Experiment restart

Posted on August 29, 2010
Filed Under Experiments, Magic, mystical journeys | 7 Comments

About five or so years ago I invented a technique where a person could contact their neurotransmitters as entities and then work with them to make changes to the chemistry of the body. For a time I worked with a group of people and we tested out the technique and concept. We got some interesting results, took it some places, and then went our separate ways.

Since that time I never really got back to those experiments. There were a variety of reasons for that, but five years later and I’m finally ready to dive back in and I’ve got some people I can work with on further developments. I’m starting out with the basic technique again, reacquainting myself with each neurotransmitter, so you may see some notes on the neurotransmitter work on here, as a result.

I’m also restarting some work I’ve done with my modified version of the Tibetan Tumo technique. I’ve decided to utilize the modified version to do some daily work with the elements of space and time.

So I’m going back to some of my roots, experimentally speaking and it should make for some interesting work and developments in those respective areas. What helps is I have a magical partner that will help keep me on track and focused. I’ve missed having someone to work with who gets my ideas and wants to explore them, but now I have such a person in my life and that helps immensely.

Comments

7 comments
R. Eugene Laughlin
R. Eugene Laughlin

I see, you're classifying a pantheon using the names of the NTs, and presumably whatever semantic constructs your cognitive system has built up around those names. It's an interesting idea.

Unless you have indices of your NT levels/activity/function before and after performaing the magical work, you can't support the assumption that your magical procedure "changes the chemistry of your body." So without that data in hand, my advice is to dial back on that claim until you have the means to test it. It wouldn't be easy, it would be expensive, but it is a testable hypothesis, which I definately appreciate it.

I think there's plenty of potential value in the technique without that validation, by the way. I've long felt that the Goetic pantheon belongs to a very different cultural epoch, and modern practitioners need more relevant alternatives. Why not NTs as a basis?

You might want to consider the receptors though. The same NT can have diametrically opposed physiological effects depending on the species of receptor it's interacting with. 5Ht has 7 currently known types, DA has two families with 2-3 subtypes each, and NE has at least 12 distinct types of receptors. In terms of personality, you may find a much more diverse pantheon there.

Given that other people have used this process to contact and work with NT's and obtain similar results (chronicled in Inner Alchemy) I don't really think I need to dial back my claim. I don't have access to expensive scientific equipment to measure before and after states admittedly, but you work with what you got and if it does work consistently, for yourself and other people, chances are your process works.

I agree with you about the receptors. The cosmological universe of the body gets expanded quite a bit when you move beyond just the Neurotransmitters.

R. Eugene Laughlin
R. Eugene Laughlin

If you make claims about changes in the body without measuring changes in the body, you do yourself and the whole of the occult studies community a disservice. I encourage you to stop, unless you actually intend to test it and then publish the outcome whether it supports the hypothesis or not.

The value of the technique needn't depend on unfounded claims of physiological effects. What you're doing is truly interesting, in my opinion. Let me know if you're interested in discussing an alternative model.

We're going around in circles here. I don't agree with your assessment, and I derive that disagreement not just from my own experiences, but from the fact that other people have used this technique and reported changes that seem to be physiological in nature. There's nothing wrong with wanting to raise the bar, but part of how you do that is bringing other people in and having them test the technique and apply it to themselves, and then getting a report about their findings. It may not be as sophisticated as having scientific insturmentation, but when that's what you have, that's what you make do with.Personally I don't think the general public or scientific community will ever accept occultism as a science. I'm less interested in trying to get their approval and more interested in developing and disseminating techniques and processes to people who want to try them out.

R. Eugene Laughlin
R. Eugene Laughlin

The question is, "effective at what?" Just because a technique has some effect doesn't mean it has any effect you think it might or should have. If you're not measuring physiological change then you can't know if the technique causes physiological change and you shouldn't claim it. Whatever change you did measured Claim that. By default, so doing will spur more meaningful dialogue than claiming something that hasn't been tested.

This is not a trivial issue. One of the reasons the general public has a dim view of the occult studies community in general, and the main reason the established scientific community has an even lower opinion than the general public, is because too many "representatives" of the community are willing to make and lamely defend unsubstantiated claims.

It's time to raise the bar. If enough of us set our standards on par with the rest of the scientific research community, eventually we'll be able to attract meaningful academic interest and real research funding. Then the question of whether or not your technique really causes physiological change will become a very simple thing to answer.

On your site you have a saying: "Effectiveness is the measure of truth." My technique, which I developed and refined five years ago and then tested with multiple people works. When all of those people can report a measure of change as a result of the work, and the process is effective, there's your truth. I'm open to discussing an alternative model.