Schizophrenia and possession: correlations?

i've thought this for quite a while schizos are possessed

File: 21609-cart-horse.jpg (387KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1200x675px

>>18643107
>schizos are possessed

>>18643098
Give him heroic doses of CBD everyday for the next few weeks

You'll cure him and he will become a world wonder

I tried to summon something, was successful, and then was hospitalized because I was having "severe schizophrenic hallucinations". I had no symptoms before I did the ritual, went from 0 to 1000 in an instant. At one point the thing that was tormenting me said it was leaving, since then I haven't heard or felt anything strange but often I get dissociation like it's a mental scar or something.

Don't know if I'll ever learn if any of it was real or not, I don't really care anymore, but it's pretty damn coincidental.

>>18643098
people that are possessed are not going to act crazy. crazy people who think they are possessed act crazy

every now and then some one seems interesting to them or maybe they feel a bond exist and it could almost be thought of as a merger. like what married couples talk about but for real. 2 souls becoming 1

that said they are still separate and not actually 1 soul... at least not at first. over time they may bleed together if they are similar enough.

or maybe a zen like symbiosis in rare cases where they could be seen as 2 sides of the same coin., 1 more angry or what ever than the other but they have a similar mentality

>>18645057
Can you tell us any more? I've been toying with the idea of summoning since I sort of feel an affinity towards things traditionally demon related, i.e hedonistic values and sexually deviant. But I don't want to be possessed.

File: Kirlia.jpg (185KB, 600x775px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 600x775px

>>18645096
Hi.

I am not the person you are replying to.

If you want feel attracted to the idea of "" summoning "" but wish to retain your sense of individuality, it will be important to understand consent. First and foremost, learn to practice consent, which means respecting other people's decision making process. Discover a system of boundaries. For instance, if something is within one set of boundaries, feel free to make decisions about it as if that set of boundaries defined yourself. And if something is outside that set of boundaries, restrain yourself from making decisions about what happens to the things there. Practice not even expecting or creating emotional preference for things outside what you define as the boundaries of your self. The space between "your" and "self" in that last sentence is important.

Secretly wishing for another person's self to act in such a way, then creating emotional expectations to the point that your body experiences trauma--which your self proceeds to take out on others--if those other people's selves do not act as you expected they would is not respecting boundaries. That's called "control." Creating conditions where if things do not go as they would if you were *hypothetically* in control of their decision making process--even if you don't think you are in control of them--then reality does not make sense is not understanding consent. That's called "manipulation."

Manipulation is what you do with tools. If you steer a wheel while driving a car, you are manipulating the car.

That's okay for yourself. If you drive other people like they are your car, and attempt to summon, then as a result, you will attract the kinds of experiences which are frequented by people who drive others like cars. You may find yourself being the backseat passenger in your own body.

Does that make sense?

How you define your self, and how you act towards others will determine if you experience feeling possessed or not.

File: tumblr_nk6sywaNaD1rvs7gdo1_1280.jpg (308KB, 1280x675px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1280x675px

>>18645124
If anything I said seemed mandatory in the last post, feel free to entertain the viewpoint where none of it was mandatory, and merely a suggestion, unless you don't choose to entertain that viewpoint.

>>18645124
That's a helpful post, thanks. Is what you are saying that if I am a manipulative person, who tries to control other people, that I will attract entities who do the same? Or is it something else?

If it is, don't worry, I am not a manipulative person. I automatically am suspicious and resistant when someone pressures me to do something, and I hate ordering others around. In fact, I have a tendency to try to hard to avoid conflict via subordination, which might be an issue.

I'm also a bit confused about what you mean when you talk about my self, and creating boundaries for it. Is that making sure I respect other people's opinions and wants, or something else?

>>18645096
Sure, what do you want to know?

>>18645170
First why did you try to summon a (I assume) demon? Did you follow any specific ritual, or just make one up? When you did make contact, did you discover the demon's intentions or why it was messing with you? I guess you saw visions if you got hospitalized for hallucination, what did you see?

>>18645149
>That's a helpful post, thanks. Is what you are saying that if I am a manipulative person, who tries to control other people, that I will attract entities who do the same? Or is it something else?

Either that, or you will attract entities that do not define those kinds of actions as manipulative in the first place--due to their definition of what a self is--and therefor feel free to do them to you.

>Is that making sure I respect other people's opinions and wants, or something else?
Let's suppose you go to a restaurant. And your significant other orders. You want her--I'm just going to assume she's a her, fill in with whatever pronoun works for you--to get a salad. But you say nothing. But when she orders not a salad, you get grumpy, and proceed to act in a way that makes the night not very fun.

Did you make her choice for her, or didn't you? I don't know the definite answer to that question. I can see it both ways. I know some people who would believe that since you didn't literally say "order a salad," in this hypothetical scenario, you therefor didn't make her decision for her. I know others who would believe that since you responded with negative emotional energy, then on an emotional level you DID make her decision for her.

I have had both of those belief systems at various points in my life, honestly, with no contradiction in my mind. They made sense at the time.

Here's what's up with summoning though--whatever answer you do decide on, that's the kind of summoned entities you will be receptive to. If you think that not literally saying "order a salad," but responding in an emotional way doesn't count as control, then you will attract the kinds of entities who might manipulate your emotions, right down to the physical levels of serotonin in your bloodstream, but never say a literal word in regards to what they think you should do.

(cont...)

>>18645212
I think it IS a very confusing topic. I think that communication between different people with different belief systems and definition self is challenging, whether when summoning or through conventional means.

Ultimately, the one surefire technique for universal politeness is the golden rule; do unto others as you would like done unto you. But even that breaks down when the definition of what an "other" is gets called into question, and that's what summoning is--playing around with the definition of where you end, and the rest of the universe begins.

So the other way to do it, is to use the golden rule as a metric. Rather than attempt to prove its veracity, you can assume that it's true. Simply assume that whatever happens to you in life, it's equivalent to what you did to others,

but as it's *perceived* by them, not necessarily as its perceived by you. Meaning even if you give something of great value to another, if that value isn't returned to you by the karmic chain, trust that it's because they didn't see the value in what you gave.

And so here's where this type of thinking comes in handy for summoning. With such a belief system, you can now get a sense of entities in your karmic chain. Because the assumed rule is what you give out, is what you get back. So by paying attention to what's happening in your moment, you can expand your awareness of what exactly the entities you're summoning are.

This is expanded, consent based form of the golden rule. Where you don't do things for people's "own good," unless you want someone else to come into your life, and start making decisions that overwrite yours. In other words, in any social system, in any part of any kind of reality, forcing your own decisions over anothers' without their consent is the universal permission slip for "Okay, you can use me however you want, I consent to losing the ability to consent!"

(cont...)

>>18645212
I can't really imagine myself getting upset over a salad, but I get the principle. I not sure if a natural emotional reaction counts as ordering around the person, more like putting on pressure on them, sort of rebuking them. Unless you intentionally be a dick, then it's like punishing them for not agreeing with your suggestion. In that case I think it's a form of control.

>>18645244
Because even in the most consent based, individualistic free society, there must exist some way to give up the ability to consent to various things, or else that in itself would set up another infinite chain of things people can't consent to, making it not such a free society after all. And, the golden rule being a most simple and obvious solution that any society can come up with, a person votes whether or not they wish to be possessed or not, by whether or not they attempt to overwrite the decisions of others.

Now I think it's impossible to do anything, even eat a bowl of cereal, while checking every possible consent protocol of every person that might maybe exist and be affected by the cereal eating. There are levels of extreme veganism that are just impractical. Plus, maybe some animals like to be eaten. Maybe they're kinky that way.

But so it is. So does every individual decide where in the karmic chain they want to define themselves, based on their actions. I'm not going to overwrite prey's decision to get themselves killed, because it might be a lifestyle they chose. I don't fucking know. I'm not them. I don't know what they know. I don't make their decisions.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Defining "self" is for sure a slippery topic to tread on. However, engaging in these kinds of mental processes, really thinking about it, and learning to operate them to manifest certain conditions, by pleasing or upsetting various entities is the meat of summoning practices.

It's not like the video games where you make a thing, and they pop out physically. Not 'till much later. So you don't really summon anything that doesn't already exist. It's more about learning the belief systems of things and places you never thought to consider were people before, and then building a line of trust between those people who don't have a body. Call 'em spirits if you like, or demons if it makes you feel cool. But they're just different definitions of what a "self" is

File: 88471e229d3d192ca6937c6ed1d07513.jpg (1MB, 900x1091px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x1091px

>>18645255
Exactly.

Because a natural emotional reaction isn't under your control, so they shouldn't blame YOU for it.

So then who's control is it under?

At this point, you can take ownership, by apologizing if it happens. That can get annoying if you keep apologizing for minor things, but depending on the culture might not be so minor after all. Or, you can ignore it, and hope they do the same, and then blame "Nature," whoever that is, if it gets brought into conversation.

Each choice with a different outcome, that moves you closer, or farther away from various entities along the karmic chain, some of which are actually just the people you meet in person, later on in life.

Summoning.

>>18645269
Okay, I'm pretty sure I get it. By attempting to impose my will on others, and influence their decision, I place myself in a position on the karmaic chain where I say I am alright with that. So any entities, or beings with a different concept of self to us, will see this and think that it is okay to overcome my own decisions since I practice that myself. Does that sound about right?

File: the_valkyrie_by_streetx222-d7zk57i.jpg (169KB, 1280x890px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1280x890px

>>18645292
Either that, or they will not recognize that those types of actions count as overwriting others' decisions, but still for themselves believe that they are respecting your free will. It is impossible for me to make that determination--whether they're being forceful, or merely misunderstanding what counts as force in that situation--because I am not them. I choose not to put myself into a mindset where I would make that determination for others.

Their personal beliefs on what counts as forcefully overwriting a persons' decisions and what is respect of their free will is up to nobody but themselves.

See?

>>18645309
Yeah, it's an interesting subject. I guess there are different levels of 'possession' then, from entities which just see influencing your emotions slightly as okay, to full blown take control like in popular culture. Also about these entities, do you know what they are and where they reside? I like to get my telescope out every now and again, and look at the stars. You get a sense of how insignificant our planet really is. So I tend to view explanations using earthly religions, as in they're demons created by God to tempt us, with skepticism,

>>18643098
I have schizophrenia myself due to playing with entities, most of them being demons 'goetia' and so forth.
I'm 18 back when I was actually socializing people loved me because
>LUL LE SUPER RANDOM SEX JOKES AND SHIZZ SO FUNNI
And I didn't even realize where all this random wit was coming from, but now that I've started studying demonology/satanism/esotericism and the like I've realized that I've always had 'entities' watching me.
But it's only my thoughts nowadays that are schizo, I try to play 'this character' out in real life, of the person I believe people to would like the most, the only real way I could describe myself would be 'altruistic', so I kinda play my real-life character out as an altruistic, caring and loving person, and would never step out of my character to become malevolent.
This also kinda helps me judge myself 'objectively' through being able to see my character and the non-local demons judging be objectively, and I also have several 'silent' tulpas that take over as 'wit'.
Mastering schizophrenia is probably an actors best tool.
And no, I don't let demons 'in', the only ones who are 'in' are my tulpas.
As I was raised christian I kinda saw it as 'a sign from above' so I've basically 'wired' my mind into 7 tulpas (the 7 deadly sins) and then the 8th, who supposedly is me and is the character I portray in real life, which is actually just a mesh together of the other 7 tulpas/personalities.
Oh yeah and personally I worship Satan as a god of Karma bringing balance to the universe through evil, not malicious intent. It's all about the connotations in the words.
AMA

>>18645343
what gender is the lust tupla?

Heard stories of women doing those machine porno (getting fucked by machines for porn) and some guy would observe them "speaking in tongues" when under very intense orgasms. Just like Alan Moore has said, the mind is a really terrible and powerful place for the demon s and monsters in it are real to the person. I guess people with such episodes of possessions are simply more in touch with this part of our psyche. It would be a horrible thing to see if there is a way to visualise some other person's suffering like this.

>>18645350
I see Lust/Envy as the ones partaking in love, as I've never grown envious against anything, I don't really think I'll find a gf, as I could give less of a shit if she was fucking around, and she would, because I care so little. So I think of Envy as being Lusts man, they're my inner incubi/succubi couple, and the kinda relationship I'm striving for. Lust is the only female of the 7 cardinals. But she takes kind of a 'wolf-shape' and is bound to Envy forever, but can obviously take any shape or form. (Think Kindred if you know league of legends.)
And yes, I use these as 'medium' to talk to the ACTUAL cardinals, and our glorious king satan of course.

>>18645359
why do you worship satan? are all entities demon-esque, and if not, why do you prefer demons over the others? also how do you get in contact with them?

>>18645323
Well, if you're asking me...

It's heaven and hell. Or, collectivism / individualism. It is a very, very difficult thing to tell if a person is operating on their own freewill, or if they're possessed and acting like they're operating on their own freewill. It's so difficult that it's actually impossible.

So a solution was found. Create *new* souls, virgin souls if you will, and create an environment where the language and social protocols exist to do just about everything in that environment in such a way that either it trends towards collectivism, or individualism. If you believe that souls are eternal and can't be created or destroyed, that works too--just make the environment a place where their memories are temporarily wiped clean, and then whatever trend they follow is closest to the truth.

Either it's random, in which case there is no such thing as a person's true free will in the first place, so no problem. Or, it's not random, and blank slating a person's soul and incarnating them into an environment with the choice to choose possession or not is as close to choosing between collectivism / individualism as anyone can ever hope to get.

It's an interesting compromise. You *WILL* experience the freedom to choose, whether you like it or not. What you do with that choice beyond that point is nobody else's choice but yours, and even if you believe that you didn't have the choice to choose between having the freedom to choose or not, too bad, because the decision is final, unless you want to get blank slated again.

There's still both ways to look at it no matter what, but since it's a recursive cycle, any soul that leaves the cycle accepts where they go to, whether they were forced into accepting where they go to, or not.

(cont...)

>>18643098
Hi OP,
As someone who specializes in mental health, I recommend your friend sees a professional. If you truly care about this friend and it is hard for you to watch him suffer then he needs to be taken to a therapist, not 4chan /x/.

His sister is obviously hesitant because mental health conditions are so stigmatized that it is hard to talk about it.

By claiming they are possessed you are ignoring the condition they have. Although schizophrenia isn't curable, it fluctuates heavily throughout a person's life. Some days are better than others, some years are better than others.

Please for the sake of your friend, take them to a doctor.

>>18645367
Ok think of this for a second there has to be as much evil as good.
The 7 archangels are together what defines god as in 'the all'.
So we need 7 'archangels' who are evil to keep up the balance.
So Satan as in the all has 7 archangels, and God as in the all has 7 archangels.
So God and Satan is just two parts of the same coin.
This was just an example, it's completely impossible to actually explain this within the confines of a single message.
But 'The ether' is Satan, and as a lack of a better word 'Heaven' is God.
Heaven doesn't come to you, you come to heaven.
The ether though, can come to you, and that's why you can summon ethereal demons as your helpers and they can become actual companions.
Whereas you can only communicate within the confines of the 7 archangels, if you're communicating with Heaven. That's why most entities don't feel like they have no good intentions, as they're either ethereal/evil or malicious, think poltergeists.

File: 1476986475898.png (4MB, 1920x1488px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1488px

>>18645373
So Earth is a very valuable place. VERY valuable, but not in material possessions. People who create entire realities don't need materials. Any society eventually gets to a point where they can essentially 3d print anything they need, even food, out of pure energy.

Earth is valuable in people, who have a sense of free will.

This was a solution, and a truce to an eternal conflict. The individualists are concerned for the well being of those who find themselves in collectivist societies, and want them to have the opportunity for free will, if they demonstrate a capacity to respect others' free will in the process. But at the same time, it would be contradictory for the individualists to force this decision on people who don't want to go through with it.

The collectivists say these individualists are from hell, and that going with them is going to hell. And so anyone who resists the temptation to express individuality, but to merely allow themselves to be absorbed into greater universal collective being, thereby proves that they're worthy of ascending to heaven, or whatever the words is in your local town's mythos--every town has one. Because the collectivists don't *want* individualists in their society.

Thus Earth is a wonderful compromise, and a nexus point where both types of people, the individualists and collectivists, can be together and do literally anything other than try to destroy each other. People from heaven get "punished" by being thrown down to Earth, where they must once again prove that they're not willful. Or, people who tire of living under the oppressive regime of the unified collective consciousness have the opportunity to see if they prefer individualism after all, by taking a break on Earth for a life time.

Both perspectives describe the same event, but the wording changes based on what type of society the person is trending towards.

>>18645400
Hmm, well if heaven vs hell is collectivism vs individualism, then I guess I side with hell. The part I'm not sure about is that earth is important because it is a source of free will. By that do you mean because there are sentient beings on earth? Do you believe that life exists on other planets, but none of them have sentient beings?

>>18645387
Why do entities from the ether conform to human concepts of maliciousness and evilness?

If you look at it from a chakra/eastern point of view, it's kinda like yin/yang. God is both, and that's also where he splits. Ether/Satan is the lowest form of density(Root chakra, being female) And Heaven/God being the highest density (crown chakra, being male)
God/Satan the two sided coin is basically the black hole of black holes where it's a singularity, but it's both. Which is impossible. Which is why it's split.
I'm just writing this from a philosophical standpoint with a story so it's easier to grasp, just 'read between the lines' to pick up the concept.

>>18645400
I'll add:

The idea that the individualists are demons has a grain of truth in it, if it is taken to mean that demons are the opposite of angels, and heaven is the place that collectivists go. However, possession in the sense of forcefully overwriting another person's decision making process is the de facto feature that makes a collectivist society collectivist, because the idea is that there is still an individual person at the top who controls everyone else. Is the "god" of any collectivist society--of which there are many collectivist societies, all with their different "god," who all believe they're the only one--just the biggest, baddest demon in that little social circle of the universe?

Likewise, those who prefer to live in a collectivist society can rationally view individualism itself as a type of psychological manipulation. If they try it, and start enjoying it, this experience *is* quite similar to opium addiction, for instance. Of course it feels good. It's meant to feel good. And it's so hard to break away from it, once you experience it.

If you started offering opium pills to children at a school, how do you suppose that would go down? I mean it's their choice to take them or not, right? If you did this, could you understand how people might get upset at your actions?

So it is with the offer of free will.

Earth is one of the places where an unstoppable force and an immovable object philosophically clash.

I find that any entity that identifies as not from Earth are always polarized very extremely into one of those two types of societies. Though there might be alternative third, or more options that don't necessarily fall neatly into either type. I just haven't encountered any, or know of any.

>>18645415
It's worth noting that calling the types of societies individualists prefer incarnating in "hell" is an invention of collectivist societies.

>By that do you mean because there are sentient beings on earth? Do you believe that life exists on other planets, but none of them have sentient beings?

No. There is such a thing as sentience without freewill. You may or may not have experienced it on Earth. There is a level of collectivism that goes beyond merely expecting others to behave a certain way. There is a level of collectivism where the idea of people "" pretending "" to be separate from one another is such an abstract, foreign concept, that nobody has thought of it. And because everyone there knows everything that everyone else knows, they never will think of it. Their entire definition of what a self is, is different.

On Earth, when some people think of what a self is, they might imagine a body, with arms, eyes, legs, etc. On a fully evolved collectivist world, one self is more like a planet, possibly with lots of humanoid shaped pieces on the ground, but those aren't selves. They're just terminal nodes that assist in manipulating the tiny parts of the planet, that the planet can't reach itself.

For now, that sort of experience is so far out of the realm of technical feasibility that it might as well belong in the realm of science fiction. However, it is worth noting that this is actually how the majority of organisms on Earth already think.

And you can experimentally verify this, because teaching an animal on one side of the planet causes the others on the other side of the planet to learn that same trick more rapidly.

>Do you believe that life exists on other planets, but none of them have sentient beings?
I believe that life exists on other worlds. I do not necessarily think those worlds have to exist as planets, in our visible universe.

In a collectivist society, you do not have free will. That's final.

In an individualist society, you do have free will. That's final as well. Even if you were the most indoctrinated, possessed person who ever did live, and were merely pretending to have free will, but actually didn't, by the time you arrive in an individualist society you are treated as free will, whether you actually do or not. Because there isn't a metric for that. Nobody can measure another person's quantity of free will, except for them--that's what makes them a person.

Because even in individualist societies, people can choose to place limitations on themselves. It's just that, as a result, any limitations that do get placed on people are assumed to have been put there, by themselves.

In a very twisted sort of dystopian manner, you can see how some might construe this as severely fucked up. Like, a plane crashes in your house, destroying the system you used to control everything in your life, and when you ask for help your neighbors just say "Well, that's what happens when you decide to crash a plane into your house. Next time have more control over your reality."

See what I mean? There's infinite layers to this.

>>18645467
What you're describing sounds a bit like a hive-mind - a lot of little units that feed information back into a collect consciousness, so that the best decision can be made from looking at all the data. I guess it's just an extension of what our bodies are already like, all the cells and organs work together to keep it going. In your opinion, animals are linked in this way? What about on a highly evolved individualist world?

File: 1473048692432.jpg (101KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1191x670px

>>18645482
So to clarify, Earth is a very special place where both collectivists and individualists can actually agree on something.

They can agree that souls who incarnate having experienced Earth belong in the type of society where they incarnate to next.

It is maybe the one thing in the cosmos that both collectivists and individualists can agree on, at all. If it wasn't for places like Earth, both types of societies would have no other way to communicate except for perpetual war, with extreme prejudice.

File: d2f39d49338aa6e6d34b778b83f3a049.jpg (9KB, 236x176px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x176px

>>18645492
Highly individualist societies trend towards virtual reality. This is another interesting dichotomy, because from the virtual perspective, it's extremely liberating. Anything you want, so long as you know what the coded input that causes the server to process that into your reality experience. Like living in a fairy tale, almost. Yet, from the physical perspective, people in a virtual reality ship are trapped. They can't even escape if they want to, because they don't even have functional bodies. How claustrophobic. What hell that would be!

One might even think of creating a sort of game zone in their networked virtual reality that operated almost exactly like physical reality, and wipe their memories clean (either temporarily or permanently) to give themselves the experience of living in physical reality again. And to stay in these zones as long as they want, to take a break from individualism.

To make a game zone virtual representation of physical reality convincing, a person can't have *total* control over their own personal reality, since that would just be like practically living in an ordinary VR environment in the first place. I mean, the whole distinguishing factor of VR environments is total control over your own personal reality, since anything you do by definition doesn't affect others. So, the most convincingly realistic simulations of physical realities would be those kinds of game zones, where people have the ability to influence the decisions of others.

See where I'm going with this?

>>18645510

no, haem sorry I read all

>>18645577
Alright.

I'm still here, if you have other questions.

>>18645596
If individualists are driven towards VR, what are collectivists driven towards?

File: 1472702294195.jpg (296KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 600x600px

>>18645625
Agriculture and long prayer sessions.

They have technology, but prefer not to use it unless it's required. Collectivists societies rely on belief in a central authority, typically a god.

That said, it's a blissful existence. It has almost a dream like quality to it, a bit like watching a movie of your life, rather than living it. However, the sensations are far more higher definition than anything else. They're a tad creamy, if that makes sense.

Connections with higher dimensional civilizations is the domain of collectivist societies. By combining their people, a collectivist society is able to create a higher dimensional aspect of themselves. Imagine being able to seamlessly shift perspective between multiple bodies, that are sufficiently similar that the changes are seamlessly, rather than jarring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KJwIYBBOM

At the point when the sensations are melded together in analogue form, this mathematically equivalent to living in a higher dimension.

Of course, each collectivist tier is itself tied into a higher dimensional construct, and I do not have access to knowledge of if there is a definite top. I have modeled this myself, and discovered that both an infinitely increasing level of dimensional complexity, and a finite dimensional hierarchy are possible, given the data I do have access to.

Beyond dimensional constructs numbering 6, the differences really start to meld together anyways. There are only 3 tessellating polyhedra, each of which is just a fractal of the previous dimensional constructs' tesselating polyhedra, so you can almost begin to model the dimensional hierarchy with analogue values, instead of discrete digital ones.

As a result, the higher dimensions start to appear more, and more fractal based, giving those who participate in those types of societies the opportunity to experience very creamy sensations.

Consider that by agriculture I am referencing the growing of plants, which are consumed.

File: Achak.jpg (40KB, 225x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 225x600px

>>18645682
Well this makes sense in the rise of organized religions around agricultural landmarks.

But do believe that agriculture, just ike any other new technology it's developed by individuals and apropiated by the collective, after a period of demonizing of the individual and the technology.

I still remember when cellphones will give us cancer and codebars were the mark of the devil.

File: Yin_yang.jpg (50KB, 590x590px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 590x590px

>>18645704
Certainly, both types of societies need each other. And those who can integrate into one, while maintaining an honest, mutual respect for the other gain access to hybrid forms of technology which surpass anything that's ever existed before.

These hybrid beings are undefinable, and beyond powerful. It's also what humans have the capacity to be, if a person can find truth in the contradictions each polarity brings into contact with the other.

>>18643098
>and often says creepy or sexual stuff. Has episodes of yelling, sometimes slipping into an Irish accent.
Kinda sounds like tourette to me.

>>18645184
Well I had never had a paranormal experience before and felt like the best way for a first time was to summon a succubus because if I were successful I'd get amazing ethereal poon and if I weren't then no biggie, I'd just feel a little embarrassed. I followed the Codex Succubi that was posted on here quote frequently, this was in 2014. When she came to me it was directly into my body, I never saw anything but could feel and hear her in me. It was like having another entirely sentient being in my head that could control my body at will. At first she was kind extremely loving, sweetest thing ever. However she was always there judging me, watching me so I had to not think about anything ever or it would upset her. After a week of mental strain Mt mind finally collapsed and I had a break down, and that's when she turned on me. She said I broke the contract between us, somehow I don't know how, and the rest is history.

>>18646298
What's the codex succubi thing? I guess if she resided permanently in your head you must've made a mistake, like not defined the relationship properly. Did she influence the physical world at all?

>>18646546
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/159841709/Codex-Succubi-Second-Edition-Final-pdf

did everything as it said and wrote a lengthy thorough contract. i can't say if she's permanently in my head, i haven't had any "hallucinations" since it said it would leave which was a couple of months from when i did the ritual. i have dissociation which is completely different, you know the feeling of repeating something you did in a dream? that's what life is like for me all the time, basically my brain gets confused on what's a memory, thought, or stimulus from the outside world and crosses the signals. it's extremely disorienting.

everything i experienced was internal, nothing on the outside changed. at times though, she would tell me about things that were going on around me that i could have no prior knowledge of, like what was happening in the backyard while i was inside and there was no window that i could even see the backyard through.

>>18647004
Yeah I have had that feeling a couple of times. How did you get her to leave, or did she just one day decide to stop tormenting you? Also would you say she had malicious intentions?

>>18647066
She just up and left on her own, if it were up to me it all would have been over and back to normal immediately when shit went wrong.

If she was malicious she was good at hiding it. Now that I think about it I'm not sure if she caused my mental breakdown or if that's the point where she was fed up about something and decided to fuck with me. When I came back from the hospital she acted more like a passive aggressive wife that was constantly judging me than actively hurting me, but it still hurt all the same. By the end of it she seemed bored, that's when she left.

File: 1285030541758.jpg (91KB, 1322x610px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1322x610px

>>18645057