Self-Improvement and Interesting Knowledge

An alchemist is a person who is involved in a

struggle for immortality. As a result of that

relentless battle with death, they have

developed and greatly refined a number of

different skills. The most well-known of these

techniques that they employ is the ability to

perceive and work with energy directly. Which

has been symbolically represented as the

transmutation of base metals into gold, and

the creation of a thing called the Philosopher’s


Another skill developed by alchemists in their

battle to defy death, which is just as important

as the working with energy and creating the

Philosopher’s Stone, is the ability to move

beyond the walls that keep a person trapped

within the physical, three dimensional world.

This skill is called the way of the projectionist,

and most uninitiated people will understand it

best buy terms such as lucid dreaming or out of

body experiences.

An alchemist, in order to be successful in their

struggle, needs to become a master

projectionist. But someone who could be

referred to as a projectionist, because they can

consistently and consciously have lucid dreams

or out of body experiences, is not always an


The way of the projectionist then is a skill, one

very important proficiency, of inner alchemy.


  1. Is the “ghost in the machine” concept the same as Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind?
    Could you comment more on this topic?

    1. This is a very difficult question to answer simply. I am definitely not an expert on Ryle’s work but from my personal understanding only, I would have to say that the answer to this question would be yes and no simultaneously, and this is perhaps the biggest problem that the modern objective world has with inner alchemy, in that it cannot reconcile simultaneous quantum existence.
      Is the ghost from my work the same as the idea of the ‘ghost in the machine’ in Ryle’s work?
      ‘I say no’ because from what I know of Ryle’s work, he argued that there was no duality because in accordance with logic (meaning his idea of logic), such a version of logic cannot reconcile a separation between action and actor. From the inner alchemist point of view there is indeed an inner essence that in later stages of development (as vibrational frequency moves into what could be referred to as the objective or the physical world) could be called mind. Another way to say this would be to say that everything has an inner reality, an inner source that is responsible for the outer world, or as I like to say inner essence creates outer objectiveness. In that sense, from the inner alchemist’s point of view, there is an aspect that exists beyond biology and does continue, after the biological organism dies. And in that sense therefore, there is duality.
      ‘I say yes’ because in accordance with inner alchemy and what I have referred to as lucidity, it is understood that at a fundamental level there is no separation between any one thing and another, let alone between something that has been compartmentalized and conceptualized as a body and another part that has been compartmentalized and conceptualized as a mind. When a projectionist projects, one part of them moves across dimensions and a second part could be said to stay within the physical world. These parts seem separate but once lucidity is established, both are seen as the same thing; such a projectionist could be said to be in multiple dimensions simultaneously. Lucidity is the conscious understanding and awakening to this energetic fact that the body and the mind are one, that the mind is the body because the body is created from mind stuff. In that sense, inner alchemy agrees with Ryle.
      It both agrees and disagrees with Ryle, see what I mean.
      My conception of the ghost in the machine therefore is more than just a way to give a term to a duality that Ryle wanted to critique. For me as a practising inner alchemist, I use the term ghost in the machine to describe an accidental creation within the intensity of existence that has the possibility of defying the finite properties of the individuality that comes into existence within the physical dimension.

      1. I’m in doubt about the concept when it says:
        “an accidental creation within the intensity of existence”.

        1. I describe the accidental nature of the ghost and the concept of intensity of time in the book ‘The Way of the Projectionist’. I think that it is best to seek those answers there being that this is a complex topic.

          1. Thanks for your explanation.
            I read your book, but the full and perfect understanding of the ghost in the machine still eludes me because this “expression” is also used by other authors. That’s why I asked you to comment more on this topic.

          2. I understand and that is why I try very hard to introduce as many terms as I can that I think might help in understanding. In this case you may wish to look into my book, Out Of Body Experiences, Quickly And Naturally. There I use the term Double and introduce basic but more in depth methodologies to work with and understand this aspect of ourselves in a more workable fashion. You could try using the term Double and consider things from this perspective, BUT I feel that you won’t really understand what I am trying to describe until you begin to work with that aspect within yourself. To do this I would recommend the techniques that I describe in The Way of the Projectionist or the book mentioned above.
            I hope that helps.

  2. Hello John!
    First of all let me thank you for all your books, they helped me a lot and I know they will help a lot more.
    After finishing the inner alchemy trilogy I’ve finally begun to not just try out all the techniques listed but to take a systematic and thorough approach.
    After some work with some of them I’ve come to the projectionist rooms, and a thought got into my mind that I can’t get past.
    Here is the question:
    Is imagination and visualisation the same thing that you should use to push the wall of fog back or am I mistaken?
    If so, is me visualising the key or just a helpful tool in seeing everything with my senses?
    What is the difference between visualisation and multidimensional perception?
    Because for me it’s easy to imagine something, but I feel that it’s not what you imply by the exercises in the books.
    I’m again thankful for all the knowledge that you share, it really changed my life, cheers!


    1. Thank you very much for your kind words Zero.
      Honestly, I think that the best way for me to answer this question would be to have you check out this video that I made a little while back:
      I think that it answers many of these questions that you have. Generally, you can begin by thinking of visualization as a guide for intent and the will. We ‘see’ and do through an inner aspect of us and that aspect is best controlled, at least in the beginning, by visualization.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.