Powered By Saaraan

Aborted Projection

Information and advice for those new to the Occult.

Aborted Projection

Postby blindwake » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:08 am

I've noticed that sometimes when I'm near a sleep state, but not quite, my field of vision will suddenly snap into a scene. It feels magnetic. It's like my vision is sharpened progressively as I enter the scene, and it's as if it "locks" into the scene so that it feels like I'm actually there, and the scene begins to sustain itself without my effort. I've noticed, however, that the moment I start to think about what is happening, my consciousness leaves the scene. It's as if whatever mechanics are behind thinking, and whatever mechanics are behind me entering the scene, are in direct opposition.

There's a very big difference between attempting to visualize something and this. Visualization is like looking at a map, searching for a place. This is like jumping into the map and being at the place.

I can almost trigger the phenomenon by visualization, but not quite. I can mentally picture the scene I want to go to, but I'm not actually at the scene when I'm visualizing it.
It's like I'm building a detail list of the scene in my head, so that when I finally decide to enter the scene, I get the right one. It's like building a street address, but out of scents, smells, sights, etc.
It's like I can see a painting, but I haven't actually entered it yet. It's not "locked on". If I stop actively trying to hold the visualization, it will end.

What forces are at play that cancel the projection? I want to be able to think and act within the projection. Is it possible that I'm sort of getting caught in an event sequence, and that by trying to modify it, I get kicked out? Sort of like how in Assassin's Creed, if Desmond tries to do things which his ancestors did not do, he desynchronizes, and is forced to exit the animus? If this is the case, should I be trying to generate my own new sequence rather than accidentally enter other sequences?

Also, how would I go about projecting into my visualizations? My understanding is that the same issue that is ending projections might be stopping me from entering them. But I'm not sure how I could visualize without thinking. Maybe I could create some sort of constructs / tools to aid in this part?

Pointers would be appreciated.
Full Disclosure: If it sounds like I'm lecturing, it's because it's verbose to write "in my opinion" before everything I write. It's also because I'm confident in what I think, or else I wouldn't think what I do. Please do deconstruct my thoughts.

Argumentation is combat. By accepting, you must be willing to lose. The more I am wrong, the more I can be right.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

Re: Aborted Projection

Postby violetstar » Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:45 pm

You may be interested in the Transworld Identity theory expounded by Chisholm in “Identity through Possible Worlds" (1967) Using this as a framework an interesting analogy is as follows;

One such argument goes as follows.Taking Adam and Noah in the actual world as our examples (and pretending, for the sake of the example, that the biblical characters are real people), then, on the plausible assumption that not all of their properties are essential to them, it seems that there is a possible world in which Adam is a little more like the actual Noah than he actually was, and Noah a little more like the actual Adam than he actually was. But if there is such a world, then it seems that there should be a further world in which Adam is yet more like the actual Noah, and Noah yet more like the actual Adam. Proceeding in this way, it looks as if we may arrive ultimately at a possible world that is exactly like the actual world, except that Adam and Noah have ‘switched roles’ (plus any further differences that follow logically from this, such as the fact that in the ‘role-switching’ world Eve is the consort of a man who plays the Adam role, but is in fact Noah). But if this can happen with Adam and Noah, then it seems that it could happen with any two actual individuals. For example, it looks as if there will be a possible world that is a duplicate of the actual world except for the fact that in this world you play the role that Queen Victoria plays in the actual world, and she plays the role that you play in the actual world. But this may seem intolerable. Is it really the case that Queen Victoria could have had all your actual properties (except for identity with you) while you had all of hers (except for identity with her)?

However, if one thinks that such conclusions are intolerable, how are they to be avoided? The obvious answer is that what is needed, in the Adam-Noah case, is that the roles played by Adam and Noah in the actual world include some properties that are essential to their bearers’ being Adam and Noah respectively: that Adam and Noah differ non-trivially in their essential properties as well as in their accidental properties: more precisely, that Adam has some essential property that Noah essentially lacks, or vice versa. For if ‘the Adam role’ includes some property that Noah essentially lacks, then, of course, there is no possible world in which Noah has that property, in which case the Adam role (in all its detail) is not a possible role for Noah, and the danger of a role-switching world such as the one described above is avoided.

The supposition that Adam and Noah differ in their essential properties in this way, although sufficient to block the generation of this example of a role-switching world, does not by itself imply that each of Adam and Noah has an individual essence: a set of essential properties whose possession is (not only necessary but also) sufficient for being Adam or Noah. Suppose that Adam has, as one of his essential properties, living in the Garden of Eden, whereas Noah essentially lacks this property. This will block the possibility of Noah’s playing the Adam role, although it does not, by itself, imply that nothing other than Adam could play that role. However, when we reflect on the potential generality of the argument, it appears that, if we are to block all cases of role-switching concerning actual individuals, we must suppose that every actual individual has some essential property (or set of essential properties) that every other actual individual essentially lacks. For example, to block all cases of role-switching concerning Adam and other actual individuals, there must be some component of ‘the Adam role’ that is not only essential to being Adam, but also cannot be played, in any possible world, by any actual individual other than Adam.

Even if we suppose that all actual individuals are distinguished from one another by such ‘distinctive’ essential properties, this still does not, strictly speaking, imply that they have individual essences. For example, it does not rule out the existence of a possible world that is exactly like the actual world except that, in this possible world, the Adam role is played, not by Adam, but by some merely possible individual (distinct from all actual individuals). However, if we find intolerable the idea that there are such possible worlds—worlds that, like the role-switching world, differ from the actual world only in the identities of some of the individuals that they contain—then, it seems, we must suppose that individuals like Adam (and Noah and you) have (non-trivial) individual essences, where an individual essence of Adam is (by definition) some property (or set of properties) that is both essential to being Adam and also such that it is not possessed, in any possible world, by any individual other than Adam—i.e., an essential property (or set of properties) that guarantees that its possessor is Adam and no one else.

Chisholm (1967) arrives at his role-switching world by a series of steps. Thus his argument appears to rely on the combination of the transitivity of identity (across possible worlds) with the assumption that a succession of small changes can add up to a big change. And ‘Chisholm’s Paradox’ (as it is called) is sometimes regarded as relying crucially on these assumptions, suggesting that it has the form of a sprites paradox (the type of paradox that generates, from apparently impeccable assumptions, such absurd conclusions as that a man with a million hairs on his head is bald).

However, there are versions of the role-switching argument that do not rely on the cumulative effect of a series of small changes. Suppose we assume that Adam and Noah do not differ from one another in their essential properties; in other words, that all the differences between them are accidental (i.e., contingent) differences. It seems immediately to follow that any way that Adam could have been is a way that Noah could have been, and vice versa. But one way that Adam could have been is the way Adam actually is, and one way that Noah could have been is the way Noah actually is. So (if Adam and Noah do not differ in their essential properties) it seems that there is a possible world in which Adam plays the Noah role, and a possible world in which Noah plays the Adam role. But there is no obvious reason why a world in which Adam plays the Noah role and a world in which Noah plays the Adam role shouldn't be the very same world. And in that case there is a possible world in which Adam and Noah have swapped their roles. This argument for the generation of a role-switching world does not rely on a series of small changes: all that it requires is the assumption that there is no essential difference between Noah and Adam: or, to put it another way, that any essential property of Noah is also an essential property of Adam, and vice versa.
Self-love only is the eternal all pleasing, by meditation on this effulgent self which is mystic joyousness-AOS
violetstar
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:13 am
Location: UK

Re: Aborted Projection

Postby blindwake » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:14 am

Your suggestion has been quite useful so far. I am currently trying to develop a procedure for projection, but it will likely take some time.
In the mean time, could you please explain how you think the Transworld Identity theory is helpful in this topic? I definitely see its uses myself, but I want your take on it.
Full Disclosure: If it sounds like I'm lecturing, it's because it's verbose to write "in my opinion" before everything I write. It's also because I'm confident in what I think, or else I wouldn't think what I do. Please do deconstruct my thoughts.

Argumentation is combat. By accepting, you must be willing to lose. The more I am wrong, the more I can be right.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.

Re: Aborted Projection

Postby Spida » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:18 am

blindwake wrote:I've noticed that sometimes when I'm near a sleep state, but not quite, my field of vision will suddenly snap into a scene. It feels magnetic. It's like my vision is sharpened progressively as I enter the scene, and it's as if it "locks" into the scene so that it feels like I'm actually there, and the scene begins to sustain itself without my effort. I've noticed, however, that the moment I start to think about what is happening, my consciousness leaves the scene. It's as if whatever mechanics are behind thinking, and whatever mechanics are behind me entering the scene, are in direct opposition.


I just want to comment on this to tell you that I know exactly what you are talking about. There is a transition that occurs here. You could call it a nexus, threshold, or simply a transitory state. This is analogous to a switch. Obviously the trick is complete the transition, and maintain it. It's that lacuna that you have to pass through where everything is lost, so if you can't maintain a coherent state of consciousness during the transition, than you must have a trigger on the other side. It's very difficult.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one!
- Albert Einstein

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane!
- Nikola Tesla
User avatar
Spida
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:48 pm

Re: Aborted Projection

Postby blindwake » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:45 am

I just want to comment on this to tell you that I know exactly what you are talking about. There is a transition that occurs here. You could call it a nexus, threshold, or simply a transitory state. This is analogous to a switch. Obviously the trick is complete the transition, and maintain it. It's that lacuna that you have to pass through where everything is lost, so if you can't maintain a coherent state of consciousness during the transition, than you must have a trigger on the other side. It's very difficult.


It's good to know it's not just me. That shows that there's actually something there to it.

The real struggle is that I'm trying to get away from the idea of using "skill" to surpass the difficulty. I think there's got to be a procedure for it. Surely a brute force strategy works, but it's likely highly inefficient and also difficult to make workable. Also, it doesn't give you any insight into what you're actually doing wrong.

For example, in a fight between two people, it's common for people to think that it comes down to who is "better" at fighting. But in reality, the winner of the fight is already predetermined. It's all numbers. Whoever has more mass will deal more damage. Whoever gets the first hit will be better able to defend themselves. Whoever is faster will be better at dodging, etc. You can't go start a fight and then just suddenly decide to "fight fast", "fight strong", whatever. That's like saying that a foot soldier can take down a tank, without help, by deciding to think like an artillery cannon. So much of a fight is about preparation.

In the same way, I want a procedure that can get past the transition phase consistently. Then I could project at will, and I wouldn't be at the mercy of circumstantial variables.
Then I know exactly what to train for, etc.

If you could provide more details on your experiences, the circumstances of your successes, failures, etc. That would be extremely useful.
Full Disclosure: If it sounds like I'm lecturing, it's because it's verbose to write "in my opinion" before everything I write. It's also because I'm confident in what I think, or else I wouldn't think what I do. Please do deconstruct my thoughts.

Argumentation is combat. By accepting, you must be willing to lose. The more I am wrong, the more I can be right.
User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm dreaming, but there's no wake.


Return to Beginners Info

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Bridge by mehdiplugins.com