Decided to share the last of the old posts I made on Occultism while taking on a more rationale pov. Each post is separated in bold:
Creating a Tulpa - Tulpas Part 1
A staple of Chaos Magick taken from Tibetan Buddhism, a tulpa is a thoughtform, that is a thought given life. Perhaps the easiest way to describe a tulpa is an imaginary friend (or enemy if you're the type who feels like fighting with your own) who has enough of a personality to be considered their own person if only they could manifest themselves onto the physical plane sort of like with Athena to give an illustration. Plenty of articles on their creation reference a sigil and while plenty of these articles also mention that these sigils are technically optional, they don't go much into detail on how to create a tulpa without one. As for the reasons for this, let us begin to speculate.
Perhaps it can be said for the average person, just conceptualizing another conscious being doesn't come about naturally, hence the need for a sigil. In this manner the sigil then acts as a mnemonic device of sorts. Of the various age groups that engage in the art of tulpa creation developing kids are said to be the most natural at it and it specifically between the ages where a child had become aware of their relationship in regards to others and identifying external sources. In laymen's terms that would generally be around the ages of 15 months of age to about 4 or 5 years. This age bracket also corresponds to the general age when a child has started to develop self-recognition (an interesting bit of trivia is that kids usually develop an awareness of others first before recognizing themselves) and the point in time where they become aware of their relationship with others or within society. As a result, in terms of cognitive development, toddlers are masters at the art of tulpa creation. Of course since most of us are no longer toddlers we would then have to develop a mechanism by which to craft a tulpa. Besides, while creating tulpas may come about naturally for a toddler, it is a question whether they can do so with intent. Perhaps this is the primary reason why sigils are recommended in the art of tulpa creation.
Another major part of the creation of a tulpa is a kill switch. Similar to the Judaic myth of the golem, a kill switch (aleph) was used to deactivate a golem that had gone rogue many tulpa creators likewise recommend having a similar feature. Depending on what camp you ask, tulpas may or may not be capable of going rogue. For the camp that says they are capable of such, a kill switch is installed for the purpose of ensuring loyalty though if we want to be more precise, the kill switch acts like an explosive collar should the tulpa turn on you. For the camp that says tulpas are incapable of rebelling a kill switch is thus installed to decommission a tulpa that's outlived their usefulness. On the brief topic of whether tulpas are capable of going rogue we first have to define what going it means for a tulpa to become a turncoat. Does that mean going against the set of instructions given to them upon their creation? What about a tulpa that's no longer useful and is in fact detrimental despite following their instructions to a t? And of course, some don't install these kill switches.
A Tulpa's Purpose - Tulpas Part 2
A tulpa is a type of thoughtform that has become independent in that it has its own consciousness, literally the only thing preventing it from being its own person is that it lacks it's own physical body. Some spellcasters consider them to be a type of servitor, a thoughtform servitor while others would describe their attributes as more akin to that of a golem. As their name implies, a servitor is an entity whose purpose is to serve and likewise a tulpa can be likened to a series of cognitive/behavioural outputs designed to elicit a sought after alteration in the spellcaster's psyche. A golem on the other hand while usually also created as a type of servitor has also been known to occasionally run amok of their creators. Perhaps the reason why golems are able to fully turn on their creators unlike tulpas is because they are supplied with their own life force. Course, should you change that emeth to meth they crumble and die. Tulpas on the other hand need their creators to stay alive seeing that they don't have their own life force. By this some can understand the relationship between a tulpamancer and a tulpa to be parasitic, so then why do some set out to intentionally create them?
As stated earlier, a tulpa is ultimately just a system of cognitive/behavioural outputs designed to elicit a sought after alteration in the spellcaster's psyche. In other words, one can think of them as mental programs designed to help the spellcaster's psyche. Say for instance you want to lose or gain a couple of pounds. A tulpa would be like a fitness coach, only that this fitness coach shares the same experiences as you do. Makes sense? And given that tulpas ultimately have their own personalities this would in principle somewhat protect against a confirmation bias. Also, considering that tulpas have their own perspectives, perhaps the spellcaster wants a companion. Finding people to talk to and more importantly relate with can be quite challenging if you're in solitary confinement.
Whether you need an extra mental helping hand or if you just want another companion one thing seems certain. If there's a price to be paid for maintaining their existence, whatever drawback they might incur is typically outweighed by their supposed boon. So why would anyone still install a kill switch? For starters, even assuming tulpas aren't capable of treachery unlike golems (which is still pretty rare) their existence is still parasitic (it's more of a commensalistic relationship if we to be precise). That means once they've accomplished what they were designed for there's really no benefit to keeping them around. As such, tulpas that are designed more as servitors should expect a shorter life expectancy than a companion styled tulpa.
What can Tulpas do - Tulpas Part 3
To help with a mental facility, to keep one's sanity in a time of isolation, just what is it that tulpas can and cannot do? Some say that tulpas are capable of possessing their host. Given that possession refers to an external entity that resides in and typically controls another, could tulpas be considered an external entity or are they still apart of the tulpamancer? If they are an external entity, then yes. They would be capable of possession. If not, then all that's really happening is that they are sharing their creator's experiences. In order to understand what it is they can and cannot do, we'll need to ask ourselves a couple of questions first.
Tulpas are created within the mind, that is, the psyche of the spellcaster. As such they should fall under the Psychological Model of magick and yet though it appears as though they are treated as an extension of yourself, tulpas are their own persons. Since the Psychological Model denies externalities, what about the Spiritual Model? We know they cannot be categorized as part of the Energy Model seeing that they are treated as living. In order to conclude whether a tulpa is a type of artificial spirit we would first have to answer whether it is possible to create a spirit in the first place (aside from the method of death that is). However, even if a tulpa is a type of artificial spirit, given that the bulk of their effect lies solely on the spellcaster's psyche, this would indicate they would be more aligned with the Psychological Model as suggested earlier. Where things start to get tricky is when the tulpa no longer needs the sustained energy of their progenitor per say. Perhaps what it is that a tulpa truly seeks is influence. Under normal circumstances a tulpa is only able to influence their creator and to make a distinction, influence and control are not the same thing. Once a tulpa is able to influence a group of individuals it is no longer a tulpa but rather an égrégore. An égrégore is essentially in Pokemon speak, a tulpa that has evolved where instead of being sustained by one person it is now a group. Of course with this extra support also comes some major tradeoffs. Just as how modern sigils are more personalized compare to their traditional counterparts, an égrégore works in a similar but opposite approach. Whereas a tulpa is personalized, an égrégore is not.
So if an égrégore is able to affect multiple people, what is the range? What are the limits? To determine the range of an égrégore, we can look to the extent of its influence. Moreover we will be looking at individuals who have expressed a connection of sorts with this égrégore. This should help to reduce any extenuating factors. We would also need to know whether the influence is from that égrégore specifically or from someone else. Although not confirmed, it's probably safe to say their influence isn't omnipresent. Even if there was an égrégore whose influence was as such, outside of the mind they don't seem to have any direct effect on the environment. Now here's a question to contemplate ourselves upon: do tulpas and égrégores have auras?
Variations in Magick - Dichotomy Part 1
Some say that magick has no color and that it is all about the intent. Others don't conflate utility with morality or ethics. Still there are those who say the color of magick is racially determined and is based on the human genome. While we could ask which one if any of these is the case, unless we can verify such is the state of affairs it will not do to answer definitively whether some variation in magick exists though one would be hard pressed to state everyone has the same intention. It is with this that we must first clarify a few things:
1. The intention of this post is not to discuss whether there are variations in the intentions of humans.
2. When contemplating about the variations in magick, the purpose is not to discuss whether different colors are used in magick. Instead we will be looking at whether the magick in of itself has color (whether literally or figuratively) and what that means and could entail.
Aura reading is often stated to be a form of magick (that or a psychic technique specifically of the clairvoyance category). While not strictly mandatory, aura reading often is based on the colors of the subject's aura body. Darker colors typically have negative connotations though occasionally it is reversed and sometimes having color in of itself is considered problematic. For the sake of simplicity let's assume that a healthy aura is vibrant with color. Baneful magick would therefore would probably be of a darker nature, that is to say it would lean more towards black. This is not to say healing magick would therefore be white as whether you increase or decrease the luminosity, after a certain point the colors will fade. Of course this also would depend on the nature of the aura and since auras are typically stated or implied to be some form of light which for our example will include bioluminescence can give us an idea exactly how or what harmful vs healing magick would look like assuming they have color. Still, sometimes the colors of auras are stated to be the result of the presence of others so perhaps auras and by extension magick can be linkened to pigments in addition to rays of light.
Thus based on Aura reading alone we can say it stands to reason that magick probably does have color or at the very least a heat temperature gradient of some sort. Now whether this is strictly tied to utility or morality is hard to say and perhaps genetics has a factor. Of course this last point does not say much in terms of whether one race is superior or inferior to another, just that if magick does have color and its color is based on race, based off of that alone we still wouldn't be able to tell whether one race is superior or inferior to another. Then again, it may very well be that on a statistical basis, some races are more suited towards certain fields of magick over others. Or perhaps such specializations are the result of external factors including acclimatization.
Magick Practitioners - Dichotomy Part 2
Witches, warlocks, wizards, witch-doctors, enchanters, druids, sorcerers, shamans, alchemists, apothecarists, necromancers, psychics and mages. Surely they are all the same right? To say that all these magick practitioners are the same would be to say their definitions are interchangeable, and since all of them practice a variant of magick, we can say they're all the same, yes? After all, let's say you wanted to create a Jiangshi aka the hopping corpse, a type of undead. Why yes. You could hire an enchanter, i.e. a spellcaster who's main area of expertise lies in enchantment or the beguiling of the minds of others as opposed to that necromancer who's essentially a practitioner of necromancy*. Okay. So maybe certain practitioners of magick are more specialized, but still. By and large most practitioners can be lumped together and unless you have a specialization, witches, warlocks (may be considered a specialization depending on the definition used), wizards, psychics and mages are the same and can be interchanged, correct? Before we can conclude as such we will first have to look at their definitions.
When it comes to defining words, definitions are mostly derived from context and popular usage. In other words this means that the process of giving definitions is ultimately a social process. Based off of this we can see that the definition of words can change over time. Not so! Some of you may proclaim. Words are not defined by how they are used but by their etymology. It is perhaps worth noting that a viewpoint which takes it so that words are defined based off of social context and usage would be linkened to a liberal/socialist (not really the same thing) whereas the stance which takes that words are defined based on their origins and make-up would therefore be conservative.
The following is a list of how the following magick practitioners are defined based on the Meriam Webster Dictionary with the more specific definitions coming from wordnik;
Enchanter:
Definition of enchanter
: one that enchants
Definition of enchanting
: powerfully pleasing, appealing, or delightful : CHARMING
from The Century Dictionary.
noun One who charms or delights.
Druid:
Definition of druid
: one of an ancient Celtic priesthood appearing in Irish and Welsh sagas and Christian legends as magicians and wizards
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun A member of an order of priests in ancient Gaul and Britain who appear in Welsh and Irish legend as prophets and sorcerers.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun One of an order of priests or ministers of religion among the ancient Celts of Gaul, Britain, and Ireland.
noun A member of a society called the United Ancient Order of Druids, founded in London in 1781, for the mutual benefit of the members, and now counting numerous lodges, called groves, in America, Australia, Germany, etc.
Witch-doctor:
Definition of witch doctor
: a professional worker of magic usually in a primitive society who often works to cure sickness
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun In certain traditional cultures, especially in Africa, a sorcerer or shamanistic healer.
Warlock:
Definition of warlock
1: a man practicing the black arts : SORCERER— compare WITCH
Derived from wærloga, which means an oath breaker or traitor.
A warlock also refers to a fetter lock
Wizard:
Definition of wizard
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: one skilled in magic : SORCERER
2: a very clever or skillful person//computer wizards
3: archaic : a wise man : SAGE
Sorcerer:
from The Century Dictionary.
noun Originally, one who casts lots; one who divines or interprets by the casting of lots; hence, one who uses magic arts in divination or for other ends; a wizard; an enchanter; a conjurer.
Alchemist:
Definition of alchemy
1: a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life
2: a power or process that changes or transforms something in a mysterious or impressive way… the practitioners of financial alchemy that transformed the world of money in the 1980's …— Gordon Williams
3: an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting
from The Century Dictionary.
noun Medieval chemistry; the doctrines and processes of the early and medieval chemists; in particular, the supposed process, or the search for the process, by which it was hoped to transmute the baser metals into gold.
noun Any magical or mysterious power or process of transmuting or transforming.
Shaman:
Definition of shaman
1: a priest or priestess who uses magic for the purpose of curing the sick, divining the hidden, and controlling events
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun A member of certain traditional societies, especially of northern Asia and of North and South America, who acts as a medium between the visible world and an invisible spirit world and who practices magic or sorcery for purposes of healing, divination, and control over natural events.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun A professor or priest of Shamanism; a wizard or conjurer among those who profess Shamanism.
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun The animistic religion of certain peoples of northern Asia in which mediation between the visible and spirit worlds is effected by shamans.
noun A similar religion or set of beliefs, especially among certain Native American peoples.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun A general name applied to the idolatrous religions of a number of barbarous nations, comprehending those of the Finnish race, as the Ostiaks, Samoyeds, and other inhabitants of Siberia as far as the Pacific Ocean.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
noun The type of religion which once prevalied among all the Ural-Altaic peoples (Tungusic, Mongol, and Turkish), and which still survives in various parts of Northern Asia. The Shaman, or wizard priest, deals with good as well as with evil spirits, especially the good spirits of ancestors.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
proper noun a range of traditional beliefs and practices concerned with communication with the spirit world
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
noun any animistic religion similar to Asian shamanism (especially as practiced by certain Native American tribes)
noun an animistic religion of northern Asia having the belief that the mediation between the visible and the spirit worlds is effected by shamans
Apothecarist:
Definition of apothecary
1: one who prepares and sells drugs or compounds for medicinal purposes
2: PHARMACY
Witch:
from The Century Dictionary.
noun A person (of either sex) given to the black art; a sorcerer; a conjurer; a wizard; later and more particularly, a woman supposed to have formed a compact with the devil or with evil spirits, and to be able by their aid to operate supernaturally; one who practises sorcery or enchantment; a sorceress.
noun An old, ugly, and crabbed or malignant woman; a hag; a crone: a term of abuse.
noun A fascinating woman; a woman, especially a young woman or a girl, possessed of peculiar attractions, whether of beauty or of manners; a bewitching or charming young woman or girl.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
noun (Geom.) A certain curve of the third order, described by Maria Agnesi under the name versiera.
noun A Wiccan; an adherent or practitioner of Wicca, a religion which in different forms may be paganistic and nature-oriented, or ditheistic. The term witch applies to both male and female adherents in this sense.
Psychic:
from The Century Dictionary.
Of or belonging to the human soul or mind; mental; spiritual; psychological.
Pertaining to the science of mind: opposed to physical: as, psychic force.
Necromancer:
Definition of necromancy
1: conjuration (see CONJURE sense 2a) of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
noun the belief in magical spells that harness occult forces or evil spirits to produce unnatural effects in the world
noun conjuring up the dead, especially for prophesying
Mage:
Definition of magician
1: one skilled in magic//especially : SORCERER
Possibly derived from magus;
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun A member of the Zoroastrian priestly caste of the Medes and Persians.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun One of the members of the learned and priestly caste in ancient Persia, who had official charge of the sacred rites, practised interpretation of dreams, professed supernatural arts, and were distinguished by peculiarities of dress and insignia.
Side note*
In the Western World, necromancy refers to divination using the dead, particularly of deceased spirits or necrotic matter such as rotting flesh and corpses whereas the same may not be true in other cultures and in fact when it comes to Asian necromancy, reanimation is a key staple, that is to say the undead creating necromancer is more likely to have developed their skill sets based on Asian necromancy as opposed to Western necromancy.
Alignment Chart - Dichotomy Part 3
Chaotic - Neutral - Lawful, Good - Neutral - Evil. Some say morality is objective, i.e. it exists outside of various frames of reference, perhaps even being absolute*. By far we can say that at least as it goes for the internet the most vocal is the stance that it all depends on context, social upbringing and cultural values. Is morality ultimately subjective as appears to be popular opinion or is it more like the D&D system? While we cannot find an answer to satisfy both viewpoints, we can at least attempt to address them both.
Before we attempt to address whether morality is subjective vs objective we must first clarify a couple of common misconceptions.
1) Unless everyone agrees it cannot be objective.
Humans can't physically live off of sunlight alone (at least not at the moment even assuming it is possible). Not everyone agrees, however this disagreement does not make this observation subjective.
2) Moral Objectivism = Moral Absolutism
Moral Objectivism only refers to the stance that morality exists independent of a frame of reference, i.e. various viewpoints not that those moral truths are always consistent. To illustrate this difference let us assume the following are moral truths:
1. Murder (the unlawful killing of another human being) is evil.
2. Killing is evil.
While both examples deal with killing other humans as it pertains to morality, the first requires a violation of social trust whereas the latter is akin to limited liability in the criminal sense.
3) Moral Objectivity is the result of a god or some deity
If murder is wrong ultimately because some god says it is, then the moral truth at least as it applies to murder is not objective but rather subjective to the viewpoint of that god.
Now with these common misconceptions addressed let us proceed into the heart of the matter.
Every organism needs to consume to survive. How can a corporation thrive without a mission statement? Tyrants, presidents and even the Queen of England ultimately get their power through their sponsors and likewise it is with this understanding that demons don't merely consume the souls of humans because it's fun, nor the vampire your life force because their bitter and old. After all, morality is subjective. It may seem inconsiderate, even rude, but they're doing it to survive. It's just a matter of perspective. Donating to charity is just as moral as filletting a new born or burning down the local orphanage that is still up and running and occupied.
Even if we presume that the energy vampire is feeding for sustenance and the demon views humans killing each other as a virtuous good, we would be blind not to acknowledge a couple of common trends:
1. Cooperation tends to lead to better or at the minimum drastically increased chances of survival. How many of you are aware of the prisoner's dilemma? The prisoner's dilemma describes a situation where 2 or more allied contestants are separated from each other and are given the opportunity to betray the other for a reduced punishment and in some rare instances a grandiose reward. To sum it up in short, assuming all participants are self-serving you would expect most results to end in betrayal yet it turns out that even amongst self-serving individuals humans have a systematic bias, that is to say they have a tendency to try to work together. According to game theory (not the YouTube channel) when it comes to social games, in general cooperation tends to lead to better results and seeing that humans have mostly developed into a eusocial type of organism, this could explain the contradictory behavior when it comes to the prisoner's dilemma, that being while treachery would appear to be the preferred strategy assuming both participants are self-serving, it is cooperation which tends to be taken instead.
2. Reciprocity describes the tendency for social (though to be frank this isn't limited to just social creatures) entities and organism to echo back similar behaviors, tit for tat.
Thus, even if morality is ultimately subjective, it would appear as though certain actions/ mindsets have more or less been consistently valued not only across different cultures, but as a natural inclination towards survival. This is not to say this proves morality is objective though we can perhaps say certain facets tend to be more consistent with the flow of time.
Dissertation 3
Since most of the magick I do practice is not of the ceremonial type, does that make me an armchair magician? On one hand when negatively interpreted an armchair magician refers to a know nothing know it all who has neither practical yet alone theoretical knowledge (though from reading online, there seems to be a consensus of sorts that it's more referring to lack of hands on experience rather than theoretical). When interpreted positively an armchair magician can be likened to a strategist. If you were to ask me whether I find there to be a problem with armchair occultism I'd say such a question reminds me of the treatment the New Age has gotten and likewise a parallel can be taken from social political movement groups or ideologies. Take feminists or men's rights activists for example. Depending on who you ask, feminism is the advocation for women's rights or is just as well misandry combined with women superiority whereas MRA's is like the inversion, advocating for men's rights or misogyny combined with men superiority. So is there a problem with the term armchair magician? With the examples I've given I suppose I would have to say yes. Just what are we referring to when we say the term armchair magician? If a spellcaster is wheelchair bound, does that make them an armchair magician by account of them having to use a wheelchair/an armchair on wheels? These things are not defined and can and have led to some confusion.
In an earlier post I had speculated that it might be possible for a tulpa to be able to confabulate other psychics and I say it's about I explain how. As mentioned in one of my previous entries, the effects of tulpas appear to be strictly limited to the psychological with only égrégores being able to affect multiple minds at the cost of personal connections. One or rather 2 parts of the aura are said to be that of the mind and emotions. Since it appears that tulpas can affect the psychological state and perhaps indirectly the emotional state as well, who's to say they can't also help a psychic to change their own without changing who they are? Of course, since I'm not able to see auras I'd have no way of knowing this directly and so all I can do at the moment is speculate. And so it was with this that I decided to test my hypothesis by designing a tulpa of my own. Now how is it that I would even suggest a tulpa could be used in such a manner and furthermore how would I even know if what I'm testing for can't be observed directly by me? I don't. Nevertheless, considering the 2 major reasons why tulpas are made are either as companions or as a type of artificial servitor and while usually these servitors are generally created for the purpose of socially developing the spellcaster, who's to say they can't also be used for other things? Things such as deception?
Perhaps it comes as little to no surprise that of the major Models of Magick I am not a fan of the Psychological Model whereas I seem to advocate the Information Model. To phrase my contemp for the Psychological Model in as little as 3 points, I find such a Model to be overall malignantly narcissistic, generally impractical and just underwhelming. If everyone and everything is the same or as the people of the New Age group call it, "you and the universe are one, we are all Love, the universe, we come from the same source and we return as shall come, etc" that would mean there are no nuances, which unless you'd like to deny reality, is like sticking your head in the sand when you're not an ostrich. Someone who is chromosomally male is different from someone who is chromosomally female. How? Unless there was some sort of genetic mutation generally involving the SRY gene, you wouldn't expect someone who is chromosomally/biologically to be able to get pregnant and even then, not without some external influence, which is the thing. The Psychological Model denies the external. Additionally, if belief is what powers magick, then as soon as you start to wonder whether it is working or if it's something entirely different, it just dies out. It's like a spirit who can heal but only for those who believe it can vs one that can heal regardless of belief. Besides, if your mind is set on doing one thing in the belief that it will eventually improve your life despite accumulating evidence to the contrary, do you know what we like to call that? A sunk cost fallacy. Lastly, if all magick is good for is changing your perspective, why call it magick? Why not just call it behavioural adjustment or some other sub study of psychology? As for the Information Model... what is it that people react, are proactive on and are influenced by? What is it that can shape beliefs, possibly alter the general feel of an area? Information. Sure, emotions are a major part of it, however if you want to direct the public's opinions, possibly starve spirits, you can't have that emotion running amok. With just the right push, things fall like dominos. So hopefully you can see why I'm a fan of the Information Model of magick, though if I had to rank the major Models of Magick in terms of their practicality or usefulness, I'd place the Meta Model as being the most versatile followed by the Information Model, then the Energy Model followed by the Spiritual Model with the Psychological Model as being the least efficient. At least with the other Models you can at least afford to experiment around. Experimentation by the way, seems to be something that I've noticed traditional occultists seem to despise, though the New Agers group aren't that much better in terms of their interpretations or conclusions.
Thanks for reading.
Creating a Tulpa - Tulpas Part 1
A staple of Chaos Magick taken from Tibetan Buddhism, a tulpa is a thoughtform, that is a thought given life. Perhaps the easiest way to describe a tulpa is an imaginary friend (or enemy if you're the type who feels like fighting with your own) who has enough of a personality to be considered their own person if only they could manifest themselves onto the physical plane sort of like with Athena to give an illustration. Plenty of articles on their creation reference a sigil and while plenty of these articles also mention that these sigils are technically optional, they don't go much into detail on how to create a tulpa without one. As for the reasons for this, let us begin to speculate.
Perhaps it can be said for the average person, just conceptualizing another conscious being doesn't come about naturally, hence the need for a sigil. In this manner the sigil then acts as a mnemonic device of sorts. Of the various age groups that engage in the art of tulpa creation developing kids are said to be the most natural at it and it specifically between the ages where a child had become aware of their relationship in regards to others and identifying external sources. In laymen's terms that would generally be around the ages of 15 months of age to about 4 or 5 years. This age bracket also corresponds to the general age when a child has started to develop self-recognition (an interesting bit of trivia is that kids usually develop an awareness of others first before recognizing themselves) and the point in time where they become aware of their relationship with others or within society. As a result, in terms of cognitive development, toddlers are masters at the art of tulpa creation. Of course since most of us are no longer toddlers we would then have to develop a mechanism by which to craft a tulpa. Besides, while creating tulpas may come about naturally for a toddler, it is a question whether they can do so with intent. Perhaps this is the primary reason why sigils are recommended in the art of tulpa creation.
Another major part of the creation of a tulpa is a kill switch. Similar to the Judaic myth of the golem, a kill switch (aleph) was used to deactivate a golem that had gone rogue many tulpa creators likewise recommend having a similar feature. Depending on what camp you ask, tulpas may or may not be capable of going rogue. For the camp that says they are capable of such, a kill switch is installed for the purpose of ensuring loyalty though if we want to be more precise, the kill switch acts like an explosive collar should the tulpa turn on you. For the camp that says tulpas are incapable of rebelling a kill switch is thus installed to decommission a tulpa that's outlived their usefulness. On the brief topic of whether tulpas are capable of going rogue we first have to define what going it means for a tulpa to become a turncoat. Does that mean going against the set of instructions given to them upon their creation? What about a tulpa that's no longer useful and is in fact detrimental despite following their instructions to a t? And of course, some don't install these kill switches.
A Tulpa's Purpose - Tulpas Part 2
A tulpa is a type of thoughtform that has become independent in that it has its own consciousness, literally the only thing preventing it from being its own person is that it lacks it's own physical body. Some spellcasters consider them to be a type of servitor, a thoughtform servitor while others would describe their attributes as more akin to that of a golem. As their name implies, a servitor is an entity whose purpose is to serve and likewise a tulpa can be likened to a series of cognitive/behavioural outputs designed to elicit a sought after alteration in the spellcaster's psyche. A golem on the other hand while usually also created as a type of servitor has also been known to occasionally run amok of their creators. Perhaps the reason why golems are able to fully turn on their creators unlike tulpas is because they are supplied with their own life force. Course, should you change that emeth to meth they crumble and die. Tulpas on the other hand need their creators to stay alive seeing that they don't have their own life force. By this some can understand the relationship between a tulpamancer and a tulpa to be parasitic, so then why do some set out to intentionally create them?
As stated earlier, a tulpa is ultimately just a system of cognitive/behavioural outputs designed to elicit a sought after alteration in the spellcaster's psyche. In other words, one can think of them as mental programs designed to help the spellcaster's psyche. Say for instance you want to lose or gain a couple of pounds. A tulpa would be like a fitness coach, only that this fitness coach shares the same experiences as you do. Makes sense? And given that tulpas ultimately have their own personalities this would in principle somewhat protect against a confirmation bias. Also, considering that tulpas have their own perspectives, perhaps the spellcaster wants a companion. Finding people to talk to and more importantly relate with can be quite challenging if you're in solitary confinement.
Whether you need an extra mental helping hand or if you just want another companion one thing seems certain. If there's a price to be paid for maintaining their existence, whatever drawback they might incur is typically outweighed by their supposed boon. So why would anyone still install a kill switch? For starters, even assuming tulpas aren't capable of treachery unlike golems (which is still pretty rare) their existence is still parasitic (it's more of a commensalistic relationship if we to be precise). That means once they've accomplished what they were designed for there's really no benefit to keeping them around. As such, tulpas that are designed more as servitors should expect a shorter life expectancy than a companion styled tulpa.
What can Tulpas do - Tulpas Part 3
To help with a mental facility, to keep one's sanity in a time of isolation, just what is it that tulpas can and cannot do? Some say that tulpas are capable of possessing their host. Given that possession refers to an external entity that resides in and typically controls another, could tulpas be considered an external entity or are they still apart of the tulpamancer? If they are an external entity, then yes. They would be capable of possession. If not, then all that's really happening is that they are sharing their creator's experiences. In order to understand what it is they can and cannot do, we'll need to ask ourselves a couple of questions first.
Tulpas are created within the mind, that is, the psyche of the spellcaster. As such they should fall under the Psychological Model of magick and yet though it appears as though they are treated as an extension of yourself, tulpas are their own persons. Since the Psychological Model denies externalities, what about the Spiritual Model? We know they cannot be categorized as part of the Energy Model seeing that they are treated as living. In order to conclude whether a tulpa is a type of artificial spirit we would first have to answer whether it is possible to create a spirit in the first place (aside from the method of death that is). However, even if a tulpa is a type of artificial spirit, given that the bulk of their effect lies solely on the spellcaster's psyche, this would indicate they would be more aligned with the Psychological Model as suggested earlier. Where things start to get tricky is when the tulpa no longer needs the sustained energy of their progenitor per say. Perhaps what it is that a tulpa truly seeks is influence. Under normal circumstances a tulpa is only able to influence their creator and to make a distinction, influence and control are not the same thing. Once a tulpa is able to influence a group of individuals it is no longer a tulpa but rather an égrégore. An égrégore is essentially in Pokemon speak, a tulpa that has evolved where instead of being sustained by one person it is now a group. Of course with this extra support also comes some major tradeoffs. Just as how modern sigils are more personalized compare to their traditional counterparts, an égrégore works in a similar but opposite approach. Whereas a tulpa is personalized, an égrégore is not.
So if an égrégore is able to affect multiple people, what is the range? What are the limits? To determine the range of an égrégore, we can look to the extent of its influence. Moreover we will be looking at individuals who have expressed a connection of sorts with this égrégore. This should help to reduce any extenuating factors. We would also need to know whether the influence is from that égrégore specifically or from someone else. Although not confirmed, it's probably safe to say their influence isn't omnipresent. Even if there was an égrégore whose influence was as such, outside of the mind they don't seem to have any direct effect on the environment. Now here's a question to contemplate ourselves upon: do tulpas and égrégores have auras?
Variations in Magick - Dichotomy Part 1
Some say that magick has no color and that it is all about the intent. Others don't conflate utility with morality or ethics. Still there are those who say the color of magick is racially determined and is based on the human genome. While we could ask which one if any of these is the case, unless we can verify such is the state of affairs it will not do to answer definitively whether some variation in magick exists though one would be hard pressed to state everyone has the same intention. It is with this that we must first clarify a few things:
1. The intention of this post is not to discuss whether there are variations in the intentions of humans.
2. When contemplating about the variations in magick, the purpose is not to discuss whether different colors are used in magick. Instead we will be looking at whether the magick in of itself has color (whether literally or figuratively) and what that means and could entail.
Aura reading is often stated to be a form of magick (that or a psychic technique specifically of the clairvoyance category). While not strictly mandatory, aura reading often is based on the colors of the subject's aura body. Darker colors typically have negative connotations though occasionally it is reversed and sometimes having color in of itself is considered problematic. For the sake of simplicity let's assume that a healthy aura is vibrant with color. Baneful magick would therefore would probably be of a darker nature, that is to say it would lean more towards black. This is not to say healing magick would therefore be white as whether you increase or decrease the luminosity, after a certain point the colors will fade. Of course this also would depend on the nature of the aura and since auras are typically stated or implied to be some form of light which for our example will include bioluminescence can give us an idea exactly how or what harmful vs healing magick would look like assuming they have color. Still, sometimes the colors of auras are stated to be the result of the presence of others so perhaps auras and by extension magick can be linkened to pigments in addition to rays of light.
Thus based on Aura reading alone we can say it stands to reason that magick probably does have color or at the very least a heat temperature gradient of some sort. Now whether this is strictly tied to utility or morality is hard to say and perhaps genetics has a factor. Of course this last point does not say much in terms of whether one race is superior or inferior to another, just that if magick does have color and its color is based on race, based off of that alone we still wouldn't be able to tell whether one race is superior or inferior to another. Then again, it may very well be that on a statistical basis, some races are more suited towards certain fields of magick over others. Or perhaps such specializations are the result of external factors including acclimatization.
Magick Practitioners - Dichotomy Part 2
Witches, warlocks, wizards, witch-doctors, enchanters, druids, sorcerers, shamans, alchemists, apothecarists, necromancers, psychics and mages. Surely they are all the same right? To say that all these magick practitioners are the same would be to say their definitions are interchangeable, and since all of them practice a variant of magick, we can say they're all the same, yes? After all, let's say you wanted to create a Jiangshi aka the hopping corpse, a type of undead. Why yes. You could hire an enchanter, i.e. a spellcaster who's main area of expertise lies in enchantment or the beguiling of the minds of others as opposed to that necromancer who's essentially a practitioner of necromancy*. Okay. So maybe certain practitioners of magick are more specialized, but still. By and large most practitioners can be lumped together and unless you have a specialization, witches, warlocks (may be considered a specialization depending on the definition used), wizards, psychics and mages are the same and can be interchanged, correct? Before we can conclude as such we will first have to look at their definitions.
When it comes to defining words, definitions are mostly derived from context and popular usage. In other words this means that the process of giving definitions is ultimately a social process. Based off of this we can see that the definition of words can change over time. Not so! Some of you may proclaim. Words are not defined by how they are used but by their etymology. It is perhaps worth noting that a viewpoint which takes it so that words are defined based off of social context and usage would be linkened to a liberal/socialist (not really the same thing) whereas the stance which takes that words are defined based on their origins and make-up would therefore be conservative.
The following is a list of how the following magick practitioners are defined based on the Meriam Webster Dictionary with the more specific definitions coming from wordnik;
Enchanter:
Definition of enchanter
: one that enchants
Definition of enchanting
: powerfully pleasing, appealing, or delightful : CHARMING
from The Century Dictionary.
noun One who charms or delights.
Druid:
Definition of druid
: one of an ancient Celtic priesthood appearing in Irish and Welsh sagas and Christian legends as magicians and wizards
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun A member of an order of priests in ancient Gaul and Britain who appear in Welsh and Irish legend as prophets and sorcerers.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun One of an order of priests or ministers of religion among the ancient Celts of Gaul, Britain, and Ireland.
noun A member of a society called the United Ancient Order of Druids, founded in London in 1781, for the mutual benefit of the members, and now counting numerous lodges, called groves, in America, Australia, Germany, etc.
Witch-doctor:
Definition of witch doctor
: a professional worker of magic usually in a primitive society who often works to cure sickness
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun In certain traditional cultures, especially in Africa, a sorcerer or shamanistic healer.
Warlock:
Definition of warlock
1: a man practicing the black arts : SORCERER— compare WITCH
Derived from wærloga, which means an oath breaker or traitor.
A warlock also refers to a fetter lock
Wizard:
Definition of wizard
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: one skilled in magic : SORCERER
2: a very clever or skillful person//computer wizards
3: archaic : a wise man : SAGE
Sorcerer:
from The Century Dictionary.
noun Originally, one who casts lots; one who divines or interprets by the casting of lots; hence, one who uses magic arts in divination or for other ends; a wizard; an enchanter; a conjurer.
Alchemist:
Definition of alchemy
1: a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life
2: a power or process that changes or transforms something in a mysterious or impressive way… the practitioners of financial alchemy that transformed the world of money in the 1980's …— Gordon Williams
3: an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting
from The Century Dictionary.
noun Medieval chemistry; the doctrines and processes of the early and medieval chemists; in particular, the supposed process, or the search for the process, by which it was hoped to transmute the baser metals into gold.
noun Any magical or mysterious power or process of transmuting or transforming.
Shaman:
Definition of shaman
1: a priest or priestess who uses magic for the purpose of curing the sick, divining the hidden, and controlling events
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun A member of certain traditional societies, especially of northern Asia and of North and South America, who acts as a medium between the visible world and an invisible spirit world and who practices magic or sorcery for purposes of healing, divination, and control over natural events.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun A professor or priest of Shamanism; a wizard or conjurer among those who profess Shamanism.
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun The animistic religion of certain peoples of northern Asia in which mediation between the visible and spirit worlds is effected by shamans.
noun A similar religion or set of beliefs, especially among certain Native American peoples.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun A general name applied to the idolatrous religions of a number of barbarous nations, comprehending those of the Finnish race, as the Ostiaks, Samoyeds, and other inhabitants of Siberia as far as the Pacific Ocean.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
noun The type of religion which once prevalied among all the Ural-Altaic peoples (Tungusic, Mongol, and Turkish), and which still survives in various parts of Northern Asia. The Shaman, or wizard priest, deals with good as well as with evil spirits, especially the good spirits of ancestors.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
proper noun a range of traditional beliefs and practices concerned with communication with the spirit world
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
noun any animistic religion similar to Asian shamanism (especially as practiced by certain Native American tribes)
noun an animistic religion of northern Asia having the belief that the mediation between the visible and the spirit worlds is effected by shamans
Apothecarist:
Definition of apothecary
1: one who prepares and sells drugs or compounds for medicinal purposes
2: PHARMACY
Witch:
from The Century Dictionary.
noun A person (of either sex) given to the black art; a sorcerer; a conjurer; a wizard; later and more particularly, a woman supposed to have formed a compact with the devil or with evil spirits, and to be able by their aid to operate supernaturally; one who practises sorcery or enchantment; a sorceress.
noun An old, ugly, and crabbed or malignant woman; a hag; a crone: a term of abuse.
noun A fascinating woman; a woman, especially a young woman or a girl, possessed of peculiar attractions, whether of beauty or of manners; a bewitching or charming young woman or girl.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
noun (Geom.) A certain curve of the third order, described by Maria Agnesi under the name versiera.
noun A Wiccan; an adherent or practitioner of Wicca, a religion which in different forms may be paganistic and nature-oriented, or ditheistic. The term witch applies to both male and female adherents in this sense.
Psychic:
from The Century Dictionary.
Of or belonging to the human soul or mind; mental; spiritual; psychological.
Pertaining to the science of mind: opposed to physical: as, psychic force.
Necromancer:
Definition of necromancy
1: conjuration (see CONJURE sense 2a) of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
noun the belief in magical spells that harness occult forces or evil spirits to produce unnatural effects in the world
noun conjuring up the dead, especially for prophesying
Mage:
Definition of magician
1: one skilled in magic//especially : SORCERER
Possibly derived from magus;
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun A member of the Zoroastrian priestly caste of the Medes and Persians.
from The Century Dictionary.
noun One of the members of the learned and priestly caste in ancient Persia, who had official charge of the sacred rites, practised interpretation of dreams, professed supernatural arts, and were distinguished by peculiarities of dress and insignia.
Side note*
In the Western World, necromancy refers to divination using the dead, particularly of deceased spirits or necrotic matter such as rotting flesh and corpses whereas the same may not be true in other cultures and in fact when it comes to Asian necromancy, reanimation is a key staple, that is to say the undead creating necromancer is more likely to have developed their skill sets based on Asian necromancy as opposed to Western necromancy.
Alignment Chart - Dichotomy Part 3
Chaotic - Neutral - Lawful, Good - Neutral - Evil. Some say morality is objective, i.e. it exists outside of various frames of reference, perhaps even being absolute*. By far we can say that at least as it goes for the internet the most vocal is the stance that it all depends on context, social upbringing and cultural values. Is morality ultimately subjective as appears to be popular opinion or is it more like the D&D system? While we cannot find an answer to satisfy both viewpoints, we can at least attempt to address them both.
Before we attempt to address whether morality is subjective vs objective we must first clarify a couple of common misconceptions.
1) Unless everyone agrees it cannot be objective.
Humans can't physically live off of sunlight alone (at least not at the moment even assuming it is possible). Not everyone agrees, however this disagreement does not make this observation subjective.
2) Moral Objectivism = Moral Absolutism
Moral Objectivism only refers to the stance that morality exists independent of a frame of reference, i.e. various viewpoints not that those moral truths are always consistent. To illustrate this difference let us assume the following are moral truths:
1. Murder (the unlawful killing of another human being) is evil.
2. Killing is evil.
While both examples deal with killing other humans as it pertains to morality, the first requires a violation of social trust whereas the latter is akin to limited liability in the criminal sense.
3) Moral Objectivity is the result of a god or some deity
If murder is wrong ultimately because some god says it is, then the moral truth at least as it applies to murder is not objective but rather subjective to the viewpoint of that god.
Now with these common misconceptions addressed let us proceed into the heart of the matter.
Every organism needs to consume to survive. How can a corporation thrive without a mission statement? Tyrants, presidents and even the Queen of England ultimately get their power through their sponsors and likewise it is with this understanding that demons don't merely consume the souls of humans because it's fun, nor the vampire your life force because their bitter and old. After all, morality is subjective. It may seem inconsiderate, even rude, but they're doing it to survive. It's just a matter of perspective. Donating to charity is just as moral as filletting a new born or burning down the local orphanage that is still up and running and occupied.
Even if we presume that the energy vampire is feeding for sustenance and the demon views humans killing each other as a virtuous good, we would be blind not to acknowledge a couple of common trends:
1. Cooperation tends to lead to better or at the minimum drastically increased chances of survival. How many of you are aware of the prisoner's dilemma? The prisoner's dilemma describes a situation where 2 or more allied contestants are separated from each other and are given the opportunity to betray the other for a reduced punishment and in some rare instances a grandiose reward. To sum it up in short, assuming all participants are self-serving you would expect most results to end in betrayal yet it turns out that even amongst self-serving individuals humans have a systematic bias, that is to say they have a tendency to try to work together. According to game theory (not the YouTube channel) when it comes to social games, in general cooperation tends to lead to better results and seeing that humans have mostly developed into a eusocial type of organism, this could explain the contradictory behavior when it comes to the prisoner's dilemma, that being while treachery would appear to be the preferred strategy assuming both participants are self-serving, it is cooperation which tends to be taken instead.
2. Reciprocity describes the tendency for social (though to be frank this isn't limited to just social creatures) entities and organism to echo back similar behaviors, tit for tat.
Thus, even if morality is ultimately subjective, it would appear as though certain actions/ mindsets have more or less been consistently valued not only across different cultures, but as a natural inclination towards survival. This is not to say this proves morality is objective though we can perhaps say certain facets tend to be more consistent with the flow of time.
Dissertation 3
Since most of the magick I do practice is not of the ceremonial type, does that make me an armchair magician? On one hand when negatively interpreted an armchair magician refers to a know nothing know it all who has neither practical yet alone theoretical knowledge (though from reading online, there seems to be a consensus of sorts that it's more referring to lack of hands on experience rather than theoretical). When interpreted positively an armchair magician can be likened to a strategist. If you were to ask me whether I find there to be a problem with armchair occultism I'd say such a question reminds me of the treatment the New Age has gotten and likewise a parallel can be taken from social political movement groups or ideologies. Take feminists or men's rights activists for example. Depending on who you ask, feminism is the advocation for women's rights or is just as well misandry combined with women superiority whereas MRA's is like the inversion, advocating for men's rights or misogyny combined with men superiority. So is there a problem with the term armchair magician? With the examples I've given I suppose I would have to say yes. Just what are we referring to when we say the term armchair magician? If a spellcaster is wheelchair bound, does that make them an armchair magician by account of them having to use a wheelchair/an armchair on wheels? These things are not defined and can and have led to some confusion.
In an earlier post I had speculated that it might be possible for a tulpa to be able to confabulate other psychics and I say it's about I explain how. As mentioned in one of my previous entries, the effects of tulpas appear to be strictly limited to the psychological with only égrégores being able to affect multiple minds at the cost of personal connections. One or rather 2 parts of the aura are said to be that of the mind and emotions. Since it appears that tulpas can affect the psychological state and perhaps indirectly the emotional state as well, who's to say they can't also help a psychic to change their own without changing who they are? Of course, since I'm not able to see auras I'd have no way of knowing this directly and so all I can do at the moment is speculate. And so it was with this that I decided to test my hypothesis by designing a tulpa of my own. Now how is it that I would even suggest a tulpa could be used in such a manner and furthermore how would I even know if what I'm testing for can't be observed directly by me? I don't. Nevertheless, considering the 2 major reasons why tulpas are made are either as companions or as a type of artificial servitor and while usually these servitors are generally created for the purpose of socially developing the spellcaster, who's to say they can't also be used for other things? Things such as deception?
Perhaps it comes as little to no surprise that of the major Models of Magick I am not a fan of the Psychological Model whereas I seem to advocate the Information Model. To phrase my contemp for the Psychological Model in as little as 3 points, I find such a Model to be overall malignantly narcissistic, generally impractical and just underwhelming. If everyone and everything is the same or as the people of the New Age group call it, "you and the universe are one, we are all Love, the universe, we come from the same source and we return as shall come, etc" that would mean there are no nuances, which unless you'd like to deny reality, is like sticking your head in the sand when you're not an ostrich. Someone who is chromosomally male is different from someone who is chromosomally female. How? Unless there was some sort of genetic mutation generally involving the SRY gene, you wouldn't expect someone who is chromosomally/biologically to be able to get pregnant and even then, not without some external influence, which is the thing. The Psychological Model denies the external. Additionally, if belief is what powers magick, then as soon as you start to wonder whether it is working or if it's something entirely different, it just dies out. It's like a spirit who can heal but only for those who believe it can vs one that can heal regardless of belief. Besides, if your mind is set on doing one thing in the belief that it will eventually improve your life despite accumulating evidence to the contrary, do you know what we like to call that? A sunk cost fallacy. Lastly, if all magick is good for is changing your perspective, why call it magick? Why not just call it behavioural adjustment or some other sub study of psychology? As for the Information Model... what is it that people react, are proactive on and are influenced by? What is it that can shape beliefs, possibly alter the general feel of an area? Information. Sure, emotions are a major part of it, however if you want to direct the public's opinions, possibly starve spirits, you can't have that emotion running amok. With just the right push, things fall like dominos. So hopefully you can see why I'm a fan of the Information Model of magick, though if I had to rank the major Models of Magick in terms of their practicality or usefulness, I'd place the Meta Model as being the most versatile followed by the Information Model, then the Energy Model followed by the Spiritual Model with the Psychological Model as being the least efficient. At least with the other Models you can at least afford to experiment around. Experimentation by the way, seems to be something that I've noticed traditional occultists seem to despise, though the New Agers group aren't that much better in terms of their interpretations or conclusions.
Thanks for reading.
