See likes

See likes given/taken

Posts you liked

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
Post info No. of Likes
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
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
New Symbol The Order of the Serpent has a new main logo! The previous logo, with it's featuring of Set, Taweret, and Egyptian hieroglyphs, suggested an Egyptian/Setian bias that the Order simply does not have nor want. We welcome all members of the LHP who share the goal of advancing esoteric and philosophical knowledge.

The symbol has a double meaning. On the simple side, the symbols around the point spell out Draco, representing the main symbolic focus of the Order. On the complex side, this is a pseudo-spelling of Draco. Going top left, top right, left, right, center, we have Norse runes, Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, a Chinese dialect, and simply an ouroboros. While representing our variety of interests (some, not all), obviously the symbols make no sense if directly translated. We have done this to show that we are not some revival group, we take what we want or need and use it to create our own paradigm. Basically the symbol says: "we're open to any inspiration, and you should use it as you will."

June 27, 2017, 01:23:04 pm
Order of the Serpent Update, July 2017 Wow, July is almost over, how in the world did that happen?! It's been a very busy month for pretty much all members it seems, I know it has been for me! As was already announced, the O.S. has updated both its logo and mission statement, trying to better illustrate the diversity the O.S. strives for. It is still commonly believed that we are a Setian organization, but this is simply not the case, and many members do not identify as "Setian." These updates were some of the biggest announcements for this month, but there's no need to retread old ground here!

The second volume of The Imperishable Star should be coming at the end of August or beginning of September, right now everything is just being finished up and the editing is starting. Once again it is looking like there will be 10 articles in this volume, though there may be an additional article or two. The articles to expect thus far are:

1. The Pale Lady - a true story from W. Adam Smythe

2. Sigil Magic - an essay by Child of Darkness

3. Subjective Thoughts on the ONA - a piece by Xepera maSet

4. The Importance of Ego and Self - and essay by W. Adam Smythe

5. Xeper as the Will to Power - essay by Kheper

6. Who is Lucifer? - essay from the defunct Order of the Dawning Sun

7. (untitled work on L-Fields) - a scientific experiment by Onyx

8. Chaoskampf - an essay by Xepera maSet

9. Homage to Set and Summoning of the Nine Neteru - a ritual by Setamontet

10. Good vs. Evil and the Unchanging - an essay by Agape Therion

The O.S. sends its best wishes with Merytseth, who has left the order for unknown spiritual reasons. Her works on mathematics, and the influence from those works, will hold a permanent place within the O.S. Unfortunately her work on The Serpent and the Demonic Feminine will not be available in vol. II as planned, but a new version of the project will be in the works for vol. III.

As always, we are thankful to everyone who engages in the O.S. forums, and to everyone who supports us in their own ways. Our goal has been and remains the growth of available, accurate, and up to date information on the esoteric WLHP, and we will continue to seek ways to accomplish this!

July 29, 2017, 03:19:57 pm
Is LaVeyan Satanism part of the WLHP? One very interesting aspect of LaVeyan Satanism, which most seem to overlook, is that Satan is seen as an aspect of nature, in this case one intiminately related to hedonism. The problem with this is that LaVeyan Satanism is essentially about not fighting our nature, giving into it and submitting certain aspects of the universe. This is, so far as I can tell, the exact opposite of what the WLHP seeks to accomplish, which is a mastery of ones nature, a separation from the greater Nature as a whole. Submission to "forces of nature" is essentially the defining trait of the WRHP.

We also have the issue of Peter Gilmore, a man so dogmatic he believes all who disagree with him are on some level insane, and holds "nothing but contempt for them." It doesn't take a lot of explaining to show why this may contradict the ideology of the WLHP. Further, the Church of Satan as a whole tens to hold the claim that it is the only valid form of satanism, despite objective and even academic fact disagreeing with this. It may be more an unwritten rule, but when I think WLHP I don't think about denying objective facts just to claim ones sect is the only valid version.

August 04, 2017, 05:38:08 am
Re: Hey, new member here! Greetings, and welcome Lucifugus!  I hope to get to know you better.
August 05, 2017, 03:34:30 pm
Re: Hey, new member here! Welcome.

August 05, 2017, 03:39:33 pm
Re: Hey, new member here! Welcome! (Three Scarabs here)
August 05, 2017, 05:42:45 pm
Re: Kek, Consciousness, Meme Magic, and connection to Set I don't know about all the alt-right magic stuff. It's certainly possible that many different groups work with strange, mad gods, such as the monster gods of the Islamic State or crusaders.
August 05, 2017, 07:30:56 pm
Re: Hey, new member here! Hello and welcome, I'm new here, too.  8)
August 05, 2017, 08:40:13 pm