Casting a spell-cursing someone | Forum

Drugs Delaney NUTZ
Drugs Delaney Dec 19 '18

What I want to know is when "Tony, who lives in my mouth" becomes the abandoned mailbox full of letters.  

I will call it the frontal cortex spectrum, maybe limbic. Everything from The Shining to A Beautiful Mind.  Possibly The Stand, with Randall Flagg and Mother Abigail somewhere between psychic and delusional. 

From my experience it's best to keep the grains of salt handy, and approach it like the judicial system, wait for the beyond reasonable doubt.  As many times it has been right it has been wrong that much more.  As much as I would like to say there is a difference between something genuine and your own white noise, I just dont know. 

The most I can say for certain is it's talking to your own assumption. 

And apart from religious-minded, the second person sounds like me. 

The Forum post is edited by Drugs Delaney Dec 19 '18
AK Dec 19 '18

What are your thoughts on Bicameralism?


It's possible these sorts of things are a sort of atavistic trait harkening back to that. A notion I find compelling, though inconclusive.


With the first one we had an element of fixity of conviction in these auditory phenomena that I just couldn't get them to reconsider. 

"What I don't understand is why do you feel you have to listen to this voice even if it is or claims to be your (extraterrestrial) mother? You don't even listen to your own mother. Even if you are in fact an alien, the reality is you're here on earth and that's probably not going to change in the foreseeable future". 

A partial answer to the question of why those so afflicted go so far as to listen and obey these voices as infallible, may lie in bicameral theory as well as what is hinted-at in "The evil within" - totally worth checking out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Ii4AaiBKI

*and also illustrates why I'm not so quick to just recommend people "play around" with summoning demons an what not.

As to the second one, yeah, it turns out not everyone so afflicted is walking the streets homeless and muttering to themselves in soiled clothes stinking of piss. A surprising number of them are hyper-intelligent as well as hyper-productive on-the-whole despite the occasional lapse. Which makes sense: they'd have to be perceptive enough to question the accuracy of their own perceptions in order to function at all in society - a trait certainly not found in those of average-to-below-average mental acuity.  

The Forum post is edited by AK Dec 19 '18
Dark Enlightenment
Dark Enlightenment Dec 20 '18
I think more Jungian than bicameral.

Bicameral seems a misinterpretation of the conscious (speaking mind) subservience to the unconscious, and interaction between the two.  But I understand exactly what they are driving at.

Mankind has progressed meme-wise too, and also really has varied along the way in how it perceives consciousness. 

Aborigines have been genetically isolated for 50k years. They literally have 44 chromosomes, 42+2...  Everyone else is 44+2 (not counting extra x or y chromosomes) 

Actually, this Fan-made Tool Video tosses out the idea, try arguing it, fun times...


My theory is amalgamated from too many sources to count.

The "muses" so to speak are embedded in the collective unconscious and are ALWAYS a reflection of times.  "The god(s) were just" from Mesopotamia to the scientific method. Those red words have since faded from prominence, just like polytheism faded to obscurity west of India. 

No one has to do anything because it's already there, and quite honestly only a defect of having minds capable of ideology.  Whales and Dolphins have names and elephants bury their dead, that's about the closest to us on this planet it gets. They have no society for us to identify archetypes, other than Lucifer Principle typecasting.

For earlier man being so devoted to the gods in the sky made their muses far more, well bat shit hostile and religiously fearful.  The scientific method is gaining ground in the unconscious much like a religion would. The change they allude to is just the unconscious reflecting level of development and knowledge advancement. 

This is actually the entire mechanism behind aeonics.  The lyrical "46+2" that is just ahead is man reconsidering it's place in the universe, how it perceives itself in relation, and how this self-perception moves them through life. 

The next step kills all of god's special little creatures. 

In summary: The voices people hear and what they say is always within their known lexicon.

And the motherfuckers never know the god damn time.

On a side note: I don't know about others, but for me it is non-auditory auditory. It's an intetnal sometimes antagonist bitch that doesn't shut the fuck up, ever.

Have you ever tried to rape a non-auditory voice in your head?   

*** God damnit DE is Internet Explorer and Drugs is chrome. ***

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Dec 20 '18
AK Dec 20 '18

Bicameralism is a hypothesis that consciousness as we know it today is a fairly recent development in human evolution that co-evolved along with the development of written language. Prior to that and as recently as ~3,000 years ago, something to the effect of "command hallucinations" (i.e. "voice of god(s)") were the norm essentially suggesting that they were one and the same. It makes for some tantalizing new ways of looking at religious anthropology and psychology; ones that are suggestive as to why the organized religions that still remain may have well served their purpose and out-lived their usefulness once literacy and education became the norm. This ties into notions of the logos, and the end of the apostolic age coinciding with the book of Revelation. That literacy was, and is, a pretty big deal! "in the beginning was the word". 

*in other words: we've already, by-in-large, evolved past thinking in this bicameral manner, but only very recently. Because it was only recently, we can expect to see vestiges of this precedent mode of cognition in the form of schizophrenia and the like crop up in a certain percentage of the population due to gradations in evolution, recessive traits, and the like. Bicameralism attributes schizophrenia to an atavistic mode of cognition that was once quite common - attempting to explain the exception rather than the rule; asserting that "reason" itself is a radically new and emergent phenomena. That, in the face of novel situations, our not-so-distant ancestors were not at all like us - they were not guided by reason or intellect, but instead by impulse, divine inspiration, and things more akin to command hallucinations. Divine decree.

or "that thinking was for the gloopy ones"

*note: To Alex's left, the mindless corporeal goon. To his right the intellectual. Behind, the nameless follower.

Of course it is, for however interesting, just a hypothesis. 

Jungian psychology is also an area that has a great deal of taxonomic and categorical applicability not to be dismissed. There is utility in it. Even so, it is lacking in explanatory potency (i.e. from whence do these archetypes emerge? By what mechanism?), and often times, as is noted in Jung's The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga, runs into a situation where it is clear that he is shoehorning esoteric concepts and practices in a clinical manner for which they may not fit. Fortunately, this is made clear in the introduction to this very publication:

*concerning Yoga

"It is very significant that the Indian Breathing which have been popularized by Swami Vivekananda through his lectures in America, have not helped a single American to a higher condition, but, on the other hand, are reported to have brought all the more into hospitals and lunatic asylums... It has not been proved, even of the most harmless exercises,... that they are appropriate to the organism of the European." - Keyserling. The travel diary of the philosopher. 

This, I attribute not to any sort of genetic or even cultural condition, but rather that it is one thing to study, analyze, categorize, compare and contrast - as the "western mind" is predisposed to doing - where it remains a sort of abstraction or intellectual curiosity, but quite another to practice. The map is not the terrain analogy applies here. The map is safe. The terrain is unforgiving. 

One might add that "study not worship" could well use some refinement. 

The possibility of states of mind above and beneath that of the conscious internal dialogue is perfectly intelligible even to one firmly indoctrinated to the primacy of the intellect. The experience brought about by practice and application, however, is one in which the intellect is of no avail save but to communicate - and often poorly. Consider: intuition, nightmares, acid trips, strokes of genius, or even the often over-looked tacit understandings and the like. Things that which to communicate requires precision of language to such a degree that one might be well better off resorting to poetry, allegory, or, better still, silence on the matter altogether. The mind does more than reason, but because reason and sanity are so closely coupled, descending or ascending into other operant modalities outside of reason - especially in a deliberate manner - are never without peril. There's as much danger in not taking it seriously enough as there is in taking it too seriously. (hence my avatar)

Knowing of the concept of archetypes, is somewhat safer - more clinical - than the actual knowing of the archetypes themselves. Jung offers little by way of guidance in the latter's regard. Such guidance is precluded by the limitations of language.

To your points, though: "The "muses" so to speak are embedded in the collective unconscious and are ALWAYS a reflection of times" and "The voices people hear and what they say is always within their known lexicon."  There's much to be said for that! How are aliens and demons so seemingly conversant in English? Why are their revealed names ones I've read about before? And how can anyone be so entirely sure they are who they claim to be?

It was not lost on me that almost without fail the "names" of these voices in both people's heads were always ones you could find in mythology. Common ones. As one pointed out to me "Lilith chicks are a dime a dozen". It's always "Lilith" or "Satan" or "Samael" or "Astorath" or "Azazel" etc. It's never something wholly unique and unheard of like you'd find with, say, Lovecraft or Kenneth Grant, and this lends credibility to your stance on the matter. 

Then again, perhaps the collective unconscious is both within and without. 

*Side note: I suspect I should pay more attention to Tool. Nearly everyone I talk to about these sorts of things says "Dude, you'd really dig Tool!"... I never followed-up with that, though. Though, from a cursory glance, Maynard does seem to know a thing or two about a thing or three. 

For the others, both exhibits A and B mentioned previously it is, and was, auditory-auditory. Hearing as-if in the same room. Present. External. The way I experience such things when tinkering in the hypnagogic ->yoga nidra-> astral "projection", and have also experienced on those two occasions where I forced myself through the DTs as some sort of perversely reckless Dionysian rite. They are identical except insofar as the latter persisted of its own accord long after I had about enough of it. 

In both scenarios I know and was cognizant as to why it is happening and it is always met with a "I did this to myself. Nice work, 'genius'"

It's not so crazy as it sounds. Atmospherics. What one finds when, just on the cusp of sleep, they are jolted wide awake by what sounds like someone speaking their name.

The non-auditory auditory: That's basically a given. A given remedied by a general disposition that doesn't really listen to anyone or anything with any amount of consistency; not even myself. Where apathy, from what I gather, avails you; non-committal and mercurial whim does much the same in my case. Heard, listened, then decided not to the instant it stopped being novel. I suspect more deal with this sort of thing than care to admit; and they deal with it in ways they haven't much thought about. The internal dialogue is an inherently noisy signal. 

As to what on earth this all has to do with the OP on how to "curse" someone. It's tacit. The tacit implies a mode of cognition and apprehension that does not translate well into words. 'may as well have asked how to do a kick-flip. The answers are the same: you have to practice, you risk - no. guarantee! - injuring yourself in the process, and will never have words enough to explain how it is done once you figure it out because it's just not within the domain of verbal expression except in a purely apophatic sense. Not many things outside the realm of math, logic, and poetry are.

Addendum: *** God damnit DE is Internet Explorer and Drugs is chrome. ***

Don't fuck it up. 

watch, and re-watch, and re-re-watch - pay attention - whoever bothers to read this.

The Forum post is edited by AK Dec 21 '18
Dark Enlightenment
Dark Enlightenment Dec 21 '18

Sumar, Egypt, Canaan, Akaad, Judah, and so on... All competing for who gets to build the next temple on the same spot.  It seems to have really got going 3000 years ago when oratory went the way of cassettes for this new idea called writing. 

That started the Religilous age. They could now write down their wacky stories.

But that is not my argument.

My argument (theory):

Everything that is today, the jump to the technological, civilization itself, was started by the Earth's procession and axial tilt. All societies seemed to emerge from a particular area.

Here is what people usually don't know. There was a very green desert belt following the last ice age ending. Both The Sahara and The Arabian Peninsula were semi-arid grasslands (like Oklahoma) as recently as 5000 BCE, with inland seas, lakes, and everything (and will be once again next procession cycle).  

Evidence suggested everyone left for greener pastures quite literally, which ended up being; The Mediterranean Sea, The Red Sea,  The Nile, The Tigris, and The Euphrates.  Of course everyone that went east for greener pastures stopped when they got to today's Pakistan.

 They had a commom need,  to all be by the only water left. That begat your cradle of civilization.  All of them of historical note. No magical switch unless you count climate.

As successive generations were bred, a new type of adaptation came about. With language and civilization replacing spear chucking on the savannah the "habitat" people bred in prompted some evolution.

I dont think people all of a sudden stopped hearing their thoughts dictated. It actually seems similar  and possibly closer to the precognition lag. Which suggests we are on a seven second broadcast delay no one notices. Maybe language. Maybe The Matrix.

Fuck your free will

Jaynes has a circumstantial case in my mind, because it lacks the smoking gun that says, "THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE literally heard their imagination in the days of The Odessy". That the mind can still be retrained both affirms and contradicts this.

Maybe language rerouted pathways in the mind connecting precognition and the thinking agent, or deemphasized it, and the only way to bring it back is training it or LSD, and especially amphetamines.  The natural appearances of this today may be what we call schizophrenia, and maybe it has always been that way.  

That's all I got. Gonna go get pissed I can't change causality and make slow days busier, then blame the gremlins in my phone. 

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Dec 21 '18
AK Dec 22 '18


There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, 'Morning, boys, how's the water?' And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, 'What the hell is water?'

Like water to these fish, literacy to the literate is so ubiquitous that its significance is over-looked. The advent of symbolic language and the absence thereof is what makes the prehistoric exactly that.

"Everything that is today, the jump to the technological, civilization itself, was started by the Earth's procession and axial tilt. All societies seemed to emerge from a particular area." 

This is factual, yet, leaves much unanswered. We don't exactly see any other animal urbanizing and acquiring symbolic language as a response to this. Perhaps because it wasn't us that needed to evolve, but civilization itself. It - symbolic language - is almost as if an adaption to a radically new environment; an emergent and synthetic one. Certainty not corresponding with the dawn civilization, since this does predate that advent of written language, but rather corresponding with the next step beyond in civilization: urbanization. Uruk and the Uruk expansion.

Urbanization is an interesting focal point for discussion, but one wildly off-topic, so I'll put that on the back burner for now except to say that urbanization necessitates written - symbolic - language which, in turn, is the keystone of non-primitive forms of religion. Written language is to urbanization what water is to civilization. At the level of urbanization, however, things become recursive and meta in that illiteracy in an urban environment not only puts an inhabitant at a distinct disadvantage, but is also a trait that, were all its inhabitants to exhibit, the "environment" itself would fail. 

"I dont think people all of a sudden stopped hearing their thoughts dictated." I agree with this 100%. I don't think it stopped completely even to this day. What I think happened was sort of like this: 

Prior to, say, ~1990 large corporations relied mainly on written records and calculators to crunch their numbers. Senior management in said corporations were used to this and they felt that having a human being do these things manually added a level of personal accountability. Sure, there were mainframes and back-end systems, but they were peripheral and viewed with a certain amount of distrust. Bear in mind, those who were old enough to have put in the 20-30 years necessary to become senior management in 1990 had never so much as touched a computer in their lives. It's just not how things were done. 

Circa 1995, personal computers had proven their viability and their higher-higher ups were basically like "this is a computer. All senior management is issued one. We will train you on how to use it." 

There was, of course, back-lash. "I don't need this fandagled gadget, we've survived 100+ years as a company without them and I spent my entire career without needing one, and I don't plan to start using one now."

"well then what you can plan to do start doing is clear out your desk and start looking for another job, then."

That's how it went down. The writing was on the wall that a new era and a new day was coming, even though it didn't exactly happen over-night.

It was gradual, but 20/20 hindsight, it did happen within an astonishingly short period of time looking back on it now. Under a decade. Of course, there are still some people who don't use computers___ and their pay-grades reflect this.

As to what this adaptation means to how we and future generations think___ I don't know, but I'm curious to see. You and I are of the last generation who will have remembered a time before computers. When things like AOL and Prodigy were novelties. I think it is likely we think "differently" than those who always had internet, and that generation thinks differently than those who were basically born with a smartphone in their hands. 

I imagine the same issues cropped-up with literacy back in the day. Most "prophets" and some philosophers were said to have been illiterate, either by happenstance or having genuine belief that literacy interferes with memory. In that respect I think there is something to be said for what you've stated:

"Maybe language rerouted pathways in the mind connecting precognition and the thinking agent, or deemphasized it, and the only way to bring it back is training it or LSD, and especially amphetamines. "

For as seemingly controversial and absurd of a statement that may seem on the surface to some, I do think it's well within the realm of possibility. 

Below is a test of a chimp doing memory tests. It is hypothesized that the reason they out-perform us in these tests is that with the acquisition of written language there is a trade-off to the detriment of our working memory.

*I will fork the free will discussion on another thread.

As to Jaynes and bicameralism you're right, there's no smoking gun, and I don't think it'll ever get past the stage of hypothesis due to what is provable - but it is an interesting one that leaves allows one to explore the possibility that our minds are evolving much more rapidly than our apparent physiology - I think because it's a sort of cascade effect - evolving minds evolve this synthetic environment of ours that, in turn, selects for further evolving minds recursively. A hypothesis that suggests that the way most people "thought" back when these religious texts were penned was miles apart from what we consider normal today, and by extension, how we were brought up to think may already be anachronistic to those in their early 20s. Now, I'm not saying prior to ~3000 years ago it was a population of raving lunatics, but more like a population of what today we'd call functional schizophrenics. 

*consider Abraham: voices in his head told him to sacrifice his son___ and then! as a covenant with said voice in head, had all males in his household get the skin from their peckers cut right off! Come to someone with that stroke of inspiration nowadays and you'd be off to the funny farm in no time flat whereas back in the day that'd qualify you to be the father of all nations. Go figure.

We only label functional schizophrenics as "ill" with respect to what modern urban civilization selects for in terms of normalcy. A civilization that does not deal in "curses", but instead "law". The latter signifying a shift in paradigms that is at the heart of the Abrahamic trilogy, and I think this is very much related to a built-in need to address the problems that come with urbanization: poverty and violence - issues churches were designed to address through charity and/or indoctrination respectively. As if institutions specifically designed to replace what was lost by way of the spirit of communality otherwise lost in the transition from rural to urban.

The Forum post is edited by AK Dec 22 '18
roycoolman Apr 24
Hello guys, can anyone teach me black magic? i need to take someones life and im too far away.
Brother Shamus
No way to do it in person?

Spirit Airlines is pretty damn cheap, but OK.

Ok, here is what you do. 

You either take a picture of them on write their name down on a piece of paper and spit on it. Then you tear it up you are a bald bitch and that is a picture of Pope John Paul II and forcefully say what you want to happen. You can even piss on the torn pieces for extra "Mojo".  Either way flush it down the toilet. 


A more advanced one I call, "New Age Celluoid Super Voodoo".

It involves, crystals, a pop culture archrtype, graveyard something, one egg, 3 candles, and a personal belonging of the target. 

It totally works.

The Forum post is edited by Brother Shamus Apr 24
Hexenmeister Apr 27
there's a book called "mastering witchcraft" that has a section on cursing other people
Pages: « 1 2 3
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.