Forum => General LHP Discussion => Topic started by: Xepera maSet on January 24, 2018, 08:49:59 pm

Title: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 24, 2018, 08:49:59 pm

This is a bit of a weird little writing for me. Generally I am writing about things I already have in-depth knowledge of, but this time I am learning and investigating as I type. So let's dive into this together.

It appears that Process Philosophy (PP) is at odds with most of the main philosophies of our day, perhaps even throughout history. Whereas most philosophy believes that there are set, stable aspects of the universe, PP believes that dynamic change is a fundamental aspect of nature. Everything is always in a constant state of change, and there is no stability. What first drew me to studying PP was the fact that this fundamental belief was a more perfect match for the Egyptian concept of Xeper, so important to Setianism, that I've ever seen. Temporarily stable things can exist, like you physical human body, but even that is constantly changing, aging, experiencing. PP is focused on the process of Being and Becoming, and analyzes what there is, what is occurring, and ways that things occur.

One example that shows the position of PP is to look at a river. Those who reject PP would see a single river, flowing through a single location, and say that every time you step in that river you are stepping in the same river. PP says the opposite – that the river is never the same because the water changes, the banks widen, the rocks in it become smoother, and so forth. In other words, every time you step into that river you are stepping into a new river that has simply kept some of its old traits.

At the center of PP are "actual occasions" or "actual entities," which can be everything from a sub-atomic particle to the individual human soul/consciousness. PP states that all actual entities are self-determining, experiential, and related to each other. Note that "self-determining and experiential" do not necessarily imply some sort of universal consciousness on every level. The body is a society of actual occasions that are organized by a single, dominant occasion – the human mind. There is no dualism here as both body and mind are the same ontological category, these "actual occasions."

We can compare PP to the Ontological Idealism of modern philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, who argues the "That Which Experiences (TWE)" is the fundamental ontology of reality. The different variations of TWE are more or less identical to these "actual occasions." It supports a monistic explanation of reality without needing to rely on either materialism or panpsychism. Enduring objects, the "alters" of Kastrup, are made up of "societies" of actual occasions.

As for Process Theism (PT), god is seen as an actual entity himself, and like everything else undergoes change. It is not an omni-god, nor does it control things in the universe piece by piece. It is a constantly developing and actually existent entity, not simply a principle. Further, god is seen as dipolar, meaning that part of its nature is the foundation of reality and the storehouse for universals (like the Platonic Forms), while the other part is a limited being that is constantly taking in data and changing as the world changes. This is also very interesting to me personally because it perfectly matches the idea of Set-Horus, the two-headed god, who represented aspects of both god – the pharaonic order and the chaos of free consciousness. God is a creative being, but not the ONLY creative being, for humans among others can also be creative.



Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 24, 2018, 09:24:33 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EaAeCYQfGI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EaAeCYQfGI)
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 24, 2018, 09:26:43 pm
It's interesting to note that Process Theism must be Left Hand Path, because the individual joins in the creative process with god who, at most, guides/suggests the path to Becoming. There is no obeying or anything of the sort, and the non-primordial aspect of god, in my case Set, is a being that should theoretically be able to be wrong, biased, ignorant on a topic, and so on. The rejection of free will to align oneself with something greater is still RHP and focused on the primordial aspect of god, which is the only unchanging thing in nature (so far as I can tell?) It's a type of dipolar Panentheism.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 24, 2018, 09:28:21 pm
I think it would also allow for an understanding of the universe without platonism. Knowledge isn't a stable form, but a relationship between things that is ever changing. This eliminates the need to say there is an "all-knowing" god in the Form of Knowledge. Consciousness is similar, it a relationship and a process, same as even the soul, which is not static but can change, which fits better with the concept of Initiation.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Frater V.I.M. on January 24, 2018, 09:51:03 pm
I myself have been intrigued by some of Whitehead's thoughts on Process Theology. Particularly the notion of "God" having two modes, neither of which cancels out the other: an eternal, timeless "part." and a part that is active and "finite" in a sense. Whitehead's concepts here resonate with me on a deep level, because my own Satanism is very much caught in the middle between the original Age of Satan ideas towards Satan as more or less "God" that is the Dark Force that rules and permeates the Cosmos on the one hand, and Aquino's departure from that view of making Satan/Set completely finite and completely apart from that "God." I've always been very much in love with this line from LaVey that seems to work as a way of balancing the two views through the avenue of Yezidi theology:

The Yezidi interpretation of God was in the purest Satanic tradition. . . . If there was any semblance of a personal manifestation of God, it was through Satan, who instructed and guided the Yezidi toward an understanding of the multifaceted principles of Creation, much like the Platonic idea that the Absolute was itself static and transcendental. This concept of ‘God’ is essentially the position taken by the more highly evolved Satanists.” - LaVey, The Satanic Rituals, 1972

Basically, Satan as the personal manifestation of a more or less impersonal Godhead instead of there being a stark contrast between the two as Aquino views it.

The way I view Satan-Aiwaz in Thelemic terms is also somewhat similar. His was the voice speaking in the entire Book of the Law, even when "Nuit," "Hadit," or "Ra-Hoor-Khuit" were being presented. This Trinity together is One, and constitute the transcendent Godhead that encompasses All. Satan-Aiwaz, the "Minister" of these, is ultimately a personal manifestation of this trinity. I see him as "the Star in the company of stars of whose fire we are created," the first Conscious manifestation of the Absolute, and each of us are reflections of Him, each of us also being Conscious manifestations of the Absolute, and thereby the "God" of each of our own Subjective Universes.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 24, 2018, 11:05:39 pm
So universals still exist, just in the "mind" of the primordial god? They're more or less stored, right? So the Forms still exist they're just more tightly related to their manifestations, because they don't precede those manifestations, but come into being at the same time?
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Frater V.I.M. on January 25, 2018, 12:20:58 am
That sounds like a fair way to approach it more or less. When it comes to the Absolute, and the transcendental part of all this, we're talking about things that are inherently timeless, so nothing "there" can really "precede" anything else in the gross sense we mean it when talking about space/time. But, since we ARE in the cosmos of space/time HERE, it would at the same time be correct in a clunky, limited way to talk of that Unity "preceding" the Individuals that come from it.

I might have already mentioned this quote from Sallust and the comment by the translator Thomas Taylor somewhere else in a thread here before (I'm prone to bringing it up alot in conversations about the Absolute or First Cause vs the Gods that arise from it), so forgive me if I'm repeating it again, but I think it's relevant to this discussion a little bit:

"That a God is immutable, without Generation, eternal, incorporeal, and has no Subsistence in Place. . . . The essences of the gods are neither generated; for eternal natures are without generation; and those beings are eternal who possess a first power, and are naturally void of passivity. Nor are their essences composed from bodies; for even the powers of bodies are incorporeal: nor are they comprehended in place; for this is the property of bodies: nor are they separated from the first cause, or from each other; in the same manner as intellections are not separated from intellect, nor sciences from the soul." - Sallust

"The reader must not suppose from this, that the gods are nothing more than so many attributes of the first cause; for if this were the case, the first god would be multitude, but the one must always be prior to the many. But the gods, though they are profoundly united with their ineffable cause, are at the same time self-perfect essences; for the first cause is prior to self-perfection. Hence as the first cause is superessential, all the gods, from their union through the summits or blossoms of their natures with this incomprehensible god, will be likewise superessential; in the same manner as trees from being rooted in the earth are all of them earthly in an eminent degree. And as in this instance the earth itself is essentially distinct from the trees which it contains, so the highest god is transcendency distinct from the multitude of gods which he ineffably comprehends." - Taylor
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: pi_rameses on January 25, 2018, 12:28:32 am
This seems agreeable to me. By your definition, Heraclitus is also a process philosopher as one of his famous aphorisms was that you can't step in the same river twice. Another restatement of this state of mind: the road up and down is the same.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 25, 2018, 01:30:44 pm
I mean, the Forms would just be the set plans for reoccurring actual occasions I think, basically in the "mind" of god. So the first time X manifest it got a blueprint, and now it can manifest similar ways?
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: crossfire on January 25, 2018, 03:06:32 pm
I think it would also allow for an understanding of the universe without platonism. Knowledge isn't a stable form, but a relationship between things that is ever changing. This eliminates the need to say there is an "all-knowing" god in the Form of Knowledge. Consciousness is similar, it a relationship and a process, same as even the soul, which is not static but can change, which fits better with the concept of Initiation.
I often say that I'd love to watch Chuangzi slap Plato silly. ;)
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 25, 2018, 03:40:35 pm
I don't know. Even with Process Philosophy Platonism still seems necessary. There's still a platonic "blueprint" behind every, say, Square, even if that square reduces to a society of actual occasions. It's those occasions acting in a specific way, and both aspects of God would be able to retain information on patterns that manifest.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Olive on January 26, 2018, 12:26:27 am
Did anyone else find the presentation of Process Theism in that video series to be almost sickeningly apologetic to Christianity and World Worship?

The idea is that god is a relational entity that softly persuades all things to good and very subtly leads us to the best possible future. Where do we see evidence of this all-pervading love outside of human nature and the brief space of family life? Outside of that, Nature is almost exclusively war and carnage.

"Perhaps we have far to go in our God-guided evolution. Growing, if we choose to, ever closer to God's vision of what we can become."

So this god of love has a hand in the process of evolution? Which is basically just a game of "Who survives long enough to reproduce in the slaughterhouse." Getting some mixed signals here God...

"God's power is of love and persuasion, not unilateral ability. Therefore the problem of Theodicy (God allowing evil in the world) becomes a problem of Anthropodicy (Man allowing evil in the world)."

See, so many religious beliefs try to do this - to place the entire burden of Evil on Man's psychology alone. But Man could not set things right here even if he wanted to. The entire natural process is killing and stealing for survival. Even man himself is subject to this. How many living creatures are put to death every year to fuel us? It seems like if there is any pervading persuasive power, it is the dire hunger that leads all creatures to devour each other. The same force that has ever driven us on to create more vicious and efficient ways of dealing death, up to and including mankind.

It is almost as if evil is the natural course of things, and to do good is to go against that.

The proposed God experiences everything in real time, and also feels what all creatures feel. Think about this in the context of our world for a second. Think about the dinosaurs. This God spent hundreds of millions of years experiencing that carnage with practically no love to speak of. He experienced being eaten alive AND eating other things alive thousands upon thousands of times a day for such a long period that the dead are actually innumerable. This... crosses the line from empathy or sympathy to Sadomasochism. If God was truly experiencing and changing alongside all of this, what kind of change would it produce?

And still, this force seems to have failed utterly in bringing about much if any love. It seems incredibly more likely that Love is a product of Compassion, which is made possible by self-consciousness and consideration of others. In other words, brought about by the anomaly we know in mankind.

Therefore, this loving force is more closely related to a form like Set - a prince of darkness that allows us to go against and reverse the cruel operation of this world. Notice that Set would not even have to solely concerned with producing love. Even if he only cared about greater understanding and comprehension, this would naturally produce compassion in any mortal that is able to grasp the predicament all living things are in here.

You could call TWE neutral or indifferent; but if it has had any effect at all on this reality, and you want to say it is mainly concerned with Love.... that is hard to take seriously. Just based on an honest assessment of this world alone.

"Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim."
-Arthur Schopenhauer


Just to be clear, I certainly do respect process philosophy as a way to represent and think about the reality of an existence in flux. However, this methodology makes it even more glaringly obvious when other values have been superimposed on it. I think a Process Theology of Horus/Set or The Absolute/Promethean Figure are both much more compelling (I spoke about this a little bit more in the other thread). Even Sophia/Demiurgos makes a lot of sense, if you grant that the human spirit is in some way related to the former.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 26, 2018, 01:06:17 am
I just skimmed that for now but yes, the video is crazy biased. I see no reason process theism implies Christmas.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Kapalika on January 26, 2018, 11:50:45 am
As I was reading the replies, I couldn't help but have a few different thoughts.

1. I find it pretty cool that people are drawing comparisons of 'aspects of god' and assigning it to deities as part of some whole. At least in Trika, we have this laid out pretty explicitly with Shiva-Shakti whereas Shiva is the unchanging part and Shakti is the changing, expressed part. Essentially from my perspective Set-Horus ect are fulfilling the same function of Shiva-Shakti here (that of Ishvaras, in a more yogic rather than tattva sense). It's a rather refreshing call-back to the Hindu roots of the Left Hand Path that I'm seeing unfold.

2. Speaking on tattvas actually, If Platoism useful to someone, then that's perfectly in keeping with the system since it (tattvas) is to be tailored to what someone needs. The trap that many fall into is mistaking the symbol for reflection for the reality behind it. Jnana is said to be one of the hardest yogas though.

On a similar note, is anyone here familiar with Semiotics? It explores similar distinctions but it seems rather dry and dense to me and I didn't really understand the wikipedia article or really anything I found on it. I probably just lack contextual understanding, since I'm not as familiar with western philosophy.


3. Okay, now for the last one... My main gripe with Process Theory is that it's essentially, to me, a third of Buddhism. The other third I don't like which Process Theory implies, and why I'm not a Buddhist, is that since there is no fixed, eternal "self" that we don't exist. @crossfire (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5) touched on this with me in the other topic, when I asked if this was why Buddhists believe in the Anatta. I actually had a bit of a debate about this with another Buddhist yesterday to no better understanding.

A.

Essentially to me, the process of change doesn't indicate that the inherent nature has changed. Thankfully Satanism is gonna save my ass here and I'll explain in a moment, but from an orthodox Hindu perspective one would say that our eternal self is X (which may or may not have individuation) and that we realize that our ego ect is an illusion. Buddhism in a way came out of that thought but took it a little further, that we literally don't exist. The idea is not far removed from another Natiska school, Samkhya, but it's still further than even that.

Anyways since Buddhism says we don't exist, it has more in common with self-annihilation rather than self-deification. I know that this kind of nihilism is a stepping stone in Buddhism but no one's ever properly told me how you get out of that nihilism. My understanding of what comes after nihilism is partial but as I understand the final outcome it's utterly incompatible with my beliefs.

B.

Now, back to how I can reconcile the fact that everything we know changes and yet there is an eternal self. While it's possible to attribute some eternal fixture to ideas such as platoism(at least at this stage) ect there is a simpler way, that also sidesteps the problems of a lot of Hinduism that everything is inherently conciousness; Satan.

Satan, is opposition, and so inherently change as dualistic forces work in both harmony and chaos as I had touched on my pro-cosmic Satanism topic. If we are to say that Satan represents human nature, and that nature is change, we can recognize Process Theory as being correct in this regard.

But then we might have to content with the logical implication that we don't exist, since we are not eternal. Like the river, it's a new river since the water was replaced. We sidestep this by recognizing that the dualistic forces are an emanation of sorts, that our individuation stem from Satan's inherent nature as change, or opposition.

C.

You know who else is change? Kali. And again, we return to Shakti. I touched on Satan as a pro-cosmic figure in my one topic in the Satanism section, and it might be a lot to get into now (particularly as I'm over an hour into this post and getting a bit' worn out) but essentially Kali/Satan are change, and they are both us, as we are change and in flux.

But then that establishes an eternal self, an aspect of us that never changes. And if we were to ever change that aspect, we would cease to change and break the cycle anyway and Process Theory couldn't be totally correct. In other words, there has to be some eternal fixture at some point.

In Trika, we assign this to Shiva. I could also interchange this with Satan since Shiva although eternal is always remanifesting Kali/Universe. In Hinduism there is a belief of time as ages that repeat. I guess it's possible that this cycle could be broken, but then whatever came after doesn't have to be cyclic too.

I'm needing to figure out breakfast... so I'll try to wrap up quickly...

D.

In either case, this non physical, transcendent aspect, the Shiva tattva, is the eternal self. It's Shiva-Shakti, and often to me Satan as both the change and the unchanging change. The source of function and the inherent self in us. I suppose someone could see Shiva/Satan in this respect as some kind of singular, reductionist platonic object, but I find that cumbersome since Shiva-Shakti is the reconciliation of subject-object while preserving individualization (hence also Satan).

This preserving of the individual despite non-duality is both supported by Kashmir Shaivism's scriptures and implicit in the more mainstream 36 tattva system of Shaivism. Satanism for me provides a secondary explanation and a mutual bridge of understanding. It's the same thing from different perspectives, that compliment each other well. I don't find this suprising at all though, because the Left Hand Path started in Hinduism. In my opinion the greatest revelations of the modern LHP always return to these roots. And it tickles me to see this unfold for others in front of me.

??hungry??

I just realized I forgot to integrate the aspect of Kali as our magical expression of change, black magick ect, but I can figure out a better explanation later... time for breakfast it's almost 7 AM.

Actually, if anyone is interested, I can expand on this and streamline my thoughts in my next blogpost (it's something I didn't have the statistical to expand on before anyway, and I wanted a 2.0 to my 'Tantra of Shiva and Satan' post anyway). I just revamped my blog recently and was gonna get it rolling again.

I just skimmed that for now but yes, the video is crazy biased. I see no reason process theism implies Christmas.

What about Saturnalia? :D
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Olive on January 26, 2018, 04:01:54 pm

Essentially to me, the process of change doesn't indicate that the inherent nature has changed. Thankfully Satanism is gonna save my ass here and I'll explain in a moment, but from an orthodox Hindu perspective one would say that our eternal self is X (which may or may not have individuation) and that we realize that our ego ect is an illusion. Buddhism in a way came out of that thought but took it a little further, that we literally don't exist. The idea is not far removed from another Natiska school, Samkhya, but it's still further than even that.

Anyways since Buddhism says we don't exist, it has more in common with self-annihilation rather than self-deification. I know that this kind of nihilism is a stepping stone in Buddhism but no one's ever properly told me how you get out of that nihilism. My understanding of what comes after nihilism is partial but as I understand the final outcome it's utterly incompatible with my beliefs.

In Hinduism we say the eternal self is Atman. In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika this is a type of individuated soul. They say it contains karmic traces from each action of its incarnations, storing them up to ultimately be settled. (Therefore producing justice in the universe.) They also say that it is all-pervading, witness to all. And one has experience by moving Manas (Mind) through the Atman. The individual Manas enters into a special relation with the Atman at a certain location and time, and this is how consciousness of an event happens. In the Vedanta schools, the Atman is taken to be something that is not specific to an individual but is shared by all living things, and this is also Brahman. The core of us is therefore eternal in either school.

Now what Shakyamuni Buddha is saying with the Anatman doctrine is this: This concept of a soul existing independently of a body has never been demonstrated. It is easy to run off on a tangent with this soul concept with what are ultimately shoddy premises. He is not saying that you are literally fake in that your experiences aren't actually real, because they are real enough. Instead he says that there is no eternal individual self that exists independently of the body. And the body/mind can't be considered an eternal self either because of impermanence - it is always changing. No steady "you" is carried throughout and beyond this process of life. So it is illusory in that sense, but they aren't saying it is actually fake.

The two wrong views are:
1. The body is a self
2. There is a self inside the body.

But keep in mind that the Buddha also considered Nihilism to be an extreme. He answered both of the questions "Is there a Self?" and "Is there not a Self?" with Silence.


You know who else is change? Kali. And again, we return to Shakti. I touched on Satan as a pro-cosmic figure in my one topic in the Satanism section, and it might be a lot to get into now (particularly as I'm over an hour into this post and getting a bit' worn out) but essentially Kali/Satan are change, and they are both us, as we are change and in flux.

But then that establishes an eternal self, an aspect of us that never changes. And if we were to ever change that aspect, we would cease to change and break the cycle anyway and Process Theory couldn't be totally correct. In other words, there has to be some eternal fixture at some point.
...

In either case, this non physical, transcendent aspect, the Shiva tattva, is the eternal self. It's Shiva-Shakti, and often to me Satan as both the change and the unchanging change. The source of function and the inherent self in us. I suppose someone could see Shiva/Satan in this respect as some kind of singular, reductionist platonic object, but I find that cumbersome since Shiva-Shakti is the reconciliation of subject-object while preserving individualization (hence also Satan).

So I agree, we and everything are always in flux and changing. This is impermanence. I suppose where you are losing me is - why are you calling this all pervading change a self? It is certainly eternal and transpersonal. Individuation is real (enough), but it is not preserved by this change nor does it will this change to be. In fact this change brought us to be as temporal beings, that had a beginning and will be destroyed. We can talk about Xeper and guiding manifestations, but none of these suggest the independent, eternal soul.

We can talk about things that are eternal or at least might be, like the ever-turning wheel of time (Kali/Kala) and the Will to Live, and other Ideas that are always reborn in this realm. But I don't see how one can say that those things are the soul. Or if you do, it seems folly to say at least that your awareness or consciousness becomes that after death, therefore continuing on eternally etc etc...

Vedanta tells you that this Atman is impersonal, it is not the Ego. It is not any personal memory or inclination you might have. It is just inherent in a conscious being like us. This is similar to something they talk about in Mahayana called the Buddha-Mind, or in other schools as the unconditioned mind. It is the closest thing to an essential being-ness we have as living beings. It is inherent to conscious beings like us, and we can become aware of this inherent state through meditative practices and deprogramming ourselves. The only difference is that Buddhism does not assert this to be an entity or force that exists beyond us eternally. They also would not call it a self in that sense because it is not personal in any way - it is the unconditioned mind at the root of every person.


I think your Shiva/Satanism is a really interesting system, @Kapalika (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24). To be clear I am not putting it down at all. It just seemed like you were arguing for a kind of individual immortalism, but I can't actually find anything that logically implies this in what you posted. You said your main problem with Buddhism was that they say that "we don't exist." But I think this is a misunderstanding. They aren't saying that you literally aren't there right now, looking at a computer screen. They are saying that this "you" is illusory because it is not stable, permanent, or discernible in mental or physical phenomena. It is always changing, and will be gone before you know it!

Please forgive me if I've accidentally misrepresented anything you said. If you do believe in an eternal soul, a transmigrating soul, reincarnation that maintains your personal awareness, or individual immortality, I would be happy to continue to debate this issue - although in that case another thread might be appropriate as we are getting beyond the scope of process philosophy.

Cheers! I hope you enjoyed your breakfast.  :)
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 26, 2018, 04:47:42 pm
I'm curious who would be the "female" aspect of Horus-Set. Almost certainly Set.

Is there a type of Hinduism that believes in something like the WLHP concept of apotheosis?

How do Hindu traditions relate to Platonic Forms, if at all? For example, many argue that the platonic forms and Egyptian Neteru are more or less identical, is this true in Hinduism?

[Another question I forgot]?
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Xepera maSet on January 26, 2018, 04:50:17 pm
Oh my other point was I agree that Whitehead and process theism seem VERY biased towards RHP tradition. I don't think this has to be the case though, as I (tried lol) to explain above. It's looking like Monism can still account for Setian Metaphysics.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: crossfire on January 26, 2018, 04:55:20 pm
<...>
3. Okay, now for the last one... My main gripe with Process Theory is that it's essentially, to me, a third of Buddhism. The other third I don't like which Process Theory implies, and why I'm not a Buddhist, is that since there is no fixed, eternal "self" that we don't exist. @crossfire (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5) touched on this with me in the other topic, when I asked if this was why Buddhists believe in the Anatta. I actually had a bit of a debate about this with another Buddhist yesterday to no better understanding.

<...>

Anyways since Buddhism says we don't exist, it has more in common with self-annihilation rather than self-deification. I know that this kind of nihilism is a stepping stone in Buddhism but no one's ever properly told me how you get out of that nihilism. My understanding of what comes after nihilism is partial but as I understand the final outcome it's utterly incompatible with my beliefs.

<..>
Actually, it's having self views which is considered a hindrance in Buddhism.  This includes both holding the view that there is an Atman, as well as holding the view that there is no Atman.  Holding views regarding Atman or no Atman builds up a philosophical thicket that you have to chop down in order to observe unobscured.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Liu on January 26, 2018, 04:56:46 pm
@Olive (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=104) I guess the misunderstanding is once again based on what we mean by self.

If I understand it correctly, @Kapalika (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24) means awareness per se, whereas @Olive (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=104) means the mind/psyche, with a special focus on the ego/personality.


@Kapalika (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24): I really enjoyed your post, and I'd gladly read your new blog post.
From my vague knowledge of Kashmir Shaivism I come to similar conclusions. I'd mainly equate Satan with Shiva in that system as Shakti is a part/emanation of Shiva and therefore he encompasses her as well (at least that's how I understood it in that book on Abhinavagupta you recommended me and which I recently started reading).

Regarding semiotics, well, I have some passing familiarity with it from a linguistic point of view - it's a very wide field, though, not a single philosophy/theory.

Regarding the nihilism of Buddhism, I can't tell how Buddhist see it, but what you wrote reminds me of what I read in the texts of many an anti-cosmic Satanist when they talk about returning to the nothingness out of which everything would stem. I would guess the closest parallel to that in your belief system would be the pure awareness-aspect of Shiva, i.e. the unchanging part without Shakti. That of course is incompatible with our goals since we certainly don't want to completely stop experiencing the world. But it would seem likely to me that a philosophy like Buddhism would come to a different conclusion.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Kapalika on January 27, 2018, 07:27:49 am
Huge ass post...

In Hinduism we say the eternal self is Atman. In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika this is a type of individuated soul. They say it contains karmic traces from each action of its incarnations, storing them up to ultimately be settled. (Therefore producing justice in the universe.) They also say that it is all-pervading, witness to all. And one has experience by moving Manas (Mind) through the Atman. The individual Manas enters into a special relation with the Atman at a certain location and time, and this is how consciousness of an event happens. In the Vedanta schools, the Atman is taken to be something that is not specific to an individual but is shared by all living things, and this is also Brahman. The core of us is therefore eternal in either school.

Well uh, ya I'm aware of all of that, I'm just not particularly thrilled by Vedanata, or any of the orthodox stuff with the exception of maybe Yoga.

That said, sure the atman ect. In my religion we tend to associate the aham (heart) with it though since citta regenerates into cit. Funny enough, (it's on my desktop that needs a new PSU) I have a song where I got the line "Aham Atman Bound" in the lyrics. Equating my own Atman with Shiva/Satan/Kali is pretty standard for me.


Quote from: Olive
Now what Shakyamuni Buddha is saying with the Anatman doctrine is this: This concept of a soul existing independently of a body has never been demonstrated. It is easy to run off on a tangent with this soul concept with what are ultimately shoddy premises. He is not saying that you are literally fake in that your experiences aren't actually real, because they are real enough. Instead he says that there is no eternal individual self that exists independently of the body. And the body/mind can't be considered an eternal self either because of impermanence - it is always changing. No steady "you" is carried throughout and beyond this process of life. So it is illusory in that sense, but they aren't saying it is actually fake.

To a Hindu that is basically saying you don't exist. But I've also legit heard this position from some Buddhists before too, that we don't exist.

Quote from: olive
So I agree, we and everything are always in flux and changing. This is impermanence. I suppose where you are losing me is - why are you calling this all pervading change a self? It is certainly eternal and transpersonal. Individuation is real (enough), but it is not preserved by this change nor does it will this change to be. In fact this change brought us to be as temporal beings, that had a beginning and will be destroyed. We can talk about Xeper and guiding manifestations, but none of these suggest the independent, eternal soul.

I'm not saying that change itself is a soul, but that change itself is proof of an eternal constant. Souls in of themselves are proven via scripture, visions, mystical experience and countless sages throughout the ages. I will say, however, that within my own divination, visions and mystical experiences that there are component, eternal parts to souls. Soul is a bit of an inaccurate word. Maybe I'll get around to defining it better and presenting my entire soul-reincarnation-us-ness-everythingness-spirity-ness theory ma-bob. It's an extension of Trika but it fits pretty well. I have a name for the most developed subpart of the theory but I never bothered naming the overarching generalized theory of it.
Quote from: olive
We can talk about things that are eternal or at least might be, like the ever-turning wheel of time (Kali/Kala) and the Will to Live, and other Ideas that are always reborn in this realm. But I don't see how one can say that those things are the soul. Or if you do, it seems folly to say at least that your awareness or consciousness becomes that after death, therefore continuing on eternally etc etc...

After death? Lol who ever said that? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean but I didn't say that change itself is our soul or that we become them in death.

Quote from: olive
Vedanta tells you that this Atman is impersonal, it is not the Ego.

I don't believe in Vedanta but the Shiva Sutras. Actually Jaidev Singh in his translation/commentaries lays out exactly why the Vedanta goal is less ideal than Shivagama, if you want me to dig it up.


Quote from: olive
I think your Shiva/Satanism is a really interesting system, @Kapalika (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24). To be clear I am not putting it down at all. It just seemed like you were arguing for a kind of individual immortalism, but I can't actually find anything that logically implies this in what you posted.

Well uh, thanks, but also I kind of was arguing for an eternal self. Most of what I said was just straight up from the Shiva Sutras. As I said, I just add Satanism to reflect back on it, and vice versa. The understanding ultimately is measured against Vasugupta's writings as the standard, and generally against Kashmir Shaivism/Trika.

I do now and then nuance it in my own way though, but I generally try to be transparent and direct about my deviations as far as I am aware of them.

Quote from: olive
You said your main problem with Buddhism was that they say that "we don't exist." But I think this is a misunderstanding. They aren't saying that you literally aren't there right now, looking at a computer screen. They are saying that this "you" is illusory because it is not stable, permanent, or discernible in mental or physical phenomena. It is always changing, and will be gone before you know it!

That just disproves an eternal ego not an eternal self.
Quote from: olive
Please forgive me if I've accidentally misrepresented anything you said. If you do believe in an eternal soul, a transmigrating soul, reincarnation that maintains your personal awareness, or individual immortality, I would be happy to continue to debate this issue - although in that case another thread might be appropriate as we are getting beyond the scope of process philosophy.

Of course I believe in an eternal soul, that's why I'm Hindu. If I didn't, I'd be Buddhist. However I'm not inclined to debate on it.

That said, Process Theory directly is related because if it's entirely true, we can't use any kind of eternal "self" as an inherent substance of atman.

Quote
Cheers! I hope you enjoyed your breakfast.  :)

Thanks. I can barely remember what all of random stuff I ate, but I know an ungodly huge orange was involved.


Actually, it's having self views which is considered a hindrance in Buddhism.  This includes both holding the view that there is an Atman, as well as holding the view that there is no Atman.  Holding views regarding Atman or no Atman builds up a philosophical thicket that you have to chop down in order to observe unobscured.

What is the annata if not... no atman? Isn't that literally what it means? I've talked about this with a lot of Buddhists from Middle Way, to randoms on the internet to a Vajrayana monk. It seems that they don't believe in an atman and take the annata stance. Unless I really didn't understand WTF they were saying, it sounded like holding we have no atman is required to be a Buddhist (and thus, according to him, practice "real tantra"). This was actually a point of contention and why any discussion broke down with me and the monk, sadly.


I'm curious who would be the "female" aspect of Horus-Set. Almost certainly Set.

Is there a type of Hinduism that believes in something like the WLHP concept of apotheosis?

How do Hindu traditions relate to Platonic Forms, if at all? For example, many argue that the platonic forms and Egyptian Neteru are more or less identical, is this true in Hinduism?

[Another question I forgot]?

As per apotheosis; I'm not keen on the nuances of it in western occultism but I've posted a lot about Shivagama within Trika/Kashmir Shaivism on this forum. I'm pretty sure I've singled it out as being self-deification since citta regenerates into cit and you reach the highest potential of magic possible since literally kali becomes your cosmic expression.

I also think I did, in my post here, ightly touch on a comparison of tattvas and platoism; more generally though, they are not strictly a mental thing: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Tattvas36.gif

I'm not sure on the specifics of Platoism; but tattvas can be reduced or expanded as much as needed. So they are recognized as models, not the reality itself:

"It is important to understand that, according to Kashmir Shaivism, this analysis of all phenomena into thirty six tattvas is not an absolute truth. It has been worked out by the authors of the philosophy as a tool of understanding for the ever-active and inquiring mind and as a form for contemplative meditation. Through further analysis, the number of tattvas can be increased to any level. Similarly, through synthesis, they can be decreased down to one tattva alone. In fact this has been done in the Tantraloka, where one can find doctrines of contemplation on fifteen, thirteen, eleven, nine, seven, five, and as few as three tattvas as well. The practitioners of the Trika system use only three tattvas in the process of a quick sadhana: Shiva representing the absolute unity, Shakti representing the link between duality and unity, and Nara representing the extreme duality."


- B. N. Pandit, Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism

@Olive (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=104) I guess the misunderstanding is once again based on what we mean by self.

If I understand it correctly, @Kapalika (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24) means awareness per se, whereas @Olive (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=104) means the mind/psyche, with a special focus on the ego/personality.

Shiva is consciousnesses, Kali is awareness of consciousness. Not sure how interchangeable consciousness and awareness is. I guess it stands to reason that awareness of the self allows change of the self hence why she is the agent and manifestation of change and Shiva that underlying nature.


Quote from: Liu
@Kapalika (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24): I really enjoyed your post, and I'd gladly read your new blog post.
From my vague knowledge of Kashmir Shaivism I come to similar conclusions. I'd mainly equate Satan with Shiva in that system as Shakti is a part/emanation of Shiva and therefore he encompasses her as well (at least that's how I understood it in that book on Abhinavagupta you recommended me and which I recently started reading).

Regarding semiotics, well, I have some passing familiarity with it from a linguistic point of view - it's a very wide field, though, not a single philosophy/theory.

Thanks. Though I broke the site after breakfast so it might be a little longer until I fix it :s

As far as semiotics, the thingy about the signalled, signifer ect.  I wanted to explore that and it's implications in religious language and particularly in nuances in logic based on one's cultural background, if that's at all a thing.

Quote from: lui
Regarding the nihilism of Buddhism, I can't tell how Buddhist see it, but what you wrote reminds me of what I read in the texts of many an anti-cosmic Satanist when they talk about returning to the nothingness out of which everything would stem. I would guess the closest parallel to that in your belief system would be the pure awareness-aspect of Shiva, i.e. the unchanging part without Shakti. That of course is incompatible with our goals since we certainly don't want to completely stop experiencing the world. But it would seem likely to me that a philosophy like Buddhism would come to a different conclusion.

I'm not sure how you can have Shiva without Shakti. I mean, if you did that, nothing would ever happen yes. It would mean utter destruction of reality as we know it. Perhaps some state of somethingness might exist but it wouldn't be like anything we could conceptualize. Remember that Trika/Kashmir Shaivism holds that the physical world is very real and concrete. I guess to some total self-annihilation isn't a big deal. I find it rather suicidal in an indirect way.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: crossfire on January 27, 2018, 04:21:10 pm
<...>


Actually, it's having self views which is considered a hindrance in Buddhism.  This includes both holding the view that there is an Atman, as well as holding the view that there is no Atman.  Holding views regarding Atman or no Atman builds up a philosophical thicket that you have to chop down in order to observe unobscured.

What is the annata if not... no atman? Isn't that literally what it means? I've talked about this with a lot of Buddhists from Middle Way, to randoms on the internet to a Vajrayana monk. It seems that they don't believe in an atman and take the annata stance. Unless I really didn't understand WTF they were saying, it sounded like holding we have no atman is required to be a Buddhist (and thus, according to him, practice "real tantra"). This was actually a point of contention and why any discussion broke down with me and the monk, sadly.


Check out this link to the
Sabbasava Sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html):
Quote
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
The idea of Self or No-Self is not fit for attention, as it creates a thicket of views that one does not get freed from.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: pi_rameses on February 25, 2018, 01:15:25 pm
Oh my other point was I agree that Whitehead and process theism seem VERY biased towards RHP tradition. I don't think this has to be the case though, as I (tried lol) to explain above. It's looking like Monism can still account for Setian Metaphysics.

I very much like the monistic (non-dual) schema. It seems to me that whenever Set (Satan by implication) is mentioned, then Horus (whatever Horian aspect it implies) is too. So we're talking about TWE or Hrwfy.
Title: Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
Post by: Sutekh on February 26, 2018, 12:23:00 am
Quote
Knowledge isn't a stable form, but a relationship between things that is ever changing.

I definitely agree.