a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.


Psychic Communicating Agent Taxonomy Discussion

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.angels,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,alt.paranet.metaphysics,talk.religion.newage
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Psychic Communicating Agent Taxonomy Discussion
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:40:21 GMT

50030724 viii om 

I think we're really making progress.

# ...a "cosmology" is a hierarchy of "known" or "believed in beings" 
# which rule the universe and or are to be worshiped and adored or
# supplicated to by believers.


# A taxonomy is simply a list of "possible entities."


# My work is not a cosmology. It is simply a list of what may possibly 
# exist, based on what other people of various mind sets or beliefs, 
# have agreed upon previously.


#> COMMENT: strict materialists may deny the reality
#> of this class.

# Or call it part of your "cosmology."....

not mine.

# ..How is your taxonomy different than mine? It doesn't seem to be. 

I'm trying to work toward yours, trying to find middle ground.

# But yours you call a taxonomy and mine you call a cosmology.

unless it says "usually presumed" in front of "Creator of the Universe"
then I assume it so. I gather you didn't mean that, though, based on
your reaction. keen.

# I simply am recording them as possibilities. Eventually we will agree
# as to what part of the taxonomy the beings I perceive and call "angels"
# will fall into.

how about: ordinarily supersensible agents presumed allied
with cosmic authority (e.g. Universal Architect)?

#>   e.g. one's arm (as in 'muscle-testing'), an
#>   internal organ such as a kidney, or separable
#>   biological organisms that reside internal to
#>   the receiver's body such as intestinal flora,
#>           a tick lodged subcutaneously, or a tape worm.
#>           also ordinarily supersensible beings like an
#>   invading possessory spirit would quality here.

# I note you added these things after my taxonomy made
# it clear that they could be possible "communicators".

absolutely. I'm trying glean the best of both our models.

#> cosmological inasmuch as relation to the real is specified.
#> we're talking supersensible regardless of what is there.
# I do not agree with the trem "Supersensible" in that it
# means "beyond or above" being sensed.

not even 'ordinarily supersensible'?

#> I don't see much difference between your 1 and 2 here,
#> ultimately, excepting what is agreed in terms of cosmology.
#> I hope that I'm not being arbitrary here.
# #1. Is the Primary cause of all things.

does this somehow appear differently than an angel, or an
imaginary friend? if so, let's discuss how.

# #2. Is a list of possible normally immaterial or unsensed "beings"

sounds like #1 so far.

# which may be called anything from gods to ghosts. They may not be
# the cause or creators of anything.

sure, but does their ontological status somehow affect how they
are perceived? if so, how? in terms of strict consensual 
percepts, isn't the appearance of #1 and #2 roughly the same?

#> I conjoined "Lower Animals" with plants and other organisms
#> into a mass that is typically not presumed to be able to
#> speak to us in any perceivable way (i.e. the criteria for
#> presumption is 'discernably regular communication').
# My reason for not conjoining them is that higher forms, like birds,
# dolphins, dogs, chimps, etc. do in fact communicate with us in a
# myriad of ways.

this is a very good point inasmuch as expression is perceived that
might be communication. sometimes those Lower Animals do intend
that we understand their warning, for example, or sounding.

however, this taxonomy pertains to PSYCHIC COMMUNICATION. as such,
the convention is human-to-human or ordinarily-supersensible-to-human
communications and not specifically lower-animal-to-human psychicism
because of the more common presumption of a lack of CAPACITY that 
makes it possible.

# Whereas the lower organisms are along the same line as the Normally
# Immaterial Beings.

as far as I can tell, the rest of the animal and plant world is
approximately the same in terms of how they are perceived with
respect to *psychic communication* (that is, a minority seems to
believe it possible and/or likely, the majority doesn't accept it,
even when they *do* accept human-to-human communication, because
of the rational communication intended which most don't seem to
associate as created by lower (i.e. 'non-sentient') beings and 
the wider array of objects. this prevalence gives me reason to
lump them together in terms of capacity (generally unlikely,
something even you seem to agree on).

# We don't normally hear from plants. But we actually know
# now that they do make some attempt at communication with us.

I'm not aware of observable attempts by plants or any other beings
but humans to attempt psychic communication. in part it seems to
depend upon a 'psyche' that can *have* thoughts to communicate in
that manner. many do no presume those without neocortexes are even
capable of it.

# And they are known to communicate with each other.

neither lower animals nor plants are known to communicate psychically.
psychic communication is not a consensually-presumed activity, actually,
amongst human beings. the intersection of 'spirit' and 'mind' sometimes
predisposes people to think that transphysical entities are able to
manage where ordinary animals/plants or conventional humans are not.

# They are either then too different from us or too tiny to be noticed
# by our normal senses.

again, I'm trying to restrict my taxonomy to psychic communication.
I'm sorry if I gave some more extensive impression.

# ...the word "special" applies to their "special condition."  They are
# not truly "organic." But seem to rather be pre-organic. Viruses for 
# instance are not considered to be living things. Yet they are very 
# near that state. Of course for them their smallness does come into 
# play.

I tend to agree that the ordinarily insensible could be relegated to
similar categories of consideration (angels + paramecia) excepting
that their ABILITIES are presumed different. for this reason I think
it is completely reasonable to break it down as a function of what
I'm calling APPEARANCE (sensibility) and COMMUNICABILITY (sentience):

(please critique)

A. consensually agreed as extant because of their external appearance

    1. sensible sentients -- visible sentient life forms 
              demonstrating higher thought and overt 
              communication skills
	            e.g. humans, dolphins
    2. sensible partial sentients -- pieces or composites 
              of sentient beings whose portion or contextual 
              whole demonstrates higher thought and overt 
              communication skills
	            e.g. body parts of sentients, 
                         cultures/societies, planets
    3. sensible nonsentients -- less complex visible life forms; 
              visible objects; all without perceivable 
              higher cognitive skills
                e.g. rats, insects, trees; cars, keyboards, stones

B. presumed, based on cosmology

    1. ordinarily supersensible sentients -- variably sensible 
             entities whose intelligence or consciousness is 
             comparable or more advanced as compared with 
             sensible sentients
                e.g. ghosts of the dead, angels, gods

[would it make sense to have a parallel to A.2, 
  i.e. 'ordinarily supersensible partial sentients'?]

    2. ordinarily supersensible nonsentients -- whether too 
             small to be perceived or in some spectrum of 
             perception beyond human capacity, these are
             typically presumed not to incorporate higher 
             cortical constructs that would make 
             communication likely
                e.g. protozoans, paramecia, viruses, magnetic 
                     or energy fields or rays, 
                     subatomic or molecular objects, 
                     and any number of merely nondiscernable 
                     ontological phenomena usually regarded 
                     as nonsentient
see what you think of this. I see potential here.

# But what is "ectoplasm?" A substance which is at once ephemeral and yet
# tissue like which extends from a living body, sometimes forming words or
# shapes for communication. I call these special, because they need special
# consideration.

that might qualify for ordinarily supersensible partials as inquired about

# They exist, but we don't have a true taxonomy for such manifestations

my taxonomy above accounts for ectoplasm in that it is ordinarily 
supersensible nonsentients. you can tell how people think of it by 
the language (as a kind of substance or nonsentient partial). those 
who believe in these kinds of things don't attempt to communicate 
with the ectoplasm, but with that which exudes or produces the 
ectoplasm: that which uses or whose byproduct is such. if the
ectoplasma was regarded as potentially communicating we'd start
having people naming certain puddles of it or something, or
identifying it as a subset of a certain higher being.

# and bugs. Prions are pre-proteins. Also not classifiable as
# organic, but with organic constituents.

this is either a sensible goo without presumed sentience or an 
ordinarily insensible stuff/object (by virtue of miniature size) 
of like insentience.

# Since my taxonomy seems mostly acceptable to you, in that you used 
# parts of it to revise your own, I'd say that now either taxonomy is 
# workable and useful for the discussion at hand.

indeed, they may be bridges from two sides of an axiomatic gap. :>

# I would however say that "sensing devices" or technological enhancements
# to our normal senses do not have a place in the taxonomy per se, except
# to say that sometimes for instance, a camera has been known to capture
# extraordinary, unsensed images, as have tape recorders and other devices.

right! that's one thing that makes the 'ordinarily' necessary before the
'nonsensible' classes. another would be the class's ability to manipulate
itself in the field of our perceptions (becoming visible in some way,
presumably therefore in many cases exhibiting sentient behaviour).

# That is why I termed some communicants "specially sensed."

interesting. do you see how I'm shifting in my taxonomy away from the
class of 'toasters' as of generally comparable communication-ability 
by virtue distinguishing their presumed insentience? I thought you 
might like this.


The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist:

Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small
donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site.

The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories,
each dealing with a different branch of
religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge.
Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit:
interdisciplinary: geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness
occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells
religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo
societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc.


There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):

Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase


Southern Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo, including slave narratives & interviews
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice by cat yronwode: an introduction to African-American rootwork
Lucky W Amulet Archive by cat yronwode: an online museum of worldwide talismans and charms
Sacred Sex: essays and articles on tantra yoga, neo-tantra, karezza, sex magic, and sex worship
Sacred Landscape: essays and articles on archaeoastronomy, sacred architecture, and sacred geometry
Lucky Mojo Forum: practitioners answer queries on conjure; sponsored by the Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
Herb Magic: illustrated descriptions of magic herbs with free spells, recipes, and an ordering option
Association of Independent Readers and Rootworkers: ethical diviners and hoodoo spell-casters
Freemasonry for Women by cat yronwode: a history of mixed-gender Freemasonic lodges
Missionary Independent Spiritual Church: spirit-led, inter-faith, the Smallest Church in the World
Satan Service Org: an archive presenting the theory, practice, and history of Satanism and Satanists
Gospel of Satan: the story of Jesus and the angels, from the perspective of the God of this World
Lucky Mojo Usenet FAQ Archive: FAQs and REFs for occult and magical usenet newsgroups
Candles and Curios: essays and articles on traditional African American conjure and folk magic
Aleister Crowley Text Archive: a multitude of texts by an early 20th century ceremonial occultist
Spiritual Spells: lessons in folk magic and spell casting from an eclectic Wiccan perspective
The Mystic Tea Room: divination by reading tea-leaves, with a museum of antique fortune telling cups
Yronwode Institution for the Preservation and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
Yronwode Home: personal pages of catherine yronwode and nagasiva yronwode, magical archivists
Lucky Mojo Magic Spells Archives: love spells, money spells, luck spells, protection spells, etc.
      Free Love Spell Archive: love spells, attraction spells, sex magick, romance spells, and lust spells
      Free Money Spell Archive: money spells, prosperity spells, and wealth spells for job and business
      Free Protection Spell Archive: protection spells against witchcraft, jinxes, hexes, and the evil eye
      Free Gambling Luck Spell Archive: lucky gambling spells for the lottery, casinos, and races