See likes

See likes given/taken

Posts you liked

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
Post info No. of Likes
Second Postulate [Introducing Xor] (part II of Axiomatic Truth) Second Postulate [Introducing Xor]

After years of working with Manifesting (Xeper) and working with Set, I hereby announce a newborn Aeon of Xor, the operative word that Xem in me made manifest. It means "Flow", in that nothing is immutable and all are submitted to Change. But that is not all; this Flow element is active, not passive. It molds the Ego and refashions the inner and outer constructs pervasively, actively aiding in the evolution of the Self. It works with Exclusive Truth. Implying Exclusivity for Truth, I will post the following for its application in Logic Gates (taken from wikipedia):

XOR gate (sometimes EOR, or EXOR and pronounced as Exclusive OR) is a digital logic gate that gives a true (1 or HIGH) output when the number of true inputs is odd. An XOR gate implements an exclusive or; that is, a true output results if one, and only one, of the inputs to the gate is true. If both inputs are false (0/LOW) or both are true, a false output results. XOR represents the inequality function, i.e., the output is true if the inputs are not alike otherwise the output is false. A way to remember XOR is "must have one or the other but not both".

It encompasses the Setian duality and the eternal "conflict" of agents so as to produce dynamic change and this is applicable socially, psychologically, spiritually, culturally/ethnologically and in many other ways as well. It is in opposition to religious dogmas which posit a chosen viewpoint. Xor does not hold any dogmas as sacred. It gives 1 as True if either one is right, but not both or none. Therefore it denies the nihilistic view and it also denies the relativistic attempt to say "all is true", acting as a true agent of opposition but not so as to bring randomness; rather, an evolutionary chaos which the conscious will of the Self (in acts of greater black magic) will generate suitable outcomes by opting to choose the Flow within himself/herself while bringing Patterns in Opposition.

The possibilities and dynamism of this are endless.

Hail the Emergence of Xor!

(Some additional links:)

March 10, 2020, 01:36:03 pm
Re: baphomet pronounciation Just pronounce is as you like - language changes all the time anyway ;)

I've encountered both pronunciations (certainly the -may one in music lyrics, and the pun of this show's title only works with the -met version).

Well, let's collect the relevant information:

It seems to be first found in Latin texts of the 11th century, and in 12th and 13th century Occitan poems:
If it's Latin, then usually every letter is pronounced, so that would be -met.
If it's Occitan, similar seems to apply:

When the word was used in the course of the trials against the templars, that was in the early 14th century France, so the relevant languages would be (early) Middle French, and medieval clerical Latin.
If it's Middle French - huh, seems like around 1500 there was a sound change by which final consonants were lost if the next word in a sentence started with a consonant. So that would be either -met or -meh, depending on the following word. But that's quite a bit late, so I would assume around 1300, it was still pronounced -met. No guarantees, though, just based on,_c._1250%E2%80%931300

Considering that Baphomet was made famous in modern times by Éliphas Lévi, a modern French native, we'd likely have to ask someone who speaks French (I don't) how to exactly pronounce it. But based on this: it seems to be -meh.

Take your pick, you now have an additional option ;)

March 11, 2020, 12:21:38 pm
Re: The Anthology of Km Anu Proud of myself.

I know the runes very well now.

May 19, 2020, 08:43:14 am
Re: over reliance on magic
One of my favorite uses of devotion is to build it up pointing at someone or something I believe to be better than myself, then once I'm ready, breaking that illusion of its superiority and pointing all the dangling references left around my head to refer to myself instead.

With the proper theology you don't necessarily have to cut the ties in order to have the references additionally also point to yourself.

I think it's worth differentiating between depending on the continued effects of a single cause, vs depending on continued new causes. Some of my everyday practices might be described as magical by an observer, but they're habits that don't cost me a new exertion of effort to continue once they're in place, so I don't regard them as being new workings in any meaningful sense. Choosing to establish such a habit is absolutely a new working, though -- it's quite costly in time, energy, thought, etc. To me, a "big working" usually revolves around identifying and clarifying a particular goal and then evaluating all my habits and amending them to increase the probability of the goal being attained. Then again, I find major changes to feel more like a subtractive process than an additive one, so the closer I get to having the world around me exactly how I want it, the less often I find it appropriate to make high-risk/high-reward modifications.

I more often encounter the problem of a (more or less established) habit taking up too much energy. In that case it usually either just fades out of usage or I do some general spring cleaning of habits and then slowly add in again new ones. It doesn't feel like big workings to me, I actually rather tend to feel energized from these kinds of workings as it gives me a clearer idea of current goals and how to get to them.

But I have a ritualized way of establishing new habits, so basically an established, albeit partially irregular, habit for it.

Been starting to read Tiny Habits a bit ago and discussing the approach, which gave me some ideas to further refine that process.

Sure it doesn't always go smoothly, and sometimes I have to try a couple strategies before finding a set of habits that works. And before each major change there is a phase of partially subconscious struggling to figure out how to go about things.

June 30, 2020, 06:23:35 pm
Re: Lilith Lilith as with any 'deity' is only as powerful or dangerous as you make them. Lilith perceived as a vampire of some sort begins with later interpretations of Hebrew Mysticism and Her relation with the Klippoth. Her origin is from Mesopotamia in the form of Lilitu and was not a vampire but rather a Storm Demoness. Her characteristics were similar to the concept of one's Daemon/HGA or Spirit double/familiar and in this respect is the same as the Arabic Qarina and is of the Djinn Tribe of Shaitans. She is also called Tabi'ah or Ukht and would be aligned closer to that of the Egyptian Ka.
August 02, 2020, 05:59:49 pm
Re: Meta discussion The current legal boilerplate stands.

If someone chooses to delete their account and posts, they should be able to, with exception of main threads others have posted to without going through me first. If an account is deleted, the username reverts to the originally registered one. If someone deleted their account on their own accord without contacting me first, then too bad if there are consequences.

HTTPS is next to worthless except gaining consumer confidence, and I am under no obligation to bother with it. IP addresses are stored indefinitely, but I do not sell them, nor have I made a single dime off of this entire project. Quite the contrary in terms of time and money.

And I am not responsible for security issues if people choose/chose to participate:

You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.

August 23, 2020, 03:45:56 am
Update I have been very busy lately, but remain dedicated to the Order of the Serpent project. I think it is safe to say the same is true for @Setamontet. I check in daily to make sure the forum isn't broken, do the backups, etc.

This is not a failed experiment, but rather a successful one if one doesn't consider the Left-Hand Path to be a popular or fashionable one. We are not going anywhere anytime soon. Thanks for your participation.

September 28, 2020, 06:25:03 pm
Re: The Anthology of Km Anu Some of my recent paintings. These work way better than journal entries for me. There's also a picture from the destruction ritual I did a while back.

Love you all. Most of you anyway.

October 14, 2020, 02:20:16 pm
Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead I was considering to do so. I think I'll do so right away, but with one that didn't get much replies as only one other person in the chat had (started) reading the book in question.

As you have certainly read it, I might get replies on it from you ;) Even though that might bias the experiment :mrgreen:

December 12, 2020, 09:39:35 am
Re: Liber Null Thanks!

You know how some software is meant to be understood, like example code in documentation, while other pieces are meant to "just work", like this forum? It feels to me like you're looking at the forum how sample code is written to be looked at, in your approach to MMM. There's nothing wrong with this, and in fact analyzing production systems for education can yield greater education, but it seems worth making sure we're on the same page that this is one of those things where trying to understand every detail is absolutely hard mode compared to just using it.
The goal is using that forum. But I end up instead trying to understand the code because the buttons aren't clearly labelled, because some features seem useless to me even though I know many people use them, etc.

But it's a general tendency for me to put more effort into understanding than utilizing.

The other thing worth noting when discussing Chaos Magic/k is that, if life was a card game, Chaos would be a "discard your hand and re-draw" type of move. If you have existing systems and beliefs that are working great for you and you don't want to throw them out or reduce their prevalence in your life, not all Chaos practices will necessarily be appropriate to fit those desires.

Not all is working great, but I don't know how to apply the techniques to those things that aren't. I don't want to discard my whole hand but only some specific cards but I don't know when I'll be drawing others.

My 2c on this one is that focusing on a significant object is vastly easier than focusing on an insignificant one, because it allows a gentle segue into focusing on the *significance* instead of the *object*. Someone could stare at their wedding ring all day, because they'd distract and entertain themself by pondering the meaning and history of the ring rather than *the actual ring*. In short, the mind has a far easier time wandering off and ending the useful portion of the exercise when using a meaningful object, which might be exactly what you mean about getting distracted by it.

Yes, that's basically what I meant. But I would get distracted by a "meaningless" thing no less than by one with a personal significance. If I'd stare at a ring with no significance to me, I'd start thinking about its color, its shape, its texture, what other things look similar, what rings symbolise, which things contain rings, etc. Just staring at it without thinking about it is difficult. Or are you saying that its color, shape and texture would be something one is "allowed" to focus on?

When you wash your dishes after eating, do you set them to dry at the near or far side of the space for that purpose? When preparing a drink, in what order do you assemble its components? When you sleep, on what side of the bed do you place the things you'll want the next morning or through the night? Even in constrained situations, these default habits can be mixed up for a while with no significant increase of inconvenience other than the inherent struggle of rolling the brain's path away from its well-worn ruts.

I don't have fixed habits about these things, except for when there is only one real option, or when I have reasons: I do tend to put specific things on one side of the bed, and specific other things on the other, but mainly due to space restrictions and which side's closer to the door and yoga mat or to the computer, respectively, and some things end up at either end depending on circumstances. Yet which things I put next to my bed and whether they end up there or somewhere else (in my bag, by the shoes, on the floor,...) changes often.
So it's hard to find something I do the same way every day since a significant amount of time and that it wouldn't be inconvenient to change. Also, if something does fulfill these criteria, it's likely to be so subconscious that it doesn't fit the other criterion of being easy to change. But thanks for the examples, perhaps they'll make it easier to find something. If I need to - based on that description I seem to be using that technique anyway unintentionally.

Banishing rituals: Have you ever been really worried about something and then experienced a change in attitude about it to realize it was actually unimportant, and ceased being bothered about it? Banishing is an attempt to flip that same switch. Or have you ever had a friend get way too obsessed with something for awhile, and been like "dude, chill, it's not really that big of a deal"? Banishing is like doing that but for yourself.
Doesn't seem familiar to me. I stop worrying when I found reasons why my worries are unfounded, not because of some change in attitude. I can get myself out of the more severe forms of the emotional aspect of worrying (i.e. anxiety attacks) by focusing on how everything in the world is of no importance, but it doesn't really change my attitude in regards to the importance of things relative to each other. My main worries are about health, and there it's not easy to have an attitude of it not being important.

And I usually let people be with their obsessions.

But thanks for explaining, I wouldn't have gotten the impression that that's what that technique is supposed to do.

Sigil stuff: I'm curious what your existing beliefs about how sigils work might be?
The few times I tried, they didn't seem to have any beneficial effects. But that was quite a while ago.

There's a couple theories I have encountered:
- they make you more confident about the likelihood of the outcome you wish, so that you behave slightly differently in a way that makes that outcome more likely, or that makes it more likely for you to accept a similar outcome as being that outcome you wished
- they make you file away your wish as something you don't need to work on, leading you to either completely forget about it or only notice it again when it happened to be fulfilled by chance
- they instruct your subconscious of what you wish exactly, so that it knows what to work on (with or without it using supernatural means for achieving that goal)
- they subtly remind you to actually work on your wish

Sigils as a technique for getting out of your own way and ceasing to waste a bunch of mental energy ruminating on something so you can go do something more useful is, like, one of the most common explanations of their effectiveness that I see to this day.
That might be why they didn't have an effect on me - you need something stronger than that to stop me from ruminating. Only reason why I do get on with things is because I can also do the job while ruminating.

Also, I most often ruminate on how to tackle things in the near future that I can't do something about right now but will soon, in order to be prepared for that, or things where I first need to decide which of several options to take. Or, when I am involved in a conversation (like this) or just had one, I ruminate through what I said or just wrote in order to find inconsistencies. Reminds me a bit of what Carroll writes in regards to questioning one's own arguments, but I just do that instinctively all the time. I certainly don't find all flaws in them, but just looking out for them doesn't do the trick for that.

One phenomenon with sigils that Carroll touches on lightly in his explanation of them is how keeping a desire in the front of the mind for too long causes one to think more about why forces outside one's control prevent one from attaining it, or why it might not be so bad to never attain it, and both those types of change to one's thinking tend to reduce one's odds of getting the desired result.
Hm yes, I sometimes end up being stopped from achieving something by not finding a way how to or by deciding it's not worth it. But why would sigils help against that?
Also, based on my experience, I start believing that I can't achieve something or that it's better not to achieve it if I don't spend much time thinking about it - the more I think about it, the more I tend to take these barriers apart.
And one's main problems, those for which one has the largest motivation to tackle them, also tend to be problems one thinks about the most. So there automatically is a high correlation between putting much thought and putting much other effort into solving a problem.

One approach is to attempt to perfect the introductory exercises as one interprets them before moving on. Another approach is to practice the introductory exercises until one understands their subjective effects, then attempt work which builds on them, and return to the earlier exercises to strengthen one's weakest skills in them at whatever time those weaknesses hinder further growth. Depending on the particular baggage and skills you've picked up from other practices, you may need more or less work in each area than the author tends to assume. For instance, an extensive background in meditation may have caused some readers to have already been practicing several of the exercises for many years before even finding the book.
If I were to try and perfect them based on my interpretation, I'd just give up. And I'm familiar with some of the exercises from general meditation practice. The problem is that I don't see much subjective effects on me from any of them, they seem like skills necessary for performing other skills (albeit I'm not sure how necessary actually) but I haven't seen any benefit in them themselves beyond exploring one's mental faculties.

For the "no movement" thing in particular, I read it as "do not instruct the body to move". A literal "no change in position may be permitted" would be unattainable, as we exist on a moving planet and bodies require a certain amount of internal motion to prevent cellular damage. But explaining the task as "do not move except the ways in which you must", while more accurate, would also lead to a lot of new students fidgeting about at the slightest itch because they "must" scratch their noses or "must" alleviate a burning desire to wiggle the toes or whatever.
I suspect that's how he must have meant it. I just wonder why that's considered to be that hard - I often do that unintentionally outside of meditation, ignoring such desires as to e.g. stretch or adopt a more comfortable posture because I'm too focused on something in my mind and/or on a screen and end up ignoring my body and then wondering why I'm getting back pain etc.

Also, he says no blinking, which to me would mean, also no unintentional movements. He can't really mean no blinking, though, (unless he means, no opening of the eyes) because keeping the eyes open without blinking would be really unhealthy. For me, my eyes tend to open and close unintentionally when I'm meditating (when I start out with eyes closed). I can suppress it when I focus on it, but I'm not sure whether that's the point.

If you have any prior practices that involve holding apparent opposites in mind concurrently, you might find it helpful to pick them back up. Especially if they involve balancing opposites, recognizing the ways in which those opposites are actually the same, and then finding a third thing that's opposite to the initial pair. That's the basic philosophical gesture, if we can call it such, which I find most useful in turning the words of authors like Carroll into things that feel like useful insights.
I may not have any prior practices in this regard because I don't know what you're talking about exactly.

I continued reading Liber Lux, and I guess I can't get out of looking at the source code ;) For most things mentioned there, I'm either like "how is that going to do what it's supposed to?" or "I have no idea which problem that could help with and it's too dangerous to pursue for its own sake" or "why would that be the case?". E.g., what do you need no-mind for?

The section on Gnosis clarified a misunderstanding I had. I assumed by no-mind or not-thinking the author means the absolute non-existence of any thought, emotion or sensation that you get in the few moments of successful void meditation. But he's talking about single-mindedness.

That's what I meant by it being hard to understand the text when I don't understand how the basics are meant.

And the way described for invoking the augoeides looks to me like it works by strengthening one's pattern-recognition faculties, making one see significance in any random occurrence. Because I see without even trying to which psychological mechanism this works on, I can't really unsee that and actually believe in it.

Well, with some of the things suggested I should probably just try it out, at least those that don't seem highly risky. But I often have no idea how to.
Writing a diary of coincidences seems like something I could start with. That might help me ease into the mindset for some of the other practices. But I'm finding it hard to decide whether something counts. The bunch of coincidences I encountered thus far today were things like, there was a cat outside when I was looking out the window, it looked roughly into my direction at that moment, and when I wondered whether that counts it looked into my direction again. If I'd count things like that it'd just make it easy to dismiss the majority as not being unlikely occurrences.

It might be helpful to use that term Kia for referring to awareness per se. When I say awareness or consciousness or self, people often think I'm talking about the mind or the ego. I don't think that term is widely enough known, though, to facilitate communication significantly. And based on the Wikipedia summary of the term, Carroll's usage of Kia is different from Spare's and Grant's...

Just to clarify, I don't disagree with everything I read thus far in this book. But those things I agree with don't teach me anything new.

December 13, 2020, 02:29:40 pm