See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: [1]
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Atheism and Physicalism have become a joke (semi-rant) Natural Science as the be all end all of knowledge is ludicrous itself. Natural Science has given humanity many wonderful discoveries and explained things which previously were misunderstood, but the progress it has made in its own specific fields, has retarded many others indirectly. By positioning the Scientific mindset and the lordship of Reason as the pinnacle of human achievement, the whole logical hierarchy of the fields  has been disrupted. Many things exist outside Reason, yet not in contradiction with it. The Self, which all people have an intuitive awareness of, cannot fully be grasped through Reason.

 Also we hear of things such as ontological physicalism, the denial of anything above or beyond the mere physical, which asserts the idiotic logic that physical matter itself as an idea must be material. It's insanity, as such irrational conjecture is self-refuting as their God is Reason itself. Reason needs subordinated once again to the Supra-Rational, the Intuitive. Reason needs to once again become a method for deconstructing delusions, not creating new ones.

A particular example of refuting such logic: Is it better to know what courage means, or to be courageous? What leads to a better understanding of courage: BEING courageous, or being able to recite the definition from a dictionary?

As even language implies, the highest degree of knowledge is Being the thing in question, not inquiring about its properties from afar.

June 17, 2017, 05:35:49 pm
3
Re: Love To Love is to will the best for another and to attempt to uplift them towards realizing their True Self. This is why "Universal Love" to me is lamentable, because the lack of differentiation makes the emotion nihilistic and trivial. 

To love a person is to promote their advancement and betterment, even if that may manifest itself in ways which makes others suffer or fail to realize themselves. An example being a man wanting his son to win the championship baseball game, which necessary means the kids on the opposing team must lose. 

That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.
—Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 153

The amorality of Love is what makes it so beautiful, it is a fundamental impulse to connect with the beautiful and spread it, an internal impulse, not from an external force or ethical imperative. 

June 19, 2017, 08:06:08 pm
4
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
Definitely LHP. I can see the argument there, that it is RHP, but in my opinion, a religion or philosophy does not have to strive to destroy social barriers via transgressive acts to qualify as Left Hand Path. The path isn't really about transgression as much as it is a quest for self improvement and a more self-centric form of Enlightenment.
Agreed, RHP's can also break social norms, clear examples being the founding of all 3 of the main Abrahamic religions, and even between and within those religions. For example when Jesus made all food permissible, by declaring that what goes into a man cannot defile him (Mark 7 & Mathew 15). The Cathars are another example of a RHP which broke from social custom, when they denied the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation due to their belief  that all matter was corrupted.

In its most basic terms:
Left-Hand: Elevates the Self as an independent entity, without dissolving into the Absolute or serving another being
Right-hand: Promotes the dissolving of the Self into the Absolute, or subordination to another being

Transgression is just a result of a difference in praxis, a RHP can even transgress against another RHP, Catharism vs Catholicism for example. It can't really be used as a way to classify the systems, it only seems like so because we are so caught up in the Christian worldview and coming from 2,000 years of Christian rule which has affected our terminology.

I don't like the concept of positioning 'Transgression' as a sort of principle. There's certainly honor, power, and Xeper, from going against the stream when one needs to in order to bring out their True Self, but war for the sake of war is a twisted mindset to have. And if one wants to say that transgression is fundamentally a part of the LHP, then one seems to imply that they are in it more for the sake of rebellion and defilement, than actual personal growth.

Transgress when needed, defy a malignant rule or ruler, but there's no Xeper in rebellion for rebellion's sake. It only results in an endless path of nihilism and destruction, rather than creation and growth.

June 21, 2017, 08:08:22 pm
3
Re: Chaoskampf Regarding the bit about Genocide, I think Materialism/Atheism, really has to come to a sad conclusion. 

If we assume the gene-centered view of Evolution is right, as many modern Biologists and Anthropologists say (like Dawkins), then we have to admit that the individual members are not the fundamental and most vital thing to Evolution. The literal genes are. So rather than seeing the individual species members as  independent conscious agents, they have to be looked at as simple "carriers of properties". Those properties being genes.

The issue with this is when you combine it with a Materialistic/Atheistic universe, there's simply no way to argue against genocidal actions as ethically wrong, or even bad. Appeals to suffering, human instincts and so forth, don't mean something is objectively wrong, and they also commit the Naturalistic fallacy. 

Without a Metaphysical view beyond Materialism/Atheism, there's nothing more fundamental than increasing the gene frequency in a population. All else is irrelevant, and only exists to serve the genes.

An example -  Let's imagine the Arabic/Islamic expansion never ceased, and they completely conquered the entire planet, replacing every non-Arabic population center, every town, city and village,  with a 100% Islamic Arab population. 

How can this even be considered ethically wrong according to the gene-centered view of Evolution? The Arabs would have exponentially increased the frequency of their own genes within the gene pool. Islam would have been the mechanism which made such a thing possible, so how could Islam or genocide be seen as wrong if it's so evolutionarily successful and the point to life is to spread one's genes. 

Such a conclusion could be combatted, but only through a deeper Metaphysical understanding of reality, without that, the Materialists/Atheists really have no valid way to deem genocide as wrong. No amount of pain or suffering it causes is relevant to a gene-centered worldview

Sorry that was a bit off-topic. Maybe you can tie it into your thoughts?

June 24, 2017, 12:18:45 pm
3