Hello! Could you help identify the state of consciousness described by the short poem I wrote below? 


Holographic facade already encapsulates you

And you feel what isn't even darkness just beyond

What used to be your hands-
What used to be your hands?
Oh

…

Reverberating with the nowhere
Latticing through now

Reconstitutes my formations
Perhaps a little changed

What is a state of consciousness? 

And, I'm not trying to be deep and insightful. I just want to know what you are talking about.
​​​​​​​

A state of consciousness, for the purpose of this thread, is a selection of patterns or qualities in the ways one perceives/experiences.

I admittedly titled this thread poorly, as the poem has probably 5 or 6 states of consciousness. I was just assuming that there were established names for the practice as a whole 

I'm thinking about refering to it as "seeing the sky."

State of consciousness is a selection of patterns or qualities in the way one perceives/experiences. So states of consciousness are conceptual, based on how the mind perceives experience. So it's based on conceptual thought. So the state of consciousness of your poem is thought.

Whether we classify it as a kind of thought doesn't really matter much, does it?

There is just perceiving and experience, that's all that is happening now. Just seeing, just hearing, just smelling, touching, thinking. State of consciousness is a thought. And, no, it doesn't matter.

Perhaps the poem is the best description. It may not be that there are some finite number of states of consciousness. It could be that there are an unlimited variety of states of consciousness. 

State of consciousness #865

Okay, point taken on names.


Is there reason to suspect that repeatedly engaging in this experience would be harmful?


What about using the reintegration phase at the end as a tool for magickal purposes?

Tell us a little more about the experience. 

​​​​​​​How does it feel to reverberate with the nowhere? Sounds nice, is it? 

“Reverberating with nowhere” doesn't feel either “good” or “bad.”

In the views I'm currently making use of, all that we see or seem (is but a dream within a dream and) are but pixels on a screen.

The pixels are consciousness-sparks: whatever appear to be the smallest pieces of experiencing which can be perceived in the moment.

“Good” and “bad” are both in-formation, meaning that they are configurations of the these pixels, consciousness sparks which are in particular formations, like members of a marching band performing across the field of my perception.

“Reverberating with nowhere” alludes to the sensation I get when more fully directing attention beyond the screen of pixels- when attention is directed towards what has the quality of darkness due to the sea of perception which stands before it.

“Reverberating” probably isn't the best word. I'm not sure what is.

That experience of reverberation is a kind of in-formation for sure, but it's one which seems to arise in direct resonance with the “nowhere,” as opposed to arising from resonance with other in-formation clouds. I think it doesn't have good or bad qualities because it doesn't arise in response to in-formation clouds.

But sometimes it feels like even the reverberation with nowhere seems so near that it is distant, like when patterned fabric is held up to the eyes and one sees between the threads with only the faintest coloration from the fabric which is now too close to your eyes to see. This is the holographic facade who already encapsulates.

The thought is that one could weave a slightly different pattern of fabric as the face pulls away. This is my current magickal use.

This means you could induce various “good” feeling qualities while reverberating. I've been doing this in an effort to change my instinctual reactions to aspects of my life. You can reverberate while feeling something selected to influence how your perceptual habits reform. 

Seems like I only get a slight shift on each repetition. It also gets easier and faster to get into reverberation.

What is meant by hyphenating "information" to become in-formation? I'm struggling to understand the original question and the language it contains. It's probably due to my lack of imagination, but that seems to be shared by the other respondents.

Apologies for any poor communication on my part!

I've been hyphenating "information" as "in-formation" to emphasize that anything that can be thought of is composed of things which are formed, and are themselves formed. 

I don't think calling it "in-formation" adds any insights beyond typical buddhist understandings of "things." For people with less exposure to buddhism, I hope that when they see "in-formation," it gets them thinking about codependent origination, rather than their mundane interpretations of the word.

To more fully explain the original question, I'm working on a grimoire which is mostly done being written. It'll probably be released in 2-4 months, but the ritual text and its range of techniques is already established. 

The ritual text is based around utilizing the technique I've been trying to describe in this thread.

I'm hoping to find out if this is an established practice somewhere, and what its traditional uses and precautionary guidelines are.

Maybe it's just me, but using new words for words that exist, that can be found and can be looked up, researched, and adequately describe something (like dependent origination) seems more rather than less confusing.

That's fair. There are 4 main reasons I do it. Increased polyvalence, aesthetics and grammar, as a form of sympathetic magick, and as a way to highlight that my definitions may be different from the reader's.

It let's me increase the polyvalence of a text, because I can take a sentence which would normally use the mundane word "information,' and then instead write "in-formation" to simultaneously draw attention to both meanings. Grammatically, it would not work well if I just replaced the word "information" with "dependent origination."

When I write "in-formation" in the context of this ritual text, I'm also talking about "living formations/clouds/bodies of consciousness sparks." It has in-context nuance.

It contributes to an aesthetic style which I enjoy, in this case more closely resembling Bottom's Dream than Finnegans Wake, though I recognize both are confusing in their massively overlapping clouds of meaning. I use these techniques but attempt to narrow down the superimposed meaning layers to just 2 or 3.

I feel that learning to engage with these superimposed meaning layers expresses how one engages with multiple layers of awareness when doing various meditative practices. These practices themselves can produce confusion in powerful sessions, and many of which are con-fusing (against fusion). This is how it can be a form of sympathetic magick whereby the mind of the reader learns to synchronize multiple layers of awareness.

Last, it lets me more clearly define my own terms. One issue philosophers deal with when they use concepts developed by other writers is that they frequently have their own spin on the term, or sometimes even completely misinterpret what was originally meant. This means you have to codeswitch what "hegelian dialectics" means when reading different authors anyways. The finger often points at a nearby star.

This is even more of an issue in the occult where many concepts are poorly defined, or mean vastly different things in different traditions. For me, I feel that I can write more confidently, without as much concern for previously held definitions, if I make my own terms, even going so far as to construct a language engineered for these tasks.

So, I remain confused because it appears to me from your last reply that you're doing this word-switching and word-invention thing for you, not for your audience. I have a hard time imagining how it helps your audience, but as I said, this is one of my prejudices about communication. Isn't it time-consuming and difficult to define all your terms to your readers? Or do you not define your new terms and language and leave them to figure it out? Again, your first and subsequent posts in this thread play out in a way that makes me believe changing words and definitions is confusing - read the replies to your OP, for example.

Sorry to belabor this, but I find that some folks in the spiritual realm do this to the detriment of their readers, followers, students, interested parties, etc.

I'll stop annoying everyone now - carry on!

Oh yeah, pretty much everything is defined in the form of choose your own adventure grimoires. Here's the most recent: https://alleywurds.itch.io/suburban-butoh-fu-3

I also keep an up to date reference guide: https://alleywurds.itch.io/vaibbahk-reference-guide

It is time consuming and difficult to do, yes. But I don't believe it to be more difficult than learning all the terms in a more established system like thelema. In fact, I believe it to be easier, because each of the main terms has its own little ritual to help you learn it. There are also games, dances, music, meditative walks and so on to help with internalizing as well. I've enfolded as many learning modalities as I can.

It is time consuming, obviously, but I don't think you can get around that when learning not simply a single mystic path, but a hackable and generalized system to charting mystic paths.

As you note, it is at least initially for me. These grimoires are written because what I hoped to find in the occult literature wasn't there. 

I'm writing the grimoires which I believe will be most to my benefit in my specific circumstances, but I'm also releasing them for others to use or learn from. 

This latest grimoire is the 11th, so it does assume some prior knowledge, though I believe a close reading of it by generally experienced occultists will introduce readers to novel forms of ritual practice, even without reading all of the prior books.

...

Your questions seem sincere and well intentioned, so they haven't annoyed me yet, lol.

Let's just agree that the realms of magik and dharma don't have a shared vocabulary  

Lol, fair. Vaibbahk makes it easy to create an overlapping vocabulary though, being a generalized approach to mystical/magickal language construction.

$20 on Equanimity

JW:

That's honestly not a bad bet, given that Equanimity is what I've been working most on in day to day life, though I hadn't consciously thought of this technique that way.

What makes you think Equanimity might fit the bill?