The Esoteric Side of Hypnosis: Mind After Matter.

While we are certainly as gender non-conforming as any person on this list we are also more than "just that" - you may fill in any blanks you'd like...bambi, submissive, etc.

One of our personas is deeply interested in the nature of existence and ephemeral questions like "why are we here?".

This "esoteric impulse" competes strongly with the personas that care very little about personal agency, social status and dictums that seem to represent "strict conformance to societal standards".

As mentioned in the last post we implied that all seemingly "objective proofs" are, essentially, subjective experiences since they are registered through human senses viewing only a small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum subject to the sum of accelerations of our bodies in space-time.  That is, even our sense of time is affected by our speed and distance from local (and remote) sources of gravity.

Or, put differently, what you are sure you know is always potentially superceded by what you don't know - provided that you openly (or even intimately) entertain the notion of "being mistaken" or "less informed than one might be" - in such a case the "mistake" or "lack" transforms into "growth" and one gains a more expansive view of existence.

So this esoteric persona feels this video might set a better "frame" for thinking about the nature our mutual existences - at the place where physical science meets the "quantum foam" and the physical laws which underpin the apparent (and actual) solidity of our existence no longer apply. 

Source: https://youtu.be/ffgzkHCGZGE
?si=D-CwcoZv7qUUvdqL

One principal of esoteric studies that relates to the ephemeral nature of human consciousness and it's ability to apprehend "Truth" is that it is a personality verifiable fact that the human mind can believe anything.  Anything at all.

Naturally this speaks to the idea of "not using subjective experience as a proof of objective truths". This on turn leads back to the nature of human consciousness and that all discussions realistically must begin there. 

Trance on fellow travelers whether you're anchored in Science or the Ether! Choose whatever helps you sleep at night...


https://decrypt.co/239920/dilberts-scott...th-chatgpt

[Like Ra]

Trance on fellow travelers whether you're anchored in Science or the Ether! Choose whatever helps you sleep at night...

https://decrypt.co/239920/dilberts-scott...th-chatgpt

Related posts: https://www.likera.com/forum/mybb/Thread...3#pid76783

[Like Ra]

it sounds like you are describing religion

A couple of months ago, I listened to a sociology lecture about science and religion. Interestingly enough, there is no clearly defined border, and there are no many differences.

There is a term - "scientific gangs". If you read a research article, you must understand from which "gang" the authors are, and what the "beliefs" of that "gang". So you can understand what they are trying to prove, what facts they ignored, why they cite these articles and not others, why they chose these opponents, and why they make these conclusions.

To get the funds, what you do must correspond to the "beliefs" of those, who give the money out. So, if you make research on something, what is not considered by others as "how the things are", you will not get the money. That's why the science is stuck for decades. Scientists became prostitutes. They do what the money "believe".

And what does not fit the "generally appropriate scientific beliefs" gets rejected, cancelled, forgotten. Even if it's about well-known facts.

Remember how researches on psycho-active substances were banned for decades? Fortunately, new articles began to appear again. And they are "groundshaking". I wonder who funded them.

[Like Ra]

Even if we check Wiki:

there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion

Similarly, there is no consensus about science. And in many "sciences" we have axioms and assumptions that "this is so". And some "sciences" are unprovable, like history (though, not a science in my opinion).

If we take this definition:

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe

Many religions and magics fit there perfectly. And what used to be magic, nowadays, is a boring science. 😆

Then. Hypnosis.

Hypnotherapy is generally not considered to be based on scientific evidence, and is rarely recommended in clinical practice guidelines.

So... I would prefer to sty away from such definitions. "Religion", "science", "magic" are severely devaluated clichés and make no sense anymore.

Even if check Wiki:

there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion

I think Jordan Peterson takes a really good stab at it with his Maps of Meaning course.

Essentially the gist of what separates a religion from an ideology, is the resonance with the deepest archetypes. A proper religion works at multiple levels of analysis, and isn't just a simple heuristic to categorize people into camps of 'good vs evil' (modern politics).

The deepest archetype / conclusion that 'religions' seem to come to is the "Golden Rule".
When the thought came to me while under trance one day "If you had to be completely brainwashed by something, what would it be?", the only answer that made sense to me was "the spirit behind the golden rule." (the only thing that seems truly trustworthy)

The problem I'm running into now is that I don't know if the moments where trance takeovers happen, are from that spirit or not.




Youtube playlist of the maps of meaning course :

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI
&list=PL22J3VaeABQCn5nTAx65NRlh1EsKD0UQD&index=35

[Like Ra]

where trance takeovers happen, are from that spirit or not.

I like what NLP declares. NLP does not care about it, because it's unknowable". Either we can use it or not. If we can used it - how can we used it in a more or less predictable way.

In this sense, it does not matter what it's called. Science, religion, whatever. It either works or not 😅

[Like Ra]

Ah... Pity, that @princesitanatty prefers not to take part in this discussion 😉