wax comes to mind here.

One was to doubt experience and induction as the basis of knowledge.

Step by step Descartes was able to throw doubt on everything, except his own existence. There is something which doubts.

At this level all he has is the cogito.

He can reach out and map and re-order his world according to reason, once the validity of cause and effect is established.

What is this cogito?

Is it innate principles, which one necessarily uses, to grasp substance, in order to make it intelligible?

Is it innate principles, which underpin, categorise and organise a raw and ultimately unknowable thing – in – itself?

There are other ways to articulate and describe this cogito.

Could The Gift of Set (isolate self – consciousness) be understood and appreciated by employing a method similar to Descartes?

It seems to be obvious to me that one respects The Gift when one thinks independently; when one acquires genuine self – consciousness, by deliberately and critically avoiding the conventional belief systems and pieties one is imbued with as a result of being a part of a community or society.

If one were to throw the senses into doubt and strip away experience and wind up with a purely rational cogito, than would this cogito be the essence of the manifestation of Set in the world?

Is this manifestation broader or different than a rational cogito?

Are these meditations on Set and the Cartesian cogito merely one particular way in which I can approach the question of The Gift of Set? There may be many paths.

To explore all aspects may be the key.

Top
#34964 - 02/01/10 09:24 PM Re: Roar! [Re: ]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Okay one last post than I will leave it alone and do some more studying.

I will try to state it in a series of numbered points:

1. Set is the Neteru of isolate consciousness – the form or universal or absolute principle of all consciousness.

2. The gift of Set for the individual is particular isolate consciousness.

3. I begin to become aware of Set when I begin to reflect on myself authentically, honestly and courageously.

4. There is a door which I can choose to open if I am perceptive enough and which I can walk through if I am courageous enough.

5. I confront the reality of my existence and of my world and I determine its value and celebrate it and live it authentically and thereby honour myself and Set.

6. I want to examine and articulate the dark power which lies hidden in my id, identity, intelligence etc.

7. I want to explore my potential and grow in knowledge and power.

8. Magic for me is the pre - eminent method for opening myself up and entering, for opening the doors and stepping inside the dark.

Dr Aquino, if you’re out there - this is as far as I can take my understanding of Set at this stage.

Top
#34975 - 02/01/10 10:58 PM Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Dr Aquino, if you’re out there - this is as far as I can take my understanding of Set at this stage.

Looks good to me. As you get into your personal Grail Quest (another Setian term for "all of this"), you'll find all sorts of complications, side-effects, opportunities, and "here there be monsters" arising. For instance, as previously mentioned here, the responsibility of constructing and effecting a personal ethical standard once you have ventured "beyond [conventional] good and evil". As Satanists in the old Church of Satan, and Setians today, discovered much to their surprise, the LHP winds up being a far more chivalrous, empathetic [if not always sympathetic], and constructive personal standard. All the more ironic, and indeed funny, because much of the bombast in the Satanic Bible sounds so aggrandizing, contemptuous, and spoiled-brattish. The most accomplished, expert, and respected Satanists I've known over the years have been anything but these.

Enjoy your Great Adventure!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34984 - 02/01/10 11:57 PM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Valor Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 54
Loc: Coast of New England
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Dr Aquino, if you’re out there - this is as far as I can take my understanding of Set at this stage.

Looks good to me. As you get into your personal Grail Quest (another Setian term for "all of this"), you'll find all sorts of complications, side-effects, opportunities, and "here there be monsters" arising. For instance, as previously mentioned here, the responsibility of constructing and effecting a personal ethical standard once you have ventured "beyond [conventional] good and evil". As Satanists in the old Church of Satan, and Setians today, discovered much to their surprise, the LHP winds up being a far more chivalrous, empathetic [if not always sympathetic], and constructive personal standard. All the more ironic, and indeed funny, because much of the bombast in the Satanic Bible sounds so aggrandizing, contemptuous, and spoiled-brattish. The most accomplished, expert, and respected Satanists I've known over the years have been anything but these.

Enjoy your Great Adventure!



Very true. We live in a world that is very short of respect. People are afraid to recoginize it. It might empower a rival, or make them aware of their own lack of achievement. Yes, as humans we long for respect.

The LHP Initiate embraces and prides himself on Ethics. And strive to avoid the traps of egoism in the process.

We also strive to avoid a vice known as Hubris which is common for the LHP Initiate. Webb touches on it saying that because the LHP Initiate does have access to mental states that 99.99% of his fellow humans do not he can come to believe that all his actions are justified. He may even come to believe that the Truth's, becoming the same sort of bigot he fled from early in his life. The cure for hubris is to associate with powerful, smart people that make you aware of how little you know, and how much more room there is for achievement in your life.

The LHP Initiate shuns being a big fish in a small pond. This aids the Initiate to use Ethics and respect to help govern his life.
_________________________
~there are none so blind as those who will not listen~

Top
#36642 - 03/17/10 12:56 PM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: Valor]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
The concept of Set as a representation of isolate consciousness - that which makes each of us unique and self-aware – makes sense to me. However, if the mission of the ToS is simply to focus on ourselves, working on ourselves to become the best we can be, then why not call the organization the Temple of Self?

The answer is that Aquino and, I suspect, most of the Priesthood of Set see Set not simply as the representation of self-consciousness but as an actual being (please correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Aquino). This literal view of Set seems to be the main problem non-Setians have with the ToS. It’s unfortunate, because when seen as simply a vehicle for self-growth, the ToS would seem to be appealing to anyone with an open mind. But the theistic angle, which permeates throughout the ToS’s initiatory process, is a turn-off to those who see self growth as a purely self-driven process.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#36651 - 03/17/10 03:26 PM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
The concept of Set as a representation of isolate consciousness - that which makes each of us unique and self-aware – makes sense to me. However, if the mission of the ToS is simply to focus on ourselves, working on ourselves to become the best we can be, then why not call the organization the Temple of Self?

We do not see Set as merely a "representation" of isolate consciousness; that would reduce him to a mere symbol (such as 600C atheists regard "Satan"). Rather we see Set as the living source, the neter the Platonic "Form" of IC, of which our several ICs are particular manifestations.

As summarized in the #3 "Khemistry" chapter of my Temple of Set ebook, the Egyptians saw the cosmic totality as living, conscious manifestations or extensions of the neteru, which it was incumbent upon humanity to recognize and appreciate. This is a far more subtle apprehension of metaphysics than the simpler, coarser, and comic-booky gods of later, degenerate cultures such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

Hence worship of Set is not worship of oneself, though it is worship of the source of what enables you to be you, as it were. And this worship is not rote-pageantry, but rather a GBM exercise in returning your own consciousness to its source. A very interesting experience when you pursue it, which is what Xeper is all about.

 Quote:
The answer is that Aquino and, I suspect, most of the Priesthood of Set see Set not simply as the representation of self-consciousness but as an actual being (please correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Aquino). This literal view of Set seems to be the main problem non-Setians have with the ToS. It’s unfortunate, because when seen as simply a vehicle for self-growth, the ToS would seem to be appealing to anyone with an open mind. But the theistic angle, which permeates throughout the ToS’s initiatory process, is a turn-off to those who see self growth as a purely self-driven process.

The Temple of Set is not in the least evangelistic; we don't mind in the least that some people don't understand/agree with our philosophy. Indeed we would say that you don't need to know a thing about Set, or even reflect at all upon your own sense of isolate consciousness, to enjoy its fruits. The basic difference with Setians is that we are aware of its source and think that our realization and exercise of it is enriched accordingly.

Further-indeed, Setians up through Adept II° are not expected or required to "believe" in Set. As long as they respect the Temple's dedication to him, they are welcome to enter it, learn/contribute to its various knowledge bases, and interact with other Setians. It is only with regard to the Priesthood of Set where direct, personal apprehension of Set is essential, which is of course what an authentic priesthood is all about.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36677 - 03/18/10 12:01 AM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, thank you for your response. I clearly don’t see things as you do with regard to Set…but then you’re you and I’m me, and I’m OK with that.

As long as I have your attention, there’s a few things I’d to ask if you don’t mind. You believe that Set wrote The Book of Coming Forth by Night through you in 1975, and that this effectively marked the end of the Age of Satan and the beginning of the Aeon of Set.

Why do you think Set kept a low profile between his involvement in ancient Egypt and 1975? Why do you think he revealed himself as Set to you and not LaVey? Finally, do you think LaVey's "corruption" of the CoS was predetermined? After all, no corruption no crisis no BoCFbN (it would seem).
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#36678 - 03/18/10 01:49 AM Historical Alternatives [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Why do you think Set kept a low profile between his involvement in ancient Egypt and 1975?

The short answer is "I don't know.".

But in my experience, certain events or crossroads seem to happen when circumstances are right for them - rather like the alignment of the planets at key moments of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Following the 1960s, which were generally "revolutionary", the 1970s were rather more "transformational", perhaps evolutionary, perhaps escapist. It was a time of the Space Shuttle, the L Society, the High Frontier, the Jefferson Airplane becoming the Jefferson Starship, Star Wars, Star Trek, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the President of the United States admitting to seeing a UFO, and similar restlessness. Offhand I can't think of a more appropriate moment for the Temple of Set to [re]appear than on the precise midpoint - the North Solstice of 1975 - of this curious phase of civilization.

 Quote:
Why do you think he revealed himself as Set to you and not LaVey?

Quite possibly that was his original idea; see the "Ninth Solstice Message" in my Church of Satan [and don't miss Anton's comment concerning it].

 Quote:
Finally, do you think LaVey's "corruption" of the CoS was predetermined? After all, no corruption no crisis no BoCFbN (it would seem).

No, I don't think it was predetermined; a passage of the Book of Coming Forth by Night indicates Set's surprise and dismay.

I think that if Anton had not chosen the course that he did in May 1975, that the Church of Satan would eventually have evolved into something similar, if not identical to the Temple of Set. The Judæo-Christian imagery and context were rapidly becoming obsolete and constraining, and the generally-simplistic scope of the original Church was similarly heading towards greater sophistication and subtlety.

The reemergence of the Egyptian neteru generally, and Set in particular, is going to remain something of a mystery. Neither Anton nor I nor anyone else in the Church was especially interested in or oriented towards Egypt, save for appropriate ceremonies or workings.

As I have said on many occasions, no one would have been happier than Magister Templi Michael Aquino to see the Church continue such evolution under Anton's High Priesthood. [As a budget-strained graduate student I had just splurged on some expensive IV° letterhead a month or so before the crisis; and since I expected to settle into the IV° for a nice, long time, I ordered several reams of it. So then I wound up having to toss all those boxes into the trashcan.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36679 - 03/18/10 02:21 AM Re: Historical Alternatives [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, I don't think it was predetermined; a passage of the Book of Coming Forth by Night indicates Set's surprise and dismay.

So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

While the latter is a metaphysical hypothesis, and thus a matter for philosophical debate - the former belongs strictly in a religious/mythological worldview.

(Unless, of course, such allusions to Set's human-like emotions are meant as purely symbolic.)

Top
#36703 - 03/18/10 11:23 AM Re: Historical Alternatives [Re: Meq]
SOLERIFT Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Dallas, TX
 Originally Posted By: Meq
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, I don't think it was predetermined; a passage of the Book of Coming Forth by Night indicates Set's surprise and dismay.

So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

While the latter is a metaphysical hypothesis, and thus a matter for philosophical debate - the former belongs strictly in a religious/mythological worldview.

(Unless, of course, such allusions to Set's human-like emotions are meant as purely symbolic.)


Set may very well be a sentient "being", but does not have to be "anthropomorphized" in the typical sense..... Any "emotions" detected on the part of the observer, such as surprise or anger may prove to be translations of Set's state when decoded by a human receiver.

There are "beings" that exist in "spaces" man has clouded with myth and superstition and has given many names to, but in reality, these "spaces" are merely states of "matter" accessed by states of "being" or "mind" that science is only beginning to be able to conceptualize.

Whether these "beings" are a phenomenon of purely internal dialogue with Jungian archetypal "thought forms", inventions of your own mind, or external beings - is up for debate - even to some of us who have had these experiences....

However, the experience of such an event, leaves its impression, regardless of how you perceive it.

Perhaps the concept known as "entanglement", if ever proven, may suggest that both conditions may exist simultaneously - both empowered and colored by your mental state while also being externally manifested through the medium of "evocation"

Science has shown time and time again that concepts once considered supernatural are little more than misunderstandings of those who cannot comprehend the science behind the "magic".

Food for thought : in dreams, we experience "events" and "beings" - you can be surrounded by mental projections of your everyday friends who act, talk, and interact with you - yet - in most cases*** - these are not your friends. They are mental projections that your mind is assimilating to imitate your friends. Through memory recall and a little magic called "dream projection" - your own subconscious weaves together environments and virtual beings that interact with you in a virtual garden of your own contorted memories and impressions.

The experience can be genuinely amazing, you can even have mind expanding conversations with these "others" in your dreams - I have had conversations where I was presented with new angles of viewing questions that plague me. Conversations that would make we swear that there was no way that it could have been "just me".

I have written new songs by watching a projected person play a melody in a dream and teach it to me - the most recent dream of this type I was watching myself play something that was so beyond my technical proficiency that I had to compose it using midi. I wake up being able to formulate a new idea that came to me in a dream, often using patterns that have been reassembled in ways that I have not yet consciously discovered.

This is an interesting phenomenon : think of the way objects, people, and places get all jumbled in dreams as if being randomly combined - this seems to be what happens to my habitual chord/melodic progressions - they get mangled into a new order that I have not tried before by what seems to be another "being" - and I wake up remembering it - nothing "supernatural" per se, - but still absolutely amazing.

But to give the "rabbit hole" its due - are these "others" that are projected in the medium of our dreams actually "sentient" in some way, from the moment of their projection? It may sound insane, but the lines are blurred for me...... my perceptions are not absolute.

***I personally know it IS possible to interact with another living person in a dream and be able to share and recall the same dream together, regardless of the space between us - (in this case I was in Texas, she was in North Carolina)- so the idea of another sentient being contacting and communicating with me in some abstract state of mind induced by ritual does not seem unreasonable, just highly misunderstood

Top
Page 1 of 7 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.