See likes

See likes given/taken

Your posts liked by others

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38]
Post info No. of Likes
Re: What are you reading? First time looking through the Compendium of Demonology and Magic 1775. Here's some of the crazy shit!

January 12, 2018, 06:34:47 pm
Re: potential cover for something of mine Very awesome
January 12, 2018, 07:39:33 pm
Re: What are you reading? This is a translation

January 13, 2018, 03:03:57 am
"Mysteries of the Graal" from Black Runa From Dr. Flowers' work for the ToS Order of the Trapezoid.

January 14, 2018, 05:51:32 pm
Re: "Mysteries of the Graal" from Black Runa Finally the true meaning of the Trapezoid in the O.Tr. is made clear - any Trapezoid itself is the Graal.
January 14, 2018, 06:04:07 pm
Re: How do you treat your altar? Moving in with my SO I decided to ditch the set altar and spread it through the house. I never do actual altar work anyways.
January 16, 2018, 03:36:06 pm
Re: Discussing Beliefs Main Reasons I Changed to Setianism

1.   Platonism seeming sound. Platonism says that for anything that exists in our objective world of matter (X), there is a Platonic Form of X. There are many ways that we can conclude Platonism. One is that (1) our world is in a constant state of change but the world of Forms is posited to be unchanging, (2) and we can have knowledge of unchanging realities [i.e. math and logic], (3) therefore the realm of unchanging reality (Forms) must exist. Another is to take two similar things, like a small blue chair and a large blue table. We can recognize them as separate things – a chair and a table – but also recognize the similar characteristics they share – blue, four legs, etc. This is because all those things – the color blue, having four legs, being used for sitting/sitting at, etc – have their own Platonic Form. Obviously the blueness is not inherent in the table or chair, for then something non-identical to the chair could not be blue. Both the table and chair, and anything else blue, partake in the Form of Blueness, which is why we can recognize this identical characteristic in non-identical things.

2.   Platonism implying polytheism. If there are Forms for everything, there are Forms of knowledge, consciousness, love, anger, order, chaos, so forth and so on. Whereas something like the Form of a Triangle is not all that special (triangles don't do things like think, desire, etc.) and does not partake in itself (the Form of Triangles isn't a triangle itself, Forms are immaterial essence and this would require yet a greater Form), the Forms mentioned here do indeed think, desire, know, seek, etc., and as they are all immaterial properties themselves they partake in themselves. The Form of Consciousness, for example, has all those properties that make one conscious – self-awareness, desires, goals, knowledge/ignorance, and so forth. Same with things like Desire, Knowledge, and on. These Forms – immaterial, self-aware beings with their own identity, desires, knowledge, goals, etc. – share identical characteristics with polytheistic gods, who are immaterial, self-aware beings with their own identity, desires, knowledge, goals, etc. In other words, the by the Law of Identity, if Platonism is true then Polytheism is true, and the "gods" are how human beings have come to understand the Forms.

3.   The Human Revolution in consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. You see, humans existed as a species, physically/biologically, for around 150,000 years without any advances in higher consciousness. We were another animal, very slowly learning to mess with the world we lived in within a purely animalistic/survivalist mindset. Then, rather suddenly, came abstract thought, art, religion, jewelry, and eventually things like language and alphabets. Our consciousness greatly leaped forwards, and began exponentially increasing on such a level that it still hasn't stopped. Interestingly, interference from something like Set is by far more parsimonious than the entire humans species magically sharing the same mutation which overwrites the previous genetic makeup of the whole species, or even worse, having a massive leap forwards as some sort of uncaused event. This is doubly true when you understand that….

4.   Said consciousness can go against Nature, in other words it is "unnatural" to an extent. We can question, manipulate, and even go against the deterministic, material, machine like universe we all objectively inhabit. We can question it, looking for meaning, looking for answers, trying to understand the very natural world we came from unlike any other material life we know. We can manipulate it, such as making advanced medications to treat natural illness using our intelligence, or such as by envisioning an architectural structure on the nature world, and then building it, or removing entire mountains to build cities and roads. And finally, we can go against deterministic nature, like how we can use self-regulation to overcome our natural urges, such as animalistically punching your coworker in the face, or redirecting chemically-induced thoughts of mental illness due to our natural body, using cognitive therapy or placebos. This would be like a computer, or some part of the greater universe, magically and randomly going against its own programming - questioning, manipulating, and going against it (an AI creator's worst nightmare I'm sure!) Again, Set is actually far more parsimonious than the magic implied by positions like materialism or creationism.

5.   We have millions – if not billions – of examples of religious experiences throughout all of human history, from the oldest recorded spiritual texts to the modern day, and every point in between. To deny these as delusional without a full explanation would be like calling one's pain delusional, or love delusional, or really all personal experience delusional. It is special pleading to reject this one specific experience but not all others. It's true that the experiences alone do not prove gods or anything, but they are interesting evidence which needs to be considered, especially in light of all the other evidence.

6.   The rise of religion in groups entirely independent of each other. Human beings seem to have spread out across the globe before the advent of consciousness in the UPR (discussed above). While some groups had contact with others, many groups, including the ever famous Egyptians, existed in an isolated environment as their religious ideology formed. Yet in literally any religious tradition we can see the same general deities, myth cycles, symbols, archetypes, even though these traditions did not interact and influence each other until far later. All these groups, without brainwashing from superiors or anything of the sort, came to believe in what we call "gods." Of course these pantheons are not identical, we know well how things like culture, economy, weather, geography, etc. can affect a group's interpretation of the universe around them, but the same patterns exist throughout. To use this to say these gods were just based in ignorance, or made up or whatever because they are not identical is like saying the stars don't exist because ancient people pulled different constellations from them based on their culture. Further, if gods do indeed exist, they can act freely it seems, unlike something like the laws of physics, and so we shouldn't expect identical results across the board anyways! This is similar to how it is far harder to reproduce experiments in psychological science compared to physical science, due to the unique and extremely individual ontological nature of human beings compared to mindless matter.

7.   The objectively measurable benefits and downfalls of religious belief. Again like #5 this would never be worth anything on its own, but when taken as a whole it is quite interesting. Things like prayer, ritual, and willful belief have well known benefits to the individual, and likely have since people started doing such things. Not only that, but religious belief and dedication to certain gods/ideals can cause some of the most immense evil known to man, from the ritualistic Nazis to the traditionally religious, murderous crusaders, even to the modern Islamic State.

8.   A rejection of other proposed positions such as materialism and panpsychism. While Setianism appears to be supported and parsimonious, we of course have to look at other positions. These tend to rely on faulty logic and have little-to-no supporting evidence. Panpsychism, for example, thinks that all things are consciousness at every level of the universe, yet there is no evidence things like atoms or this computer are conscious in the way we are. Likewise, materialism is hopelessly plagued by things like the Mind-Body Problem, rejection of the Self, and a lack of evidence for reduction. Setianism just takes what we know now, and what we can logically infer, then makes its metaphysics from it without needing to take any further, unsupportable, non-parsimonious steps.

January 16, 2018, 07:50:06 pm
Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)? I've attached the "map" below. If my intent is not clear from looking at the attachment let me know, because that is part of what I am trying to do. I kind of want people to be able to figure out where they stand, and understand how these different paths and ideas relate to each other.
January 17, 2018, 05:19:52 pm
Re: Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)? Colors are meaningless, a method of distinction. Same with shapes but I think I can use them better, like triangles for conclusions, circle for philosophical methods, etc. The dashed lines I don't think work as is, they're an attempt to show, for example, that we can be sure of self existence leading into philosophy, but dashed leading from there to objective universe since it's an uncertain leap. That's why empiricism is dashed both ways, it inherently requires acceptance of the material world against solipsism. I want to try and illustrate that type of thing, but am not sure how.
January 17, 2018, 06:23:24 pm
Re: Discussing Beliefs  
If there are forms, they are much more basic - blue for example would contain dozens of forms, each of them a shade of blue, and it's only through how our brain works that we put similar shades into one category.

Remember, Forms are hierarchical, and do partake in each other and overlap. The different Forms of blueness all fit under the overarching category of "blue".

Here we differ in our definition of consciousness. I don't think that consciousness (i.e. awareness) automatically includes self-awareness. The other characteristics (desires, goals, knowledge) seem to be characteristic of a mind (although I'm not 100% sure whether they are all fully obligatory for that), so if anything they are what constitutes a mind. Many animals seem to have minds (and to be aware) without being self-aware.

I agree, I meant more specifically higher consciousness, like that of humans, which includes self-awareness.

If it can be proven that culture came to be on different continents or similar suddenly and simultaneously in groups of humans that hadn't had contact in thousands of years, then that would be a huge indication for some external influence. But if not I'd ascribe this to natural evolution. If the Life-Fields theory you mentioned above is true, then that would also be a way of explaining it, though.

That's what the evidence we have seems to suggest - a "revolution" or "great leap". I am curious to know why you think life-fields explain this better though? The way I understand, life-fields are basically the same in nature to matter, but simply the field precedes the matter itself. So instead of, say, Set influencing our literal brains he would influence the L-Fields. I'm not sure if this change could spontaneously happen in the L-Field on its own?

Unless what Set did to us (in case he did so) changed our complete ontology, I wouldn't consider it unnatural. Everything that exists within this reality is part of nature by definition. So Set would have to be from a realm beyond even the laws of logic to be truly unnatural.

I would say our ontology does seem to have changed, we are ontologically different from things without higher consciousness. By nature I more mean the material, deterministic, objective universe aspect of Reality. What you call "nature" I would call "reality" in this case, with the mindless material/natural and the mindful immaterial/unnatural existing as parts of reality.

January 17, 2018, 08:34:07 pm