Login | Register

A Beginner's Look at The Basic Principle of Tech.

The more interesting threads from the other two forums (mostly the open magical discussion forum) have been moved here, so that those not wanting to hunt through the other forums to find interesting topics, can just look here. This forum section is reply only, so no NEW topics can be placed here. If you want to start a new thread, please do so in the appropriate forum.

Moderators: Contrary, Ogre, LordArt

  • Author
    Message

Materials and Tech...

Postby mahasvapna » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:24 pm

This has been such an interesting read, and it allowed me to attach a few new labels to some of my own work, which hopefully will help to clarify the use of materials in tech. If this is the same thing, what I have become accustomed to doing, then it's really as simple as it sounds, just like a machine. Thanks Oyama, for sharing your experience and theory.

So, materials. Actually i originally got the idea reading texts on alchemy! They represented various qualities of the universe using physical comparisions. This in combination with a natural tendancy to 'tap' various physical elements for energy in the hopes that their astral counterparts would have similar qualities to their physical manifestation, lead me to a practice of cataloging energies to use later (once you've identified an energy of a particular type, it's always accessible, the astral universe is holographic, relativity based on your context rather than locale).

Now, I haven't made the distinction before between 'energy' and 'material' but it seems to me that 'material' is simply a differentiation between coded and uncoded energy. Actually, all energy is coded, but some energy is less coded than other energy, and some more so. The more coded an energy is, the more complex it is. Code for energy is like DNA, in that it defines the parameters of that energy's function. The energy of metal has a function different from the energy of stone, both different from the energy of water.

Function, or Code, is different from Programming, because Code is the inherent quality of the energy. I'm hesitant to identify it as Material just yet, until I hear some sort of confirmation that our objects and labels match up.

These Coded energies are employed in the same way normal energy is - in the case of constructs or tech, applying it to a particular aspect of a machine will inherently alter that aspect of the machine's operation.

For instance, when I fashion a construct for gathering energy, I use the Coded energy of crystal to create a concave lense. using the energy of metal wouldn't work, because more types of energy will interact with crystal than metal - using a metal lense, a much thinner spectrum of energy would be gathered. Since all energy is electromagnetic (in my experience) all energy has polarity of some kind (positive, negative, neutral). So, by orienting the polarity of this concave lense so that the inward curve is electric, and the outward curve is magnetic, a current of focused energy is established - the outward curve part attracts energy, which passes through the lense and is focused just as light is focused through a physical lense of crystal, and that focused energy is collected into an inner layer of the total construct which is designed to modulate and store energy at the appropriate state (usually something close to natural energy, just more ordered).

Once you have acquired an understanding of what the various material energies that you can access from this plane can do (metal, stone, crystal, plastic, wood, everything material basically) you can get a sort of 'feel' for what qualities in an energy represent which functions.

There was mention of 'hard magic' before, and it was talked about as though it were harder to use and sort of all purpose. If I read that right, it's an interesting pointer, because in my experience the more 'code' an energy has, the 'harder' it is.

Describing exactly what code is, and how to read it to determine function, is something slightly outside my current skill of expression. I'll try to create and upload an image on some webspace somewhere and link to it here, but not for this post, because I think I can explain it better with a diagram. But, from the gross physical perspective, it's easy to grasp for starting out. If you have, for instance, an energy collection mechanism, and you need to channel that energy to another seperate construct to supply it with the energy it needs to complete it's task, you can use the coded energy of copper, for instance, to connect the two in the same way you might use it in the physical plane. Since one end is a resevoire of energy, and the other is actively drawing energy, there's no need for polarity specification, it is inherent. if you want to get better energy draw with less connective material, you can use a more conductive energy (in the far astral there are superconductive energies whose physical counterparts are as yet unknown to me personally).

So, choosing which coded energies to use for which purposes is similar, in my experience, to choosing which physical materials to use. You wouldn't use plastic, for instance, to create circuitry, because plastic won't conduct electricity.

I should be clear in explaining that Code is not the same as Programming. Code is natural parameter of function - this energy will act in this manner naturally, until it is forcibly altered by an external will - whereas programming is a temporary alteration of how an energy will move internally. The energy of lead will naturally contain most energies you will want to work with at first, but it can also be programmed to attract energy - although, it will attract less energy even when programmed, than the energy of Water or Magnetite. The energy of water will naturally accumulate energy, and can be programmed to hold energy like Lead, but will not hold it at as great a density or 'pressure' as Lead will naturally.

Now, because these are all astral energies, the exist outside of the limitations of physical things, therefore you can blend two types of coded energies to create materials which will have the properties of each distinct component energy in it's makeup, unless those properties directly oppose one another (in which case they can be differentiated by dimensional 'altitude' to overcome that mutual interference, a different thread all together).

it might help to grasp all of this by going about the same way the omnimancers did in the beginning - look at the mechanics of a lot of different ritual magick systems. They use materials all the time, just not through direct manipulation. Various elemental energies are employed in varying quantities, to achieve this or that effect. The god of 'such and such' is called who rules over 'this and this and this' to do 'that thing and this thing' in conjunction with 'that god' who rules 'that and that' to help do 'these things'. Its the same thing, just getting someone else to do it for you.

I was probably unclear throughout a lot of this. I'm not very good at explaining things in laymens terms, because I don't have anyone around to discuss these things with to find a better way. Sorry for that, but i'll clarify if I need to, assuming i've got the right idea here.

peace
mahasvapna
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:54 pm
Location: NYC

Wow!

Postby DrFredbert » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:38 pm

I am such a ganker on this one, but I tried the gathering energy from objects as mahasvapna was suggesting and had some fun results! I only tried two objects being that my body is starting to ache from excessive experimentation, but I did discover that glass from my tv felt like fizzy pop! and wood is kind of blah and heavy (least the wood from a door in my apartment).

Thank you mahasvapna, you and your hard to spell name!!! That was a great bit of insight! I bow to your greatness!

Anyways, anyone else try anything?
Dr. Fredbert
DrFredbert
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:29 pm

Fun things to try...

Postby mahasvapna » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:14 am

Interesting that you mention glass to have that sensation, the texture of glass has always felt like thick syrupy water. Out of curiosity, after you mentioned the texture of glass from your TV, I tried out my own - same liquidy feeling, but with a tingling background static that I assume you compared to fizzy pop. On a hunch, I tried the glass plate in the bottom of my microwave, and it has a similar fizzyness, except almost hot. I think the 'fizzy' may correspond to the various types of radiation. I'll have to try a few different methods, but test the wiring in your house and tell me what you think about that, and i'll tell you my theory.

Anyway, in another post about drug use I talked about assuming 'subtle stances' which is to say, configuring the state of your aura, more specifically your subtle body (from where your aura largely originates), and this takes that a step further.

I suggest trying this with an organic energy, like a plant, especially an entheogen, but a tree will be beneficial in a really amazing way.

Tap the energy of some substance, in this example, a tree. Holding the energy, become aware of your subtle body. If your not familiar this whole excercise will be almost pointless, but i could do it before I could control my aura directly, so it may still work for you. Draw the energy into your solar plexus as though it were liquid that you can breath in. Feel it enter your solar plexus, feel it's presence in your own energy field, and begin to blur the edges of the 'distinction' between the energy of the tree and the energy of your subtle body, and expand the energy, slowly changing your own subtle body to match the 'texture' of the energy of the tree, until the feeling expands to fill your entire body. note the stature of your physical body, note any areas of tension, but don't break focus, simply maintain the sensation of this new texture in your subtle body. Sink into it, and hold it while you let your attention wander to the sensations of the air, the sun, the ground, and everything around you. Note the uniqueness of these sensations.

As easy as it sounds, let the energy go. Center yourself, clear your mind, and focus on your physical senses. Come back to yourself.

There is no danger in using this technique, and it will grant an interesting dimension of insight into a particular energy. To mess anything up you'd have to work way deeper than this, so feel free to try it with anything, every energy has a unique context, and some are really really fun.

peace!
mahasvapna
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:54 pm
Location: NYC

Postby LordArt » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:12 pm

I think people are taking a tangent on materials. Keep in mind, when I say materials, I'm refering to tech materials which is distinctly different than other types of materials that have been just mentioned. Obviously, I'm speaking from an Omnimancy perspective here.

Generally, tech materials (and tech in general actually) is energy agnostic. Meaning, it really doesn't care what type of energy makes it up or "feeds" it, nor generally is there any disternable advantages of using one type of energy versus another for it's use.

Omaya wrote:I never mentioned materials because I do not fully understand how to actually make them. I just figured that once you're taking the technological approach, you look for new ways to make it better, and making better materials for your spells is an obvious path to take towards increasing effectiveness or efficiency. But I don't know how to make them, I've never been taught or shown, and I haven't figured it out on my own.


I gave you a hint about this when I said:
Think of what the inherant needs of a system are, and then develop sub machines (not sub systems) that perform those same functional needs of the larger system.


A subsystem would be something that still depends on the larger whole to exist. A sub-machine exists independantly and just happens to be used to be part of a system for it's properties. This is a tech material essentially. Which is why Omnimancy tech spells look like machines within machines within machines. I was hoping that you'd come to that conclusion, hence the hints.

I hope this points out the difference between tech materials and something like alchemical materials. This is also why when an Omni decides to even make an energy ball, with some people you'll see little bits of tech material floating around in it. You almost can't help it because of what you're use to doing.

Oyama wrote:So, when you say "I hold tech in my hand," whether that makes sense or not depends on what you mean when you say the word "tech" in that particular sentence. If what you mean to say is "I hold the "tech approach" in my hand," then it is nonsense. However, if what you mean to say is "I hold a piece of tech in my hand," then it makes sense, because you are talking about a functional, tangible result of the idea. This tangible result is the spell that is built, or a piece of a spell, and that is what you are holding in your hand, and that is what people are looking at when they examine your stuff.


I agree you can't hold a "concept" in your hand per se, just it's end result. However, because in Omnimancy the word "tech" stands for "TECHnology and TECHnique", it can be confusing to the observer. The main reason for the overlap because the resulting tech spell/materials is the result of the technique/technology concept that was used. One is the mental concept, but the result is something quite tangible.

Oyama wrote:One thing that always confused me about materials was that you kept saying that they had innate properties, and I took this to mean that they had these properties without any need for a caster. Like that was just how they existed. I think I figured out what you meant (my conclusions are illustrated in everything I have said in this post). If you look at things this way, tech IS in a sense almost inseparable from materials, and the materials (or series of materials) ARE the systems. Please, let me know if I'm right or wrong, or at least if I'm going in the right direction.


Until you get to hard magics (i.e. hard tech materials), even lower level tech materials need SOMETHING to keep them going concentration wise, but you'd never notice (the load of the spells themselves running take a far larger load in comparison, but still is minor). Tech materials have innate properties because you build those properties in their function. A Tech based spell is almost inseperable from the materials because the way the systems are formed DEPEND on how the tech materials that make them up perform. Hence when I did a G1 version with no tech materials, it was a pain. I kept the overall systems concept and made that work, but it was a big mess and RATHER ineffecient. Honestly, I think one would have spent more power in keeping the thing running then the benifits of what the spell is supposed to give you. The G1 is rather simplistic so I could do that on the fly, although admittedly for a non-amped person, I don't really know if they could have cast it as pure energy easily or not and still have it work.

But again, your taking the concepts and working forward, while I have mostly taken what I have and reversed engineered and then reforward engineered to different things which is a LOT easier. It gives me a base pool of working examples to go from.


As far as explaining things go, yeah, it's a pain. The point of reference is so different it's hard for people to wrap their minds around it unfortunately.


Oyama wrote:P.S.- I want an amp!

My lecture actually includes some. Come to Crucible. ;) (I have to be careful this time since in the past I've done up to G3 which I won't do again)



@DrFredbert

I see you talking about having spells create other spells. (I.e. an energy blob create something else). While that works to a point, it's rather self-defeating. In my experience, spells casting other spells usually makes quite sub-standard spells as a result. The hardware in your spirit that casts spells and forms tech is FAR superior than the energy blob you're making to do the same job. Yes the blob can make something, but it won't be anywhere as cohesive or effective than if you had cast it personally. Now, if your goal was simply to make SOMETHING, then it doesn't matter. If actually intend to do something with it, that's different.


DrFredBert wrote:So what I'm trying to say is that the machine idea is nift, but not very practical when you extend the complexity upwards. You would have to make each part each time.


Untrue, which is part of the point. If it were true, then Omnimancy would be COMPLETELY unwieldy. Talking about HOW it works is VERY different than talking about how to actually cast it. Kind of like discussing how a hydrolic backhoe works via metalurgy, combustion, hydrolics, electrical systems, etc. But the reality to actually USE the thing, it's just a small bit of controls which is a LOT easier.

Normally, you work on one part (either system or material) at a time. You just go "I recast all of that with X change" and it works quite well. Honestly, you don't even have to get that technical with it. What is interesting is, you generally automattically retro-fit things as you progress and learn new things. If a Omnimancy student learns a new tech spell, the smaller pieces of tech within it will normally be superior than what he might have had access to before. At which point the "better stuff" automatically overlays/superceeds older/less-effecient materials/systems. Which is why most Omnis will recast old spells just to see what changed. Which is the primary difference between being TAUGHT tech spells, and starting from scratch like Oyama seems to be. Oyama's pool of tech isn't as great to build upon.

And as you mentioned, things DO get too complex and are abstracted to symbols or "feelings"/remeberances after a point. One understands the systems, but that conscious understanding has nothing to do with it's casting. Admittedly, that's one's inner helping out. But that's a whole seperate convo.

@mahasvapna
I hope the above explanation that I gave to Oyama about materials clarifies what Omnimancy means by tech materials versus the alchemical concepts you were refering.

mahasvapna wrote:There was mention of 'hard magic' before, and it was talked about as though it were harder to use and sort of all purpose. If I read that right, it's an interesting pointer, because in my experience the more 'code' an energy has, the 'harder' it is.


It's not hard to use, it's harder to create in the first place. If you are strong enough(and knowledgable enough) to create it, it's quite easy to use. Is it all purpose? No, it has it's place though. I guess it can be all purpose but it's overkill in certain situations which can be detrimental in certain applications.
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby DrFredbert » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:01 pm

LordArt wrote:@DrFredbert

I see you talking about having spells create other spells. (I.e. an energy blob create something else). While that works to a point, it's rather self-defeating. In my experience, spells casting other spells usually makes quite sub-standard spells as a result. The hardware in your spirit that casts spells and forms tech is FAR superior than the energy blob you're making to do the same job. Yes the blob can make something, but it won't be anywhere as cohesive or effective than if you had cast it personally. Now, if your goal was simply to make SOMETHING, then it doesn't matter. If actually intend to do something with it, that's different.


DrFredBert wrote:So what I'm trying to say is that the machine idea is nift, but not very practical when you extend the complexity upwards. You would have to make each part each time.


Untrue, which is part of the point. If it were true, then Omnimancy would be COMPLETELY unwieldy. Talking about HOW it works is VERY different than talking about how to actually cast it. Kind of like discussing how a hydrolic backhoe works via metalurgy, combustion, hydrolics, electrical systems, etc. But the reality to actually USE the thing, it's just a small bit of controls which is a LOT easier.

Normally, you work on one part (either system or material) at a time. You just go "I recast all of that with X change" and it works quite well. Honestly, you don't even have to get that technical with it. What is interesting is, you generally automattically retro-fit things as you progress and learn new things. If a Omnimancy student learns a new tech spell, the smaller pieces of tech within it will normally be superior than what he might have had access to before. At which point the "better stuff" automatically overlays/superceeds older/less-effecient materials/systems. Which is why most Omnis will recast old spells just to see what changed. Which is the primary difference between being TAUGHT tech spells, and starting from scratch like Oyama seems to be. Oyama's pool of tech isn't as great to build upon.

And as you mentioned, things DO get too complex and are abstracted to symbols or "feelings"/remeberances after a point. One understands the systems, but that conscious understanding has nothing to do with it's casting. Admittedly, that's one's inner helping out. But that's a whole seperate convo.



Hmmm . . . So I've been experiencing something interesting that I think relates to all this. My gathering of energy has ramped up quite a bit . . . a bit too much for my lame self actually. :)

What started as a couple experiments that yeilded high return has turned into something that always happens. Actually it might just feel that way. I haven't determined if I'm just becoming hyper sensitive or what, but everytime I attempt to gather energy it comes quicker and my head starts feeling wierd (in a very specific place). It is actually very uncomforatable. What your saying leads me to believe that if I come up with a solution now, it will be there everytime I gather energy.

I think the next thing that I need is some way to review my own workings better so I can see these changes. Geeze you make me feel like I'm becoming borg.

Oh and thank you very much for the responce.
Dr. Fredbert
DrFredbert
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:29 pm

Postby DrFredbert » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:12 pm

What I said may have had nothing to do with what you said, but I fixed my achey hands and head problem, well almost . . . I think I have a slight headache. :)

Ooh, ooh, as a bonus the damn ball reconfigured into a new shape!!!

Again, I have no clue if this is what you meant, but I'm uber happy with the results.

Thanks for a least giving my the idea!
Dr. Fredbert
DrFredbert
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:29 pm

Postby mahasvapna » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:53 pm

LordArt wrote:I think people are taking a tangent on materials. Keep in mind, when I say materials, I'm refering to tech materials which is distinctly different than other types of materials that have been just mentioned. Obviously, I'm speaking from an Omnimancy perspective here.

Generally, tech materials (and tech in general actually) is energy agnostic. Meaning, it really doesn't care what type of energy makes it up or "feeds" it, nor generally is there any disternable advantages of using one type of energy versus another for it's use.

I gave you a hint about this when I said:
Think of what the inherant needs of a system are, and then develop sub machines (not sub systems) that perform those same functional needs of the larger system.


A subsystem would be something that still depends on the larger whole to exist. A sub-machine exists independantly and just happens to be used to be part of a system for it's properties. This is a tech material essentially. Which is why Omnimancy tech spells look like machines within machines within machines. I was hoping that you'd come to that conclusion, hence the hints.

I hope this points out the difference between tech materials and something like alchemical materials. This is also why when an Omni decides to even make an energy ball, with some people you'll see little bits of tech material floating around in it. You almost can't help it because of what you're use to doing.


Misalignment of lexicon, then. I believe I understand you, although i am curious as to why you choose the label of 'material' to describe what sound like components. Material, to me, implies baseline, essential, that which makes up things. So, what you are saying is basically that the 'basic' submachines in omnimancy become so second nature to omnimancers that instead of 'building a car from scratch' your pulling replicated reliable components out of your store of components to make a car from the mechanical parts. Did I get that straight? That's an even more interesting thought, although I do have to wonder what sort of approach you took to come to the conclusion that the energy that makes up a peice of Tech Material has no discernable effect on how (well) it functions. That's a discussion for another thread.

I agree you can't hold a "concept" in your hand per se, just it's end result. However, because in Omnimancy the word "tech" stands for "TECHnology and TECHnique", it can be confusing to the observer. The main reason for the overlap because the resulting tech spell/materials is the result of the technique/technology concept that was used. One is the mental concept, but the result is something quite tangible.


Concept = energy, energy = concept. If you can hold energy, you can hold a concept. Energy is just information, there's no such thing as 'non-existent'. If it doesn't exist then it isn't, and we wouldn't be mentioning it. Information in various states of context... take just a few minutes to view energy in this perspective, and figuring out the function of an energy isn't difficult at all, it's like reading a book. Well, more like sucking a book into your head and absorbing it's contents, but you get the picture.

Until you get to hard magics (i.e. hard tech materials), even lower level tech materials need SOMETHING to keep them going concentration wise, but you'd never notice (the load of the spells themselves running take a far larger load in comparison, but still is minor). Tech materials have innate properties because you build those properties in their function. A Tech based spell is almost inseperable from the materials because the way the systems are formed DEPEND on how the tech materials that make them up perform.


When you say hard, do you mean difficult? There is overcomplicated, and there is oversimplified, and I cannot decide which side of the fence these concepts fall on. If a tech material has properties built into it, are they not hardwired/programmed/whatever sort of imprinting/impregnating term one chooses to use? Or perhaps you're saying that omnimancers learn to employ these tech materials directly, without actually constructing the tech 'object' each time. But if there is so much confusion, it couldn't possibly be that simple, right? Based on that definition, the only difference between 'tech' and my own previously postulated definition of material, is a question of complexity. A Lamp is an object built to have an innate ability to produce light. However, without the peices that make it up - copper wire, rubber tubing, light socket, light bulb, etc. - it doesn't do anything. To light a room, one simply turns on a lamp, rather than construct a means to shed light each time over and over again, and that makes sense. But what is the lamp made of? So, is the difference between one 'tech' and another it's complexity? Or is there a dimension missing from this equation?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand what seperates 'tech' from constructs... (and I don't know about anyone else's 'programming' of constructs, but I build mine like I would build a lamp - out of peices that will make them work how they are supposed to work, without having to tell it to 'shed light') I think this is largely just a misalignment of terminology.

But again, your taking the concepts and working forward, while I have mostly taken what I have and reversed engineered and then reforward engineered to different things which is a LOT easier. It gives me a base pool of working examples to go from.

As far as explaining things go, yeah, it's a pain. The point of reference is so different it's hard for people to wrap their minds around it unfortunately.


I think people are simply asking the wrong questions, and you are giving answers that are vague - for probably good reason, and besides it's always better to think something through critically on your own, ultimately - hard for people to wrap their minds around? Eh, maybe, I guess it was a long time since I had to try to wrap my head around things, it's pretty inclusive these days. Tech should have been really easy to explain, though.

Oyama wrote:P.S.- I want an amp!

My lecture actually includes some. Come to Crucible. ;) (I have to be careful this time since in the past I've done up to G3 which I won't do again)

Wha? You just give away amps at a con, but can't give them to us here? Pshaw - a difference of effort and availability to future seekers. if I pm you, will you explain what an amp is, so I can figure out if I do it already? Well, in my case I already intend to try to join up with you lot as soon as you can handle a new mage, in person. If that's going to be more than a year or so, though, I'd really love to discuss what exactly you mean, since i'm almost certain the term undermines the complexity of the matter.

@mahasvapna
I hope the above explanation that I gave to Oyama about materials clarifies what Omnimancy means by tech materials versus the alchemical concepts you were refering.


Yes, they exist on differing levels of complexity. I still believe that employing the proper material to create tech would create more efficient tech, but there's no way to test that until I get you talking more.

It's not hard to use, it's harder to create in the first place. If you are strong enough(and knowledgable enough) to create it, it's quite easy to use. Is it all purpose? No, it has it's place though. I guess it can be all purpose but it's overkill in certain situations which can be detrimental in certain applications.


And back to the hard magick issue. Hmm... I've encountered energy in the far astral (short explanation, I envision the astral as a sphere, super-dense at the center, thin at the edges, a gradient outwards, it's how I measure where I am in relation to the Source) which was difficult to control because its vibration was too high, it's non-structure to dense to move from where it was as easily as other energies out there. I'm guessing, though, that hard magic is some kind of tech, not a magical substance as it were. And if there is a differentiation in terminology, then it must be in a different league than tech, in the same way tech is in a different league than energy, yes? I really cannot wait to learn more about this directly. Still haven't heard about whether or not hard means 'dense' or 'difficult'.

if these things seem difficult to explain, maybe you should reverse engineer your context and intellectual understanding again. I often find that complex ideas parallel perfectly with much simpler ideas. I think they call that analogy, or parable, or something...

peace[/i][/quote]
mahasvapna
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:54 pm
Location: NYC

Postby DrFredbert » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:13 pm

I don't know what anyone means by tech, but I may have found something to explain the TECHnique and TECHnology confusion (maybe).

For some time I have been gathering and playing with energy balls. Sometimes the energy was detectable, and other times it was not. Then one day I had a brilliant idea! I designed a way to make the ball more stable and solid so that I could feel it better. It took a while to get it right, but when I did the ball suddenly became almost rubbery.

Hooray!

From then on, when I would want to seriously play with my energy balls I would patiently go about creating the ball in a very specific fashion. As an odd side effect, all my energy balls/blobs were feeling rubbery.

Hooray! I had gotten better at making energy balls.

As my ideas and experiences progressed I wanted more energy in my ball. I had almost completely stopped using the previous method, there was little difference between using it versus not using it, so I needed to formulate a better way of gathering energy.

Well I did. I discovered a way to gather so much energy that my janky energy body had trouble dealing with it. The crappy thing was that after discovering the method, anytime I even attempted to gather energy my hands and head would ache. Then it hit me, I'm still using the new method. I need to re-discover the old method so my hands and head don't hurt anymore.

That worked like a charm.

So, it would seem that tech is literally both the technique and technology—least in my world.

Maybe I helped???
Dr. Fredbert
DrFredbert
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:29 pm

Postby Oyama » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:41 am

A subsystem would be something that still depends on the larger whole to exist. A sub-machine exists independantly and just happens to be used to be part of a system for it's properties. This is a tech material essentially. Which is why Omnimancy tech spells look like machines within machines within machines. I was hoping that you'd come to that conclusion, hence the hints.


Does that mean that I haven't come to the conclusion yet? I mean, my containment shell seems like a machine to me. Since you've given some more details about materials, it does seem to match. The shell can be made without the entire engine, it is a machine in and of itself (albeit a very simple one, since it is just one piece), and it has the particular property with or without the engine. You can make it by itself, or you can stick it into the engine (or other spells), where it is useful. I suppose I can think of making it out of sub-machines that would give it its purpose or something, so it would no longer be a single part machine. The way I did it, I simply "raw willed" it to be the way it was, and I suppose maybe that is where I'm going wrong. Honestly, I can't think of other ways to make a material other than "raw willing" them to be that way, i.e- I want it to be that way, so I just will them to be that way.

The description of "machines within machines...etc." does seem to fit though. My spell is a machine, but it has sub-machines that allow it do what it does (engine + transmitter), but the engine has sub-machines that allow it to do what it does, and so does the transmitter. I guess I could try to apply this to THOSE sub-machines, and make them out of sub-machines, but then it becomes an endless string of sub-machines composed of sub-machines composed of sub-machines, and so on. At what point am I working with the material itself? It isn't clear, because the line of thinking can just keep going (albeit you would stop after a while through sheer force of headache :lol: ), and it doesn't seem to actually lead anywhere, so it seems like a flawed approach. The simpler approach would be to say that I'm already working with the material, and that I'm just looking at it closer. Honestly, for me, it all leads back to raw will being exerted on the energy to change its nature. This seems to be the "origin." But which scale this needs to be done at is a mystery to me, so for now it just seems that I do it this way on whatever scale seems to be the most practical or intuitively "correct." Groping in the dark at square one sucks :( , if you get my meaning.

I will say that my engine did NOT feel/look like just plain programmed energy. That was really what bewildered me the most about it. The total machine (both engine and transmitter) seemed more effective at accomplishing a goal than my exploits with programmed energy balls, but the results can easily be explained away as coincidence. What really blew my mind was how the machine seemed alive in a way that your average programmed energy ball was not (not alive in that it was sentient or anything, but you get the idea). Once built, I didn't have to actually do anything for it to work, I didn't have to focus on or drive the systems or the machines that the systems were made of (though I was their power source), or even think about them really, though I could if I wanted to. All I had to do was simply say "go" or "keep running" to the entire spell itself and it would do what it was made to do simply because of it's design (meaning, because of it's parts and what each of them were doing, and how they related to one another).

If I'm missing something about tech or materials, please, tell me what it is, because I'm sort of at a brick wall. Your hint already seems to describe what I did, but if there's something I'm missing, I've no idea what it is. Perhaps it is because I called them systems in my essay. The word "system" here is really meant to be a categorization, or grouping, which can encompass one or many machines, all working together to accomplish a certain function within the greater machine, which itself can be a part of a system within another greater machine, and this can go on and on depending on how complex your machine is and how many parts it has. Theoretically, it also works in the other direction, meaning things can look like this if you look very very closely at a simple machine, trying to figure out what makes it tick at a very "micro-scale," (which is the endless line of thought I described earlier). I don't have the senses nor experience for that though, so for me it remains theoretical.

By the way, what does "bread boarding out a circuit" mean? I'm not familiar with that phrase, so I don't get the analogy.

As far as the whole concept vs. result thing (TECHnique and TECHnology), we've been in agreement the whole time, so nothing further on that :P
However, @ mahasvapna, I should tell you that we are speaking in terms of tangibility, not existence. Mental concepts exist, but they are not tangible in and of themselves.

Anyway, if you can shed any more light on the subject Arthur, and tell me what the difference is, if any, between my concept of machines made of sub-machines and your concept of machines made of sub-machines, it would be much appreciated. Whenever you get a break from organizing Crucible and day-to-day stuff, etc.

P.S.- See you at Crucible!! I bought my ticket already ^_^
I'll only be there for Saturday though, best I could do.
User avatar
Oyama
Research Student
Research Student
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:09 pm

tangible energy?

Postby mahasvapna » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:22 am

I can sense it, touch it, interact with it, elicit a response from it - energy is as tangible as anything else - like anything else we have only our senses to perceive it with, ultimately seperated from it by our individualized context.

The very nature of energy, is Concept, information, energy.

You think a concept. You are holding it in your mind. Holding something tangible, whole, self contained.

I read it right, I know what you meant. I'm offering a perspective that will make working with energy easier, more flexible, with greater efficiency.

You draw a distinction between the concept and the result - not the effect of the 'result' but the thing you come up with, based on a concept.

Two points on a line, that could be only one point - quicker, instant, solid. Dissect a concept, you have multiple concepts. Put them back together, only one concept, but now you know what makes it up. Suddenly, it works out better. Still a concept. Concept in action.

What is a peice of tech? Discrete currents of information - discrete concepts - working in sync, to elicit action along a new concept innately.

Concepts - "Containment", "Transferrence", "Direction". These are energies. Energies are concepts. Think outside the box - think outside your brain. Just because thought happens there, doesn't mean that's where it comes from. Light happens on a sunny day, but it originates from a distant sun. Until it strikes the earth, you can't see the light. Think about it.

It's 2:30. Good night.

peace
mahasvapna
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:54 pm
Location: NYC

Postby miri » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:54 am

Alright, time to make a fool of myself.

Materials are, it seems, no more than energies programmed out to the minute detail in order to carry out a function that would otherwise be less efficient. It's made MUCH more complicated than it has to be. This is programming by another name... at oyama's level.

I have been making "constructs" in this way for over a year... It has lead to some amazing constructs that are not only effective but hard to effect with depatternization. That said a large psi-nuke would indeed effect the tech, this almost sub-programming is just as vunerable as (even if tougher than) any other programming. it has the same weaknesses. Hoiwever, there is no doubt in my mind that you tricksy Omnimancers ( :P ) go a million goddamn lightyears beyond this. like oyama was saying, it's a material within a material within a material (so on/so forth) there seems to be levels both above and under the ones with programming such that it IS NOT effective to try to depatternize it.

Now, as for the properties of individual materials, I can take an educated guess at how to make them, without going through the hell of breaking a process down to a point where you can design an energy around it. It simply comes down to your inner's experience. For example, I tell my inner to make a simple material that when powered blocks all energies... I get a simply patterned energy that is organized such that when "electrifiyed" it takes on a polarity strong enough to deflect all energies not specifically designed to bypass it. In reality this isn't programming, it's more like a property. However, there is enough programming that when I nuke this material it becomes disfunctional, large amounts of what makes it work is nonexistent and it is only as useful as "plain" energy.

In contrast, I tell my inner to produce a complex material that is COMPLETELY invunerable to all things and I get a beautiful mix of different energies patterened off of eachother such that no efect, or combinations of effects can phase it, used a as a shell it makes a construct potentially immortal, no amount of nuking phases it. It has almost NO programming in it whatsoever, and what little IS in there is mostly redundancy. I think that's the difference between a single material a basic one that we might be expected to make (the blocker of energies) and something that would be called a sub-machine by LordArt.

The difference is, of course, that one is a single material, while the more useful/potent one is an appearently unending chain of those simple materials that are patterned and structured. then these crazy omni, they take materials this complex and put them together to make a superior material, and from there they use several materials at that level to make their final tech. it could get ridiculous, and undoubtedy... it does. The level of complexity would, if I'm not just in my early-morning quasi-logical state, increase HUGELY both with experience and every amp recieved. Giving Godazilla crack to children isn't even CLOSE to the reality of it. THeoretically any one of us could get to LordArt's level of tech, but by it's very nature the use of tech warps this process, making it too easy to move up fast. I'd say it's like starting an embryo on shock therapy treatment because the mother has a biological history of depression, to give tech amps like the ones LordArt eludes to, to most people...

If I made little sense I blame it on the time of day, exclusively, because I think I'm finally getting to figure some stuff out that I thought I never would...
User avatar
miri
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby DrFredbert » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:02 am

Seems that everyone has everything figured out . . . but then what's an amp?

lol

Oh, well.
Dr. Fredbert
DrFredbert
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:29 pm

Postby LordArt » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:14 pm

**Note: I wrote this yesterday before I left work but didn't finish it, so it doesn't incorporate the other responses. I will address them in a different post**

mahasvapna wrote:Misalignment of lexicon, then.

I think you will find we have LOTS of "misalignment of Lexicon" based on the backround you present yourself. It's an unfortunate side effect of there being no universally recognized definitions for things. Of course each faction has the view that other's should start using THEIR definitons, which obviously isn't going to happen, so we have to muttle through it. That's why even vetern practitioners have to start from ground zero in Omni just to make sure they understand the Omni definitions of words so there isn't confusion in the explanations.

That's nothing against you, but I have seen the approach before, which is why I have a lot of people leaving my lectures scratching their heads.

mahasvapna wrote: I believe I understand you, although i am curious as to why you choose the label of 'material' to describe what sound like components.


The label material works because it fit. A component denotes a larger piece, as well as components normally don't have a use outside a larger framework. (i.e. It's a component of a larger system). A material might be akin to an alloy. One changes the mixture of tin and copper to make bronze, but one can change the ratio to make it softer, perhaps add iron to make it magnetic, etc. (I'm not a metalurgist). But you get the idea. That new alloy or material, can be used independantly or made INTO a component or part. Meaning that component is MADE of said material or might be made of multiple different materials to ACHIEVE a part/component. (If you look at a video card, that's a component of a computer and that's made of a mix of plastic, metal and ceramic, etc.)

mahasvapna wrote:Material, to me, implies baseline, essential, that which makes up things.


I would agree with the impression that the word material gives you and I hope my description above shows why. Please keep in mind tech materials is kinda like designer molecules. Just because they are machines doesn't make them big, nor act like any other material if you don't look too closely.

mahasvapna wrote:So, what you are saying is basically that the 'basic' submachines in omnimancy become so second nature to omnimancers that instead of 'building a car from scratch' your pulling replicated reliable components out of your store of components to make a car from the mechanical parts. Did I get that straight?


If I read that right, kinda. Meaning, it isn't like the parts are lying around, they are on the spot created, along with everything else. The tech materials are known, the systems/sub systems are known, and the main design of the whole spell is known. Although to the layman caster in Omnimancy, they might only know the larger spell, the rest is "under the hood" so to speak. They can look under the hood if they choose to (some don't, which annoys me, but considering the training schedule, it happens).

mahasvapna wrote:That's an even more interesting thought, although I do have to wonder what sort of approach you took to come to the conclusion that the energy that makes up a peice of Tech Material has no discernable effect on how (well) it functions. That's a discussion for another thread.


Simple, when I first started to do this over a decade ago, I used different types of energy for different things. When using raw energy for different things, the type mattered. When using for tech, it didn't matter, it performed the same. When changing the power source for the tech spell, it changed colors (showing that the energy that it's being powered off of/using had changed) but the performance didn't. Everything from personal energy, to leylines, to nuclear reactors, to stars, planetary poles, etc. was used. Even more "elemental" energy, and the tech really didn't care. All it cared about was how much (mostly because they were built to scale if more energy was available). Any disterable difference between types was quickly overrode by amount. While there were a few that wanted to persue the differences between energies to see the differences, the differences would yield between a 1-5% change, while going to a better power source might yield a 100-700%+ change. So was the extra effort worth the 1-5% change versus just upgrading and getting much more?

mahasvapna wrote:Concept = energy, energy = concept. If you can hold energy, you can hold a concept. Energy is just information, there's no such thing as 'non-existent'. If it doesn't exist then it isn't, and we wouldn't be mentioning it. Information in various states of context... take just a few minutes to view energy in this perspective, and figuring out the function of an energy isn't difficult at all, it's like reading a book. Well, more like sucking a book into your head and absorbing it's contents, but you get the picture


Concept != energy and energy != concept. Energy!=information. A thought is just that, a thought. A thought is not energy. A thought can CONTROL the parts of your spirit that CAN control energy. Much like a thought isn't movement. But your thoughts can make you move your arm or pick up a box with your arms. While you can encrypt energy or matter to HOLD information, energy is NOT information. If you consider a repeating pattern information, then yes, energy/matter is information, but to me, that's not useful information per se (not in the context I believe we are talking about).

Magical energy to me IS a substance. It has an interesting property of being able to be controlled by certain hardware within spirits which is controlled by thought. Unfortunately by saying energy=concept confuses the matter in my opinion. A concept is an idea, a plan. Nothing more. You can ENCODE that concept or plan into energy, much like writting it down on a piece of paper. You can also encode that concept into it's working application. But that's purposely giving a thought an energy form. It's not too different then thinking of what a statue should look like then carving it yourself. The carving is the manifestation of your idea, but it isn't the idea itself.


mahasvapna wrote:When you say hard, do you mean difficult?


No. I'm sorry, I assumed you had read the other "popular" thread under astral biology. Yes, technically, it is difficult, but that's not why it's called hard magic. To be brief, if you think of normal magic as gasious, hard magic is hyper-dense and energetic magic to the point that it's litterially hard in comparison (as opposed to liquid/gas). Please read the other thread for a further explanation.

Also, between tech and constructs (which is quite distinct), I make a semi-good explaination in the Omnimancy overview on the main site ( http://www.omnimancy.com/OmnimancerOverview.html ) After a fashion, that's the point of this thread to try to explain the differences in a different way.


mahasvapna wrote: There is overcomplicated, and there is oversimplified, and I cannot decide which side of the fence these concepts fall on. If a tech material has properties built into it, are they not hardwired/programmed/whatever sort of imprinting/impregnating term one chooses to use? Or perhaps you're saying that omnimancers learn to employ these tech materials directly, without actually constructing the tech 'object' each time. But if there is so much confusion, it couldn't possibly be that simple, right?


The confusion comes from what is actually going on. Not it's casting or operation (well, at least from an omnimancy end). The problem is, explaining what is going on to people who haven't done it before. When a spell is cast, the material, the systems and therefore the spell is all cast at once. It actually IS simple to do, it's just hard to explain.

mahasvapna wrote:Based on that definition, the only difference between 'tech' and my own previously postulated definition of material, is a question of complexity. A Lamp is an object built to have an innate ability to produce light. However, without the peices that make it up - copper wire, rubber tubing, light socket, light bulb, etc. - it doesn't do anything. To light a room, one simply turns on a lamp, rather than construct a means to shed light each time over and over again, and that makes sense. But what is the lamp made of? So, is the difference between one 'tech' and another it's complexity? Or is there a dimension missing from this equation?


Well, in the above example, you would then make up the materials called copper, rubber and such as tech as well. So you wouldn't even have copper and rubber initially, they would have to be constructed. In the above example of a lamp, you would have a power system and a structural system. The latter needing a way of insulating and disappating heat, etc. However, when one casted it, the whole lamp, rubber and copper included would all be there at once. It just so happens that it has rubber and copper.

If you didn't know about copper before and you had another older application that could USE copper, perhaps you changed out the aluminum wiring in a heater for copper wire (as a lame example). Hence where tech materials start to come into play.


mahasvapna wrote:I think people are simply asking the wrong questions, and you are giving answers that are vague - for probably good reason, and besides it's always better to think something through critically on your own, ultimately - hard for people to wrap their minds around? Eh, maybe, I guess it was a long time since I had to try to wrap my head around things, it's pretty inclusive these days. Tech should have been really easy to explain, though.


But that's the point. You still don't get tech. It is rather hard to explain because people don't get it.


mahasvapna wrote:Wha? You just give away amps at a con, but can't give them to us here? Pshaw - a difference of effort and availability to future seekers. if I pm you, will you explain what an amp is, so I can figure out if I do it already?


Nope, I figuire if it was worth coming out to the convention to see me, it's worth me giving out a cookie. ;) Besides, in the last series of lectures, no one could figuire out how to cast them anyways, dispite me telling them. People aren't use to copying active spells, not that I made one for them to copy. It was all theoretical on the whiteboard it's operation.

mahasvapna wrote:Well, in my case I already intend to try to join up with you lot as soon as you can handle a new mage, in person.


The physical groups have room, but Cyber doesn't.

mahasvapna wrote:
Lordart wrote:@mahasvapna
I hope the above explanation that I gave to Oyama about materials clarifies what Omnimancy means by tech materials versus the alchemical concepts you were refering.


Yes, they exist on differing levels of complexity. I still believe that employing the proper material to create tech would create more efficient tech, but there's no way to test that until I get you talking more.


It was researched at the time, and as I mentioned, other avenues created a better result.

mahasvapna wrote:if these things seem difficult to explain, maybe you should reverse engineer your context and intellectual understanding again. I often find that complex ideas parallel perfectly with much simpler ideas. I think they call that analogy, or parable, or something...


They are difficult to explain because of a lack of a point of reference. It's like trying to explain color to a blind person that has never seen light before. You can get close approximations by using heat perhaps, but it isn't the same. Imagine trying to explain the beauty of a painting? That is the difficulty I face. Mostly because more standard magical thinking thinks in symbology, abstractions and infinites rather than hard quantifiable data, which is why there is such a disconnect. And for their use, the symbology and abstractions work, however for my use, it is lacking, hence Omnimancy.

And actually, I have done analogies, but the problem is, if you try to pigeonhole it back to "standard" magical thinking, it doesn't work. Things get lost in the transalation, because one is trying to make what you see fit in your magical world view, and it doesn't (at least not all of it). Hence the issues in explanation. That is nothing against you, but it's a rather common issue.
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby Azazen » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:53 pm

When you say materials could you mean that say, you would make ten different spells, each with thier own engines, that would give different properties to something like a shield? But when you say no programming it still gets me, because even if the spell stays alive by being connected to you (Which seems like it would be dangerous in some situations) I still consider that programming on some level. Could you explain?
Azazen
Research Student
Research Student
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:53 pm

Postby mahasvapna » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:20 pm

I think you will find we have LOTS of "misalignment of Lexicon" based on the backround you present yourself. It's an unfortunate side effect of there being no universally recognized definitions for things. Of course each faction has the view that other's should start using THEIR definitons, which obviously isn't going to happen, so we have to muttle through it. That's why even vetern practitioners have to start from ground zero in Omni just to make sure they understand the Omni definitions of words so there isn't confusion in the explanations.

That's nothing against you, but I have seen the approach before, which is why I have a lot of people leaving my lectures scratching their heads.


Fortunately I have a flexible sense of terminology - I don't normally think in words.

And I don't take any of this personally, no worries - I think you say that again like three times in this response. say whatever you like, I don't have time to be offended.

I would agree with the impression that the word material gives you and I hope my description above shows why. Please keep in mind tech materials is kinda like designer molecules. Just because they are machines doesn't make them big, nor act like any other material if you don't look too closely.


Perfect! Molecules are a comparison I understand. I know you're not saying they're exactly alike, no worries - I don't hardwire any of this stuff into my brain, just expand my understanding, both what it is and what it isn't. I'll have to give this some thought.

Concept != energy and energy != concept. Energy!=information. A thought is just that, a thought. A thought is not energy. A thought can CONTROL the parts of your spirit that CAN control energy. Much like a thought isn't movement. But your thoughts can make you move your arm or pick up a box with your arms. While you can encrypt energy or matter to HOLD information, energy is NOT information. If you consider a repeating pattern information, then yes, energy/matter is information, but to me, that's not useful information per se (not in the context I believe we are talking about)....


When I've learned your method, i will show you how this applies. Right now, I think our methods of casting are too different to explain it any simpler than I already have. It's not about repeating patterns, it was a litteral statement. Maybe you are used to dealing with an aspect of energy that doesn't make this obvious - its where I started out, so it was always a given.

And I agree, it is also a substance.A concept is a thought, and a thought is a pattern of energy in your brain, instigated by a patern of energy in your subtle body, instigated by a pattern of energy assimilated from various discrete peices of information within your sphere of being, sometimes with extra bits and peices that you were able to connect to. That is just the 'path' of energy. You can either continue it's path to creating something, or stop it there. Just because it happens in your head, doesn't mean it's exclusively there. How does one person read another person's thoughts? How are their syncronicities in thought? I have learned, also through more than a decade of experience, that by including the information aspect of energy - I would argue that it is all information of varying 'levels' - in my awareness of it, the process of manifesting and controlling energy is streamlined. If you have more information, you are connected to more energy, are you not? If you don't know about something, can you manipulate it? Can energy and it's information be seperated? You said yourself that if you don't know to look for something, you may not see it. equating energy with thought and concept shouldn't confuse the issue, unless you are determined to keep them seperate just to talk about varying locations of energy.

How does the idea for the carving manifest, if the path of energy doesn't go from your 'idea' to being the carving itself? If that's not the movement of energy, then what is? A master sculpter has developed his ability to channel the energy into manifestation, and so can express the energy perfectly - a novice has yet to master that flow of energy, and so what comes out may not be exactly what he imagined. You have probably seen the same thing happen with new students, trying to create something that they seem to understand, but still needing to adjust what they create.

Can you demonstrate how energy and information can be seperated? Can you have one without the other?

No. I'm sorry, I assumed you had read the other "popular" thread under astral biology. Yes, technically, it is difficult, but that's not why it's called hard magic. To be brief, if you think of normal magic as gasious, hard magic is hyper-dense and energetic magic to the point that it's litterially hard in comparison (as opposed to liquid/gas). Please read the other thread for a further explanation.


I did read it. Super dense, yes. I think that's what I mentioned before, but you told me it isn't harder to use, just harder to create. So hard magic is something that doesn't exist on it's own, it has to be fabricated? I mentioned earlier in this thread that some energies i've encountered are indeed super dense. usually in the 'hardwiring' areas of one astral context or another. I don't believe I've encountered a similar phenomenon outside of the astral, except maybe matter (super dense energy in comparison the the fluid energy that operates it). I'll shelve this one for now, though.

But that's the point. You still don't get tech. It is rather hard to explain because people don't get it.


I suppose i have a hard time explaining astral senses to people who haven't thought of the universe as having more than an apparently physical aspect, in the past, so I can see where the difficulty would be in that. When i've learned your method, i'll revisit this. Sometimes getting so used to dealing with a complicated issue prevents people from remembering the simle aspect of it's explanation. That is nothing against you, but it's a rather common issue. :)
mahasvapna
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:54 pm
Location: NYC

PreviousNext

Return to Interesting Magical Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Home | Forums | Members | Events | Public IRC | IRC | Documents | FAQ | Omnimancy Overview | Omnimancy Translator | Stories