Well sleeping with it under my pillow was to charge it with dream energy, as far as taking it too far. It seemed to work, so I dont think I took it too far. There are alot of people on this forum that would do allmost anything to have a LD. Theyve tried sleeping with crystals, or whatever it takes. I found something that works for me. Dont knock it till ya try it.
What makes you say that?
Hm? Dream energy?
Never heard of it. Care to explain?
Lul. Playing ‘Mister skeptical’? Such sass.
[size=59]I like it.[/size]
Telepathy, huh? How does it work?
I send my thoughts to you through rays.
Electromagnetic rays?
Just rays.
Damn it you, what kinds of rays?
I don’t care, man: the less you try to explain, the more likely it is to work.
“Dream energy” sounds great.
I’ll start by saying “Dream energy” does not mean telepathy, since we’re talking about a man and a doll, not a man and another person.
Telepathy has been studied to death, and no study has produced any replicable results which would support it as a real phenomenon.
He’s making up terms. It might work for him, good, that’s what magick is all about, but I’m just saying: “Dream Energy” does not exist.
Visualizing is allso a helpfull tool in magic, for example if your blessing an object to visuaize lightining coming from your fingers with whatever energy you want it to be charged with. It does sound like childs play, but it works I guess that is if your one to beleive in it. Here is an entersting vid about Magick…
You completely missed the point of my post. I was insisting on what I said earlier, that a scientific mindset is precisely what you don’t need, in order to work magic. Magic is artsy.
I wasn’t implying dream energy has anything to do with telepathy, I was merely saying that visualising “dream energy” in order to “charge” the doll is the same as visualising telepathy as “rays”: so long as you’re not trying to be scientific about it, and know it’s all art and play, people better mind their own business than go cranky skeptic about it.
Skepticism completely misses the point of what’s being done. No one is trying to bend the rules of the physical world by using such words as “rays” or “energy”. We’re not defying physics here. It would be arrogant to defy science, but it’s every last bit as arrogant to question magic on the grounds that it’s not scientific. Of course it isn’t! It doesn’t even try to. Apples and oranges.
“Dream energy” is perfectly fine.
Bruno, I didn’t “completely miss the point” of your post. I know what you are trying to say, but, I mean, there must be some faint logical way of understanding magick.
And, I just wanted him to define his terms. I’m curious as to how he would define “dream energy”. If it’s working for him, I’d like to know more about it.
And magick is not “art” in the classical sense. Magick is an art, anything can be an art. Talking is an art.
There is a logical way of understanding magic, it’s not even a faint one. It’s simply not materialism, that’s what I’ve been trying to say for three posts now. 
Which is why he has absolutely no need to define “dream energy”. He’s not talking about “energy equals mass times acceleration times variation in space.” He’s not talking about any objective, mensurable energy.
He is talking about an energy which can be experienced, tested and verified; except, not in an objective, materialistic sense. If you repeat his experiment in a spirit of play, not too attached to whatever dogmas you might have, not too disinterested about the result of your experiment, you’ll experience energy too. Energy here is a tool. It needs no definition.
So dream energy is dream energy. There is no ulterior definition. The best he can give you are some associations, perhaps a description of what dream energy feels like, but there is no definition further than “dream energy is dream energy.”
Also, magic is art, not “an” art. Every work of art can be a work of magic, and every work of magic can be a work of art. If you need to draw a line, I’d prefer you say either that art is the first magical tradition, or that magic is the first school of art.
It occurred to me that it would be fruitful for both of us to take this discussion OUT of the public space of the forum, to private messages or emails or whatever, until we can reach a consensus. What say you?
No, I don’t want to continue ‘discussing’. It’s all very draining, and at this point, off topic.
I’m comfortable with agreeing to disagree.
I want someone to explain the art=magic dealio/opinion to me.
I am a fan of his, but I didn’t know about that video. (Thanks for the link, by the way.)
This is nice!.. Mm, we should poke a moderator to split this discussion out of Area51’s topic, maybe, we’re drifting offtopic.
Crow: we’re usually dominated by ideas. Our agency over the world is mediated by the strucutures we raise with ideas. We can construct, mold, manipulate those structures to an extent, but in our normal state, we also allow them to constrain us, bind us, even control us.
In Art and Magic, not so much.
They get a hold of the structures, force them to an arguably rightful place, as subjects of us people. That’s the sense in which sentences like “Every intentional act is an act of magick” and “Magick is the science, art and culture of experiencing Truth” can be read. That’s also why magic is not serious or silly, religious, philosophical or scientific per se. It doesn’t submit—every last bit like art. Magic is art, and art is magic. The driving force behind black magic is the hunger for power. It’s ultimate aim was stated, apropriately enough, by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. […] Carried to its furthest extreme, the black magician’s ambition is to wield supreme power over the universe, to make himself a god.
—Richard Cavendish, The Black Arts
Eh, can you give me an example of how it’s art, because I still don’t understand. It could be because I’m still groggy from waking, or that I just completely disagree and can’t comprehend your opinion. We’ll find out which.
The closest I get is, art can be magick, but only if it’s created with that intention. The ritual or spell become the process of the piece, it’s making. And then the final result is the vessel or manifestation of your intentions.
They can go hand in hand, but they are certainly not the same.
Okay - Okay ! Just giving my opinion - don’t need to be affected by what I say. If it works for you good for you ! Keep it going 
Crow: Sure. 
The other day I did hang a voodoo doll upside down to get a friend to call me (surprisingly, it worked, and within just a minute too—I was expecting at best a result in dreams from this one). Forget the whole “this is a magical ritual” mindset and look at what happened. I wanted a friend to call me, so I hung a doll upside down and told it to call me.
Regardless of results, this is almost like a child’s game: uncompromising, playful, creative. It expresses something from within me, manifests something from my spirit in the real world. It doesn’t care if the world thinks it preposterous, and by taking that stand, it becomes an object of apreciation in a way: people look at it and feel it’s making sense right there in front of them, creating a fresh batch of meaning right before their eyes. It’s art, it’s a kind of art.
I suppose it’s just as well if you disagree with me, but do you see what I’m saying?
Magic is not about the results. The results will come about, they’re inherent to magic. But the meaning making part is what counts. Having a go at creation. Art is just the same: it has endless results and it’s appreciated, mistaken even, for its results. But the kick, I feel, is the creation.
Well, Christianity is against spells and spiritual things. The only spiritual relationship which you should have is with God.
They talk about this somewhere in the Bible. I don’t know where… This king was in a war. He needed some advice so he went to a witch who summoned the spirit of Paul I believe (who was dead). He appeared and told this king something like “What made you do this ? You will lose the war and you will die at sundown !”. The king was like speechless for the rest of the day and what Paul said came true.
Don: on the other hand, prophets interpreted dreams, parted waters, cursed, blessed and King Solomon in particular even tamed himself a horde of demons.
Eh, I get it, but it’s going in the category with fluxus. It makes sense, but it’s the kind of art where you go and buy a urinal and put it in a museum.
This is the sort of thinking that sets fires. Destructive ones, not a fire of creation and life.
When I was ‘christian’ I went to Jesus Camp, and we had to do confession there. At the time, I had been through plenty of strange experiences, and had been reading cards for a while.
I believe there is something about ‘casting lots’ or divination of sorts (though I think it’s for the weather), which would rule tarot as a big ‘nono’. (I really don’t feel like doing the research right now.)
Anyway, so I went to confession, with a mild bit of sass in my mind, told the priest about my experiences and the card reading. To my surprise, he was completely fine with both of these things. He didn’t tell me to reject either, he told me it was a gift, and that I should continue to develop it. The only warning he gave was to make sure no one because addicted to card readings, and let them completely control their life.
My mind was blown.
On the other hand, if I confessed that in other places of the world, I’d probably be burned in that fire I mentioned earlier.
So my point is, whether or not magick agrees with religion is purely a matter of interpretation.