Oi, what is /x/'s opinion on a "The Psychonaut Field

>>17347398
I think I saw that exact thread on /tg/, checked it out and was quite intrigued. I don't know any more about it than you do, but I enjoyed the concise and dense nature of the text and the graphic quality of its presentation.

I'm curious to try some of the information within out, but it has warnings of bringing in unwanted strangers if you don't take precautions, which makes me wonder if its really worth experimenting with. I'm clumsy and I'm worried I would unwillingly get my spiritual shit fucked with.

A year ago I never believed in any of this shit, but my girlfriend is convinced beyond all doubt she has spirits that haunt her and attacks her during her night terrors. Dunno what to believe, but I'd hate to make things worse by bringing one into my own life.

>>17347419
Well, if I'm not misreading, a lot of this is to be done over a long period of time. It starts out harmless enough with shit everyone and their yoga obsessed aunt does or has tried, meditation, and then visualization, which is harmless desu.

It does read that this is meant as an overview of basic occult shit without the theology, because not everyone's a catholic, and violet wording to scrub out the mystery school hubris. So it may be legit in it's concepts for beginners or folk who can't handle ye old language or hidden in poetic speech essentially, but double checking never hurts.

>>17347459
>So it may be legit in it's concepts for beginners or folk who can't handle ye old language or hidden in poetic speech essentially, but double checking never hurts.

You've got it.

In short, it's legit.

Its heavily informed by chaos magic, the best place for you to ask would be over in the /omg/ thread. Theyll be more educated on it over there.

>>17347459
You could be right.

I've been as complete a non-spiritual atheist as one could be for a long time. But in highschool, as soon as I started even thinking about the occult and reading about it and about spirits, my dreams became weird and started getting sleep paralysis. Nothing terrifying but I got a little spooked. Might just be because I'm a naturally anxious fella

>>17347489
If it's good they might curate it into the library.

Anyone have a link? I'm on mobile. Bump for interest. I'd read it.

>>17347545
Its actually easily found through googling it's name: The Psychonaut Field Manual. It's PDF is all over the place.

>>17347398
it's new age schlock that tries to conflate demons and angels as lateral opposites (light/dark) instead of the truth hierarchical (good/bad). If you follow it you might get the powers but it won't make you happy.

Its a good start. Like in the way an elementary school science book is a good introduction to science. Would recommend to a beginner. Would like to see a whole chapter on the dangers and how to avoid them before the author goes any further with anything else.

>>17347679
>Light/dark
More like carnal or subjective, spirit and matter, passion or calm. All that type of stuff.

so, whats the difference between a normal tarot deck, and a "gimmick" or oracle deck?

>>17347824
Oracle has different rules to it. Gimmick is...well...you know.
Normal Tarot Decks are ,I am supposing, those who try to be as close to the original symbolism of the Tarot, the Rider-Waite deck specifically, or the Rider-Waite deck itself. Too much deviation from the original imagery, in terms of symbolism would not do well, which I am supposing is the "gimmicky". Like, one could have a steampunk based tarot deck, so long as the imagery is still possible of being similar to that of Rider-Waite and not just a guy running around in some train for 2 of Pentacles instead of them juggling something with trains in the background going over hills. I would not be too sure though about if thats the gimmick decks, so don't quote me.

>>17347879

thanks!

and so, the deck reffered by this manual, is the standart 22 cards? or the 78?

>>17347398
Equivalent to a magic 101 class, broad general knowledge that's generally agreed upon to work, 9/10 starting spot IMO

>>17347936
A standard tarot deck has 78 cards. 22 major Arcana and 58 Minor Arcana, the Minor Arcana is separated by 4 sets: Wands, Cups, Swords, and Pentacles.

The manual uses for examples The Magician and The Hanged Man. Its supposed to just use the major Arcana while doing "level 4"?

>>17347999
No. You're to use the whole tarot deck when you get to that practice and pick out whichever cards that are drawn in the "What will help you" spot of the spread and whichever card of your choice from the "Outcomes #1 or #2" parts of the spread. So it could be Ace of Pentacles with The Magician, or even King of Swords with 2 of Wands. All depending what's drawn, but yes, use the whole deck. You always use the whole deck in any Tarot practice less I be wrong.