Are entities manifestation of the human mind?

[RoccoR]

RE: Are entities manifestation of the human mind?
SUBTOPIC:
⁜→ jkeller, et al,

So i have no form of academic credentials, but i am a philosophical thinker. I hope this is of value to you.

(COMMENT)

Any serious reply is of value, whether I agree or not.

I only mentioned my education to demonstrate just how lacking or faulty it may be. No matter how much I achieve, I still have much more to learn.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Xenophon]

Sorry, I meant exists rather than real. He is definitely real - you decided that but he may or may not exist. The example I always give for this sort of thing is money. Only a fool would say money wasn't real. But does it exist? On British banknotes it still says (albeit in microscopically tiny letters) "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of..." but if you go to the bank and try to get your five pounds, you will be sadly disappointed of course
Is the five pounds real? Yes, I just bought coffee and cake with it. Does it exist? Wellllllll maybe....
Is Servitus real? Yes, he found my slippers. Does he exist? Wellllllll maybe...

Point taken.

Fiat currency is indeed a sort of egregore. Juris Huysmans in 'Le Bas' had some intersting remarks on that, though he didn't quite take the step into seeing money as egregore.

 

[neilwilkes]

.....Even Crowley warned not to necessarily attribute reality to all the spirits etc. that he talked about.....

Not exactly he didn't - no! Please re-read the original.
What he actually wrote was 'in this book it is spoken of many things.....that may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow, students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them'.
The way I read this is that what Crowley is basically saying here is that you should not go around believing in things.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Not exactly he didn't - no! Please re-read the original.
What he actually wrote was 'in this book it is spoken of many things.....that may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow, students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them'.
The way I read this is that what Crowley is basically saying here is that you should not go around believing in things.

I thought my paraphrasing was fair. First he says they may or may not exist - so he leaves open the possibility that they may exist. His warning is against insisting that they are real when you have no idea whether they are or not.

 

[Xenophon]

I thought my paraphrasing was fair. First he says they may or may not exist - so he leaves open the possibility that they may exist. His warning is against insisting that they are real when you have no idea whether they are or not.

Your version seems fair. Crowley was interested in a system that got results. The exact ontological status of what was being dealt with was bracketed for the nonce.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 2:24 AM

Not exactly he didn't - no! Please re-read the original.
What he actually wrote was 'in this book it is spoken of many things.....that may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow, students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them'.
The way I read this is that what Crowley is basically saying here is that you should not go around believing in things.

I don't see there is a huge difference between you and R.R. here. Crowley did not say you should not believe, he just said that results were the focus; the reason for those results a secondary (and knotty) issue. In a way, he comes close to Nietzsche's "Accept the gift; do not inquire about the giver." It is a fairly common position in magick that we are presently ill-equipped to understand what is the source of magickal success. That might come with success over time. We come then to see our own existence is not the straightforward primal truth a Cartesian might jump into concluding it is.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

As they say in Zen: "First there is a mountain. Then there is no mountain. Then there is."

 

[theil]

I am curious to hear your thoughts about what you think about entities. There is a theory in the occult regarding what are called egregores which are sentient entities that are created by collective of human minds all focusing on that one thing. I was wondering if this may be the case for all gods we talk about.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this.

Personally believe it's a mix.
The deep mind and how the conscious mind interoperates that contact creates a mystery that's both subjective and potentially shared.
Are humans interoperating intelligence from energetic formations to satisfy the rules of reality, ie. an equal and opposite reaction?

 

[Konsciencia]

I say that we manifest those entities somehow. They are a part of your HigherSelf.

 

[Mannimarco]

I am curious to hear your thoughts about what you think about entities. There is a theory in the occult regarding what are called egregores which are sentient entities that are created by collective of human minds all focusing on that one thing. I was wondering if this may be the case for all gods we talk about.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this.

This thread got me thinking about this type of thing, again. So i got my dowsing charts out, got in a light trance, and did some divination. I asked two questions about a handful of entities,
1. How old is this entity?
2. How much of their existence is dependent on human attention?
Now, obviously one persons divination is hardly conclusive, but this was a veeeeeeery interesting exercise. The answer for every one of them was that 100% of their existence was dependent on human attention. The answers for the age of the entities varied, as might be expected. The oldest entity i got was 9,000 years old, the youngest around 900.

Fascinating stuff. I will definitely be doing more of this.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Are entities manifestations of the human mind?
SUBTOPIC: Viewed as an "Egregore"
⁜→ jkeller, Mannimarco, et al,

Egregore (Greek meaning "Watcher") - Some Occultists have considered it as an astral entity evoked by the magic of a group of practitioners.

I am curious to hear your thoughts about what you think about entities. There is a theory in the occult regarding what are called egregores which are sentient entities that are created by collective of human minds all focusing on that one thing. I was wondering if this may be the case for all gods we talk about.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this.

This thread got me thinking about this type of thing, again. So i got my dowsing charts out, got in a light trance, and did some divination. I asked two questions about a handful of entities,
1. How old is this entity?
2. How much of their existence is dependent on human attention?
Now, obviously one persons divination is hardly conclusive, but this was a veeeeeeery interesting exercise. The answer for every one of them was that 100% of their existence was dependent on human attention. The answers for the age of the entities varied, as might be expected. The oldest entity i got was 9,000 years old, the youngest around 900.

Fascinating stuff. I will definitely be doing more of this.

(COMMENT)

The usage dates back to at least 3 Centuries BCE.

As the scope, nature, and characteristics of such cannot be defined, it is impossible to tell if Egregore actually have ever existed or if they still exist. Nor can humanity define a deity. However, folklore attributes Egregore to "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

."

Most Respectfully,
R

Reference
___________________
• EGREGORES The Occult Entities That Watch Over Human Destiny, © 2018 by Mark Stavish, Publisher: Inner Traditions/Bear & Company, ISBN, ASIN, ISSN: B077S3WM3V. (Provides instructions on how to identify egregores, free yourself from parasitic and destructive entities, and destroy an egregore, should the need arise - according to Amazon.)

 

[MorganBlack]

Agreed. 'Egregore' is suspiciously close to 'Grigori' the Watchers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you or a group of people invest a lot of emotion and action into a mythological figure, something will come, and agree to be called by that name. Ideally it acts and has the powers of a mythological figures, and is not just yanking your chain, reading your hopes and dreams, and filling your head with what you want to hear. Speaking as a magician, and not a worshiper, putting anyone you call to work is the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Hell, one of my fave guys, St. Cyprian, never existed. Which led to some spicy internet drama a few years ago when one blogging magician was warning people away from him as a mask for something sinister.

I'll take the Vodou angle of this, and say maybe his St. Cyprian was sinister. Mine has taught me much. Take it as you will, but there is an interesting take some of the Catholic saints may be masks for roving bands of the shades of dead Gnostics. Again, it doesn't really matter, as long as they act like who they present as.

 

[Practitioner]

Are entities manifestation of the human mind?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, why would they be? The human mind by itself cannot affect weather, cause rain, influence the harvests, and make the milk of your shitty neighbour go sour. This should be enough to prove there's something else than just mental tricks going on most of the time

 

[MorganBlack]

Well, I split the difference here. From personal experience, they are shaped by and take their from our expectations and stories we believe in, meaning the sense of things we embody, taking them to heart at the deeper level of self, our sense of the world, what we love and fear.

On a practical level people may find the Philip Experiment useful for how this may work,

Summary below mostly by AI. Just becasue I am short on time. Deadlines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

----------------------------------------------------

The Philip Experiment was a 1972 parapsychology experiment conducted by a Toronto group to investigate whether a fictional ghost, "Philip Aylesford," could be summoned and communicated with through séance, aiming to explore the power of human intention and expectation.

Here's a more detailed look at the experiment:

Picture this: a group of Toronto researchers, led by Dr. A.R. George Owen—a mathematical geneticist with a taste for the uncanny—decided to test a bold idea. Could they create a ghost from scratch, purely through the power of collective belief and imagination? Not summon some ancient spirit, but birth a brand-new entity out of thin air.

They invented "Philip Aylesford," a fictional 17th-century English aristocrat with a juicy, tragic backstory: a loveless marriage to a cold wife, Dorothea, a forbidden romance with a gypsy girl named Margo, and a guilt-ridden suicide after Margo’s execution for witchcraft. The team—eight folks including Owen’s wife Iris, a former MENSA chair, and a mix of everyday professionals—crafted this tale with deliberate historical holes to keep it obviously fake. Their goal? To see if focused human will could manifest Philip as a tangible presence.

Phase one was chill: they met weekly in a lit room, chatting about Philip, meditating on his life, and trying to visualize him. Nada happened for a year—some felt a vibe, but no cigar. Then they switched gears, going full séance mode. Dim lights, hands on a table, songs, and props like castle pics and 1600s trinkets. That’s when it got spooky. Raps and knocks started answering their questions—one for yes, two for no—matching Philip’s made-up story. The table even vibrated, tilted, and reportedly levitated, all caught on film for extra chills.

The Goal:
The Toronto Society of Psychical Research, led by Dr. A.R. George Owen and overseen by Dr. Joel Whitton, aimed to create a fictional ghost through a deliberate methodology and then attempt to communicate with it through séance.
The Character:
The group created a fictional character named "Philip Aylesford" with a detailed, albeit fictional, history, including his birth in 1624, military career, and eventual suicide in 1654.
The Process:
The group focused on creating a strong, shared belief in Philip's existence, and then engaged in séances, attempting to communicate with him.
The Results:
The experiment produced some interesting results, including physical phenomena such as table movement, knocking sounds, and even the table levitating.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Are entities manifestation of the human mind?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, why would they be? The human mind by itself cannot affect weather, cause rain, influence the harvests, and make the milk of your shitty neighbour go sour. This should be enough to prove there's something else than just mental tricks going on most of the time

I have to disagree with you there. As Lon Milo Duquette says "It's All In Your Head... You Just Have No Idea How Big Your Head Is"

I personally did a weather spell for someone posting on this forum, and they said yes, the weather cleared up for them. I did not knowingly invoke any spirits or what-have-yous.

IMO, you do not change the world; you experience the version of the world where the change is present. This would be true for both normal and 'magical' change.

 

[jkeller293]

I have to disagree with you there. As Lon Milo Duquette says "It's All In Your Head... You Just Have No Idea How Big Your Head Is"

I personally did a weather spell for someone posting on this forum, and they said yes, the weather cleared up for them. I did not knowingly invoke any spirits or what-have-yous.

IMO, you do not change the world; you experience the version of the world where the change is present. This would be true for both normal and 'magical' change.

Would you say your attention on the intention of the spell you did is crucial?

 

[Amur]

When you learn to master the Air element and go through both positive and negative aspects of it, you go through the "Spirit" degree and can notice how they are bound to your psyche.

 

[Practitioner]

I have to disagree with you there. As Lon Milo Duquette says "It's All In Your Head... You Just Have No Idea How Big Your Head Is"

I personally did a weather spell for someone posting on this forum, and they said yes, the weather cleared up for them. I did not knowingly invoke any spirits or what-have-yous.

IMO, you do not change the world; you experience the version of the world where the change is present. This would be true for both normal and 'magical' change.

I've read that book from Lon Milo Duquette. I disagree with him. It's also forcing a complicated paradigm that goes against our most immediate intuitions. Just accepting that spirits aren't manifestation of the human minds seems like the most simple answer and way to go.

Regarding your experiment, I'm glad things worked. But when it comes to spells and the like not necessarily spirits are involved. So I don't think it's a good example to provide.

 

[MagickalStudent569]

I am curious to hear your thoughts about what you think about entities. There is a theory in the occult regarding what are called egregores which are sentient entities that are created by collective of human minds all focusing on that one thing. I was wondering if this may be the case for all gods we talk about.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this.

My theory is that Egregora are less like parasites that we create (assuming the are real), but more like spiritual symbionts, that we create unconsciously or sometimes consciously to help us grow. They then in turn grow themselves in turn and in doing enter into new relationships with new people (or other spirits) helping them grow and growing in turn themselves. Many ancient civilizations believed that we are offspring of a higher power. It didn't just start with the Abrahamic Religions or even the Egyptians or Sumerians. The source of all life in the universe, whatever it is or it's true nature, is the very universe itself (or perhaps greater than it). That would make all life... (a poor descriptor) cough all consciousness in the universe extensions of itself.

Now whether or not this true for the various deities of the different pantheons is not clear. However based many UPG I've heard it does seem that they likely could be Egregora. However whether it was we ourselves who created them or some being above us is not clear either. What is very clear is that they have the power to increase the quality of our lives in the material world (or decrease it) and so in that sense worshiping them is not entirely illogical. Assuming the goal is understanding the universe through forming relationships with it vs trying to put everything into boxes to systematically dissect it with the end goal being understanding through control.

 

[Mannimarco]

Are entities manifestation of the human mind?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, why would they be? The human mind by itself cannot affect weather, cause rain, influence the harvests, and make the milk of your shitty neighbour go sour. This should be enough to prove there's something else than just mental tricks going on most of the time

The human mind can and does do all those things, and far, far, more. I have done them all myself, except perhaps the spoiled milk part. But there are quite a few shitty neighbors that probably wish I had set my sights that low. The human mind creates life itself every time we make a servitor.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Would you say your attention on the intention of the spell you did is crucial?

I know this isn't very helpful, but the whole thing is crucial, whatever magic you do, be it "entity based" or whatever. 1) correctly phrase your intent 2) find a representation of that intent 3) burn the representation into your subconscious 4) forget all about it 5) Don't tell anyone!

Post automatically merged: Today at 9:58 AM

I've read that book from Lon Milo Duquette. I disagree with him. It's also forcing a complicated paradigm that goes against our most immediate intuitions. Just accepting that spirits aren't manifestation of the human minds seems like the most simple answer and way to go.

Regarding your experiment, I'm glad things worked. But when it comes to spells and the like not necessarily spirits are involved. So I don't think it's a good example to provide.

If I've learned one thing from thirty years of research, it's that human intuition, when it comes to physics, isn't worth a pitcher of warm spit. And I regard the human mind as the universe's most difficult physics problem

As the old saying goes: "There's a simple answer to everything - and it's wrong"

You did say that the human mind by itself can't affect the weather, and now you say spirits aren't necessarily involved. Those two kinda cancel each other out...