>>11917 I had the idea to form or summon from the void, an egregore who will serve as a guide for anyone choosing to follow the path of personal evolution. The image which appeared to me was a white cat with six eyes, whose paws extent like the tentacles of an octopus, being as many as the "hands of the buddha" and reaching anyone who needs it. There was supposed to be a very low moon today, a so called "strawberry moon" so I felt it may be a good time to do something like this tonight. I went out and waited, but didn't see the moon rise so I went with it anyway, and also had the idea to replace the earlier "failed" Yaweh egregore with this new "celestial monster". The process ended up feeling very peaceful and by the end of it, I was touched by a white cat's paw. I was also given a familiar, it's a white cat with six eyes. I tried channelling a sigil for the white cat egregore if anyone else wants to try this.

>>11919 Grand Mother?

>>11924 >Grand Mother? Preferred name given by the white cat egregore.

>>11934 I don't think it's gonna be an egregore if it's created by just one person, even if its spirit is born from the void. That'd make it a tulpa.

>>11940 It's a matter of syncing with other people and entities to channel their wishes during the creation process. Game egregores and popular character egregores normally appeared in the mind of just one creator, who - like a great memer - channelled a collective wish and and made it spread. Like Super Mario, who in their right mind would think an Italian plumber who eats mushrooms would be a successful character? But he represents a collective wish for something. Maybe it's just that everyone understands that plumbers are necessary, and we don't know enough about mushrooms to discard the idea of the super mushroom actually existing somewhere. Maybe Mario works because he has the "super" quality of being uncontroversial all over the world. Then it still works even if the idea appeared in the head of a short semifat Japanese man whose previous creations include animal head cloth hangers and a rip off of King Kong. How is Donkey Kong in all its iterations seen as an ok character whatsoever? Peak Japanese creativity, and everyone's too embarrassed to point it out, because of its implications? Again it works because it's channelling something which already existed, and it's not important that it was just one guy who did it.

>>11943 Now I may just be bashing the stupidity of what works in reality, but take this joke of a naming. Still at least season 1 made a really good anime which served its purpose of representing a complex esoteric message. It's not an egregore in itself, but it represents an egregore. Who doesn't secretly want to be Voldemort before he lost his hair, the dark side is always more attractive

>>11944 oh god is that that anime that's entirely built around strained racism metaphors?

>>11945 Not exactly. It's more of an elite vs peasant thing, based on magic purity or something. But there are multiple layers to the story. Demons are one race, humans are the other race, but humans aren't present much in s1, it's more of a class struggle theme. That part isn't all that important, it's just serving as a plot vehicle. The main point is the magic explained through the season. But there's something for anyone, I guess. If you don't understand the occult references, you can view it as being about discrimination, but that part isn't important here.

>>11944 the amount of links this has with what i have been seeing for weeks is interesting.Even when you just posted the first part i thought the timing was strange. Since weeks before from many different angles this idea was made attractive to me. harry potter being one. more directly as "hey if being a monster that gets stronger,what would you do then?" and also the you are a monster idea:saying i'm a blue "monster" and the johan liebert dream being examples. i did mention harry potter here recently didn't i.or well it started showing up and then you mentioned it, which was already "kinda" weird but not too crazy on its own. So its weird.3 different ideas with many examples each(for example harry potter even started playing in my dads car)

>>11947 there's also some stuff out there more suiting my own preferences.But likely i shouldn't need reference it.

>>11944 "Misfit", not to be confused with "irregular" like pic related. The characters have some surface similarities aside from the anime title itself, but this guy is only irregular in that his magic isn't natural, but based on science (and the peculiarity of having "girlfriend" relation with his younger sister). This all however shows another aspect of the same egregore. >>11947 All I can say to this is that the "you" I talked to before, I believe was a ripper victim back then, one of the souls of one of them, the other was "the golden witch" from Umineko, who is an actual historical figure, and another now-incarnated person. We found lots of references to ourselves in the "misfit of demon high" anime, and discussed each episode at length when s1 was airing. Maybe there is some connection to you as well here. In his case, Umineko was clearly made to guide him specifically, he played all the games and it really had everything he needed in it.

>>11949 Wait wha?Who am i then?I have to have been here for at least the last couple days. Was the blue beast beatrice?

>>11949 I might be in animes, but i dont think i would have watched if that's the case.Well maybe i would if it was on the anime's from back then.

>>11949 The way these egregores intersect is pretty amazing. The way they made Beatrice here in the same style as the implied ancestor of Elly in Xenogears, a game where the main character Fei Fong Wong, whose name sounds like a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Fei-hung a Chinese folk hero represented in Hong Kong movies like "Once upon a time in China" and the lower budget "Kung Fu Master". The Xenogears main character Fei has a split personality alter whose a serial killer, which is revealed later in the story. This aside from the direct naming, which I won't go into here, but is relevant too.

>>11950 >>11951 I don't know, but there's clearly some connection.

>>11953 This is all too insidy to make sense out of context probably, but at least shows something of what it was about.

>>11953 There is yes. >>11954 How many souls with connections to the ripper can one man have though. I don't feel like any of these were "new" souls either. As in they were "me" for a long time. Sigh

>>11955 It's actually not that many,only the one gray,and I didnt feel they were particularly interested in that.Maybe thats when they left.(although I guess they allrently did have the sister incarnation too)

>>11954 Further connection here, with the boss named Redrum being a reference to "The Shining" by Kubrick, where "murder" spelled backwards is placed in a vision seen by the boy. But it's really a reference to the "hidden in plain view" confession that Kubrick filmed the original moon landings, which appears if you play The Shining backwards over itself (from the beginning and, reverse from the end at the same time). There was an /x/ thread where this was examined in detail.

>>11934 I thought it was a title. Thank you for clarifying.

>>11919 Things are either Void or they Exist. That makes reality Binary. It comes from a 0, then when existing its a 1, a line coming from a point. When becoming aware and looking back, we now have two distinct states, and from the view of existence, the line, the void has to be a circle. From this is create all other forms. The original existence is an Object. This is also the top classification in AI theory of language, represented in programming languages as the base class of everything. In the book Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach from 1995, the basics are described in natural language as the structure of thought. Everything is an Object, which means they all inherit the quality of existing, and of being material, from this original state. But a flower is not a cat, even if both are objects. The flower is a Plant, and the Cat is a Mammal. This creates a divide, which now looks like this Object - Plant - Flower - Mammal - Cat as a tree structure of species. If we are talking about My Flower or My Cat, which may also have names, those belong respectively to the classification of being a Flower and a Cat, but they are individual existing objects. If we look at this from the view of existence and beings, the topmost category is formless, it is a "monster". Once we decide that it has 4 legs, or two legs, it becomes a more narrow category called a "beast". Then different species appear in again a tree structure, where their characteristics are more defined. At some point we have "humans", who again are divided into races, and at the bottom "individuals" who have names. But in some way, they all retain the base connection all the way back to the original "monster". The state of being formless, a 0 which just turned into a 1. Through this, we are being limited more and more, the further down we are, the more specialized, the more limited. The monster does not have language, it only has a binary understanding of reality. Its behaviour is only to "repel bad things" and "attract good things". This is done by attacking things they do not like, and baiting things they do like. Any vocal expression serves one of these two roles. Monsters are formless, so they can't have more refined behaviour. Beasts on the other hand, they have species- specific language. They have standardized sounds which makes it possible for them to help each other. They can signal "danger" and make everyone of their own species escape. Or they can signal "I need help", or "there is food here", all sorts of simple messages with a single sound. This way, they are communicating a message, which others can understand. Other species can make use of the communication, a dog barking can alert grazing animals of danger, birds can cooperate with bears by leading them to a bee hive for honey. This is still at the level of practical language with fixed contextual meaning. To evolve beyond this, beings must have the concept or function of "information" as an objective thing. A representation of the external world which is adaptive. This is the basis of culture, science, and magic. What happens if the power of language, is taught to a "monster" whose only two behaviours are "to repel" and "to bait" ? They will learn sounds which appear to be language, but they will not have the concept of it being "information". They will only use it for their two base behaviours. Teaching them will not work, because they understand things only as hostile or useful. There is no objectivity for them, and they will become like an educate psychopath. They become better at attacking what they don't like, and better at baiting what they want. This is because to them information exists only as DNA. Learning is only cross-generational. Their base reaction to any threat is to attack it. They will keep doing this for as long as they are alive, and the threat remains within their range of perception. They will not be, as individuals, taught to not attack what they feel is hostile. The only way for them to not attack something which they consider hostile, is if this individual perishes, and only those who do not have this behaviour are allowed to pass their genes on. As such, learning to them is only through the slow process of generational evolution. Individuals cannot learn, other than becoming better at their two base behaviours. Then imagine evolution for a long time, produces "monsters" who have the ability to refer to the external world through an internal representation of the mind. This still exists only as a subordinate function to "attack or lure", but it exists. If a spirit of higher function gains control of this body through possession or incarnation, they will be able to use this function for spiritual development, although the DNA itself doesn't recognise anything other than the original Binary behaviour. Then the "monster" can bypass its original primitive state through gaining of a soul population, which is able to overrule the original behaviour, even if this behaviour is still hardcoded in their DNA. There may be benefits to doing this, as the "monster" retains its original state of being very close to creation from the Void, making the monster, should it learn higher magic, a potentially more capable practitioner than someone of a more refined species. This would be why souls would want to be incarnated as "monster" despite their primitive state and lack of restraint. For this being to transfer "information" although no objectivity exists within, external artifacts or "infrastructure" can be used, such as written language carved into stones or written in books. This means they are in some way 100% reliant on ritual items for their magic or evolution to function, but at a high level of generational refinement and evolution, they may be able to represent external "artifacts" in their own internal representation of the external world, creating words and characters as "artifacts" which to them appear to be physical objects even though to everyone else they are immaterial. To present a message to someone else in a form which serves the purpose of "objective information", they would have to use "intent projection", which is shaped as one of the two behaviours of "repelling" or "baiting", but still has a layer of meaning beyond this. This would be the way to bypass the restriction of the "monster" class, and through its formless state, reach a more potent form of magic practice. I wanted to create an aid for this, which as I worked on it, turned into a focal lens for "intent projection". It is represented by this sigil

>>11975 So what if a monster or beast(one level up) incarnates as a human? And could demons really be evolved monsters like it was stated in frieren?

>>11975 Btw the way its solved in a way. I was taking your writings from a beast trying to interpreted a human. It was hard since while there is an understanding, there is a feeling of it all being abstract an not "relevant" to me. Because its 2 levels up. However ill take what you say as a different kind of message.Similar to how i communicate in the astral. I think i might be a beast who is exceedingly close to being a monster. where even a tribe is perhaps a little on the edge of what i can handle instinctually. I'm a solitary beast then.Only differing in that i can restrain with incredible strain for a little while.Being either extreme(human or monster) is then a blessing. since its more clear what to do.Even if only since its the only thing you can grasp.

>>11975 >Things are either Void or they Exist. That makes reality Binary. Are you sure? What happens when something only partially exists? >The original existence is an Object. Not a verb? Verbs are simpler. Objects are just verbs formed into particles by shaping the action-pattern into a circle. >Everything is an Object, which means they all inherit the quality of existing Not all objects exist though. What if an object is defined as being false? >But a flower is not a cat Why not? From a certain perspective a flower may act as a cat for all intents and purposes. Since a perspective is a universe, that means that a reality exists where a flower is a cat. >those belong respectively to the classification of being a Flower and a Cat So, adjectives rather than objects? Or, 'classes'. >But in some way, they all retain the base connection all the way back to the original "monster" The neumonon, the true object. To define it is to pollute its truth. >The monster does not have language, it only has a binary understanding of reality. All understanding of reality implies language in some sense. Language places limitation on reality, and reality must contain limitations in order to be comprehended, due to the fact that the mortal mind cannot perceive infinity. Also, the undefined neumonon is by its nature nonpolar. Anything polar must have a definition. By calling the formless void a "monster", you are giving it a name and a face, and you are proceeding to work upon that face rather than the truth that lies beneath it. >This is done by attacking things they do not like, and baiting things they do like. Actually both of these are behaviors which bring it closer to the subject. Attacking is a form of congress. If two poles repel each other by virtue of charge, the only congress that is needed is perception. >This way, they are communicating a message, which others can understand All verbs are messages, and every facet of existence can be understand as a verb, or made up of verbs. The Word. Every act of perception is likewise an understanding. Atoms respond to electric charges because they percieve them. >What happens if the power of language, is taught to a "monster" whose only two behaviours are "to repel" and "to bait" ? Wait didn't you posit earlier that the "monster" was a theoretical formless concept existing above definition? Now you're talking about it like it's a person. By your own theory you shouldn't be able to interact with them in this way. It feels a bit like affirming the consequent. If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Though even the first statement- the definition of 'monster' - seems iffy to me.

>>11977 >>11978 >>11979 I am merely explaining the basis of the lens "artifact" represented by the sigil. It's not an argument or any claim that this is true outside of the context where I created this, it's a viewpoint, a thought laid out in text when trying to explain what I created and why. >>11979 >What happens when something only partially exists? I do not believe it does. As I said, it's binary, and this is part of the mystery. Creation is complete, or not at all. >Not a verb? Verbs are simpler. Objects are just verbs formed into particles by shaping the action-pattern into a circle. This however I think I elaborated here: >>11975 >creating words and characters as "artifacts" which to them appear to be physical objects even though to everyone else they are immaterial which is to say that a "verb" is an object, it is an "artifact", because the monster does not think in abstract terms. So a word is a material object no matter which kind of word. >From a certain perspective a flower may act as a cat for all intents and purposes. Since a perspective is a universe, that means that a reality exists where a flower is a cat. Well because they both are Objects. That's part of the reasoning here. But the word "flower" is not the word "cat", they are different in a concrete way. They have different letters and different semantics. >So, adjectives rather than objects? Or, 'classes'. Both adjectives and classes are Objects also. Same as above. >The neumonon, the true object. To define it is to pollute its truth. The Dao which can be named is not the Dao. >By calling the formless void a "monster", you are giving it a name and a face, and you are proceeding to work upon that face rather than the truth that lies beneath it. Correction. The void is not an object, other than as a word object. The monster Exists, the Void is the origin which doesn't exist, so the monster is the 1, not the 0. But this is part of the meta thinking which appears later to us. When the Existing Object looks back at the Void, he/she/it will create the concept of Binary, by seeing that "I am, and the Void is not". As for the work being focused on the monster, yes, that is what I did here. I didn't start from the Void because I already Exist, so what I say will be biased or coloured by the fact that I am not creating this in a Void. >Wait didn't you posit earlier that the "monster" was a theoretical formless concept existing above definition? Now you're talking about it like it's a person. I skipped a number of steps because the post was already too long, and it's not making it easier to understand what the sigil is referring to by making it too detailed either. What we have now may be humans who are actually "monsters with language" because of the complexity of matter which already exists. Theoretically the monster started existing as a single particle or cell, but today it comes into a pre existing environment and is likely to be as physically advanced as anyone else. I am not Lao Zi, I just created a sigil and tried to explain what it's for.