See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 57
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Music thread The Cryo Chamber label produces fantastic dark ambient music. Especially great for meditation, ritual, or background music.

https://m.youtube.com/user/cryochamberlabel

April 22, 2017, 06:05:35 pm
1
Re: The Book of Coming Forth by Night I've found my relationship with Set to generally be one of a very friendly student or mentor. It's not that Set does things for us, but when I'm struggling in life and my thoughts fall to Set, I can usually feel the encouragement, picture a type of smirk on his face like he knows I'll figure it out. I never felt like Webb, for example, was right when he said one interacts with Set maybe once in or twice in your life, for me it seems to be present daily.
April 24, 2017, 07:15:58 pm
2
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
The Theory of Forms makes a lot of sense to me now. For example, let's say that our force of consciousness stems from an undefined source and radiates outward. Therefore, it is constantly being replaced by new energy. Even though the material energy is not the same, the "force" is consistently the same by virtue of character being the same. That is sort of where the term "essence" comes in. The essence is the nature seperated from the material.

I think that Set does fit as a personification of the giver of the Black Flame, however, I believe that this applies to many other gods, especially Odin, as well as other proto-Satanic gods such as Ea. I use Odin as the official name, however, "Satan" and "Set" can be used as titles in alternate contexts, e.g a dedication ritual.

I agree that Set is just one of many names for this Form of Consciousness. Odin is one of the more interesting ones imo, if only because the connection is so mysterious to me!

April 25, 2017, 10:30:54 pm
2
Re: The Diabolicon "Consider, were man to perish, what futility would envelop the Universe, for apart from appreciation and use it is a thing of insignificance."
April 28, 2017, 10:19:53 pm
1
Re: Order of the Serpent introductory statement For those interested, the O.S. originally listed the characteristic of "antinomianism" in the intro. I cannot speak for others, but I've never liked this word. It's generally associated with taboo practices, but I learned it's actually a Christianity-specific term. I disliked it before, but really am against it now. I don't think the WLHP needs to be so worried with taboos as to actively violate them, leave that worry for RHPs and the Eastern Left. Nor does one need to disagree with values simply due to culture popularity. "Do not kill" is a perfect example. I am extremely glad to see the term gone and hope to see it fall out of use with the WLHP in time!
April 29, 2017, 04:30:41 am
2
Ritual With the copper which comes forth from Set, the Adze which opens the mouth of the gods, Set opens my mouth, therewith Set may go with me, and he himself may speak before the Great Ennead in the house of the Prince in Heliopolis.
 
I take the finger of Set, which causes the white eye of Horus to see. Oh eye, cause the two lands to bow before me as they bow before Horus. Cause the two lands to fear me as they fear Set.
 
Osiris, you do not gain power over Set, your son does not gain power over him. Horus, you do not gain power over Set, your father does not gain power over him. You, Set, perish not, your Ka perishes not, for you yourself are a Ka.
 
I have come to you, Nephthys, I have come to you in the boat of evening. Set and Nephthys, hasten, announce to the gods of Egypt and their spirits: ‘Xepera maSet comes as an imperishable spirit, if he wills you to live you will live, if he wills you to die you will die. Xepera maSet comes as an imperishable spirit, masked to the neck like Anubis, chief of the western highland, that he may count your hearts, that he may be powerful over the best of hearts.
 
“We see a new thing,” say the primordial gods. “Oh Ennead, a Horus is in the rays of the sun. The lords of form serve him, the two entire Enneads serve him, and he sits in the space of the All-Lord. Xepera maSet is led along the ways of Khepri. He is on his own, the eldest of the gods. Oh gods of the south, north, east, and west, respect him, fear him.”
 
I ascend to heaven on the Sha, which was at the separation. Heaven speaks, the earth quakes on account of your fear, Osiris, when I ascend.
 
I will not be resisted at any place where I go, I will not be hindered at any place where I desire to be. My step is great, that I may traverse the sky. I am not seized by the earth gods, I am not rejected by the planets. Let the two doors of heaven open for me so I may go through them like Horus and Anubis.
 
Be gone those who Osiris guards. Let not Osiris come in his evil coming, do not open your arms for him. Let him be gone at once, let him be gone. Let not Horus (the younger) come in this, his evil coming (with Osiris), do not open your arms for him, let him go to the other gods.
 
Anubis has commanded me to come as a star, as the god of the morning star, that I may pass through the regions of Horus and Set.
 
Khepri, hear it, this word “Xeper”, which is spoken to you by me. Let your heart be glad for me, for I am a great one, the son of a great one. I am with you, take me with you. I have escaped the day of my death like Set escaped the day of his death – by ploughing the earth. Greatings to Khepri, who created himself. Khepri is high in his name of “Ka”. Khepri comes into being in his name of Khepri. Like the name of Set, so too may my name endure!

 

April 30, 2017, 05:53:07 pm
3
Re: "I created the material universe so I could define myself." - Prince of Darkness Generally when I say uppercase G, single God I'm talking about Natural Law, or more fundamentally with Horus the Elder, the Form of Order. TWE easily fits this Form of Order, just without ever resorting to dualism. Set himself must be part of TWE, the Form or Order, for all else is chaos, Apep, nonexistence. The article even states that the foundational TWE is not a god of higher consciousness and will, but experience at its absolute simplest.

What I have been wondering is why he does not allow "that which it is to be like X" to everything. To elaborate, there likely is something it is like to be a thermostat or neuron, that we cannot imagine or experience it changes nothing imo. If we mean experience at the basic level, this would include non-conscious experience. If I push my table with my foot across the floor, there is something it is like to be that table, the floor, the foot, even the particles that make them, and TWE underneath. In fact this fits quite well with LHP-Platonism.

April 30, 2017, 11:06:56 pm
1
Re: "I created the material universe so I could define myself." - Prince of Darkness I've always been of the impression that the universe and nature came to be out of sheer possibility. In an infinite chaos of infinite probability, eventually "nature" would form within it. If the chaos is outside time, this would literally be immediate, the two would always exist. I like how the Diabolicon illustrates it:

"And after uncounted ages of this great ferment, a force fused to focus that became God, and this force presumed to effect not the creation of substance and energy - for these transcended this God - but the conformation of all the Universe to a single and supreme order. And not yet is this order absolute, though oft it may have been supposed thus by man in his innocence."

But like we were discussing, perhaps every single thing experiences in its own way, which means the mere existence of anything entails a field of experience, participated in TWE. We simply have a more advanced form of experience. In this sense, Nature/God/TWE exists simply because of necessity, for if something exists TWE exists, and within primordial chaos inevitably something will come to exist.

May 01, 2017, 12:05:30 am
1
Re: "I created the material universe so I could define myself." - Prince of Darkness I'm going to try and illustrate a small cosmology here.

In the beginning, or more appropriately before the beginning, there was primordial chaos - a timeless ocean of seething, infinite potential. Constantly creating potentials with an infinite amount of time, inevitably there would come to be some sort of Order withing the chaos. I don't agree with idea that matter and whatever else exists are separate from each other, they are two sides of the same coin and just as inseparable. This Order was both matter and "that which experiences," for matter interacts with itself naturally, causing "excitations" within it. Thus both Matter and TWE, the physical and the Form, exist for all time. Because of the timeless nature of chaos, we can say that, in our understanding, this world of Matter and Form has always existed, in keeping with modern physics. Further, you can see this chaos in "maps" of the Big Bang, under such esoteric terms as "quantum fluctuations." 

Then, evolution. We understand it pretty well from the Big Bang until the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. All Form/Experience was mindless, meaningless, all things simply "were" and simply "happened." Yet at some point, to our knowledge first around 20,000 - 10,000 years ago, something changed. Through unknown means, matter sparked to create inner experience, a great mystery known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness. And when X comes to exist, the Form of X comes to exist, thus the birth of Set, the First in Consciousness, a disruption to the natural order. I think perhaps Setamontet is correct, that even Set does not understand this "hard problem." Yet as a Form, Set exists outside of time and space, and so the entirety of its conscious evolution would be immediate. It was then that consciousness insanely accelerated in human beings, and continues to this day. 

May 01, 2017, 10:53:10 pm
1
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
2