Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - idgo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
Had a humorous conversation today on the topic of "recreational thinking", with an acquaintance who previously held a definition of "recreational" incompatible with such activities involving the pursuit of a productive/constructive outcome. I described "recreational thinking" as recombining previously familiar ideas to reveal previously unexplored crevices between then.. they inquired how one can think at all without a specific end in mind... i suggested using a working title of the end-in-mind as "discover useful new thoughts that one has not thought previously". In retrospect I might have done better to describe it as "traverse previously-unexplored areas of the space of all possible thoughts", since that doesn't necessitate the exploration being for some particular reason at all.

Have also been exposed to quite a bit of what I consider good art lately.  Pinning down a sufficiently-specific definition of what art even is would probably be useful for making it someday.

Spent some time earlier today conversing with an acquaintance whom I had previously regarded as possibly an example of someone slightly further along one of the many paths I'm taking, which cemented that opinion. They are somewhat flashy and conspicuous in appearance, yet quite soft-spoken -- quiet unless interested by a topic about which they hold knowledge. Yet never unsociable or unpleasant to keep the company of through such quietness... which prompts me to ask what I say and why I consider it worth saying whenever I voice topics that this person's algorithm wouldn't bring up if run from my own starting conditions. I notice in myself a tendency that, when I wish to integrate socially with a group, I do so by attempting to bring them some value -- whether through humor or actions or providing feedback/attention to others.Actually let's nickname this individual Stelark, as I anticipate reflecting further on the things that their company reveals to me about myself. There's a complicated thread of thought I'm forming about how to pick what validation I want from others and get it from what I *am* rather than what I *do*, inasmuch as there's a difference, but that's to be contemplated further and followed through on later along.

Another recent experience worth recalling was the opportunity to observe two Freemasons discovering one another. The conversation segued toward that group from a discussion of the ways in which uniforms are useful to military organizations -- in short, the different ways that two people can wear the *exact same outfit* are what carry the information, nothing really about the outfit itself. Upon the topic of authentication, one or the other brought up secret handshakes in the abstract, and one was initiated. A hand was offered, a hand was laid into it in a rather noncommittal or not particularly aggressive fashion, the former initiated a superficially ordinary-seeming grip, the latter tapped the former's index finger's knuckle with the thumb while making some topical and joking statement in a way that felt to me (as an observer by then pretending to take greater interest in some other nearby conversation) very much like the flourish of a stage magician who wishes to draw the eye away from the inner machination of a trick. Cryptic words were exchanged -- one party was not sure if a question about a grandfather (and perhaps a number?) was limited to a particular locale, the other confirmed it wasn't global but complimented the merits of that question for how someone not in the know would simply be perplexed by it. A brief exchange was whispered back and forth, not with the body language of a secret that ought interest onlookers, but far below any other's hearing. It wasn't the authentication procedure, but rather the termination of the conversation, which confirmed to me that the whole thing had been authentic -- after a brief chat about the logistics of visiting a particular lodge and one's conclusion about not having available appropriately respectful clothing to do so in, the other had to leave for some commitment, and I happened to overhear how they parted with words about the pleasantness of discovering themselves to be brothers whose intonation and contextual absence of any targeted audience to perform a fiction for convinced me were real.

Time in material groups is an interesting thing. Interaction on a topic with those "above" me shows interesting examples, and with those "below" me on it forces a reconsideration of how to lift them up when they're worthwhile. Overcoming the drive to fit in -- acts-of-service and all that -- would certainly be possible, but it so happens that I'm using it as one of the primary fuel sources (and a relatively clean one in the scheme of things)  toward a variety of personal achievements which I enjoy on their own merits as well. Is my ability to make a stack of excuses around this proof that the excuses are good, proof that it's all bad because the excuses are so deeply *desired*, or something else entirely? Of course there's a way in which these acts-of-service are in themselves self-serving -- I assimilate mental images of the minds of those I work alongside; reciprocity just-so-happens to have garnered me benefits from each "selfless" act I've engaged in recently. I do go into them from the stillness of desire to help of its own sake, of course,  yet in at least some part it's because I'm so well aware that helping out with an ulterior motive at the front of the mind tends to prevent that motive from being realized.

Lounge / Thank you for fixing the like button
« on: August 14, 2019, 03:14:34 pm »
Somebody behind the scenes seems to have won a quiet but intense battle against a software versioning conflict. I notice that our beloved like button is back in working order. Thank you for investing the energy in completing those repairs.

Vampyrism / Re: Vampyrism vs Omnivory
« on: August 13, 2019, 03:46:30 pm »
"OP" was attempting to stick with the theme of vampyrism as defined in -- specifically the implication that the vampyre's extra-human abilities disappear if they cease consuming energy produced by others.

I was wondering if anyone else has had experience in this sort of personalization, and how much you feel it has improved your practice.

I've used similar. The specific concept of an Alphabet of Desire is new to me, but I've taken a look around the web about it and I see its utility and might experiment with it specifically in the future. When I was living in circumstances where I didn't want others in the house to read my journals if they came across one, I have kept diaries in a code which originated as a letter-to-symbol substitution cipher then grew to contain a variety of new word/concept glyphs.

However, I find that sigils arising from the assumptions which underlie my worldview do more to reinforce that worldview than to alter it. Even symbols about change seem more about "how the desired state looks from here" than any fundamental actuality of that state. There are times when this is perfectly appropriate -- when I'm working toward an end that's closely adjacent to where I already am, and only need some psychological fine-tuning to realize it.

Furthermore, does anyone take these concepts farther? If it’s possible to change the dialect of internal communication to maximize its effectiveness, is it also more effective to change the concepts considered themselves?

I personally find that the best way to overthrow an undesired axiom in my self-communication is not to create anything out of the system with that axiom, but instead to study some other system which lacks the axiom, and import its concepts. When no established system is available to such ends, I've had some success with treating an innocuous system as a meaningful one that functions in the desired way, then looking for patterns in its noise and backporting those imagined patterns into my worldview.

In other words, I get more utility from personal change sigils when I approach creating them as "divining/discovering something that's already there" than "making a new thing that hasn't existed before". I think the former ties them more solidly into a metaphor that can stretch to handle edge cases of the change, than does viewing them as novel constructs of my own design during whose creation some eventualities can simply have been forgotten.

To what degree are things in our worlds defined by the language we use to identify them, and can changing that language have a meaningful effect?

I view thought as a continuum, and language/reason as the tools which slice its boundless plane into usefully sized chunks. Different languages, and different systems of reason, place those divisions in different locations through thought.

We believe the laws of physics to have existed long before humanity, yet we can turn them so much more effectively to do our bidding since their description in modern equations. Those equations are a form of language -- a new direction to slice all-possible-understanding and pull out a building block that's useful for our ends.

Lounge / Re: What are you doing right now?
« on: August 06, 2019, 01:12:25 am »
I find it sad that this thread is the most populated . . .  :facepalm:

Why do you find it sad? This is the "I enjoy social contact, but don't currently have new insights that warrant their own threads" space. If you summed the content of all the journal/grimoire threads, I expect that their cumulative postings would similarly outnumber other individual discussions.

I see the alternative to keeping our social and personal pursuits well-segregated as being a cluttered forum, with "I just watched a movie!" or "here's what I'm doing right now!" more difficult to separate from the higher-level ongoing discussions than the current threading system makes them.

I'm curious what disappoints you about the quantity of posts in various forum areas roughly paralleling the breakdown of how time is spent in many participants' lives.

Huh. I'm doing a Chaos Magick divination thing, attributing Everything to some subset of Everything, which lights up all sorts of previously obscured corners behind the stuff I'm used to only looking at from a single angle.

Humans took over the world with their empathy. Empathy is at the root of the ability to predict another's response to a stimulus, which underlies all bullying and blackmail. If it's not, then what's the difference between accurately modeling another's feeling and "really" feeling it?

Also, fucking capitalism, man. It is a big beefy egregore constructed by society to stand in front of... something? Maybe it's just standing there for some other reason, and it's just my brain assuming that something that sturdy was obviously put there for a reason and not just back here in storage... But like, what's it even holding up (or holding down)? So if you didn't have money and did have scarcity and trade, there's a huge transportation cost problem so finances could only map to this non-euclidean space (cost as a function of distance), but even beside that there's the necessity of the buyer figuring out what item would be valuable to the seller. So the seller has to telegraph those desires somehow, and if the seller's shy they might find it mightily appealing to slink back to the anonymity of cash.

Also, today I found a mango in my fridge. Afterwards, I learned that apparently one is supposed to refrigerate mangoes once they reach the desired ripeness, to slow their inevitable decline until one is ready to enjoy it. Perhaps I should take it as a sign, considering their appearance in my discussions with some loony on the internet. A delicious, delicious sign, because the exploratory tendrils of logic-proof devotion are almost junk food for a well trained immune system of the self or soul. (immune system, as your estate's pack of hunting hounds)

That's the rub, though, about dropping the filtration between the senses' raw input and personal cognition. The world is loud with possible meanings for things, as a bustling restaurant is loud with conversations -- all mutually unintelligible, and each held louder than it would ever be if had alone. Once tuned in to one conversation or one meaning, it's reluctant-making to tune out...

...and apparently texting mundane banter back and forth with a cousin while divining results in accidentally getting summaries of *them* out of it... thanks, faculty of empathy, for loading up my brain's summary of them while i had that interface on the debugger.

I think that for most of your life, you were in the habit of acting ok with things that you weren't really all that ok with, just as a way of getting them to leave you alone

General LHP Discussion / Re: LHP and the kindness factor
« on: July 22, 2019, 10:06:41 pm »
Aww, I'm glad you're having that experience of this part of the internet!

When I try to dredge my own cumulative experience to determine whether I can generalize about the "kindness" of RHP people, I'm reminded of a concept that I was recently exposed to in this reddit post Generally when I find out that someone is committedly RHP, it's because they've attempted to modify my thoughts or behaviors in some way, and attempting to reason with them can be frustrating in the same way that that post describes the frustration of attempting to reason with someone who bases their thought on different moral foundations.

However, I also encounter plenty of people who happen to behave in what I'd consider a perfectly reasonable and kind manner, who incidentally turn out to be motivated to do it by happening to hold RHP values. It can be easy to forget that the belief systems of a majority of people one interacts with in daily life are invisible, and to draw conclusions about a path only from those who are loudest about their involvement with it.

I wonder what if any information is carried by the similarity between the roots of "enlighten" and the idiom of describing an event as being "lit".

Lounge / Re: Anyone make bumper stickers? Lol
« on: July 19, 2019, 10:58:27 pm »
I generally use the website Stickermule for projects like that, though there are others as well. When one signs up for the mailing list, there are occasionally promotions on particular items. I would probably get the art ready then wait around for a deal on bumper stickers if I wanted to do this project. However, the task of distributing stickers to people who want or buy them, and optionally taking any money that people pay for them, is sufficiently inconvenient that I will not volunteer to do it under this particular identity.

It's a fairly specific question, but: What can this belief system me with (or people in general doesn't count).

Did the computer eat a word of that? It looks to me to be missing a key word, maybe "help" but could be anything :)

...what question would you find most useful to ask of it?

I'm particularly curious as to whether "list what this system believes to be true" or "list what this system believes to be false" would be more useful for characterizing and categorizing diverse perspectives.

Lounge / Re: Gobbledygook Generator
« on: July 06, 2019, 04:15:12 pm »
NLTK ( or its analogue in your language of choice would likely be a good place to start for such a project. For a given corpus (all the occult literature you can get ahold of text files for, perhaps?), you could generate your words list out of the corpus itself, then yank the succession of sentence structures from it and populate them randomly from the generated corpus. This approach would offer an infinitesimally small, but extant, chance of "randomly" regenerating the exact original text.

Alternately, one could train a Markov chain or similar predictive model on the desired corpus, then treat whatever it emits as the desired gibberish. If one wrote one's own implementation of the chosen algorithm, it would be pretty straightforward to add some biases against repetition -- if a given relatively-uncommon word appears no more frequently than once ever 100 words of source material, for instance, the algorithm could force itself to never place instances of that word any closer together in the output.

Let's dive into the violently mundane for a moment: My brain is presently immersed in an experience of curiosity that I might previously have called a "crush" and attempted to either burn for motivational fuel or ignore. I ought to be able to follow my own train of thought upon later re-reading if I simply refer to the individual around which my thoughts presently draw these patterns as "it", so that I shall do.

By the time I reread this sentence, I will likely be so immersed in recalling and analyzing particulars that I may not have a clear line of sight back to my original goals for writing at all. So to elevate them into a more prominent position: I desire the sensation of deeper understanding, particularly in disentangling what factors of its behavior (or charisma or whatnot) lead to my present curiosity, and what factors of my own habits (perhaps including some that I'd thought were long since quarantined to less influential reaches of my psyche) have contributed to the situation.

The grip by which I seize the situation and guarantee it possible to handle with some safety is the ease with which I can rule out any desire for it to replace my present partner. I have learned to listen for those quirks of thought and action which would be guaranteed to frustrate me inordinately once any fleeting fascination wore off, and it has them in spades. This sets a firm upper bound on my interest: I (and especially "I as a sequence of linked experiences through time") do not wish to intermingle its patterns with my own in producing new minds. In the past, I've reacted to similar fascinations by nevertheless utilizing any reciprocated interest to sate certain curiosities, which invariably seems to lead to the types of relationship in which the other party is disappointed by any absence of interest in the building-shared-future type behaviors.

So, what the hell curiosities are those? When I find a mind that seems to "tick" in a way sufficiently unlike my own, I'm sometimes struck by a combination of feelings that I gloss into an urge to dissect it, to comprehend its intricacies and alter it to function more like the way I assume its owner wants it to. I've rarely gotten proper consent for this, and the holds in which I metaphorically pin the subject down to perform such meddling often net more damage than any "fixes" I might successfully employ. (but such holds are often shaped like various forms of seduction and misdirection, and this time around I can more easily avoid the grounds from which I'm capable of slipping into those)

What solicits that urge, that combination of feelings? I suspect, but shan't yet try to prove, that an expression by the subject of dissatisfaction with their current thought processes is the final line of the poem, the conclusive opening of the door. But I can draw up many counterexamples to a claim that such dissatisfaction is the ding an sich -- times others have expressed the same dissatisfaction and yet I recall experiencing only neutrality or derision in response. What sets apart the times when it gets my response, from those when it doesn't? The former seem to share some traits, of which I don't know what combination (or none at all) might be contributing: I respect the person, in the sense that I would not mind emulating some set of their behaviors or accomplishments; I perceive them as capable of adequate self-examination and analysis to have tried what fixes they can without assistance; I believe them to sincerely want to be modified, perhaps even to the point of a certain desperation or willingness to try "anything" that doesn't appear blatantly harmful.

Oh, would that I could simply drop a line into a chat: "I play amateur shrink sometimes, wanna talk?" Yes I've found another victim, yes I have certain commonalities to a fucking spider, yes I might be deluding myself pretending I have any idea of how to do any less damage than similar experiments have always yielded in the past...

"found another victim" is exactly it, though -- having been victimized by some other force already is a common thread of when I feel the inclination to [prey|play] upon them in this way. Do I really want to fix it, or do I just want to open back up the brittle sutures and admire the artistry of some other destructive force's work?

Is there a retelling of this story in which the ways in which I look predatory can instead look symbiotic or benevolent? Strike symbiosis right out; all past manipulation of this sort has culminated in a certain miasma of disgust between myself and the subjects.

It would be doing that thing to do this, but what if I ask it, next time it alludes to all that baggage, "what do you hope is gonna change?" That is the act of sitting down at the board of this chess game, where perhaps the only winning move is not to play... do I pretend to myself that it has sufficient life experience to spot the ploy for what it is, and make a fully informed snap decision about whether or not it wants to play? That's a scummy tactic, using "but you've been misused before" as an excuse to embark upon misuses of my own. 

To step back, what's my brain actually doing here? What is the exact experience of that itch which I have jumped to the conclusion that prying about in its poor head would somehow scratch? I replay and replay my knowledge of its circumstances, looping with no particular resolution, and I assume that gaining more and more data would eventually light up that dark room enough for me to spot the doorway out. Model: What if I don't give a damn about its real brain, but I've picked up a copy of it that lives in my own head now and my real motive is to resolve the seeming contradictions within that copy? This would conveniently explain many past escapades of similar nature... But if we model this as operations to help an internal copy, with interactions with the external individual motivated primarily to put the copy into a state where it can be mended, does this open the opportunity to divorce that copy from the real individual? Would writing the copy into a novel's protagonist help? I think it may have helped drop a similar fascination in the past, in that I am no longer troubled by thoughts of that original, though with no change to nor interaction with the original at hand. And yet, where would the original from that particular episode be if I hadn't kept my filthy claws to myself? Would it consider itself in a better state or a worse one than it is in this consensus?

This raises another question, as well: if I can model myself as so fluently performing operations upon copies of others, could it be done as well with my own copy of myself? Or is my "self" extant only in the same plane as others' copies, so all this prodding about with semi-consenting friends or acquaintances could be modeled as simple practice for the real life self-surgery upon the spirit i call "me"?

Left un-asked is how I can reshape the environment which holds that copy, to the same ends as enhancing the copy might do.

That's deep enough for now. I shall model it as being incapable of consent to my meddling, to leave a clear line drawn. There's plenty of leeway to ply it with safe, mundane, baggage-free suggestions and observe the responses, to hone my sense of what it is and isn't able to informedly decide. I can even find a certain gratitude for the impediment that I currently don't know how conscious/introspective/deeply-self-recursive it is nor aspires to be; this forces me to slow down and step back and improve the model before prodding at it.

I wonder how much of prior romantic entanglements resulting from similar situations have been my own illiteracy at any other way to say to peoples' monkey and lizard brains "safe" and "family" and "home".

As someone around a recent bonfire opined, art is made by its constraints. Perhaps the bounds upon these circumstances will assist me in making more of art and less of a disaster this time around.

Introductions / Re: Darkly Shining Greetings
« on: June 26, 2019, 04:54:58 pm »
Welcome! If you'd like to share your current perspectives but are unsure of what topics to discuss, the getting to know you questions philosophy edition thread ( can be as good a place as any to start.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Body Transformation as Magick
« on: June 24, 2019, 06:53:38 pm »
You seem to be focusing much more heavily on the changed perceptions of individuals rather than the actual change in physical structure and size which can follow such a practice as weightlifting. Am I correct in assuming then that your definition of Magick primarily deals with altering the way one is perceived by self and others?

I jumped rather abruptly to the ends for which I assume most people desire physical change -- namely changes in others' behavior, and changes in self-perception. I struggle to imagine a case in which 'exist as such and such a shape' is truly an end in itself -- each time I try I construct a circumstance where it's actually a means to an experience, such as 'see someone attractive when i look in the mirror' or 'be able to exert greater physical force'.

I agree with you that in almost all cases, direct physical transformation (augmented by magical practices for coercing oneself to engage in the known-good behaviors that yield transformation) is a simpler and more effective route to the ends resultant from such transformation than any "deception".

If both of these men wanted to coerce others with a “tough guy” attitude (just as a simplistic example), both could be successful, but the second man would probably have an easier time of it thanks to actually looking the part. And if a situation arose in which that toughness needed to be demonstrated (say, one of the victims acting like a hero), then the second man would certainly have an easier time - as he actually has the necessary strength to back up his words.

Indeed; if both men wanted to intimidate others, the "spell" of the one who knows he can physically overpower them will be far stronger than that attempted by the one who doubts. I think the brain tends to believe what it sees and experiences far more readily than what it's simply told.

The rough definition of Magick I was using for this thread is the actualization of one’s Will, regardless of the aim or method.

And it's a clear and fitting one. It so happens that the quickest and most effective way to actualize one's Will for physical change is through methods which might be mistaken by the lay person for the opposite of "magic/k". When attempting to show that an outcome of Causality was also an outcome of magic/k, I tend to argue it backwards -- starting with the magical ends and considering the various prospective means which could have led to them. This often leaves it obvious that the traditionally causal mode was better, easier, or generally more optimal by whatever the magic user's standards were, than any of the less conventional alternatives.

For instance with your own breast growth, your end sounds to me to be full belief that your breasts are the right size, and you're aware that any intentional trickery to change their looks would not meet that end. You've likely long ago considered the relative merits and drawbacks of changing your expectations to view your current size as perfect versus enacting physical change, and determined that the latter would better meet your needs. I'd call that first step an integral part, though not the entirety, of the "greater magic/k" by which you're changing your very experience of existence as yourself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19