See likes

See likes given/taken

Your posts liked by others

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24]
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? I'm going to give a fuller reply when it's not so late, @Frater Sisyphus  but I want to say while Book of the Law does have some stuff that's incredibly hard to make a subjective rather than objective interpretation of, I'd argue that it also functions as a sort of magical rorshach test in which the reader forms their own opinions on it thus emphasizing individualism. I've seen people interpret to take do what thou wilt mean to put authority in yourself or higher self first including before book of the law which is an interesting take.

Reminds me of the pirates code in Pirates of the Carribean. "They're more like guidlines than rules."

February 28, 2018, 05:22:47 am
Re: The main goal and path of magic? No offense meant but I find judging someone solely by their actions completely useless and asking if someone else is someone you want to be is a horrible measure to judge anything. For one, wanting to be anyone else than yourself is a waste of the person you are.

Secondly, plenty of bad people with good ideas. Ghandi was a racist prick who sexually took advantage of his followers. Should I eschew nonvoilent protest because of this? Neitzsche never became the Ubermensch he so badly wanted in the world but should I ignore his logical arguments of which he is one of the most accomplished men in the field because of this? I mean, Plato was a lot more respectable of a person but his work and philosophy is terrible due to it's antiquity. It's blinded by superstitions of BC times. 

Furthermore, assigning the concept of harm is arbirtray. You have 5 apples, I steal 3 apples. I hurt your feelings, wronged you and did something considered ethically wrong. But have you not learned to keep a close eye on your apples cause people can be dicks? It's a simple example but I'm esentially talking about the functionalism theory in sociology but a lot of people in the occult try to remove moral judgement from things so it's compatible.

IMO, when it comes to feeling "harmed" or "wronged", it's typically someone's false ego talking and refusing to acknowledge their own part and what they can learn from it or the good in something.  When I saw false ego, I don't mean the good ego, I mean the base desires.

And if you're referrring to the observer or sammadhi in eastern path, HGA is a completely different expeirence that's similar but a lot stronger. I suppose the concept of dissolution depends on which eastern path you're talking about. Buddha was quite adamant about detachment which shuns the material world which shows an inclination towards dissolution and a rejection wordly things, in a rather extreme way. It's not so much about effiecency as it's a total refusal to play the game. Buddhism didn't really become more along the lines of how you're describing it until it become mixed with Daoism for political and geographic reasons as far as I know. I know a lot of Buddha's practical advice such as the dhammaparda were more words of wisdom for common folk and not representative of the path of those who followed him.

I'm also not quite sure why you say Crowley didn't absorb it? If we take behavior out of it, what indicates that he didn't absorb it? His diaries show a extremely consistent practice with all of the systems absorbed. Also, who are you to understand his actions and their effects? I'm honestly not meaning it in a smart way, just saying that shit isn't black and white and trying to reduce it so while trying to understand something as complex as the human brain, let alone the world simultaneously, is a futile task that creates no objective truth.

I'm gonna put it this way. Jim Jones started a cult, he grew it incredibly huge. It ended with the massacre of what? A thousand people? This is a bad person. But wait a second. He was practically solely responsible for desegration in his hometown and eventually state. When he started to get famous, and not for bad reasons according to the public, he had a pretty strong involvment in certain politics and progressed stuff. However, he's still a mass murderer, drug addict, and rapist. Horrible person but progressed society and did good things. It's really easy to demonize a human completely and say "he's a sociopath" or "he's evil" but it's wrong. Like, we haven't even solved the nature vs nurture debate and psychology is a relatively new science still and we know a lot now but it's always changing, there's always updates to the DSM. He did good stuff, he did bad stuff, we can't really describe the reasoning of another human being. But we can say humans in general do good things for good reasons, bad things for bad reasons, bad things for good reasons, and good things for bad reason. Most probably do all of these over their lifetime but we will ever be able to say which action is which.

To demonize a person, is to create an "us vs them" mentality that makes you think you're incapable of anything like that. And in daily life, you probably are yet capable of some kind of bad stuff. Say society collapsed, every single one of us would do stuff we considered evil to survive. But here's the thing, in that scenario: none of it would be evil. It would become a new social normal, and it would cause pain, but there would be no survival of the human race without it. And you can't blame a person for trying to survive. It's built into every biological organism. You're hurt when you get the flu, but those germs are just trying to survive and they increase the immune system.

I also realize what I'm doing is justifying stuff to be good, you can do that about anything. You can also justify anything to be bad. Which means all this is just useless subjective speculation, and it's impossible to know what things *really* are. Which makes judging each other pretty pointless squable. For all we know, Crowley achieved what he wanted in his lifetime. He's pretty accomplished. He harmed people around him, sure, and most would agree he's not a "good" person but LHP adherents should not agree with herd mentality just because it's the conventional notion. I don't know, I don't really care about subjective ethics. I just want to know if they're accomplished in their field and do good work. The feelings of long dead people are useless to me and don't even exist anymore, at least in the material world. Sure, the french revolution caused a lot grief and pain but that's a hundred years ago and my country never would have been founded if the french revolution hadn't inspired the founding fathers of America. I therefore wouldn't be able to be in this country, or this state, where I have great opportunities. From where I'm standing, that's pretty good to me and those people haven't mattered for hundreds of years.

I'd also say in the case of Crowley, a lot of work he published and taught came way before him sometimes by hundreds and hundred of years. That's be like denouncing Marxism because of Stalinism. Stalin was incredibly bad and there is a link and some similarities but Marxism is a completely different philosophy with an end goal, there's criticisms of it but they're mostly different criticisms than stalinism. If you want to simplify it to redistributing resources than that'd be like judging native american tribes and ancient egyptian societies because of Stalin since they collected their resources way before it and it's a builing black of that philosophy in a way but it's completely different.

One last remark one asking yourself if you want to be like someone to learn from them. Robin Williams was an amazing comedian who left a legacy, he's a great place to learn from. I don't want to be a person who kills myself, however. I'd love to learn guitar from Jimmi Hendrix but I don't want to be a drug addict. David Bowie was probably one of the greatest stage performers and creative artist who was able to do film as well as music but I don't think androgyny and cocaine is my bag but holy shit, I'd love to learn how to perform like him.

If we're talking about harm to self, what is harm to self? GG Allin regularaly cut himself, ate his shit, and broke bottles over his head on stage yet it brought him success. Iggy Pop is a much less extreme example who can be considred a good person unlike GG Allin.

This whole rant isn't so much a defense of Crowley as it's an existentialist rant from me because there is nothing in the universe is apparant. If it's apparant, you haven't examined it from enough angles, or thought long enough, and you're accepting something at face value in some way. I highly recommend studying conventional philosophy in various branches to anyone on a occult path as it helps to cut a lot our own bullshit out which is a theme of any occult path, it just digs a lot deeper and faster.

February 28, 2018, 07:14:47 am
Re: Would anyone want to work on Runes with me? @pi_rameses Awesome! I'm glad to hear it. I'll send you the PDFs I have tonight or tomorrow.

I'm currently meditating on each rune for 3 days as framework and find it very useful but approach it however you find best.

Interesting patterns really emerge when meditating. For example the first three lets really fit in with Nordic creation lore. Fehu- materialism, gold, cattle I see it was the first spark of earth. Uruz is manifestation, the Ox it refers to is the one that licked the ice cube to form, uh it was the first giant or mant can't recall and Thurisaz relates to the ice-giants as well as thor's hammer and can be seen as death  thus creatin the Nordic form as I-A-O for example.

March 01, 2018, 03:06:03 am
Re: Would anyone want to work on Runes with me? I should also publicly list the books I'm working out of and studying.




At the Well of the Wyrd

Icelandic Magic


Black Runa

Nine Doors of Midgard (althoug I eschew the Odian stuff)

All by Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorrson

Loki and Gullveigarbok by Ekortu.

Aifesjhalmr or hwowver it's spelled by Michael Kelly.

March 01, 2018, 03:30:43 am
Re: Gods, My Pantheon, Some Musings I'm similar to you @Frater Sisyphus.

My core belief is existentialism but I more firmly believe in Absurdism. We're fumbling for meaning even though the universe will never offer a complete objective understanding and meaning.

I reconcile this with chaos magic, if someone wants to actually shoot the shit with me philosophically I'll play the existentialist but if they really want to talk abou spiritual stuff, I tend to be a model agnostic when reasonable.

I think my one theistic belief is in chaos, I would suppose, but I definitely pay respect to gods when working within the paradigm and if significant I always will, I can shift and out of belief when needed and even do unintentionally sometimes.

March 01, 2018, 05:54:14 am
Re: Last Movie You Watched I think I'm going to fall asleep to the original Mummy tonight. :) The black and white classic horror movies are something I grew up with and will always be a comfort.

The original Boris Karloff Mummy matches my current emotional wavelength as well.

March 01, 2018, 05:57:16 am
Re: What are you playing? After finishing Fallout 4, I started the original Assassin's Creed. It's pretty flawed but I'm loving it so far, I love that the draw on mysticism and lore from the actual templars and assasins in the game.

There's a lot of parts of the gameplay that's frustrating, as always with assassin's creed, but I love stealth games so it really feels rewarding to play an assassination method and I enjoy seeing where altaire's journey is going. I like the blurring of ethics. I also enjoy how the Assassins methods of stealth and high profile kills are made to create a supernatural effect. I never knew a lot of the lore before electing to play the past games as historical gta.

I still haven't beat Origins but I need to, it was just lacking a lot of the classic gameplay and I was missing it.

March 02, 2018, 05:18:55 am
Re: Thursatru I've heard of the assocciations with Freyja but that just doesn't make sense with what we have of the myths to me. Gullveigarbok by Ekortu makes a really convincing argument equating her with Angbroda. Fleshing out the triple goddess aspect is just a matter of linking what names belonged to gullveig as descriptors like every Norse deity or giant has. The Binah aspect comes from both her role in ragnarok as well as being a mother of abominations somewhat like Lilith as well her death/rebirth cycle that Loki played a role in. Giving birth to Hel, a personification of death, also links her to this role as well. In fact, when you take all of Loki and Angbroda(Gullveig's) children into account, something more primordial to chaos makes perfect sense.

Freyja seems to be more likely an alternative name of Frigg when we look at the myths and their themes as she cries golden tears when her husband Odh goes off to wander the world and she misses him. We have record that Gullveig took up the name Heidr after her 3 burnings as well and that she was burned in the hall of Odin. It doesn't just add up to me. 

March 04, 2018, 04:50:36 pm
Re: Thursatru When I'm not knocked out on my ass due to flu-like symptoms, I'll reply with the relevant part of the book that attemps to explain the aesir/vanir war over gullveig.
March 06, 2018, 04:26:27 am
Re: Typhonian Current/Trilogies (Kenneth Grant-related) So that's what the Mauve zone is, I definitely need to look into that ASAP.

Kenneth Grant is a complicated man so it's hard to come to a universal consensus with him. To me, it's worse than Crowley being complicated as Crowley seemed to always follow a sort of logic that could explain his shocking actions or philosophy one like myself might disagree with, he's internally consistent and straight-foward.

Kenneth Grant is a complicated man because his actions are, not entirely logical. I remember Crowley making fun of Grant's wild leaps and speculations about the LAM portrait that Crowley drew behind his back which can honestly just sum up Grant's whole thought process and writing style.

This doesn't, however, mean Grant is just a rambling mad-man with no bearing on the truth. He may come off as a rambling mad-man here and there but he'll definitely have some great observations that may or may not be related but will have great arguments for them being so. A really good example his him linking both Lovecraft and Crowley to being prophets of similar forces through different lenses, which is an idea that has not disappeared in modern occultism as Peter Carroll likes to think Aiwass is Nyarlhotep. I need to read his books, I've only read a bit of magickal revival but it's very interesting so far. He did contribute a lot of key progressions to occultism despite criticisms, the Qlipoth or Tunnels of Set is only fleshed out because of Grant's work with them, Crowley basically just gave the sigils and that's it. Mauve Zone is a great addition. He was the most convincing author to link Lovecraft gnosis to occultism and probably had the best reasoning. I would say Ma'at Magick, while I find it interesting, is an action that speaks to his inability to filter through silly stuff that compromises his whole work to many. 

While I do think his writing style is representative of some over-all problems with Grant as a occultist and teacher, his contributions speak for themselves and to write them all off is to not only throwing a baby out with a bathwater but it's a demonstration of the inability to understand Grant as well. I feel a large portion of Grant's unlogical writing style is his own form of blinds or to create a certain magical effect/thinking, sort of like a hypersigil, and very similar to how Peter J. Carrol uses quantam mechanics to help convince himself of various paradigms. Sometimes the best ritual for a paradigm shift is philosophical wanking filled with bullshit and that's okay if you're in control of your delusions.

March 09, 2018, 05:20:29 am