College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Aum418 said

"
@Arsihsis said
"OP: Its not widely known because that study is bullshit. Beware of pseudoscience which is bullshit parading as science. Most people dont understand how to read studies or even what the implications would be. Also, most scientific studies are not self-contained but reference otehr works constantly, even citing almost identical studies to show that it has been repeated, etc. None of this is present in most 'parapsychological' work.
IAO131"
"

Well I must admit that I have never tried this experiment, and perhaps I should. He said at the start of the book that one of the qualifiers for his experiments would be that it is verifiable, or in his words "Try it and see!".

His method is unique in the sense that by measuring three variables, he gets a greater degree of accuracy. Also, his theory of "future-memory" implies that one would have to see the event happen in the future to be able to predict it.

I've decided to allocate thirthy minutes to this practice for the next 30 days, I'll let you know if it's actually BS or not

@nderabloodredsky said

"the future is widely known by those who would know. but as far as specifics, why do you assume that there is "the" or "a" future. Are not there infinite futures? And besides, isn't the future and the past, i.e. time itself just an illusion, a reflection of the higher reality that is not linear anyway?"

There is only one future that I will experience, one path I will travel. As I said, I didn't understand his explanations of it.

Hey,

I read a book a few years by a local professor in parapsychology, about experiments he did about the human capacity to predict the future.

He basically did some experiements predicting normal playing cards, giving himself a point if he got the right colour, suit or if it was high/low, e.g.

high/low red/black suit
0 1 1
0 0 1

When he'd get it right, he'd stop and think about the state of mind he was in. He graphed this over 30 days, and the number of points he got went up and up.

Not satisfied with this, thinking he may be subtly learning the feel of the cards, he next did it with a roulette machine. Still unsatisfied, he wanted true randomness, so did it with some Beta particle emitter thingy in the university (can't remember the details of this sorry). Same result.

The book is Future Memory and Time by Sean O'Donnell btw. The rest of the book went into a quantum physics theory which I didn't understand, but the essence of it was his theory of "anti-memory", like memory vs. time would look a bit like a t-distribution graph with the present moment in the center.

Low and behold I come across this in the equinox from 90 years previous:
(www.the-equinox.org/vol1/no1/eqi01005.html part II)

Two things:

1. Why isn't this more widely known?
2. It occured to me recently though, that the experiment has an equally valid hypotheses of CHANGING the future instead of predicting it. Any thoughts on this?

Hello all,
my first post here. I began to read Crowley less than a year ago. I particularly took to "Eight lectures on Yoga" and Liber IV Part 1. These are great tools for me that have really improved my life and opened up new worlds.

I have been trying to learn about Magick, but I just don't get it. It seems to cross that line from self-discovery to lunacy. I have tried to find value in it as a sort of "moving meditation", which I think is a great idea similar to Tantra, but the paradigm in the instruction seems to hold tightly to the objective power of the god names or the symbols, and I completely fail to see how one ritual can be more "dangerous" than another beyond the effect that it can have on the psyche.

There are only one or two places where Crowley says that it is not to be taken literally, and I'm beginning to think now that his obscure, ambiguous way of writing is a way of trying to please all.

I read stories of Parsons or Crowley claiming that they have actually "summoned" entities, that have appeared before them, talked to them, or cause change on the material plane. It sends my bullshit alarm a-ringing, yet, having learned so much from the man, I cannot disregard it completely.

I have only recently discovered the falseness of the deterministic scientific model, which, while useful for science, is no good for philosophy, and I am in the process of disassembling my views on how the world works.

How could I prove or disprove to myself once and for all whether these things are actually possible?