The Consuming Hunger Of Gods

[WalkerOfSorrow]

Like?

It is extremely unlikely that out of the several billions of people who have ever lived who each had the potential to experience this, that no one put it into writing, or spoke about it. It's not that we're taking that to mean that no one had ever thought/heard about it... maybe they did, but brushed it aside as a day dream or figment of imagination.

I'm sure people have imagined something similar... Perhaps they just did not feel the need to draw connections to the occult when perhaps there were none.


If everyone (or many people) are claiming you said or implied things that you absolutely did not, maybe you should reflect on improving your own communication skills because you are clearly leading people to believe things you did not mean for them to believe. If it's that big of a deal to you. Otherwise just correct our misunderstandings and move on.

You know what, I told you twice before I'm not here to engage in petty arguments, and directly insulting my ability to communicate because I don't meet your highly stringent and apparently complex standards is exactly that. I hope this forum turns out to be what you were after, but I no longer want any part of it. I came here hoping that people could defy the online standard and be reasonable, polite adults with valuable points to make, and not just diss and gatekeep each other into the ground, and then spread the gaslighting when you're done. People exactly like you are why religion will always be toxic.

Peace out.

 

[SkullTraill]

You misunderstand me. Nothing I've said has been repeated ad nauseum specifically because I've set things up where that's less necessary.

I don't. I am telling you, discussing the topic and details of a thread within the thread itself regardless of if some minutiae of the subject has been discussed elsewhere in another thread would not be considered "ad nauseum". It's how forums work. Nobody should have to read all of your threads to understand one.

Here is my brief elaboration. Much of human understanding enters philosophy before it enters science, almost necessarily. Philosophy, by its nature, starts with broad abstracts and poetic concepts, and breaks them down into something that can be logically, then scientifically, processed. Your assertion that people don't often require grappling with that doesn't line up with anything I've ever experienced in life, as most people I've met deal in those grand scales and abstracts on a daily basis. Comparatively few people in this world are adept at cold logic and hard facts, as you seem to believe they are.

Those are some wild ideas, but not what I came here to discuss, so I'll ignore.

Let me be clear, I have had minimal exposure to organized occult practice. I have had to learn much of my survival skills and practical information from scratch. What I HAVE had, in abundance, is dogmatic religion forced down my throat along with their fabricated version of "Facts." I have a natural and instinctive repulsion to that, and inherently do NOT trust any organized occult tradition -- except where I can show that their beliefs and traditions are backed by something valuable and/or reliable. I understand all of that probably raises some hairs around here, but I am open to hearing all of your viewpoints, regardless of backing. It's just that I don't immediately assign them trust or even a possible sense of validity on the basis of them being old, ritualistic, or well-known. I could care less if the majority of occultists or even scientists think something, unless they have demonstrated reliably in a means I can access (or have accessed for me) that any of it can be trusted. I was raised by believers in majority belief; it means nothing to me.

Can you show that any of your bieliefs are "backed by something valuable and/or reliable"?

I do not have all my ducks in a row about this new encounter, and am actively studying it. My mistake, apparently, was thinking that asking people about it before my doctoral dissertation on the subject was finished, was a good idea or welcome in any way. Is this not a forum for discussion of things to better learn about them? Can I not ask questions without first knowing extensively the fine points of what I am asking?

I don't mind you not fully knowing what you experienced during this encounter, I was asking you how others are supposed to help you with just the hilariously broad and vague description you gave in the OP. What do you want from us? That's all I wanted to know, really.

Where in the thread have I given ANY indication that I think this is novel? That I am enlightening you with some kind of narcissistic knowledge? I certainly never intended to. I did open this up to hear if anyone else has?

Not intentionally, maybe. But the fact that you expected people to understand and resonate with: "found an apoplectic husk in it's place. A dark, consuming presence left over from when a once powerful being became overwhelmed. Starved."

The only reason I bring up anything about science is because it seems like that's your primary focus.

It's not. But if you want other people to share details about their experiences you need to be specific about what you want them to share or relate to.

You know what, I told you twice before I'm not here to engage in petty arguments, and directly insulting my ability to communicate because I don't meet your highly stringent and apparently complex standards is exactly that. I hope this forum turns out to be what you were after, but I no longer want any part of it. I came here hoping that people could defy the online standard and be reasonable, polite adults with valuable points to make, and not just diss and gatekeep each other into the ground, and then spread the gaslighting when you're done. People exactly like you are why religion will always be toxic.

Shut the fuck up. Candy ass snowflake. I didn't gatekeep, diss, or gaslight you.

You come here and you post pseudo-intellectual fantastical gibberish in every thread, and then expect the whole forum to be an echo-chamber to your ideas. No one cares, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that. But you can't bitch and whine incessantly as you have been when people don't agree with your barely-coherrent drivel (no matter how beautifully worded). You insult us all by saying shit like "Everyone please stop claiming I said or implied things I absolutely did not." as if we are all to tip-toe around eggshells whenever we don't agree with you.

The simple fact is, if everyone is misunderstanding you, the most likely problem is with you, rather than everyone else. That's not an insult, that's just a fact.

This is the internet, snowflake. Not everyone exists to affirm each and every day dream you have. You may think you're well-written, but I can read through every little snarky comment you make about other people, disguised behind some nice words. That's fine, but if you dish it, you better take it. I have no patience for little bitches with a princess complex who think the world revolves around them.

Peace out.

WalkerOf-WHO?

 

[Roma]

Shut the fuck up. Candy ass snowflake. I didn't gatekeep, diss, or gaslight you.

You come here and you post pseudo-intellectual fantastical gibberish in every thread,

I actually thought Walker was very thoughtful about areas difficult to conceptualise, and on several occasions referred to experimental approaches. Well done I thought.

Much of the difficulty arises from the lack of suitable constructs in modern Western culture. So we have to import them or make our own.

Then there is the problem of accessing areas of the mental plane suitable for expressing the constructs.

 

[Mider2009]

I can't attest to what any of these other people in history have said or thought, but their not bringing it up has a number of possible and likely explanations, aside from just "no one has heard of/thought of it." As for people who say they aren't, there are millions of people, perhaps billions, who are Christians that believe other "false gods" existed in some demonic form. Many of them who I have spoken to believe that, if those gods still exist, they are little more than what I've described. Not that I'm getting this information from those people. Regardless of what I think of their belief, there are absolutely people who "say they are."

But far more important: I never said "the gods" are all husks. I said that I've encountered this three times. Two or possibly three might be the same deity. Please don't represent my statements incorrectly to make a point.

While I did never state that the gods "need" anyone, it does appear that whatever sustains the deity/deities I've seen look like this, is not enough to match their extensive reach. Like the myths of a Preta or Wendigo continuing to grow or deteriorate as fast as it eats (or faster). NO, I am not saying what I've met is either of those things, at all.

Everyone please stop claiming I said or implied things I absolutely did not.

Again....many people I’ve spoken to and know connect to other Gods and don’t see anything you describe.

christians think anything that isn’t Jesus or the Jewish God is a demon...yet christians just adopted the jewish God. The Jewish God could be a storm God named El, thats Beyond the point You made

you made the claim not us, we are nearly asking you to explain. But it doesn’t matter to me in all honesty.

 

[Mider2009]

I actually thought Walker was very thoughtful about areas difficult to conceptualise, and on several occasions referred to experimental approaches. Well done I thought.

Much of the difficulty arises from the lack of suitable constructs in modern Western culture. So we have to import them or make our own.

Then there is the problem of accessing areas of the mental plane suitable for expressing the constructs.

Not everything in the mental plane may be real...

 

[Alfher]

I am aware there is a logical faction of the Occult community (so named because these things are usually hidden), that think none of us should be talking about this on a public, online forum

Nah, see. There are plenty of us who talk about a lot of things, including “extraordinary” powers and experiences. We have this forum and others where we talk according to our time and interest, there are a few Facebook groups for serious practitioners, there are books and blogs where serious practitioners discuss things, podcasts like Glitch Bottle and Oraculos, and of course open offline groups where we meet physically or exchange physical correspondence and support in various ways.

I’m involved in several of these, from several different traditions. Bardonite, Grimoire Tradition, Greek Magical Papyri Tradition, Norse Religion and Magic, and Hellenic Religion and Magic being my main circles lately. And we talk about and exchange all kinds of ideas and experiments.

There is simply a process we adhere to that I have not once seen you follow on this forum, and your fluffy methodology leaves serious practitioners wary of you.

I have not once seen you account for Analytical Overlay in any way, nor account for the language of symbolism innate to visionary experience. You only present your unfiltered experiences with the delusional presumption that your clairvoyance is good enough to see through anything perfectly, without your mind placing any overlay on it and without considering the symbolic meanings of things.

I have not once seen you share any practical methodology that others can follow along to repeat an experiment where similar results might follow. Even in this thread alone, you have refused to publicly share details of your experience regarding context, who or what you think the entities may be, or anything else another practitioner may use to project to or conjure an entity to test your experience for themselves.

I have not once seen you share any practical research, offering literary, archeological, or any other evidence outside of your own mind that might support a hypotheses or experience. Not even a little. Nor have I seen you properly ask for such.

Instead of any normal protocols, you consistently present yourself as a young and arrogant talent, uneducated and inexperienced, either offering unfiltered experience of basic concepts that are twisted with your Analytical Overlay and the assumption that you are seeing the true version of things, or you offer unfiltered experience of completely unique things without clarity, leaving your experience completely worthless to anyone besides yourself.

And I have been guilty of every single one of those things myself when I was younger, but that is not how educated and experienced practitioners do things.

If you want peer review of your experiences, there’s nothing wrong with that. We do that all the time among my peer groups. But in order for that to work, you have to actually apply The Scientific Method. You have to do your own research first, you have to come up with a coherent methodology of experimentation for your idea, and you have to present everything in a way that other people can actually use, experiment with, and see what happens for them.

It does not have to be some huge thesis paper, but your peers do actually need something to review, because publicly posting unfiltered ideas that you have not properly researched or experimented with is not peer review.

That’s asking other people to do your research and experimentation for you while taking credit for the initial idea or experience, which is incredibly discourteous and disrespectful.

Oh, and by the way, there is exactly one place where I have ever heard of gods being presented as dried up husks that may continue to dry up until they die, all due to lack of human worship.

The fantasy novel American Gods, by Neil Gaiman.

One of my favorite novels for a variety of reasons, but not at all a reliable source for real magic or mythology.

In most traditional magic and mythology, even if a god or most other spirits happens to die, they usually just go to the underworld like the rest of us. Where they can still be communicated with, or even revived later. Some traditions do believe total death is possible for a god, or that mortal beings like nymphs simply cease to exist after death, but the entire concept of the gods needing humans to exist to begin with is a concept that is very recent in human history.

They certainly do gain some benefit from worship, but that doesn’t mean the chthonic, terrestrial, or celestial things they represent cease to exist without a particular cultural form, nor does it mean that those cosmic forces lose the ability to take on a specific cultural avatar they used to wear.

What you’re experiencing likely has more to do with you and your method of interacting with that being than the being itself. If you paused to ask what your experience may mean in the language of symbolism, you might have already found an answer on your own.

What I HAVE had, in abundance, is dogmatic religion forced down my throat along with their fabricated version of "Facts."

A lot of us have religious trauma and have to account for that in our path.

Go to therapy and work on healing it instead of letting your trauma hold you back.

 

[Mider2009]

Nah, see. There are plenty of us who talk about a lot of things, including “extraordinary” powers and experiences. We have this forum and others where we talk according to our time and interest, there are a few Facebook groups for serious practitioners, there are books and blogs where serious practitioners discuss things, podcasts like Glitch Bottle and Oraculos, and of course open offline groups where we meet physically or exchange physical correspondence and support in various ways.

I’m involved in several of these, from several different traditions. Bardonite, Grimoire Tradition, Greek Magical Papyri Tradition, Norse Religion and Magic, and Hellenic Religion and Magic being my main circles lately. And we talk about and exchange all kinds of ideas and experiments.

There is simply a process we adhere to that I have not once seen you follow on this forum, and your fluffy methodology leaves serious practitioners wary of you.

I have not once seen you account for Analytical Overlay in any way, nor account for the language of symbolism innate to visionary experience. You only present your unfiltered experiences with the delusional presumption that your clairvoyance is good enough to see through anything perfectly, without your mind placing any overlay on it and without considering the symbolic meanings of things.

I have not once seen you share any practical methodology that others can follow along to repeat an experiment where similar results might follow. Even in this thread alone, you have refused to publicly share details of your experience regarding context, who or what you think the entities may be, or anything else another practitioner may use to project to or conjure an entity to test your experience for themselves.

I have not once seen you share any practical research, offering literary, archeological, or any other evidence outside of your own mind that might support a hypotheses or experience. Not even a little. Nor have I seen you properly ask for such.

Instead of any normal protocols, you consistently present yourself as a young and arrogant talent, uneducated and inexperienced, either offering unfiltered experience of basic concepts that are twisted with your Analytical Overlay and the assumption that you are seeing the true version of things, or you offer unfiltered experience of completely unique things without clarity, leaving your experience completely worthless to anyone besides yourself.

And I have been guilty of every single one of those things myself when I was younger, but that is not how educated and experienced practitioners do things.

If you want peer review of your experiences, there’s nothing wrong with that. We do that all the time among my peer groups. But in order for that to work, you have to actually apply The Scientific Method. You have to do your own research first, you have to come up with a coherent methodology of experimentation for your idea, and you have to present everything in a way that other people can actually use, experiment with, and see what happens for them.

It does not have to be some huge thesis paper, but your peers do actually need something to review, because publicly posting unfiltered ideas that you have not properly researched or experimented with is not peer review.

That’s asking other people to do your research and experimentation for you while taking credit for the initial idea or experience, which is incredibly discourteous and disrespectful.

Oh, and by the way, there is exactly one place where I have ever heard of gods being presented as dried up husks that may continue to dry up until they die, all due to lack of human worship.

The fantasy novel American Gods, by Neil Gaiman.

One of my favorite novels for a variety of reasons, but not at all a reliable source for real magic or mythology.

In most traditional magic and mythology, even if a god or most other spirits happens to die, they usually just go to the underworld like the rest of us. Where they can still be communicated with, or even revived later. Some traditions do believe total death is possible for a god, or that mortal beings like nymphs simply cease to exist after death, but the entire concept of the gods needing humans to exist to begin with is a concept that is very recent in human history.

They certainly do gain some benefit from worship, but that doesn’t mean the chthonic, terrestrial, or celestial things they represent cease to exist without a particular cultural form, nor does it mean that those cosmic forces lose the ability to take on a specific cultural avatar they used to wear.

What you’re experiencing likely has more to do with you and your method of interacting with that being than the being itself. If you paused to ask what your experience may mean in the language of symbolism, you might have already found an answer on your own.




A lot of us have religious trauma and have to account for that in our path.

Go to therapy and work on healing it instead of letting your trauma hold you back.

Interesting points, even a bit of education helps.

its like when someone has a vision and the spirit appears in flames, the flames are just what your mind sees or what your mind interprets.

 

[Alfher]

Interesting points, even a bit of education helps.

its like when someone has a vision and the spirit appears in flames, the flames are just what your mind sees or what your mind interprets.

Yup.

In traditional magic in particular, gods and spirits regularly appear in specific forms not just because of a practitioners preconceived expectations or Analytical Overlay, but also because the language of symbolism is often used to convey conceptual knowledge without having to vocalize that part of the interaction.

And that’s not just a mental thing either.

When I moved to a house on the corner of the crossroads, I realized I had Hekate’s attention not because of visionary experiences at first, but because a physical, pregnant black dog showed up and warily showed interest in me and my family. So I decided to start feeding and watering her and the rest of the neighborhood strays as an offering to both Hekate and the other local land spirits, and have since built spiritual relationships that have benefited me greatly.

All because of a physical symbol of a goddess.

The language of symbolism and the traditional cultural symbols of beings are extremely important in magic.

 

[Roma]

The post that I just quoted in this reply, is all form and no substance. Beautiful words and no meaning.

I was surprised on another forum to discover that many of the posters thought only in words.

One of the posters wrote that he only knew what he had words for. I suppose that is why, in my day, we were encouraged to learn another language - to increase the range of words available.

Still, there were several posters that generally thought with images/concepts rather than words.

It is also possible to think using/following energies and this is because the mind is not only a logic engine, it is also potentially a complex sense organ - hence the quote above about beautiful words.

It takes a long time to develop the mental senses (12 per subplane?) to the level that they can be relied upon.