-D-E-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N-

[Mr.Flip]

I Believe Destruction is on of the most ultimately misunderstood and improperly used words out there

"In Order to Construct One Must Understand to Destruct"

Kinda Like Alchemy.
When given matter in order to construct your idea you take the matter destruct it through transformation which then constructs your meta-physical idea into the physical; which is actually the definition for magick

know usualy i would just go on writing about this, but first i would like to see a response in order to get a sense of direction in the explanation since there is so many ways to tackle this, and most importantly id like to know if im even posting this topic in the right section??

[Taoistguy]

I have no idea what you're on about.

[Bordmb]

If you're going in a meta physical direction, then there is a section for that.

Anyway, I agree that destruction is overused and interpreted more as obliteration these days, but you seem to be having trouble making your point clear.

[desert-rat]

It has nothing to do with astral projection , but there are people that study the effects of bombs . There is a science of "destruction " , if that gets you off .  desert rat

[Szaxx]

Hi,
A brief read of the initial post the word conversion would suit more.
Still subject to change, lol

[ForrestDean]

Well, I'll just add that absolutely everything "within" and "throughout" Universe is energy which I'm sure most here are already aware of.  Energy in it's native state, before it is observed, is simply potential.  Absolutely no thing can be created or destroyed, only formed.  Therefore, anything and everything that has ever existed and ever will exist already exists at this very moment.  Construction and deconstruction is nothing more than the forming and reforming of existing energy based upon one's observations, perceptions, and beliefs.  There is no such thing as "matter" other than the fact that we experience the perception of it.  Everything in our physical reality is nothing more than an illusion and is not real as there is no basis or substance to anything within it.  They are just props formed from our own consciousness.  The experience is real to be sure.  If I run into a pole and bang my head, the experience of running into that pole and feeling the pain of banging my head is a real experience, but nothing more.  The only reason I would run into the pole to begin with is that the frequency at which the energy my body vibrates is similar to the frequency at which the energy of the pole vibrates.  However, one could raise their vibration to the extent that there would be no collision with the pole at all, but rather move right through it.

Adrian gives an excellent description of matter:

The very nature of "matter" itself from which the brain, through the five sensory organs, compiles its initial "best guess" composite image, is, in reality totally transient in nature, only having any form of perceived but not "real" existence at the moment at which it is observed or an attempt is made to quantify it.


The real paradox here then is that it is the Subconscious Mind that actually makes an observation under the instructions of the Conscious Mind. So when you "look" at something, the Conscious Mind is simply telling the Subconscious Mind to "observe" it.


However, it is only when the Subconscious Mind actually does this that the "object" actually becomes observable, thus originating the whole process of sensory observation, interpretation, filtration and presentation in the first place.
So it is the Subconscious Mind that "creates" the object, processes the object and presents the object back to the Conscious Mind as "what it expected to see".


This entire process is completely under the control of the Conscious Mind which is therefore perpetually "generating" its own experience, which in fact never really exists except as a perceived experience which the Conscious Mind believes is "real".


So we can now clearly see that these factors together perpetuate an "experience" that is an "illusion loop", the nature of which is determined by Conscious Mind itself.

[Stookie_]

I Believe Destruction is on of the most ultimately misunderstood and improperly used words out there

"In Order to Construct One Must Understand to Destruct"

Kinda Like Alchemy.
When given matter in order to construct your idea you take the matter destruct it through transformation which then constructs your meta-physical idea into the physical; which is actually the definition for magick

know usualy i would just go on writing about this, but first i would like to see a response in order to get a sense of direction in the explanation since there is so many ways to tackle this, and most importantly id like to know if im even posting this topic in the right section??

I might get what you're saying, though I'm more familiar with it in terms of "becoming" and "decaying", which are the 2 poles of everything in the physical world. Everything that is born here has to die here, it's the fractal nature of it. So to a magician/alchemist, the idea of decaying (destruction here?) isn't negative, but one pole of an entire process that happens by nature. (Or you could say the fire/water aspects, or the electric/magnetic principals that are applied to everything.) Eh?

[Mr.Flip]

Stookie and forestdean are right on the money

honestly ive never seen it through those words (becoming-Decaying) but actually that a pretty good way of defining it.

see what caused me to post this topic is, ive known for a fact the word destruction has always been misused throughout the ages and the other day i looked up the definition in quite a few different dictionarys even spanish dictionarys
they all say the same thing
Destruction-to cause such great damage to something that it is no longer functional, living, existing, etc.

i find that definition to be really sadd and gloomy.
when i see construction and destruction i like to think (as a reference) about birth and death

actually sometimes i like to believe that death comes first before birth, how?
well given that the way i see destruction is only to take away or transform, then the seed of the male and the egg of the female are two different beings, but then when they fuse, transform, die together they make one being
in order for the being to grow the mother has to eat nutritional matter which is then DESTRUCTED to be able to use the raw material that can then be CONSTRUCTED in the womb of the mother to make the childs body grow,

now i guess u can say this is a radical example but im not really trying to define the definition of destruction, since we all know the true reality of its character,
what im upset about is the fact that the ENGLISH and SPANISH dicctionary and probably even other dicctionarys have such a dark and gloomy description.

i love this word because when seen through its true form its is a very useful force that can be used as a magnificent tool for everyday obstacles
id write somemore right now but its the morning and im late for work so i'll be back a.s.a.p.

[Szaxx]

Hi,
Have any of you read 'The Secret of Light' by Walter Russell?
He explaines life in a very similar way. The male female concept is a little different than above.
A good read.