Constructs Are Inside and Outside Your Head

“Psychic” objects are phenomenal objects. Phenomenal objects are ones that fit our intuitions of what we think about when we think of “mental” things. Broadly, they are things like concepts, intentionality, intuition, attention, awareness, perception, experience, consciousness, etc. A construct is anything that is an intentional arrangement of elements. This means that any thought that you intentionally think about is a construct because it is an intentional arrangement of experiences, intuitions, concepts, and other things of that nature. This implies that whenever you imagine something, you are technically creating a construct. Metaphysically, there is a question of how this construct that exists inside of your head can also exist outside of your head. How is it that this thought that is inside of your head also exists outside of it in a way that it can be thought of as being an independent object?

Ironically, a lot of occult paradigms model the topic of the existence of magical and psychic constructs from an epiphenomenal perspective concerning consciousness. Those paradigms take for granted that something a person thinks about, and imagines is not a “real” thing, or construct until some sort of mystical energy is manipulated in accordance with whatever a person imagines. The idea is that the imagined thing is not a construct until it is translated into some mystical form of energy. A lot of energy working paradigms take those underlying metaphysical ideas as true. If a person wanted to create a ball of energy as outlined in a paradigm of energy manipulation, they might imagine and visualize that energy as being a ball. They may intend for this ball of energy to be between their hands. Typically, when people do exercises like this, they are unsure of the existence of the construct, so they ask someone to use some sort of psychic perception to check. If the person checking to see if a construct is there says I see no ball because I don’t perceive any mystical energy, so no construct exists, their perception is technically inaccurate.

When a person thinks about and is imagining a ball, they are intentionally arranging their perceptions, experiences, and thoughts about a ball; therefore, it is a construct. This means there exists a ball construct and that ball construct references the space that is in-between their hands. A construct exists that points to, and thus has a relationship with, the space between their hands. This is just to say if I asked them what they were thinking about, the answer to their question would be in the form of a statement about the space between their hands. This means there is a relationship between what the person was thinking about and say the space between their hands. It is like having a name of someone. Whether you physically call their name and they respond, or their name is sitting in a listing, that relationship is still there. Their name references them, so there is a relationship between that person and their name because a person’s name references that person. If one person asked another person to verify whether they created a construct, where the person attempted to create one intentionally, the answer is that they always created a construct if they were thinking about creating one. To say it a different way, if you attempted to perceive what was between a person’s hand without them asking you and they had thought about a ball between their hands but you picked up nothing, that would imply your psychic perception is inaccurate and not that such a construct doesn’t exists because there is a correlation between their thought and that space – their thought points to that space because it is about that space.

An example of this is if you had a list of names and addresses. The list of names and addresses references a person and thus has a relationship via being correlated with that person. If you go to that person or go to that address, you will find their apartment or be able to know who that person is. However, there are no forces happening as a result of this correlation. Now say you were in the physical locality of a group of people, you said a name, and the person said: “That’s me!”. You saying their name is what prompted them to respond. What caused them to respond was you saying their name, so not only was their name correlated with them, you saying their name caused them to respond to you. What would happen if you said their name and they were not around or what if they simply decided to ignore you? Them ignoring you or them not responding to you because they are not physically around does not imply that their name doesn’t reference them. It just implies that you saying their name does not cause them to respond to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ˆ Back To Top