Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Frater V.I.M.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Satanism / Re: St. Peter's Cross (the inverted cross)
« on: June 13, 2018, 03:10:38 am »
True. But by the same token, the soldiers on duty that day could have very well thought the last wish to be goofy and funny, and figured indulging the cooky hobo they were about to nail up wouldn't make much of a difference. Who knows, maybe they figured it'd be icing on the cake to see his piss and shit flow down to his face once he started letting all that stuff loose. Even if he was the one who gave 'em the idea, he probably regretted it shortly thereafter.

2
Satanism / Re: St. Peter's Cross (the inverted cross)
« on: June 13, 2018, 02:39:07 am »
As far as I know, there's no contemporary evidence to the contrary of the traditional story that Peter chose to be crucified upside down. But either way, ya know what's never, ever, been a Christian symbol? An inverted crucifix. I've occasionally seen people bizarrely refer to an inverted crucifix as a "St. Peter's Cross," trying to point out that it's silly for someone to be using it as an anti-Christian symbol . . . but if that shit plainly still has an upside-down Jesus nailed to it, that shit ain't no symbol of St. Peter.

3
Quote from: NEMO 93
Let me ask this, if RHP is having your will replaced with God's will than how can the definition includes "seeks out the will and means to define one's own life and reality at will?" I mean really defining that as occultism in general is not cohesive anything you said.

Because if by "the will and the means to define one's own life and reality at will" one includes even defining one's life and reality in such a way that the individual, conscious Self is something that needs to be destroyed or absorbed into some impersonal "pleroma" of sorts, (which it's been sounding like you're defending as being LHP), then that definition is being used as a way to call anything LHP that anyone wants to call LHP just because they want to. But to be fair, I suppose that definition has to START OFF as inherently LHP, since it implies that the Individual is making a conscious choice to define one's own stuff . . . but then using that Gift to then throw one's Self away veers right back off into the other lane. But that's kind of what the RHP has always been: a recognition of, and revulsion at, the Gift of Individual Consciousness, and a decision to try to snuff it out. The irony is one can only recognize the Gift at all in the first place because of the Gift itself.

As far as the rest of your reply, you make it very clear that you don't believe there is any real absolute truth about anything really. And if that's your view on reality, we're on such polar opposite extremes of a spectrum in regards to truth that there's no real point in discussing the reality, correctness, or incorrectness of anything with each other, because you're against assigning the value of literal truth to pretty much anything. However, I don't really see the point in "rejecting faith in dogmatism in favor or truth" if you don't accept anything ever as actually "true" anyway. Any "truth" you find will just be discarded as a new "dogma," because of adherence to the principle that "nothing is true," which is itself a dogma of sorts. But if staying in an eternal state of agnostic existentialism is what makes you happy, have at it.

And as regards to most "Christians" not having such a conception of heaven . . . you're right. But most "Christians" don't really know a damn thing about "Christianity" beyond the most vague, bare-bones basics. Most of these sorts of people don't have an idea of "heaven" (or how to get there) that really comes from Christian scripture or Church Tradition. You'll most likely take great exception to this next bit, but, just as I take the "narrow" view that occultists who desire the eventual eradication of their Individual Self aren't really "LHP," and just as atheists doing cosplay aren't "Satanists," I hardly take into serious consideration the views of nominal, wishy-washy "Christians" when I'm referring to Christian concepts. And just so there's no confusion on this last bit, this wasn't meant to imply that orthodox Christianity is more "true" in a metaphysical sense than nominal, no-sense-of-history "Christianity." It's just that if we're going to bring up or discuss ideas that are being presented as intrinsically "Christian," a line has to be drawn somewhere, or else "Christian" would mean literally anything and everything every single self-described "Christian" believes. And casting a net that wide would make even trying to discuss what is "Christian" or not entirely useless.

4
Quote from: NEMO 93
It reeks of bull-shit that most people actually associate with Abrahamic religions instead of stuff like dissolution. I mean, Christians belief in an immortal self that go to heaven if they submit to the will of God and Jesus.

A valid point to bring up. But the thing is, the sort of immortality advocated by Christians is border-line dissolution anyway. One has to reject most of the selfish things that make one an individual to achieve it, and the "immortality" one is rewarded with is essentially one of singing praises eternally around a throne. One's will is basically replaced by "God's" will. Christ even specified that one can't be married to one's spouse anymore in their idea of "heaven." It's an uber-egalitarian vision of identical "purified" drones. It might as well be "Nirvana."

The type of immortality I mean is inhabiting one's Subjective Universe that is tailored to exactly what one makes it to be, and interacting with other immortalized Subjective Universes of other psyches. Or lingering around the Objective Universe if that's what gets one's rocks off. It is regrettable that many people do have a hard time separating the basic concept of an immortal soul itself from Judaeo-Christianity, as it's certainly not something even remotely unique to them, or original to them.

Quote from: NEMO 93
Oh and never anywhere did I say that LHP was something that's not Abrahamic. I just reject your narrow-minded definition of LHP that seems highly innacurate. I defined LHP as a path that rejects faith in dogmatism in favor or truth and seeks out the will and means to define one's own life and reality at will. If you have to solve et coagulate to do it, then so be it.

Not trying to nit-pick, but that really sounds like "LHP is occultism in general, as long as its not dogmatic."

And besides, people who don't see their conscious Self, the person they are, as their real Self shouldn't be too offended by anything I say about my own definitions of "LHP" anyway . . . cuz what am I offending at all? Surely just some passing illusion without substance or inherent meaning anyway, right? Look, here's the thing, even right there you talk about defining "one's own" reality, if "you" have to etc, etc. There's obviously SOMEONE choosing those things, having preferences one way or the other, etc. And if that thing that has those views, that chooses a path, ISN'T real (by their own admission) why should I care about offending those illusory phantoms? Why should someone who denounces their own Ego as worthless and worthy of Annihilation give a damn about anything anybody ever says or does about anything whatsoever? And just to be clear, I'm not implying that you personally necessarily ARE one of the types I'm talking about . . . but your pointing out to me that they do exist doesn't make me really care about their (nonexistent?) feelings.

And finally, it's not like I'm saying any of this from any position of any authority in any group, temple, order, etc. I'm not threatening to kick anyone out of anything, not even this forum, as I'm not even a mod. I've just been elaborating on my original response to the question of how/why some people can call obliterating the Self "LHP." If folks don't like my reasoning, that's fine. But I'm not gonna apologize for it.

5
The last part about the more extreme chaos-types has been a major part of my gripe: redefining "the Self" to mean something completely the opposite of the conscious, individual Self, and then  using that to say "it's still LHP because it's still about the Self," is ultimately a way to make the term "LHP" so loose it hardly really means anything anymore. That's why I mentioned earlier that the criteria is quickly becoming aesthetic. Once nobody is even agreeing that by "the Self" they mean at all slightly the same thing in any sense, the only thing left in common among the "LHP" is a preference for certain words and symbols. And if that's what it's coming to, folks might as well be honest and admit it.

And, once again, I'm aware I can't stop the shitshow from happening. It's already happened, and is only going to get worse from here on out. But I can voice my opinion that it's sad that it's come to this.

6
I get that one can be into focusing on the psyche without being sure of its immortality. But deciding that the individual psyche isn't even real, or advocating for its dissolution into something impersonal, and calling that a way to exalt or develop that psyche is a bit much. And that's been my whole main point: advocating for the destruction of the individual Self (either by postulating that as a goal, or by simply destroying it from the get-go by saying it never was at all to begin with) as a form of "LHP" practice is a way of defining "LHP" in such a way that it's incompatible with any sense I (and I'm assuming the person who first asked how such a thing could be "LHP") use the phrase.

7
Quote from: Liu
Ultimately you can't prove it either way with the knowledge we have.

I know I can't "prove" it to the satisfaction of those who demand empirical proof of such things. If I could, I'd be a rich and famous man.

All of this started by my response to someone asking how can a "LHP" group be against preserving the Self. After I gave a response to that, I've been giving my reasoning as to why I personally define "LHP" the way I do. And I still say that "LHP" should mean more than something that really amounts to saying "all non-dogmatic occultism is LHP." It should mean the decision to recognize and focus on the Individual Psyche. I joined these forums because I was under the impression that the forum was founded with the basic definition of "LHP" as understood in the works of Aquino and others from the ToS. If I had the wrong idea, and what the forum really means by "LHP" is "any and all forms of occultism that aren't traditional Abrahamic religion," then that was my mistake.

8
And as far as the psyche having layers, facets, etc., of course it does. But this doesn't mean there isn't one Self that contains these layers, facets, etc, in the same way that a single onion has layers, but is indeed one onion all the same. Vincent Furnier getting a bit too caught up in his role as Alice Cooper in the late 70s and early 80s and almost dying as a result doesn't mean Vince isn't who he really is. It means that he stuck a lot of his traits into the "Alice" persona and got a bit imbalanced. No evidence of Vince not being real, and not evidence of Alice being something distinct from and apart from Vince.

9
Quote from: Liu
I also have read theories that ghosts of the dead are just some kind of metaphysical imprint that other people can perceive and that the human psyche tends to personify, not actual aware persons themselves. Who knows.

That is a VERY common theory. But it simply doesn't match the evidence very well. Ghosts regularly behave in a manner that obviously shows conscious volition and awareness of their surroundings. It's far more of a stretch to hypothesize all sorts of mechanics that make it seem like what it appears to be, rather than assume it probably is exactly what it appears to be.

10
Also, while a human psyche is in a physical body, it has to use the brain of that body to interact with the objective world around it. That brain being damaged can result in all sorts of problems with that psyches ability to act in the way it wants, and even bar it from retrieving certain memories at certain times. The psyche's dependence on the brain while in the body doesn't have bearing on what it depends on once freed from that body. If your car has a busted axle, and you can't steer it properly, it's not evidence of the driver no longer being able to tell left from right.

11
You can't have physical, material "proof" of the survival of consciousness, because it's NOT a material reality. But the amount of evidence towards the survival of personal consciousness is staggering. All nations, all cultures, from the dawn of time, have regularly experienced manifestations of the "dead," and those "dead" regularly behave as personal individuals. Of course, in this area, anecdotal evidence is "inadmissible," even though I guarantee that if I were charged with murder, I could be convicted no problem on the strength of 3 eyewitnesses who saw me pull the trigger, whether or not there is any concrete physical evidence that I had the gun in my hand. Anecdotal evidence suddenly "isn't evidence" only in regards to spiritual realities. Some jive about "extraordinary claims" etc, even though these claims are actually insanely "ordinary" in the sense that literally all cultures have reported it since humans have existed. It's reported daily, and always has been, and always will be. If you've never had up-close personal experience of the sort of evidence I'm alluding to, that's fine. But just because you haven't had those experiences, doesn't mean I haven't, or that countless others haven't. And I don't need a peer-reviewed lab report to verify what I myself have directly experienced.

12
Quote from: NEMO 93
My aunt had a diagnosis of a certain disorder for about 50 years and today just found it that it was a misdiagnosis.

Whoever said that the Self couldn't be mistaken about things in its objective surroundings, including its body? Nobody is claiming that the Self needs be omniscient.


Quote from: NEMO 93
That DesCartes' "I think therefore I am" is flawed because it implies two selves, one that observes the other thinking.

The Self's ability to analyze itself in no way proves the Self isn't doing the thinking.

Quote from: NEMO 93
What about method actors such as Robert Deniro? Is Travis Bickle himself? If yes or no, where does the line between Travis Bickle and Robert Deniro stop and end?

What about them? Deniro is fully aware that he's an actor taking on a role when he's doing his job. He has no illusions about who the check gets signed to at the end of the day. The line stops and ends at one is an actor, one is a role being played by that actor.

Quote from: NEMO 93
What if you take Peter J. Carrol or Aliester Crowley's advice and stop using "I" for a month? Then what's the self?

. . . The Self is the thing that decided to refrain from using a certain English pronoun for a month.

Quote from: NEMO 93
If a universe monotheistic self exists, surely it would be harder to get rid of it then getting rid of a word.

Getting rid of words doesn't get rid of anything. They're just words.

Quote from: NEMO 93
What if you take Peter J. Carroll's Panpsychism(not to be confused with regular panpsychism) and attribute an Ares self, a Plutonic self, etc. and start thinking "we"?

One's Self can role-play with such stuff to its heart's content. Doesn't really mean anything.

Quote from: NEMO 93
What about schizophrenics? Who is the real "I" for a schizophrenic?

I'm going to assume by "schizophrenic" you mean someone with "dissociative identity disorder," otherwise known as having a "split-personality." (It's a common mistake to refer to that as "schizophrenia," but it isn't.) People with DID are fascinating cases. For one thing, true cases are exceedingly rare. Many experts doubt that most documented cases are legitimate. I for one tend to think that of the few strong cases, there is a good probability that what we're looking at is actually good old fashioned spirit possession. There really is two Selves inhabiting that body. But materialistic science won't dare touch that angle with a 10 foot pole.


13
As I made sure to mention in the previous reply, yes, people experience things that are not-the-self. Obviously. But that's not at all the same as someone saying they have "experienced" a state of their own "Self" not existing. If there was an "experience" at all, that THEY experienced, it was their SELF experiencing it.

Yes, people engage in all sorts of thought-experiments and philosophical exercises to explain away their own Self, ranging from saying no Selves exist at all, all the way to saying that all Selves are one Self. I'm aware that there are all sorts of viewpoints on the topic, many of which are directly contradictory to my own views. But people can think whatever they want. People having the ability and the right to have their own views on a topic doesn't entail that all views are equally valid or correct. You're certainly free to consider my own view that Individual Selves exist as REAL Individuals, and are immortal, as hogwash. I'm very aware of the fact that generally most mystics do. My rejection of such models and theories is not due to me being unaware that they exist, nor from being unfamiliar with them.

And of course, when it comes to things such as the cells in your body and all that, that's neither here nor there, because the Self is a metaphysical reality distinct from the body, that survives the body, and carries on as an Individual Self with all of its memories, loves, hates, etc intact after the death of the body. And it goes without saying that I can't prove this to you or anyone else, nor am I concerned with doing so. Besides, it's already been shown that people who don't want survival of individuality to be how it works will find a million ways to theorize away the most direct evidence of it, even including seeing and talking to deceased human spirits . . . hell, even getting whacked upside the head by one. People who don't want to believe it simply won't.

I will say though, that I'm not saying that there is no such a thing as some sort of Universal "stuff" or "substance" that all Selves are "made of," to put it in a rough sense. But, even then, that impersonal substance isn't the "real Self." To use an analogy, let's say you have a nice chair made of birch-wood. The chair is certainly made of birch, but reducing that chair to a pile of wood-chips isn't making the chair into more of a "real chair." It's no longer a chair at that point. And it also doesn't mean the chair was never there to begin with. The chair was certainly there . . . until someone threw it into a wood-chipper. And there ARE countless numbers of mystics who DO desire exactly that to be done to their Self. And I, personally, do not consider anyone who sees such a thing as being in any way desirable "LHP." It's not even about "pro-cosmic" or "anti-cosmic." They can be trying to dissolve their Self into "the cosmos," or dissolve their Self into "chaos." Either way, as far as the sort of Self I am talking about is concerned, it amounts to the same thing: spiritual suicide. Now, whether this thing is even actually POSSIBLE is besides the point. It's the intention and desire to do it at all is what matters, and what makes such things "RHP" to me.

For me, depreciation of the Individual Self to the point where it is either denied existence, or its destruction is sought, is simply not "LHP." For me, the "LHP" is the recognition of the Self, as an Individual, and the choice to continuously strengthen that Individuality instead of sublimating it.

14
The only part of The Satanic Bible that is really plagiarized is the first part, "The Book of Satan" which is a hacked up version of "Might is Right." And it makes up less than 5% of the book. The Enochian Keys (which takes up A LOT of space in the book because of them being spaced out in a way that takes up a whopping 6 pages per key) aren't technically an example of plagiarism, because it's not like LaVey pretended he wrote them. He mentions they're from Dee and that they first appeared in print in the 17th century. Although I suppose him using the phonetic version of them from the Equinox without mentioning that bit could be considered plagiarism to an extent if one wanted to stretch it.  But anyway, the real meat of the volume are the books of Lucifer, Belial, and Leviathan, and none of those constitute plagiarism.

And yes, all sorts of "chaos" occultism predates Black Metal by decades. But that stuff wasn't usually called "LHP" by its advocates back then either. LaVey was the first to publicly use the term "LHP" for what he HIMSELF was doing. Previous to LaVey, everyone always used "LHP" to describe what others besides themselves were doing, and always in a negative sense. The current crowd of anti-Self, anti-Ego people who use the phrase "LHP" may themselves dig back to older chaos material for influence on their ideas . . . but we've been talking about the decision to openly call the stance "LHP."

As far as "experiencing not-self" and all that . . . nobody "experiences" not-self (I mean, people experience things that are not the self, but don't experience a state of No-Self). When your Self is "not," there is no "experience" of anything. People like Crowley and countless other mystics of all stripes go on and on and on for entire volumes about "experiencing" some form of "not-self," but it's my position that all such accounts are mistaken. If your conscious, thinking Self stopped existing for any amount of time, there would be no memory of anything from that period of time whatsoever. My position is Ego-centric and Psyche-centric to the extreme. I refuse to define "Self" and "consciousness" as anything other than what normal usage and common-sense denote it as: your thinking YOU that says "I am me," "my name is Bob," "My favorite color is green," etc. When someone like, say, Blavatsky, says "There's nothing to fear from death, because your Self doesn't die," but then a few lines later, she goes on to reveal that all she REALLY means is that some impersonal, vague spiritual "thing" that she calls your REAL "Self" doesn't die, but that your conscious Ego certainly DOES dissolve shortly thereafter, she just pulled THE classic RHP cop-out. If there is some impersonal mystic "thing" at the core of of me that gets recycled to either rejoin some cosmic unity, or get reincarnated as some new person that I'll never meet, it won't matter to ME one single bit. It results in practically the same thing as a full-blown atheist/materialist saying that there's nothing to fear from death because you rot in the ground when you die and what you're "made of" gets recycled to feed worms. For all intents and purposes, as far as I, ME, am concerned, it results in the same thing. I suppose that's why there ARE so many atheists and existentialists who DO find classic mystic stuff like this to not be all that heavily incompatible with their views . . . cuz they realize it all essentially comes out as the same thing.

And sure, I've GROWN since I was 10. I'm not exactly "the same" in every way . . . but I am in A LOT of the ways, and in a lot of ways that REALLY matter. I reject the notion that growth and change of my Self constitutes a series of different "Selves" that are arising and dissolving in succession. I am me, and I grow and change, but it is one central I, one central me, with one stream of memory, that is the thing growing. I may not like a lot of post-1975, grouchy misanthrope LaVey, but this later line from him I echo whole-heartedly:

"'You can’t go backward,' 'you can’t live in the past,' they tell you. Why not? 'You've got to put all that behind you and move on to other things,' they say. Bullshit! . . . It's our past that makes us unique . . . how we weep and wish we could hold onto those cherished moments forever, to those long-whispered dreams, to those tortured nights─how we want to grasp them and stop them from sifting through our fingers. I say, 'Don’t let it happen. Keep things the way you want them and let the rest of the world be duped.'"


15
The ToS spinning off from the CoS will always seem nonsensical if one seriously thinks that what LaVey was about in those early years wasn't completely serious and sincere. But I'm sure you've already read/heard Aquino explain how serious it was over and over, and if he can't convince you, there's no chance of me convincing you either. And that's fine.

And I feel ya on a lot of everything else you're saying there, but, none of it changes the fact that there ARE tons of people who describe themselves as "LHP" whose idea of bettering the Self is really obliterating the Self . . . they just do a cop-out of changing the definition of "Self" to be something totally other than, well, their actual individual, personal Self. "My REAL Self is [insert some term for something impersonal here, preferably one from Eastern mysticism] so I'm not REALLY talking about obliterating my Self when I talk about wanting to obliterate everything that makes me an individual . . . I'm just obliterating [illusion, lies, etc]."

And I'm not shitting on wearing black and liking spooky shit in and of itself. It's not like I don't do that sometimes. But the fact that I do so isn't a part of why I prefer the term "LHP." And of course I can't stop other people from using "LHP" to mean whatever they want.

But someone asked how could a group who wants to obliterate the Self call themselves "LHP," and I figured my response was an honest enough answer, seeing as how the current explosion in anti-Self, anti-Individuality sentiments under the name "LHP" really is traceable to the trends arising from the Black Metal scene. It almost seems taboo to bluntly point that out sometimes though. You get enough people taking Black Metal lyrics about "death" and "chaos" way too seriously, it was only a matter of time before some of the more cerebral fans found the at-the-time LHP material disappointing, and decided to create forms of "LHP" that more accurately reflected the misanthropy and angst of their favorite lyric-sheets. And now here we are.

At the end of the day, I myself don't, and never will, consider anyone who desires the destruction of their conscious, individual Self (even if they decline to phrase it that way) "LHP." And if that's being close-minded, so be it. I'm also fully aware I can't stop the tide that's now rushing out of the floodgates though. But it's still sad all the same.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5