What is the origin of the progression below? Where does it come from? What books besides "Initiation Into Hermetics" advocate it?
Progression:
1. Follow your train of thought for x amount of time (usually ten minutes).
2. Focus on one thought for x mins, e.g. "Skellingtons r real."
3. Looks at a simple object and hold the image in your mind.
4. Add all other senses to the object.
5. Make the object appear in front of you with eyes open, hold for x minutes.
6. Make it a succubus and put it in its pooper (not actually a step, sorry)
>>17202584
lol where did all the expert wizards suddenly disappear to?
>>17202584
It emerges through trial and error every century or so. It's a way to hack the neural mechanism but it doesn't actually create any magic.
>>17202757
>It emerges through trial and error every century or so.
I see no support for that statement. Why would it have to be rediscovered if it's written down, unless the writing is lost.
>It's a way to hack the neural mechanism but it doesn't actually create any magic.
There is no hack, it's just focus practice. Anyway, anyone who mastered it should be a god-tier artist, which occultists generally don't seem to be.
All of that is of topic though.
>>17203302
>Why would it have to be rediscovered if it's written down, unless the writing is lost.
Go back and try again. You answered you own question. Now try interpreting my meaning WITH the understanding that I have at least as much of an ability to think and reason as you do.
>>17203353
>Go back and try again. You answered you own question.
Doesn't make sense. Texts weren't just "lost" after the 5th century, but let's say 10th just so nobody argues semantics, as that's a waste of time. Especially concepts that alchemists at least in China, Europe, the Middle East, and Egypt were interested in.
>WITH the understanding that I have at least as much of an ability to think and reason as you do.
1. That's far from being a given.
2. Stop being cryptic - that generally means you have nothing to say on this board and are trying to cover with vague bullshit.
>>17203372
>argues semantics
Do you actually know what this means or have you formed a trope about it in your mind that just doesn't exist for the rest of us?
>>17203372
>1. That's far from being a given.
You haven't met me. It is logically impossible for you to form even a primitive analysis of my faculties.
>2. Stop being cryptic
There was nothing cryptic about what I said. I've already ascertained that you primary motive here is to argue rather than discuss your own topic, so I see no reason to bother discussing it with other, more readily worthy, /x/philes.
