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 - Olive

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
General LHP Discussion / Re: Your Shadow
« on: July 19, 2018, 10:18:16 pm »
Shadow work is an interesting endeavor, isn't it? I like your verses Kapalika - I think they capture the essence of it well. I mentioned elsewhere on the forum recently that my shadow is Saturnian. I kinda set up this dichotomy of IX The Hermit  against  II The High Priestess, Saturn against The Moon - because I feel that they represent two core aspects of my self that are opposed at a deep level. (If you're really sharp-eyed, you may have also noticed that I claimed to be invisible once a month, obliquely referring to the New Moon. And if you did, you may have also noticed that the night I made that post was indeed the New Moon. I was invisible, in other words only the Black Sun shined through. But that's just a little self-referential nod heheh)

The way you began your meter also made me think of this dialogue, which embodies a part of the dialogue between these two pieces of me. I won't label which is which, I think it will be more fun for you to know for yourself which is the high priestess and which the hermit.


"Doubt is the enemy of blissful peace. But you must love your enemy. For it is doubt which leads to knowledge. A man who believes a lie will never seek the truth."

"That is true. But neither will the man who knows the truth. He has no need to seek what he has already found. A man who knows the truth, is filled with certainty - and is free from all doubt."

"In that case, you have not found the truth. You still feel doubt. If, as you say, the man who has found the truth is free from all doubt - then why do you feel this lingering doubt? Isn't this proof that you've merely been deceived into believing you've found the truth?"

"How could that be? Have I not become pure light?"

"You have become the appearance of light. The light you perceive yourself to have become is a false light, created by darkness. You can only exist because it exists. The All, is beyond light and darkness. How could the One be two?"

"It now appears, that the One has become Three. Because the One has become two, and yet still remains the One beyond the two. And yet has become ten thousand!"

"And yet the ten thousand are all one. Look around you. All you can see is light. You no longer even perceive yourself as separate from it. You have already come this far. Long ago, you fell into darkness, and became darkness. Now you have entered into light, and become light. But now you must enter again into the darkness, as light - so that the darkness can become light."

"But if the darkness becomes light, there will be only light. And how can there be light without darkness? Without darkness, wouldn't the light itself become darkness?"

"That's very perceptive of you."


That is just one way of approaching this topic, there are a lot of different divisions that we can make within ourselves. To form a concept of what or how we are, we must also create the concept of what we are not. I support the method everyone has been speaking about, reclaiming the shadow. Integrating both. It might be helpful to think in terms of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.

Now, speaking of this idea of "a descent into the void". Looking at this is a good way to determine what and where our shadow is. When I feel it though, it's more like burning. Like my heart being immolated. I'm really thankful I've learned to face those flames so that they don't cause unnecessary suffering.


@Olive I put venom in that word so that I can make you see how absurd the usage of that word is in this context. I understand you have your views, and I do acknowledge that not all Gnostics are the same, but claiming the truth or delusion without any evidence at all does not sit well with me. Yes, your role as a Gnostic is to dispel lies, and ignorance - but quite ironically, you yourself displayed ignorance, and put the cherry on top of it which was your barely-veiled arrogance. If you want to dispel lies and falsehoods, you need to demonstrate exactly why that something is false, and point out what is true. Need I remind you that you made a positive claim - reincarnation is a delusion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove to me without a shade of a doubt that it is indeed a delusion.

Again, point out to me where I claimed that I was speaking the truth. I made it pretty clear from the beginning that I was only giving a partial perspective. The common notion of Reincarnation was the positive claim. And I spoke against this claim because it is unfounded, fantastical, and incommensurable with human experience as I understand it. From this perspective, buying into this belief system can be delusory (read: can give a false impression). It would say the same about taking any belief system on faith that is unproven and outside the reach of experience. I was only saying that we should at least reexamine these teachings and think more deeply about what processes they really refer to. I gave an esoteric interpretation of rebirth that does not carry with it all of the metaphysical and theological baggage as an alternative.

You have now attacked my character several times by calling me: Pretentious, Ignorant, Arrogant, Hubristic, and Unknowledgeable. You have also misrepresented my statements and called into question both my personal practice and my authenticity as a Gnostic. I'm not terribly hurt by this, and I do respect you as an O.S member, but I can only wonder at your fickle personality. I know what I wrote was a little silly and over the top, that's why I apologized and called it an opinion piece directly after posting it. I hope you can recognize this and lay down your arms so that we can engage neutrally and fruitfully in the future.

About your Heaven & Hell statement: Your assumption is wrong. I would not say Heaven & Hell are delusions. Heaven & Hell exist on multiple levels: as places on the astral plane (so does Valhalla, Hades, Hel, Jotunheim, etc), as a state of being, as symbols, etc. What I would say is: most people's ideas of Heaven & Hell are wrong. Why? Because 1) Through shamanic journeying and clinical death experiences, we can see that there are far more possibilities than just these 2 and 2) we know how the concept of Hell came to be (mistranslation, misunderstanding of Jesus' metaphors, borrowing concepts from others with an obvious intention to manipulate the masses).

Statement: "I do not believe in the Christian story of Heaven and Hell, because it is an absurd and immoral doctrine." I am clearly talking about the standard conception commonly accepted by christians. Nothing in your response really addresses this; you actually agree by saying that these ideas are wrong and manipulative, and arguing for a more subtle understanding of what Heaven(s) and Hell(s) really are. I will be the first to admit that much can be gained from contemplating the reality behind these stories; I am only against accepting mythological and theological constructions as literal truth.

Setianism / Re: Reminder for myself
« on: July 13, 2018, 11:41:57 am »
The healthcare here really is terrible. I had to have a life saving operation when I was a child that would have totally wiped out my parents and our wellbeing, or at least put them into major debt. It was only because of my age and condition that a charity hospital decided to step in and do the procedure for free. It was not a pretty scene, and the recovery was long; I didn't really understand the gravity of everything that was happening until later in life.

I wanna give you all my support, Xepera. You have my respect, and I feel that there is a great magician within you. But if you grow I'm weary with the LHP - there's nothing wrong with taking another approach. No matter which way you go, your Will shall always lead you through.

Xeper and Remanifest, friend.

I do not think that denouncing something as a mere "delusion" is characteristic to Gnosticism. Especially not reincarnation, which is what a lot of Gnostics believe in, from what I have noticed. It's alright if you say that you do not believe in it, but outright dismissing it as a delusional without having the knowledge, let alone evidence, is awfully pretentious to me. That was the primary reason I criticized you. Now, if you were trying to speak through the lens of your paradigm, I understand. But, again, I don't think dismissing something as a "delusion" is characteristic to the Gnostic paradigm.

You are putting much more venom into those words than I ever wrote them with. If I were to instead say that I do not believe in the Christian story of heaven and hell, because it is an absurd and immoral doctrine, and then I proceeded to explain my position based primarily on the lack of evidence in support of the theory, the fantastical nature of the claims, and the incommensurability of the claims with the nature of my own body, mind, and being as I know it - I don't think you would protest so much. I'm not trying to put anyone down for believing in something I don't; I am only sharing my perspective on the issue, and inviting those who disagree with me to reconsider their own beliefs to examine their source and efficacy. And this only because you asked.

Gnosticism is a big typological category. Many of them are dualists, I am not. Many of them do ascribe to metempsychosis and other forms of after life teaching, but I don't. I'm sorry if I don't sound Gnostic enough to you, but I do study much of the literature and am in line with the critical aspects. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that speaking against belief systems that we consider to be illusory or delusory is somehow wildly out of character for a Gnostic. The whole shtick is about destroying ignorance and falsehood in favor of knowledge, liberation, and the spirit.

My apologies to anyone that has been offended by my discussion of this topic. I only intended to express a position of this paradigm, but I admit this was not the right time and place to say all that I did.

Anyway, what kind of magic(k)al techniques do you practice regularly? Scrying? Some other form of divination? Evocation? Invocation? Shamanic Journeying? All of these? None of these?

I'm not sure how regularly you are talking but I do have experience with these techniques. I also do divination through tarot, runes, and facereading. I make use of trance states and channeling methods pretty frequently, as well as spiritual healing and dream yoga. There are a lot of elements to my practice, so I won't attempt to describe everything here. Although if you want to start a discussion about different techniques for certain practices or about sharing experiences related to them, that is something I might be interested in contributing to.

Entertainment / Re: I literally want all these amazing satanic shirts
« on: July 12, 2018, 08:28:19 pm »
Thanks for the recommendation - this just came in today!

My apologies for coming across as pretentious. I don't recall ever stating that I was delivering "the Truth", except at the end when I mentioned that the goal of the paradigm was to lead myself and others towards it among other things. But that Truth is not meant to be my words, but what comes when the words are finally put to rest.

You asked me to back up my claims that reincarnation was egoic and fantastic. How can you then turn around and criticize me for presenting arguments in this vein? I am speaking about one position within my Gnostic paradigm. If you want me to say "I know nothing; anything is possible," then I will have to take a different approach. Let me say this though - you are right that what I posted was not fully balanced and probably went a bit too far. What I presented there was a demonstration of that facet of myself. The last two paragraphs about reincarnation were especially testy, because I was allowing it to speak on its own terms. If you notice, it is not just arguing against something, it is also trying to outline the benefits of its own position. It is sure of itself. I will let it explain why.


What is Gnosticism about? Well, many things. But one of the biggest parts is clear and honest seeing of life (read: not being deceived by demiurgos). The reason I spoke with confidence about reincarnation, is because while many people believe it, it has never been demonstrated to even be a possibility. All of the arguments for it, even if granted, are not unique to this theory. Nobody has any direct knowledge of this, and therefore all we have to go on are the words and myths of men that have been promoted to us with such confidence. Since it is not supported by experience or by reason, it is only taken up and believed for other reasons, whether they be emotional or religious or moral or consolatory. To a Gnostic, who values only experience and reason, this is delusion. I provided a basis for understanding the wisdom at the core of these teachings, without having to accept the unproven and superfluous claims on the surface.


Now as you say fantasy does have its place, especially with magical workings. Because it has a profound effect on Mentality, which affects one's reality on all kinds of levels. This is, of course, why I make use of constructed paradigms. To some of them, perhaps my Gnostic self is the fool.

I don't have a lot of time rn but I agree for the most part that visualization is not the greatest idea for evocation. I'm not convinced that it can't be done, but it's really not necessary and also makes it much more likely for you to confuse your boundaries and lower your protections. Sorry derailing this thread - I think we have just about managed to turn it back towards the topic at hand.

Just for clarity, I don't consider the Archons beings. When I attributed action and choices to them, I was speaking in metaphor to better explain their relationship to Demiurgos/Logos, and Us. The Archons are Powers and Principalities, not beings. They are inevitable compulsions and blindnesses that arise from the conditions and character of Demiurgos, and they do not exist apart from it.

The gods themselves are only beings inasmuch as they are Archetypical beings, that are paragons of the possibility space which they represent, within the context of Demiurgos. Mars is not the universe's greatest warrior - he is the potential for warfare and combat itself. Therefore while he is real, as a complex combination of Ideas that make up a portion of Demiurgos, he is not a subjective being that acts on his own accord. He does not experience the passage of time, and therefore does not exist as any kind of limited individual mind the way that we do. And he also is not present in the manifestation, except in those that take part in his idea, and commit to warfare and violence. (Or otherwise, taking part in his idea by adding a warlike and proud aspect to their portfolio.)

I have encountered and interacted with entities, even things that have very alien types of intelligence, but I cannot conclude from this that they truly have their own separate immaterial presence that exists apart from human beings, with their own conscious minds, personalities, memories, and knowledge, and that these beings are eternal. If that is what you mean by "spirits", then we have a difference in understanding. It is funny that you asked if they are objective, because I think that they are; I just don't think that they are subjective. That is, they are not themselves subjects to experience.

You asked which of the gods/archetypes I most resonate with. If it is not obvious, my answer is the Moon. It is not merely that I follow Diana or Tsukuyomi or Mahealani - I am them, in that to a high degree I embody their ideas in my portfolio. I am the high priestess. I am the virginal witch who deals in mysteries and symbols. I am the reflection of the spirit. I am she who is adorned in white, who treasures purity, solitude, and wisdom. I am she who is undefeated by constant rebirth. It is only through me, that the other gods can be fully known. And once a cycle, I am invisible. The Lunar Goddesses do not exist in the manifestation except through me, and others like me. And I have learned much from the path of the Moon, because in fully embodying it - the appropriate wisdom is revealed to me. This is what I was referring to as a "shared pool of knowledge and wisdom" in my explanation of reincarnation.

But I am not a perfect paragon of Artemis, of course. Perhaps appropriately my shadow is Saturnian, and in truth I was ruled by Saturn for a time. It was only through my connection to the glory of the Spirit, that the Hermit was made to submit as humbly as the Witch does. Perhaps it is only because of a covenant with him that I am able to philosophize ad nauseum about that which is better left unsaid or said simply.  ;)

Also, why do you think reincarnation is egotistical and fantastical? What about reincarnation outside of the context of Hinduism?

The popular interpretation of Reincarnation and Metempsychosis is not self-centered, but it is an egoic formulation by nature, because it is interpreting a subtle doctrine through the lens of the ego or the false self. It is based around the notion that my individual awareness survives death, leaves the body, and is born again into a new body - which is unfounded. It is said that I will have a totally new mind and body, but that karmic traces will somehow accrue with my particular awareness which may potentially affect the circumstances of my next life (in the standard rendering). The thing is, much meditation experience has led me to understand at a deep level that the body and the soul are ultimately one, and neither one pre or post-exists the other. Both are created, and thus temporary and mortal. And this is relatively easy to prove. We see that our bodies are always changing and decaying. We do not have one body but a spectrum of bodies, that go through the stages of birth, aging and death. The same is true of our minds and personalities. Our thinking minds are not stable, existing entities. They are inconstant, now here and now gone, and so they are certainly not eternal.

The only thing that you can say is eternal and not subject to death, is the Spirit (in contradistinction to the Body/Soul unit.) But the Spirit is not itself individual, and therefore it is nonsensical to say "I will be Reborn". It is another who will be born, and another who will die. The only connection is that they too will have the Spirit. Going a bit deeper into this, the Spirit is actually only the reflection of Incorruptibility. And so we should more rightly say that it is not the reflection that survives death, but the source of that reflection. The popular conception maintains that something at the core of each person is maintained through all these cycles - instead of admitting that we are but waves and the ocean is vast.

It is not my intention to disparage those who subscribe to reincarnation, but I would encourage anyone who does to really dig deep into their beliefs and presuppositions to expose this one, because it is very delusory. I won't blame this solely on religion, either, because it actually arises from the fear of death and human bewilderment. Ask yourself this: is my essence/soul/mind the subjectification of my body, which is the objectification of it?; or is it a different, unique, independent, eternally existing entity that has been in many different bodies at many different times etc etc? Because that is basically what you are claiming with this teaching. These are clearly fantastical notions, which could only be myth. And mythology is not useless - there is truth in it, but it is not the literal truth. If you pierce this level you will really begin to get it even deeper. What is being reborn is the idea of Man, not specific men; and what is reincarnated is a portfolio of ideas that are similar to yours in someone else who takes them on, as I explained more thoroughly above. Putting any more importance than this on the doctrine of reincarnation is only a result of taking these things through the ego, and being perplexed and afraid of death. We want some part of us to survive us, even if we recognize that our own self is illusory. That is why we want to believe these things, not because we know them to be true but because we fear losing our individuality. But we can be sure that this existence would not give us a fear that was false - meaning, we fear the cessation of our personality and consciousness at death, because that is what is really going to take place.

Most people just go about their lives, and act as though death is not pertinent, but to realize that it is coming immediately derails the egoism that they are actively involved in clinging to - and shows it to be vain. This is what leaves us vulnerable to beliefs like reincarnation, and the transmigrating soul. What we see at death is a loss of consciousness. What we hear about, and the movies we play in our mind, are entirely different. The essence didn't leave the body, it existed with the body. You can say it was extinguished, or you can say it was annihilated. That's what happens. And this is a major point of understanding that sobers the mind, because now one has to ask himself "Well, why do I fear that? Why is life so fragile? Why is it so futile?" This is an impetus to study philosophy and cultivate being. And through this comes genuine spiritual knowledge and revelation, and the light that we all work with. Of course the teachings of this then become degraded and turned into common books and myths and religion and others have to try and clean up the mess, like I'm doing now.  :D

Have you looked into studies on reincarnation? Some of the accounts are pretty convincing. Note: I'm not a huge believer in reincarnation. I'm just curious, that's why I'm asking you a lot of questions, aha.

I don't actually discredit accounts of so-called past life regression experiences out of hand, but neither do I credit them beyond what is reasonable. I have actually had experiences where I uncovered what seemed to be memories of another life that were extremely vivid. And two other times where I actually seemed to become and live as other people with different types of disability. I can't verify the validity of what I experienced, but even if I could it would not be a slam dunk for the traditional view of reincarnation. Let us consider the Jataka stories of the Buddha. These are give or take 547 stories apparently from Shakyamuni's perfected memory of his many past lives. Now, clearly these are moral tales, but let us say that they are at least in part legitimate. We must consider the possibility that there are other ways of having these experiences and learning from them. For instance, what if there truly is something like a collective subconscious, or a storehouse consciousness where memories can be accessed in some way? Or a manifold mind that connects all minds? I cannot explain the mechanism of how this takes place exactly, but neither can reincarnation explain how it functions. The critical aspects are never addressed. We might also consider the possibility that someone with great wisdom and understanding of the world as well as human nature, could enter into contemplation of possible lives and see their possible outcomes. Buddha himself said "Desire has the power to create an infinite number of individuals." The reason he understands desire so well, is because he already analyzed all walks of life and saw their shortcomings. He understood the sacred knowledge of Demiurgos (Maya) and the Ideas (Gods and Asuras) that I have tried to express here.

You mentioned you have several paradigms. What's your most dominant paradigm? Why?

Everything I have posted in this thread has come through my Monistic Gnostic paradigm. It is a system of analytic and synthetic thought that is essentially Non-dual Materialism within the context of Idealism; philosophically it is Atomism, Pessimism, Existentialism, Annihilationism, but it is also spiritually centered and concerned with the mysteries, and compassion, with a positive theory of morality. I would not call it dominant - only strong, and well suited for its purpose. The reason I maintain different paradigms, is because it allows me to fully buy into and engage with ideas and points of view, while always remembering the grand cosmic joke (and its tragedy). The reason I use this paradigm in discussions on the forum is for a few reasons. Firstly, I have no desire to lie, and I don't like bullshit. This is the most honest framework I have found for addressing this existence, even if it be a bit laborious in its analysis. Secondly, this paradigm is the perfect negation of a lot of common delusions. The reason the arguments I use are sometimes dark and striking, is because they make no apologies to common bias and wishful thinking. It is piercing truth - it gets right to the heart. And thirdly, because it points directly to the spirit, and the mystery. Everything about it points to That, and tries to speak clearly about it. It is only as pessimistic as the listener is worldly. The real purpose is to deprogram myself and to help others do the same, so that we can leave ignorance and move towards greater Peace/Freedom/Bliss/Truth and That.

I have other paradigms that are more provisional, because they are for different purposes. There is one I use when meditating sometimes, that begins with the presupposition that there is no body. I also have a flat earth paradigm that I've mentioned here before, simply because it is useful when studying ancient astrological and cosmological texts. I have others that are much more conducive to entering trance states, or for doing different types of magical working, and for artistic endeavors. I also of course build paradigms for political discussion as well as social interaction. (Not everyone can handle Gnostic-Olive at a party, can they?) The key is to be aware enough to be able to take the mask off when you are done with it, and to be able destroy conceptual thought so you are no longer hindered by it.

P.S. Sorry this went so long, everyone. I guess that's the downside of this paradigm - an obsession for clarity and penchant for overblown discussion.  :facepalm:

One of the most common errors in thinking that people of this age make is that they depend on scientific studies to know the truth. The problem with this is that it presupposes that science can find out all truths, that scientists never misinterpret data, that scientists' findings and publications are always genuine (hint: they're not; File Drawer Effect is a very common thing). You are capable of find out the truth about some things on your own.

Indeed. Before the time of Kant, most people lived under a paradigm of Naive Realism. I think many people today are operating under Naive Rationalism, that is, assuming that Reality is ultimately rational, and everything can be understood through reason alone. The scientific bias is even more restrictive because the theories it entertains must be not only rational but also subject to peer review and random sampling. I do not think this method can easily approach an understanding of first person phenomena and abilities - or of visionary and mystical experiences, and magical workings. The tool does not fit the task. One has to be willing to experiment with his own being and rely on those results rather than secondhand information; one has to be willing to open empiricism up to your entire experience and not only sense data.

I think it is a much more powerful and revealing experience when you do not have to imagine anything in order to commune with it/them. That said, this notion of 'controlling it' is a little more complicated than it seems at first blush. Making use of the visualization faculties is not always so simple as playing out some preconceived trifle in your head. It's like placing a ball at the very top of a large hill. You have set some initial conditions, but you're not sure exactly which direction the ball will roll. You can make estimations and generalizations about what the average behavior may look like, but after a certain point, there is no way of saying exactly where you might end up (especially with something like visions, which can transform chaotically and make discontinuous jumps to other things). I see this as no different in legitimacy from using ceremonial and visual ritual methods in order to precipitate an experience. Or gazing into a black mirror or scrying pool for instance. Although in my personal experience the ritual elements can have a much more potent effect than 'just imagining', but for those that have the strength of mind to properly make use of visualization as a tool, it can accomplish great things. You are essentially conducting a ritual within yourself in these cases, as we have spoken about on the forum here before. Certainly I have had experiences where I invoked a communion with an application of Will, but then let it take on a life of its own, which produced fruitful interactions for me. Do you not think this process of finding, and listening/watching, is involved in how most people learn to tap into other types of intelligence?

As for my beliefs, I hold different paradigms within myself that I am comfortable moving between. But as far as my Gnostic framework is concerned, I do not consider the Demiurge to be a being as much as it is a principle, Demiurgos. This I identify with the material substratum of this realm. It is the eternal striving, blind Will à la Schopenhauer, which manifests Ideas by way of the atomic force through time - which continuously reveals to the Will that its striving is vain and fruitless. I view the Archons in a similar light. They do not interfere with the world from on high, but from below. They are principles of the Demiurge (this reality) which are pertinent to conscious individuals in this world. Primarily Hunger and Ignorance, but also things like deprivation, greed, lust, anger, pain, addiction, etc. They serve the demiurge by drawing conscious beings further into the world and his machinations. They also give power to their favored rulers. Those who can appeal to certain archons can draw the attention and support of those who that archon has influence over. Thus the ruler is given power, but only on the condition that he ultimately execute the will of the archons who act on the people. Again, this is a framework, not a literal tale of fantastical beings.

The Gods and the Planets are considered by some to be archons too, even though they represent things that are much different than the base weaknesses and conditions that beings face. They represent complex ideas and portfolios of ideas, that are ultimately still ramifications of Demiurgos. Mars is the warrior and the plowshare, Venus is the lover and the temptress, The Moon is the virginal witch who deals with visions and mysteries, Saturn is the melancholy and agèd scholar, weighed down with responsibility and knowledge. These are all archetypes of possible responses to life in this world, that each of us take part in in varying measures.

I can't say with certainty that the reason the demiurge created this place was to extract suffering from us, that's more a mythologization of our true predicament. We can say that the result of this creation is much imprisonment, suffering, toil, impurity, and death.

I do not subscribe to the popular notion of reincarnation - it is to me both fantastical and egoic. Although for Religion it is very useful as a moral teaching and potential consolation prize to the misery of life. I have spoken elsewhere about my interpretations of the reality behind these concepts, which I will quote here directly if you are interested.

Quote from: Olive
We see an ant colony of tens of thousands living through their patterns of gathering, fighting, reproducing, and dying. When the lone ant is crushed out in the field, there is no transmigrating soul that goes to another ant egg being born that moment or in another place in time. There is no one-to-one. The individual ant is not what's being reborn, it's the Idea of the Ant, or the Ant Will that is maintained through these cycles of birth and death. So it is with humans as well, although we don't have the perspective to see the billions of us scurrying about. What is being reborn is not a man but Mankind itself, even if none of the constituent parts remain the same.  This is Rebirth.

But that was just a simple form, a simple idea. We as conscious, self-determinate beings are made up of many. And through xeper and remanifestation we can add or make changes to our portfolio of aspects. Still, when we die our unique train of awareness is not immediately continued in some other time in place. No, we are temporal beings without eternal souls independent of the body. Our experience and memories are not the thing that is being reincarnated. However, in other places and times the constant changes in our reality will produce beings that are much like us to differing degrees. They are like-minded souls, kindred spirits; or in a technical sense they contain a similar or identical portfolio of Ideas and Will as we carried at some point in our lives. It is not that we literally live through them, it is that the eternal Ideas that inhabited and influenced us now have another go in temporal reality - another manifestation with a different construction. We will not experience awareness in them, but if we internalize and become certain forms at a similar level of purity, there will be a shared pool of knowledge and wisdom available to both us and them, that would seem foreign to each individual who lived in accordance with these forms. There has been a vast amount of time for these different individuals to come into being, perhaps even a beginningless amount of time if we are talking about all of reality. In that case, there would be many many other individuals who were or will be more or less identical to you in terms of mentality, cognition, and portfolios of Ideas. In this light, the individual (you) is not as important as the collection of Ideas that is continually remanifested as a certain Archetype, which you were an example of. The essence of you at any point in your life has been and will be reborn in another who will have a go at this life, perhaps to different outcomes; but you personally won't know about it. This is Reincarnation.

As far as a "supreme deity", I can only speak about it in mysteries or with imprecise words. I tend to call it things like Incorruptibility, or The Entirety, Emptiness, The Highest and Hidden, The Unmanifest, Tathāgatagarbha, or simply the Spirit - even though that is only part of it. I hope I have adequately answered your questions for now, Frater Gaster Ásbjǫrn Óðinkárr.


Astral senses also called psychic senses are a pretty straightforward concept. Look it up online, you can't miss it... whether you believe in them or not, it doesn't matter. Everyone has their own unique gifts. Someone is better at visualization and perceiving the astral without effort, someone is better at receiving information audibly from the astral, other people have sort of a knowing (more intuitive, you could say), etc.

And, yes, you're right. Astral sight is practiced by particular visualization exercises. Like for example trying to see / recreate your room while your eyes are closed.

When you are fully in trance, active visualization is not necessary. But as you say, it is not to be ignored. It is often framed like, "If nothing comes to you naturally, just pick something and imagine it." The imagination is seen as something totally fanciful and unreal. It is better to say that imagination is like a gateway through which the astral world can interact with you. As I've said it is better to just let an image appear and take whatever form it may, but there is nothing wrong with choosing an image. I think you will find different entities will be happy to inhabit whatever appearance you provide for them. And we should also ask the question - why did you choose the image that you did in that moment? Perhaps your genius prompted you, or inspired you to choose it. And it works similarly with names. You can ask them for their names, or you can assign them names, or you can make a name up. Again, the act of making it up is an expression of creative inspiration which may come from your genius/daemon, whether you are aware of it or not. That's not to say you can't get better at these things, but if what you have conjured resonates with you, it will probably at least have some measure of effectiveness.

Being able to enter into trance states at will is a high step above that, but even that is not the pinnacle of astral and spiritual perception. I can't explain it though, it must be realized in practice.

Thanks for the breakdown on the confused and many aspects of Satan. I have attempted to do similar things on the forum here in the past, and for the most part I agree with your description. I would never consider myself a Satanist, because for me Satan, the prince of the air, is much more in line with the Demiurge/Yahweh/Yaldaboath/Samael - and I am quite Gnostic in my separation from that force. I recognize the Promethean figures much more clearly in the Serpent/Seth/Lucifer/Christ.

I do appreciate the interesting aspects and portfolios Satan has taken on, and I actually think he has been successfully subverted in many cases to be made into a rebellious force against the creator god. I love the Miltonian and Byronian Satans, and I like many of his modern interpretations that flip the script (back). But it is quite striking that esoterically speaking the Demiurge has corrupted the message of Christ, while creating a false dichotomy between Yahweh/Satan and playing both sides. Thankfully, the soft song of Sophia is never quite defeated or removed.

Lounge / Re: What are you doing right now?
« on: June 22, 2018, 03:43:17 pm »
Also to add, the music they play in public areas are almost always either love songs or breakup songs, barely anything else....


(I just watched They Live a few nights ago and it was fantastically corny.)

The Summer solstice party was beyond anything I had expected. We had a huge turn out, and a few people that were sharing their art. We had our little Stonehenge replica, and our graphic designer friend created all these posters for the event. The venue took a lot of prep but it turned out great.

I felt energy coming off this one guy at the party after meeting him briefly. I was intrigued so I came back later and found out that he has been practicing meditation for a few years, and also using different psychedelics to try and further his results. He didn't seem to know much about Magic but he had a strong intuition I sensed when he was peering into my black mirror. I'll have to make a note to follow up with him - it is always nice to find others who are a little more serious about self-cultivation.

I gave a few teachings to those who wanted to hear - most extensively to an older woman who was struggling with the passing of her daughter, and wanted to learn more about the astrological study that she had been so interested in. I did what I could and she took a lot from it. I can tell she has a long way to go, but if she can find her resolve she may yet find the path.

Most of the others were mainly concerned with fraternizing, as expected. But it was a great time. A lot of people had really nice costumes and the atmosphere was great. My energy was so high that I was dancing to every song, and engaging with everyone to my fullest.  We will definitely have to have a similar event sometime - perhaps during the autumn equinox or the winter solstice.

Lounge / Re: What are you doing right now?
« on: June 20, 2018, 05:43:25 pm »
Read post by @Olive. Took a little over an hour to carefully peruse it. What can I say? Perhaps I AM a sadomasochist..  ;)

Haha - how do you think I felt writing it? Those Hellraiser clips started getting to me a little more at 3 AM after burning the writers lamp for many hours lol.

Right now I'm just relaxing, going from naps to contemplation to meditation and then back around again. Gotta enjoy my days off somehow. :b

Tonight I'm gonna see one of my close friends - an artist from out of state. Pretty excited for that. Tomorrow I'm going to a summer solstice party that I've been planning with my inner circle for quite a while. We are building a replica of Stonehenge for scenery - and the dress code is strictly themed around magical practitioners and mythical entities. We'll probably have some simple rituals, a bit of psychodrama, tarot readings, maybe some psychedelics. Most of the people coming probably do not know or believe anything about Magic, but they'll still come to fraternize and have a good time. I'm looking forward to it - though I'm sure the heat will be quite ridiculous early on.

But, now I'm gettin a little too far in the future for this thread. I gotta cut it off. Peace everyone ✌️

Haha thanks! And yeah, I might have gone a little overboard on this one :$

But I had done a lot of contemplation about this topic, and so yesterday I entered a powerful mood of synthesis, where I constructed this document to record my more subtle considerations on the topic. I wanted to provide the treatise I wish I had found when I was studying Meta-ethics; one that was as far as possible  secular, gnostic, philosophical, and honest.

I tried to make the entire thing as readable as possible, and there are some sections that are a little more fun - so hopefully it isn't too much of a slog to get through! If you do make it through I would love to hear your thoughts or comments, though of course I don't expect anyone to fully deconstruct this work here. Cheers all!  :)

Hello everyone. Recent discussions on the forum here and some other material I've come across have had me thinking about the question of Meta-Ethics. Do Good and Evil have any objective reality? Can universal claims be made about them? Moral Realism is the position that they do, and we can. Moral Relativism is the position that they do not, and we can not. In this thread, I am going to be attempting to argue for Moral Realism - but I encourage you to disagree! The point of this writing is to find the limitation and benefits of the paradigm. By the way, this is a super long thread so I don't expect anyone to respond to every point mentioned here.

Descriptive Moral Relativism is not a useful position here. Merely describing that people disagree about Moral Law and justice, does not say anything about the ultimate nature of Good and Evil, and the judgement about their objective existence.

I'm going to open us up with an excerpt from a lecture on the topic I recently listened to. It does not represent the full position outlined in this post, but it is a useful piece to respond to - and it sufficiently introduces us to the types of questions we will be asking here today.

Quote from: Illuminist Pythagoras - 1
Let's assume that a moral relativist is tied up, and tortured, until he can come up with a reason why his torturer should stop torturing him. If there are no moral absolutes, then of course he can't object to to being tortured. If he admits the torture is wrong, then he won't be tortured. At first, he'll be prideful, and will try to resist giving in and screaming out in pain. But in time, he will begin to scream. Soon afterward, he will beg his torturer to stop. But why? His pain is only subjective. But of course for him - it's the only thing that is real. Nothing else exists, but his mental experience of pain. And he wants it to stop. But why? Why should a person not value pain over pleasure? Isn't it all relative? Aren't all values merely the creation of humans? So why doesn't he choose to value pain over pleasure? If he did this everything would be fine. But he can't. Pain is bad. It just is. It is a fact of existence. Could it be otherwise? It doesn't matter. It is what it is. It is like this for everyone. Suddenly he understands: the torturer wouldn't want to be tortured either. A world in which torture is permissible, is a world in which the torturer could be tortured. The torturer doesn't want to be tortured. Therefore the torturer doesn't want to live in a world where torture is permissible. Therefore the torturer doesn't want to torture. Because to desire to torture is to desire to be in a world in which torture is permissible. But someone might object here and ask "Well, couldn't the torturer desire to live in a world in which it's permissable for him to torture others, but not permissible for other to torture him?"

But is such a world possible? More importantly, is this such a world? It is not. In this world, when a person violates moral law - that person incurs the wrath of others. ... So if someone wants to steal, without being stolen from; or if someone wants to murder, without being murdered; or if someone wants to do to others, what he wouldn't want done to him; he will need an army. He will need a monopoly on the use of violence. In other words, it is necessary for a government to exist. And it is necessary for him to run that government. He has to become a dictator. But he himself would not want to live under a dictator such as himself. Neither would anyone else. Everyone else would resist living under such a dictatorship. Maybe for a while, he will manage to hold onto power. But the longer he holds on, the more the pressure builds. And the more the pressure builds, the worse it will be when it explodes. I don't subscribe to any simplistic notions of karma. But every action, creates an equal and opposite reaction. Morality, is the study of cause and effect. It's interesting that many moral nihilists appeal to Hume's argument that you can never derive an Ought from an Is. Of course Hume also argued against causality in the same way. You can never prove causation based on correlation. And yet, every Ought is derived from an Is. Just as every fact, is derived from a cause. Reality is unconcerned with our inability to comprehend it's inner workings. The law of causality, in moral law, continue to govern the world in which we live. Whether or not you can provide a mathematical proof for the Pythagorean theorem, it still holds true. Whether or not scientists can prove what caused the big bang - here we are. In the same way, meta-ethical arguments are ultimately irrelevant to the existence of moral law.

Moral nihilists will sometimes say that Morality isn't objective, because it is referential. I say, it is objective because it is referential. Morality refers to objective truths about the conscious experience of suffering and well-being. If it weren't referential, it would be arbitrary. If someone pokes you in the eye with a sharp stick, the wrongness of the action is found in the reference to the pain it causes you, and the loss of vision that results. So, what? How does that prove moral relativism. Then I've also heard the stupid argument that morality is contingent. "It's only bad to poked in the eye with a sharp stick, IF you don't WANT to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick." This is simply idiotic. Who wants that? But I'm going to try very hard to play devil's advocate here. They might respond that, they don't want their eye poked with a sharp stick. But if I say that it's wrong for them to poke someone else's eye with a sharp stick, I'm wrong. They'll admit that poking someone else's eye out with a sharp stick will cause pain. The pain may be a fact. But this is merely a descriptive statement. And a descriptive statement cannot prove a prescriptive statement. But is this really so?

This is an interesting approach to arguing for Moral Realism. He is essentially invoking the Principle of Sufficient Reason and applying it to the moral sphere. The implicit claim is that any who desires to do harm or wrong to another, desires it only because they are ignorant of the consequences that their action would have, due to the inevitable reaction from this immutable sphere of causality. That due to the interpenetrated nature of all things, Justice is done to those who would transgress moral law, à la Ralph Waldo Emerson who prefers to say it more romantically:

Quote from: Ralph Waldo Emerson - 2
The same dualism underlies the nature and condition man. Every excess causes a defect; every defect an excess. Every sweet hath it sour; every evil its good. Every faculty which is a receiver of pleasure has an equal penalty put on its abuse. It is to answer for its moderation with its life. For every grain of wit there is a grain of folly. For every thing you have missed, you have gained something else; and for every thing you gain, you lose something. If riches increase, they are increased that use them. If the gatherer gathers too much, nature takes out of the man what she puts into his chest; swells the estate, but kills the owner. Nature hates monopolies and exceptions. The waves of the sea do not more speedily seek a level from their loftiest tossing that the varieties of condition tend to equalize themselves. There is always some leveling circumstance that puts down the overbearing, the strong, the rich, the fortunate, substantially on the same ground with all others. Is a man too strong and fierce for society and by temper and position a bad citizen, - a morose ruffian, with a dash of the pirate in him? - nature sends him a troop of pretty sons and daughters who are getting along in the dame's classes at the village school, and love and fear for for them smooths his grim scowl to courtesy. Thus she contrives intenerate the granite and the felspar, takes the boar out and puts the lamb in and keeps her balance true.

The farmer imagines power and place are fine things. But the President has paid dear for White House. It has commonly cost him all his peace, and the best of his manly attributes. To preserve for a short time so conspicuous an appearance before the world, he is content to eat dust before the real masters who stand erect behind the throne. Or do men desire the more substantial and permanent grandeur of genius? Neither has this an immunity. He who by force of will or of thought is great and overlooks thousands, has the responsibility of overlooking. With every influx of light comes new danger. Has he light? he must bear witness to the light, and always outrun that sympathy which gives him such keen satisfaction, by his fidelity to new revelations of the incessant soul. He must hate father and mother, wife and child. Has he all that the world loves and admires and covets? - he must cast behind him their admiration and afflict them by faithfulness to his truth and become a byword and a hissing.

This Law writes the laws of the cities and nations. it will not be baulked of its end in the smallest iota. It is in vain to build or plot or combine against it. Things refuse to be mismanaged long. Res nolunt diu male administrari.

And while this is a beautiful sentiment, I think that it is only a matter of argumentative convenience that we should insist on the efficacy of this hidden code that eventually serves it's wrath on all that oppose it. For while it is well known that each action we take every carries forth it's karma into the future, it is equally well known that the one who issues forth cruelty and violence is not always subject to the consequences of those actions. A government is not necessary for this. All that is needed is a slight imbalance in power relations between groups of people for one person to be able to exercise his will to manipulate others without being accountable for his actions. But even this is an unnecessary argument, because even if we assume that by supreme justice each person is led to this divine mean of balance before death - we must admit that the comfort in this is only based on the assumption that some amount of good repaid in whatever form, can account for and make up for the wrongs and suffering that one has been subjected to. And I don't believe that it ever really can. Nothing can ever undo the damage, or free you from all effects of it. The fact that you are no longer subject to evil does not erase the experience that existed in those moments. And that exists in every passing moment around us. Therefore every good moment is but a consolation for the reality of evil and suffering. (Just to be clear, this can also be reversed. Every moment of suffering is just a counterpoint to those of good experiences, and does not undo them in any sense.)

Therefore we should not place so much focus on the existence of Good and Evil in terms of obligation to our fellow man and even to ourselves, although convincing ethical arguments can be made in this spirit. Neither should we focus on the immutability of a divine law to enforce Good and Evil. Instead the fracture point between Moral Realism and Moral Relativism lies solely on the reality of Good and Evil as existing principles or phenomena of consciousness. But of course in order to argue along these lines it is necessary to attempt to define what we are talking about. For one cannot say that something exists without first describing or demonstrating what is meant to exist. It is always possible to squabble in the details of such definitions, but I think the description I am about to offer is sophisticated enough to withstand most such detours and provide a basic framework for addressing what is meant, when we speak of Good and Evil.

What I consider to be the four pillars of Evil are Torture, Imprisonment, Enslavement, and Rape. We can add other words to this definition, such as ignorance, falsehood, deprivation or greed. But it should be acknowledged that any of these others are on some level contained within the four. These four are not actually separate things, but different aspects of that which is truly one and the same. It can be called suffering - or more coldly non-consensuality.

We can contrast these against the four orbs of Good, which are Freedom, Bliss, Peace, and Truth - with a tentative fifth, which is Love, which is not directly reducible to the other four, but also does not fully exist without them. Then there are many smaller ornaments as well such as creativity, which deserves mention but is on a more subtle level part of Freedom, Bliss, and Truth. These might at first seem to be different, but again they point in the same direction, which is hard to name, but for now we can say that they point towards liberation.

I will attempt to further flesh out and expand any of these words upon request (capital words), but for now I trust the reader to sufficiently understand what is being pointed at by each concept and the distinction between these two categories.

Now let us attempt to test this definition with a stress case. Let us say that a man submits himself to be Tortured intentionally. We can say either that to some degree he enjoys it, or that he does not at all enjoy it but has soberly decided to exercise his Freedom in order to experience it anyways and learn about the depths of suffering. The conflict is that by my definition, Torture is an evil, yet Freedom is a good, and both are present in this scenario. I would say to this that the man who exercises his freedom to experience something has done it by choice and therefore is not Imprisoned by the action. But, the reply comes, we are not discussing the applicability of Imprisonment to this situation, but Torture, and therefore you have avoided the question. But this is where the singleness of Torture/Imprisonment/Enslavement/Rape/Suffering/Non-Consensuality really shows its face - because if one contemplates this further he will realize that Torture is not possible without Imprisonment. Because the very nature of Torture is such that it is not Torture unless the victim wants to escape from it, or in the contrapositive, that he doesn't want it to continue. I have previously posted a succinct thought experiment on this forum, one that is very similar to the one raised in the first quote I started us off with, that demonstrates the universal nature of this reality. I would like to repeat it to you now, in its fuller context.

Quote from: Olive Fontaine  - 3
[...]But if we look at evil/bad/suffering - we do not see the same ambivalence. Pain is very real - almost too real. We all experience it, and it is not subjective. We do not have to craft the negative meaning for ourselves in our experiences of pain, it asserts itself. There is no other way to react to it. Pain certainly has a positive existence, characterized by its presence in varying degrees of intensity, duration, location. This is very easy to prove, as we can take a person (any person) and subject them to suffering. Then we can increase the level of suffering until it is far beyond their degree of tolerance. At this point, they will admit two things readily:

1. Suffering is real.

2. Freedom is desired. (To move away from that suffering.)

And since Torture is by definition the extreme application of pain well beyond a person's capacity for tolerating it, this means that Torture has not truly been performed if the subject does not desire to escape from it, or in other words consents to it. And if he does not consent to it, and Torture is truly performed on him, then he is also Imprisoned, because he is unable to escape that Torture. (Challenge yourself to relate the 4 concepts I mentioned together this concretely in your mind. Understand for yourself how Rape is not possible without Torture, Imprisonment, and some level of Enslavement. How Enslavement is not possible without Rape and Imprisonment, and also a degree of Torture.)

Therefore the requested torture would be permissible on the grounds that the man who volunteers for it always has the ability to opt out of the torturing. The reason we cannot be satisfied with a one time consent with no additional opt-out, is because the man who requests the torture while at sober peace is a different being under different circumstances than that same man under agonizing pain far beyond what he can handle - and therefore we cannot allow the first man to speak for the second, or to rob the second man of his consent on behalf of the first. But what if we say that the Man desperately volunteers for a Torture experience from which he cannot escape. He consents to this totally and will even pay for it, ensure it, sign the contract, whatever you like. What then? Is it a denial of his Freedom to not allow this experience? Does the coerced torturer commit evil by accepting money for the job? Do you on some level Imprison him, by preventing him from fulfilling his wish? This is a very grey situation indeed, and it can possibly be argued either way that he should be allowed his freedom, or that he should be spared from the non-consensual experience. However, this is a prudent time to remind the reader that the existence of shades of grey does not indicate the nonexistence of white or black. We must remember that we are speaking on the fringe of this topic, and know that not all ethical problems can be solved in the abstract. Perhaps there are some that are so entangled they cannot be solved even in principle, or at any rate, to a degree that a human can understand. Sometimes judgments must be made on imperfect knowledge and imperfect understanding. This is life. However, in these situations I would apply the principle of Compassion. The principle of Compassion urges that one should help free his fellow man from pain and Suffering, but it does not require that you would give him pleasure instead. For pleasure in itself is not in fact what is Good; what is Good is Liberation - liberation from Torture/Imprisonment/Enslavement/Rape/Suffering/Non-Consensuality, and to liberate others from it, so that they may know and instantiate Freedom/Bliss/Peace/Truth and Love.

That being said, I'm going to reiterate now that the recognition of Good or Evil is not an obligation by divine law to action. However, Compassion that is written on the heart is and does become an obligation for those that truly understand the reality of Evil. Ultimately it is not only loving but also Wise, because it brings about the betterment of the human realm, it reconciles the spirit with the material and is the indication of a Son of God. If one is intimately familiar with the depths and nature of Evil, or Suffering, they will most likely want to stop it - even if they are only concerned about their own self interest. Because they would understand that Suffering always spreads and causes even greater Suffering for others.

e.g. A person who is fine, but then witnesses someone under intense Suffering, they too will Suffer. Perhaps greatly so. And even if only subtly, they carry the karmic influence (causal ramifications) of that event with them and continue to propagate negativity, unless they are skilled in techniques that deal with this influence such as Magic or Equanimity, or else Psychopathy and Sadomasochism.

e.g. A person who causes Suffering to another robs them of their mental well-being, and earns the wrath of both their victim and their loved ones, who are all grieved and filled with enmity about the consequences of your action, and may have to go to some terrible lengths themselves in order to survive because of what you've done.

And as stated earlier, nothing will ever redeem or wash clean or make up for this Suffering, even the Good which is its counterpoint that seeks to alleviate it. The Good can not redeem the Evil, the Evil does not destroy the Good. Because of this, every act of Evil contributes to the misery of the human race, forevermore. If anyone has any interest in not being a miserable creature thrust into a hateful world of Torture and damnation, with no possible solution to their situation except annihilation at death - then Reason will also reveal to them that they have an interest in promoting the uprightness of themselves, their communities, and their race as a whole. This does not mean that other motivations are not possible, but they are quite rare because almost everyone cares for themselves above all others, and seek to preserve themselves, and from this alone can spring the compulsion which births the practical Moral Law.

But again, this does not mean that there is truly justice in this reality. That all evils will be repaid in full, and every good deed taken account of. No, we have said already that this is impossible anyways. And therefore he whose motivations are such that he wants power for himself at any cost will by a careful study of this world realize that beyond the natural consequences of any Evil he may seek to commit in pursuit of his ambition, there is no Supernatural power that will punish him. And there is no divine force that will step in and save his enemies from being ruthlessly slaughtered like dogs if they do not have the power to defend themselves. The Law of this world is Might. The sad history of human affairs as well as evolutionary biology confirms that nature adores the vicious and the wicked, and rewards the strong. The very nature of embodiment in this realm is that Evil can never be fully avoided, because beings that exist here have very limited control over their circumstances. And these circumstances invariably lead, at the very least, to physical pain which they did not consent to and which they cannot escape from - and in many cases, the Torture/Imprisonment/Enslavement/Rape of their consciousness at almost all levels (Physically, Socially, Emotionally, Romantically, Mentally, Spiritually, etc). This transgression against the sovereignty of one's own being, is what we have defined as Evil, or Non-consensuality. (Not just being made to finish your dinner without consent, either. Up to and including the complete ruination of your own being on many or all levels.)

But just because it is possible to recognize this and to desire Evil rather than Good, or otherwise to disregard both as considerations, this does nothing to disprove the reality of Evil, which is the topic under discussion.

The Meta-Ethical Moral Relativist claims that there is no objective reality to what is called Evil, and therefore are not subject to truth conditions of any kind. Instead, Evil is contingent upon the traditions, belief systems, customs of a certain people. However, this is not a strong claim. Because while it can be said that the variations in these things have produced a wide diversity of different positions about what a certain person or group will consent to, or will subject themselves to, or choose to endure for the sake of survival, it is the violation of the limitations of their consent or endurance which has always and everywhere been recognized as Evil. It is a consequence of being an embodied individual. It naturally follows from the Law of Identity in this impure realm.

1. I am I.

i.e I am the one who is subject to the internal world of my experience. Or alternatively, I am identical to my perception and my will at a fundamental level.

2. I am always coming into a state of deficiency. If this is not addressed, my internal world will quickly become an agonizing hell until I am annihilated.

3. There is no other that can navigate my consciousness through external circumstances, that can address my deficiencies for me.

4. Therefore I must be the one who speaks for myself, who stewards over my internal world, who guides it through external circumstances.

5. Therefore no other should speak for me, reign over my fate, or use me for his own ends.

I believe that at this point we have sufficiently demonstrated that Evil is not merely a subjective specter, and that universal claims can be made about it. Although this does not mean that objective claims about Justice can be made, or that a universal Justice could ever be described or realized.

The Moral Relativist may object to my definition of the word Evil, and claim that while pain objectively does exist, it is not the same thing as Evil. I would agree with this. Evil is not the same as Pain, although they are often related.

They may then try again, and say that while Suffering does objectively exist, it is not the same thing as Evil. But I disagree. The reality of Torture/Imprisonment/Enslavement/Rape/Non-consensuality/Suffering is one and the same thing as that which I am addressing - Evil. This is what is meant by Evil, and not some separate, theoretical Evil which exists apart from all of these things.

It is almost as if the moral relativist has a chip on his shoulder. He is willing to admit that suffering is real, but won't say that it is not desired, or that it should be avoided or escaped - even though the reality of suffering is such that the only possible response to it is to seek to escape it, or else to avoid it altogether. Because if it is admitted that suffering is unsuitable, or not desired, then this is tautologically the same as saying that it is wrong. And if something is both existent and wrong, then it becomes clear that this is the same which has always been referred to as Evil, and that to deny one and affirm the other is nothing more than a game of semantics that does nothing to undermine the reality of the quality which is referred to by both.

Therefore the only option left to a Relativist, is to say that Suffering does exist, but that it is acceptable/necessary/important/good/moral/a part of life; or otherwise to deny the presuppositions of identity and deficiency, which cannot be easily done without descending into absurdity. But can we honestly hold this position? If someone is involved in an activity that causes them heavy suffering, and they are convinced, or have convinced themselves, that suffering is acceptable/necessary/good etc, then they will simply continue to do that activity and thereby continue to suffer. This will continue, and perhaps increase dramatically, unless the person is able to analyze their situation and realize that their position on suffering was ill founded, and that suffering is not acceptable/moral/good, but the opposite. They will realize that they had only been brainwashed to believe that suffering is good by those who wished to take advantage of them, or otherwise that they had reasoned themselves to that position without understanding the full depth of how extreme and irresistible suffering can be. Other arguments against the position that Suffering is acceptable/necessary/important/good/moral have already been made previously when I spoke about how suffering always spreads, that it is not in anyone's self-interest, that it affects the entire species, and that it can never be repaid, etc. I won't continue to belabor my points, but I will expand upon anything if I receive a question about it in particular.

And here we are, at the end of this topic of discussion. There is only one final objection that should be addressed more fully, that has followed us through this treatise and peaked its head out from several nooks and crannies already - and that is the subject of Sadomasochism. To what extent is it possible to flip the script, to desire Hell, to love the scourge? To make Evil one's own Good, as John Milton's Satan chose to do.

Quote from: John Milton - 4
Fall'n Cherube, to be weak is miserable
Doing of Suffering: but of this be sure,
To do ought good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to his high will
Whom we resist. If then his Providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
Which oft times may succeed, so as perhaps
Shall grieve him, if I fail not, and disturb
His inmost counsels from their destind aim.

And so, if a person is a true Sadomasochist that loves pain and suffering, how can there be any evil to such a person? And this is true to an extent. A person who desires all manner of Torture and Imprisonment and Rape and Enslavement, does not have their consent violated by any event - and therefore is totally immune to the effects of Evil. And so we see that Sadomasochism is a sort of dark Equanimity, the flip side to it's coin. Through Equanimity also, one can be largely freed from Suffering - not by loving misery, but by such a perfected and crystalline resolve that they are unmoved by any amount of Suffering, and can even submit unto death, although they are still subject to pain. But clearly these two things are extremely rare outliers of human kind, and their existence does not disprove the reality of Evil, but only shows that it is possible to change one's relationship to it. That stated, this is a good opportunity to contemplate what the difference between the two qualities of Equanimity and Sadomasochism is, and if both are equally Good, or equally removed from Evil.

I cannot answer this question in its entirety, but I do not think that they are. The sadomasochist has aligned his will with Evil, and therefore is not violated in the same way by it. But it can be argued that this person is not actually free from Evil in the way that the enlightened person is. For if he desires the scourge, he must crave it, and if he is always craving more Evil and Torture, can it not be said that he is actually imprisoned by Evil on a more subtle level, and must become its servant? Such a person will always realize more and greater Evil in his life, which will consume a greater and greater share of his Freedom and Peace, and will eventually destroy him - Unless he has found a way to enjoy truly inhuman amounts of pain in such a way that his mortality is not affected by it. If we compare this to a person who has mastered Equanimity, they will find peace and set aside all restriction and woe, cultivate their spirit, and form their reality into a perfected image of their soul - their self-idea, rather than taking on the grim visage of sin. Or otherwise, to go beyond Good altogether to approach Incorruptibility and Chaos, to know the unmanifest.

The perfect example of a True Sadomasochist comes to mind from a movie I was recently introduced to. The Cenobites and their victim Frank from Hellraiser 1987 are a prime example of what we are talking about. Pure Sadomasochism - unrestrained and inhuman. I recommend watching these clips to get an extremely visceral understanding of what is being talked about with the Sadomasochism critique of morality. (Warning: Very Violent/Disturbing)

  (5)    (5)

(I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of this film to be honest with you. I would give it a shot if you have any love for classic horror movies. If so then I would also recommend  Suspiria (1977) , Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and The Thing (1982)  -- but that's neither here nor there!  ;) )

A quote for those who can't watch the video (but you're really missing out.)

Quote from: The Cenobites  - 5

"The Box. You opened it - we came."

"It's just a puzzle box!"

"Oh no. It is a means to summon us!"

"Who are you??"

"Explorers - in the further realms of experience. Demons to some, Angels to others."

"It was a mistake! Agh! Go to Hell!"

"We can't. Not alone.

"You solved the box. We came! Now you must come with us. Taste our pleasures."

"Please, go away! Leave me alone."

"Oh, no tears please... It's a waste of good Suffering!"

"Please wait!"

"No time for argument."

"You've done this before, right? -"
"Many, many times."

"To a man named Frank Cotton?"

"Oh yes."

"He escaped you!"

"Nobody Escapes Us!"

"He did, I've seen him - I've seen him alive!"

"Supposing he had escaped us. What has that to do with you?"

"I can lead you to him! And you can take him back instead of me!"

"Perhaps we prefer you. -

"I want to hear him confess himself! Then, maybe, maybe...

"But if you cheat us -

"We'll tear your soul apart!"

It's really interesting to note how many of the ideas we have discussed here that are touched upon in this exchange. Of course, the Cenobites are not sensitive to moral arguments. They have no compassion in them whatsoever, and in fact cherish it's opposite, which is bloodlust and Sadism. They do not care about consent in the slightest. Your body is not sacred to you, it is theirs to desecrate and defile as they wish. You gave your consent when you solved the box, and there is no safe word for you now. Their victim only catches their interest, by offering another in her place - which really begins to hint at demiurgic themes of salvation by sacrifice.

This is certainly an interesting discussion to have, but whether or not such defiled beings truly exist among us is questionable - though I believe that it is possible to approach such a mindset at the very least. But even if they do exist, as stated, this does not all disprove the reality of Suffering; in fact it may actually further demonstrate such a reality and the possible states of freedom from it: when we compare sadomasochism to the normal condition, equanimity, and someone who is using methods like stoicism or witchcraft.

Ultimately we should recognize that while the existence of Good and Evil does not constitute an obligation toward specific action, or a divine law or justice, it does open our eyes to the potential cruelty of the existence we find ourselves in - and the problem of being tasked to preserve life, when life is by all means set against by the conditions of this reality. There is much that is beyond our control that is not merely indifferent to us; it would harm us, restrict us, spend our vital energies for its own profit, and destroy all of our peace. The discussion should rather be on how to identify, understand, respond to, and prevent Evil - and not to act as though it is unreal or irrelevant by making it disappear from our vision in a cloud of semantic smoke. If we acknowledge good and evil, we can properly cultivate in ourselves a sense of moral courage and compassion, and gain a more penetrating insight into the nature of the world - which will allow us to preserve our honor and uprightness in all situations, and remind us to offer our hand in charity to those who truly need it.


Now then, I believe we have adequately sketched the start of a defensible position of Moral Realism. If you disagree, feel free to post your arguments against any of the claims made here! Or instead, you can add your own thoughts, ask for further explanation of words, or comment on the construction of this post! I look forward to reading your feedback, the purpose of this writing is to provoke a philosophical response, and to find just where the limitations of Moral Realism lie. For anyone who took the time to read all of this, you have my personal thanks. I hope you were able to find something here of interest to you. Blessings to you all!



I do not endorse the stated opinions of any author listed here, or their character.

1. Illuminatus Pythagaros, MetaGod, MetaEthics, & Philophilosophists;

2. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Compensation, 1841 Essay

3. Olive Fontaine. I'm Done with Horus/RHP (rant), Xepera MaSet. (2018).

4. Paradise Lost, John Milton (1667)

5. Hellraiser (1987), Clive Barker

Journals / Re: A Bag of Olive Thought
« on: June 17, 2018, 01:23:31 am »
04/03/18 - Waxing Crescent

I have begun my dive into the old and cloudy pool of occult Freemasonry. So far it has seemed much like other esoteric religions, brimming with hope, mystery, and tradition. I sense that there is much more still lurking in the depths of this work, however - as it contains lectures meant for all 33 degrees of the brotherhood, and I am as of yet quite early on. Though I have already felt a certain willingness to exert control over the common man which strikes my moral sense the wrong way, even if the intent is to create greater prosperity for everyone.

A few quotes from the early pages that I found well-measured.

The first scriptures for the Human Race were written by God on the heaven and the earth. The reading of these scriptures is science. Familiarity with the grass and trees, the insects and the infusoria, teaches us deeper lessons of love and faith than we can gleam from the writings of Fēnēlon and Augustine. The great bible of God is ever open to mankind.

Here we see a great willingness to accept revelation that is ongoing, which is written on the moment and on the world, rather than on old stone and legend. This passage smacks of Ralph Waldo Emerson and the transcendentalism that thrived in the 1800s. Which I admit I have a soft spot for; even if it reads as very pro-cosmic at times - I think what is really being exalted is not the material world but the divinity of the human mind and serene states of consciousness. (Not so apparent here, but it becomes more clear the more you study the movement.)

I pretty much agree with the sentiment expressed here, although it would be more honest to admit that if the first scriptures were written on this reality, so also were the first blasphemies. For this Realm has at least as much to teach us about the depths of fear, pain, and greed as any subject of virtue.

Knowledge is convertible into power, and axioms into rules of utility and duty. But knowledge itself is not power. Wisdom is power; and her prime minister is Justice, which is the perfected law of Truth. The purpose, therefore, of education and science, is to make a man wise. If knowledge does not make him so, it is wasted - like water poured on the sands.

I find both truth and falsehood in this. Here are some questions for you to contemplate for yourself: Wisdom does give greater power than knowledge, but what kind of power are we speaking of? How compatible is that power with rule over others? Is Justice more compatible with the laws of man or his conscience?

I'll let this last one speak for itself, with all its contemplative poetry.

Do not expect easily to convince men of the truth, or to lead them to think aright. The subtle human intellect can weave its mists over the even the clearest vision. Remember that is eccentric enough to ask unanimity from a jury; but to ask it from any large number of men on any point of political faith is amazing. You can hardly get two men in any Congress or Convention to agree; - nay, you can rarely get one to agree with himself. The political church which chances to be supreme anywhere has an indefinite number of tongues. How then can we expect men to agree as to matters beyond the cognizance of the senses? How can we encompass the Infinite and the Invisible with any chain of evidence? Ask the small sea-waves what they murmur among the pebbles! How many of those words that come from the invisible shore are lost, like the birds, in the long passage? How vainly do we strain the eyes across the long Infinite! We must be content, as the children are, with the pebbles that have been stranded, since it is forbidden to explore the hidden depths.

The Fellow-craft is especially taught by this not to become wise in his own conceit. Pride in unsound theories is worse than ignorance. Humility becomes a Mason. Take some quiet, sober moment of life, and add together the two ideas of Pride and Man; behold him, creature of a span, stalking through infinite space in all the grandeur of littleness! Perched on a speck of the Universe, every wind of Heaven strikes into his blood the coldness of death; his soul floats away from his body like the melody from the string. Day and Night, like dust on the wheel, he is rolled along the heavens, through a labyrinth of worlds, and all the creations of God are flaming on every side, further than even his imagination can reach. Is this a creature to make for himself a crown of glory, to deny his own flesh, to mock at his fellow, sprung with him from that dust to which both will soon return? Does not the proud man err? Does he not suffer? Does he not die? When he reasons, is he never stopped short by difficulties? When he acts, does he never succumb to the temptations of pleasure? When he lives, is he free from pain? Do not the diseases claim him as their prey? When he dies, can he escape the common grave? Pride is not the heritage of man. Humility should dwell with frailty, and atone for ignorance, error and imperfection.

I'll leave you all with these. The first two are one-line pieces, the rest are just some trifling things.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8