See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Would anyone want to work on Runes with me? I should also publicly list the books I'm working out of and studying.

Futhark

Alu

Runelore

At the Well of the Wyrd

Icelandic Magic

Galdrabok

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
2
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
3
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
1
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
1
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.



http://balkansarcanebindings.blogspot.com/2011/11/gullveigarbok-by-vexior-218.html

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
2
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
1
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
2
Re: My GF just blew my mind a bit Peter J. Carrol has a very convincing argument against "Er corgito er sum" or I think therefore I am in
 the Panpsychism and Multimind sections of Apophenia.

In short,

Panpsychism(the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness)- The concept of this is it is hard to argue that something consists of "being" something when we break it into a microscopic level. For instance, look at a stone. It's not really "being a stone" break it down to atomic levels and it's filled with atoms moving around, vibrating, and down to quantam mechianics- wave particles coming and it out of existence and is even possibly made up of more empty space than quarks. The stone, a stationary object, is constantly doing not being, part of it's doing involves not being, in fact.

Now apply this to something that movies and grows quite obvioulsy like a human being.

"A so-called attribute of 'being' invariably arises from some kind of doing if you examine it closely enough.

We inhabit a universe of events, not a universe full of things. Phenomena can give the macroscopic impression of having "being" or "thingness" but only because they actually consist of ongoing processes.

I don't know about you, but I certainly do not have any sort of intrinsic being apart from what I do. In my youth I exhibited various behaviours, performed various thoughts, emotions, and acts, and expressed various opinions and ideals. In my middle years I now do different activities, my body looks different, and it contains hardly any of the atoms or molecules that it did decades ago. I seem to have irretrievably lost many memories of trivial or boring events; and my mind now contains many things that it did not in my youth. When, or if, I get older, the older version may differe markedy from the current one in what it does.

Thus I conclude I do not have any sort of 'being', I consist only of the totality of what I do. I proceed through time as a process.

The concept of being may seem a harmless enough but rather sloppy and inaccurate way of modelling reality but it leads to appaling consequences. Every use of the words of the verb "to be", like "is" or "are", conceals a false of questionable premis.

The statement "Today 'is' Wednesday" has only lmited applicability, it may well not apply to the situation on the other side of the planet. The assertion that "Pete 'is' stupid" has an outrageous generality. Does he invariably exhibit stupid behaviour?

If we want to philosophise with clarity we can not say that any phenomena 'is' we marely apply a label to it, or say what its behaviour resembles. We can only define the phenomena in terms of their resembance to other phenmena and by implication, to what they do.

Any statement about what anything 'is' only has utility to the extent that it implies what it does. When we speak of what any phenomenon does, we actually imply what we think it has done and what we think it will do."

Yadda, yadda. Am being a deritive of to be is a faulty philosophical statement that does not necesarrily convey the truth and Descartes' failed to doubt it because of the ego. If we can take fault with "Am" as a faulty discriptor than we must examine "I think therefore I am". He was proving "I'.


I'll skim over multimind and post the relevant bit in the next reply.

March 09, 2018, 05:37:24 am
3
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? Before I reply, one important distinction I was referring to binding the demons which is customary after K&C with HGA, not binding the HGA.

I think I mostly agree with you @Mindmaster  at least in large chunks, I'm just overcomplicating it. I explored nonduality thinking for a while but like you said, nonduality doesn't invalidate duality awarness. I would also take nonduality in metaphysical ways as well which is both very much true and not true, all at the same time.

I think nonduality is a great realization but it's not the goal post, it's the clearing out of illusions to try to understand something complicated with more nuance. Okay, so we can get rid of the good/bad dichotomoty without non-dual thinking but we're still left with coutnless philosophical theories like functionalism to explore. In light of exploring them and finding out new stuff, it becomes important to re-assess earlier philosophies like dualistic thinking through the new lens to further understand all concepts more as well as what we can of the world.

March 10, 2018, 10:25:50 pm
1
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? One, I agree that Setianism is an amazing compliment to Thelema. A lot of people here have really got me into the Setian side of things, and I work within that philosophy a lot when leaning LHP but I've branched more into Draconian from there with Kelly. I'm about to revisit the roots in the Order of Leviathan, I think.

As for the HGA being a christian working, I'm going to have to disagree completely on that. It's a christian term taken from a grimoire that uses a christian paradigm but it's has a much older lineage dating back to the Greco-Magico Papyri which is why Crowley revisited the latter's barbarous words when creating Liber Samekh.

I'd actually be the asshole to argue that Crowley's approach to demonology and demonalotry is his most christian magic and Crowley's approach to the HGA is his most satanic magic because the subversion makes the contrarian in me giddy but also because it's basically true. He saw his demons as something to be bound in the name of his HGA to be put in service to perfecting his will which is a very RHP way of approaching it wheras Crowley out-right says "oh satan, give me suck" in Liber Samekh and if he did accompish his Will as helped to by his angel, crucifying a frog while complaining how Jesus ruled everything isn't really Christian.

March 11, 2018, 12:09:42 am
1