See likes

See likes given/taken

Your posts liked by others

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 49
Post info No. of Likes
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
Argument for Set short version
This is an updated, simplified, and clarified version of my Argument for Set. It is not a full elaboration. I have also taken the liberty of providing the simplest, most straight forward way I can imagine to refute each and every premise in itself. Surely if one cannot come up with a more solid argument or evidence, they can refute this argument based on these simple refutation possibilities provided.
                Premise 1: The Self is Axiomatic

This is quite simple in my opinion. Our own self-existence is the only thing we can be certain of, not even our experiences or thoughts, but the mere fact that “I exist” for each self-conscious individual. It is an axiom because there is no way to engage in reasoning without it, nor a way to attempt to deny its existence. The easiest, most straight-forward way to refute Premise 1 is to successfully argue or empirically show “I don’t exist” to be true without ever relying on “I exist” being true.
               Premise 2: The Objective, Material Universe Exists in Some Sense

Also rather simply, there is an external world of matter which we seem to consistently perceive. Were there not, science would not have any success, for it is rooted in the idea that there are objective truths and falsehood. This can be refuted simply by showing that there is not a consistent, external world. Have to sane people with 20/20 vision look at the same tree and see separate objects, or simply show that simple scientific knowledge, such as the maximum velocity of a falling object, is not consistent.

                Premise 3: The Axiomatic, Self-Aware Consciousness and the Objective, Material Universe are Non-Identical.

                This is known as “the Hard Problem of Consciousness,” more specifically the problem of Property Dualism (or Emergent Dualism). As we said in Premise 1, the Self-Conscious Self cannot be denied in a logical position, which leaves any type of Material Monism at a severe loss, as it must reduce conscious experience to the physical. Yet as we said in Premise 2, the external world of matter cannot be denied either. It can be questioned, such as by idealism or solipsism, and yet continues to remain consistent and have a recognizable impact on us. If Monism cannot answer the question, and substance dualism seems hopelessly lost, what best explains this situation? Again, the individual only needs to reject premise 1 or 2 successfully. Besides this, one may simply show that there is a misunderstanding in property dualism.

                Premise 4: A Modified Theory of Forms is the Best Explanation of the World

Let me try to keep this explanation simple, as things quickly become complicated. “Pointedness,” the characteristic of “having a point (as in physical point),” is the perfect example of a simple Form. Your coffee table, a nearby writing utensil, your television and computer, and many other things likely contain the characteristic of “having one or more physical points.” Yet the pointed objects are not, themselves, pointedness, which would violate the Law of Identity, but rather both share in the same characteristic of pointedness. Pointedness being something immaterial that you can never actually show in a physical sense other than through different manifestations of the characteristic. This allows the world of matter and of internal existence from 1 and 2 to be connected yet separate, solving the problem of Premise 3. Of course Forms are simple to disprove, just show “pointedness” to itself be physical, or that characteristics are not free of the mind.

                Premise 5: Forms and Consciousness

The Theory of Forms tells us that for any one thing which exists, a Form of it exists, as well as Forms to explain them. In other words, if X exists the Form of X exists. Self-Aware onsciousness obviously exists (Premise 1), and so a Form of such consciousness must obviously exist (Premise 4). Rejecting premise 4 rejects premise 5.

                Premise 6: The Form of Higher Consciousness and “God”

Unlike pointedness, which is a simple and lone characteristic, consciousness, especially of this kind, has many characteristics to it. In the sense of the higher, isolate consciousness human beings have, characteristics include self-awareness, rationality, emotion, desire, biases, etc. and so on. This means that any being with Higher Consciousness partakes in these characteristics, as do any Forms lower down the hierarchy, such as “desire” and “emotion.” Yet Forms themselves are immaterial (Premise 4), as well as eternal, timeless, etc. and so on. These characteristics are identical to those of many gods from polytheistic traditions. It is immaterial and eternal, but conscious, aware, desirous, and so forth. Through this realization we can see that this Form of Higher Consciousness is identical to a traditional, polytheistic view of gods. To refute this one only needs to explain why the characteristics of the Form do not match with the gods of paganism and polytheism.

                Premise 7: Set

Simply put, the traditional Egyptian god Set is the closest match to this Form of Higher Consciousness in human history, from its physical form to its mythological positions. This premise is fully elaborated upon in my “Mysteries of Horus and Set,” and “Setian Pyramid Texts.” If there is issue, simply a more appropriate replacement, but otherwise refuting 6 refutes 7. 

May 02, 2017, 10:18:01 pm
Mundane People and the Higher Self/Ka/Form I have been under the impression that each person's Form or Higher Self is a significant improvement of them, the best they can be. I know for us LHP folks this is obviously the case, but what about others. As I was looking around me yesterday, realizing the childish nonsense of middle school still affecting myself and everyone I know, I had the thought that some people literally never grow. Most people, in fact, at least in my experience. This has brought up a rather crucial question for me: do these individuals have a Higher Self in the same sense, and they simply do not notice or follow it? Or do the Forms of individuals vary so greatly that some are indeed not even capable of LHP initiation?
May 04, 2017, 01:51:47 pm
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set (Part 3/3)

But why is this Form not the Christian devil or god, not a god of Hinduism or Islam, not a god of the Yezidi, or not the gods of Scandinavia? Even worse, is this question the wrong one to be asking? The oldest known religious scriptures in history, known as the Pyramid Texts, written in the first human language, gives us the absolutely foundational views of the first human religions. In it they describe a being named Set, born unnaturally into the world, opposed to the Osirian gods so popularly worshiped, who nevertheless is the only being which can stave off chaos. It is related to, but considered something apart from, the natural world of the natural gods. Set was not an all-powerful threat, or a trickster like devil, he was simply capable of questioning and going again Ma’at (proper natural order). He was benevolent to man, and the central god of nomadic humans of the area relying on oases and rain rather than the stable rise and fall of the Nile. Through study of the texts related to this being, we see it is desires, self-aware, it sometimes was featured in comedic ways, sometimes in entirely demonic ways, and everywhere in-between. It was crucial to the idea of conscious existence separate from the body, beyond the natural cycles after death, long before the material focused mummification.

In short, it was entirely relatable to the higher consciousness of human beings. Related to the natural world but with a feeling of being separate, capable of influencing that world but without full control over it. This is exactly what is feared in most religion, the freedom of human mind and will, which has the capability of going against “Ma’at” if not kept in check. And what of other gods? At this stage in anthropology we are well aware that cultures experience things relatively and subjectively based on many variables, such as geographical location, wealth divide, education, war, and so forth. It’s not that Set is the “one true god.” Set is the Form of Higher Consciousness itself, the Egyptian interpretation of this objectively existent Form, and other cultures simply vary in interpretation for well-known reasons listed just above. 

May 05, 2017, 06:51:40 pm
Re: Creativity and Selfhood I am not very creative and tend to fail when I try. If anything I'm a weird fiction writer, though I've only written one thing that isn't garbage. Can be found here:

May 09, 2017, 12:03:15 am
Re: LBM Ethics When dealing with clients, social work is literally straight LBM. It blew my mind that my occult studies were almost more useful than my college courses when I started as a social worker, and I still feel that way. It's a very fine line between guiding a client and deceiving or manipulating them. If they don't do the work themselves no change will come. I've literally been told by supervisor to give less effort to cases because you should never be more dedicated to the program than clients themselves.
May 09, 2017, 01:28:49 pm
Re: Creativity and Selfhood I actually do like that story, and I've had many good ideas and minor writings. Top of my bucket list is writing a weird fictional novel. 
May 10, 2017, 02:28:27 am
Re: Favorite Film Sequences Watchmen: Dr. Manhattan - Miracles 

May 11, 2017, 01:34:40 am
Re: Favorite Film Sequences Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: Intro 

May 11, 2017, 01:36:00 am
Re: Favorite Film Sequences I can't find the highway scene from Nocturnal Animals.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace - Duel of Fates 

May 11, 2017, 01:41:30 am
Re: Favorite Film Sequences Yeah sorry, but I'll probably go nuts with this. Like, crazy nuts. You brought it on yourself!

Batman Begins: Breath In Your Fear

May 11, 2017, 01:43:43 am