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 - Mindmaster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Other Religions / Re: The essence of spirituality
« on: April 02, 2018, 09:22:49 am »
Something else came to me later too.

As a Catholic, I found the Christian fundamentalist element wholly irrational.

As a Pyrrhonian sceptic, I found the Modes wholly rational.

As a Setian, I think it's more level-headed encompassing elements of rationality and irrationality. It's supra-rational to an extent.

From my perspective the truth of the whole thing is beyond rationality in simple terms. That which is that (beyond) mustn't be limited by the modifications of the mind or it exists solely in the realm of it. This state has to be beyond conception or it's lacking the primary characteristics of the ultimate truth and starts playing by the rules our minds invent. That, of course, is why I've been promoting an experiential frame of reference. You only know if you have the direct realization of that truth, so any phase of your life that gets you there is the right step. :D

Other Religions / Re: The essence of spirituality
« on: April 01, 2018, 12:07:24 pm »
I feel there are so many truths within all religions, and perhaps that is the essence of spirituality. I don't feel the need for steadfast labels, anymore.

Anyone else feel this way?

If there weren't a few nuggets of truth in any system they wouldn't be around for long. Anyway, the only real thing that you're going to ultimately believe is your own experience. So keep truckin' :D

I did the math. The claim is that there is "a gun for every American," so about 326,000,000 guns. There were about 533,000 gun related deaths. This means that of all the guns, .001% of them killed people.

Of course, 100% of those deaths involved people with emotional and mental issues. But nah, let ignore that aspect!

Also, it is generally never mentioned that most of the deaths related to firearms are suicides. Again, this just reinforces the idea of mental health problems being the primary cause. They too would use whatever instrument is convenient, so eliminating the firearm does nothing. They'll switch to knives, rope, or driving their automobile off a bridge. It's the lingering failures of psychiatric professionals to act on and utilize information to save someone's life and law enforcement not working in cooperation with them via the feedback loop. The Parkland shooter had authorities to his home 39 times and if just one of those times they removed his firearms or involuntarily placed him in a psychiatric facility temporarily nothing would have happened. There is a large disconnect from LEOs and these mental health resources and they continue to exacerbate the problem by ignoring it intentionally or through complete ambivalence.

It's mostly a strawman made by gun lobbyists to say that people want a "gun free existence". Quiet the contrary. Even the most hardened gun control advocates still think people should have guns suitable for hunting and self defense.

If you're gullible enough to believe any of that, I really don't have to address the rest of the post. People don't go anti-gun because they're afraid of hunters taking animals. As far as who needs what to defend themselves, why should anyone have the authority to make that decision? The premise itself is tyrannical, and the tyrants will move the needle to whatever suits them. First it'll be certain types of firearms, then it'll be them all. That's the only direction it moves... Of course, the same people pushing this agenda are surrounded by armed guards 24/7 and can concealed carry without a license due to exemptions they wrote into the laws. They're making those laws against YOU whether you're possessing the wherewithal to realize it or not. It's not merely the current firearm owners who are limited by such decisions, but also those whom need that protection in the future. Whether the threat is in your neighborhood, or somewhere in a possible future via government corruption is irrelevant. Once the possibility of defending yourself goes away, you have nothing to work with.

If we'd like to get personal, as in, because I've watched Alex Jones once in awhile that somehow degrades my opinion - at least  I know what gender I am, know what it means to feel the need to protect others, have my own household and income, and from my perspective whatever you think of me is irrelevant. The correctness of my disposition has bore fruit in my life. What has your silliness and instigation ever got you?

I've been reluctant to post how I feel about your constant antagonism primarily on the basis of being a nicer guy, but you've simply crossed the line of decency and the gloves are off. It seems whatever random shit comes to your mind just spews all over the page with no sense of discretion at all. What of your opinion amounts to anything? You pander to those whom you think want to hear your plight and summarily throw them under the bridge at the earliest opportunity.


This is bad for so many reasons. Taking guns can't cause the change we need. It ignores that probably some of those people protesting likely directly contributed to events. It ignores the fact that kids and even adults don't even know or care to watch for mental health signs, they just want to ignore it and hope it goes away. We've always been ignorant about this stuff in the US, and this is making it WORSE. Seriously, go find all the articles on these kids talking about bullying and mental health. I sure haven't seen them.

It's essentially this: Fanaticism doesn't work toward the ultimate good, but rather propagates evil (generally tyranny) in the name of something good. (A mythical gun-free existence.) Nothing being proposed by the anti-gun crowd addresses the root causes that perpetrate the evil, they focus only on the instrument. (The instrument can be used to either good or bad ends, the majority of the uses are actually in good intention.)

The root causes are drug and gang involvement, mental health, and broken homes. Until these are addressed, nothing will stop the violence the instrument will simply change. Likewise, all of those using firearms to a good end will be angry that they are being persecuted by the fanatics and be provoked to worse behavior in the name of defending their need for protection or recreation. Essentially, all the fanatics achieve is the creation of more fanatics. If the good people who own firearms are persecuted for the crimes of those who do evils then obviously there is immediate tyranny in the proposition and it should be disregarded.

Journals / Re: Fr. Sisyphus' Archives
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:55:11 am »
I guess I have a way of 'scheduling' these things to make it work for me  :D

I appreciate your ADHD, I just can't get myself to work in that fashion. :D

I'll typically spend a lot more time reflecting over the material than most people though, so it isn't a race I have to win. I have about ten books in the queue, so I'm going to stop buying them for while. :D

Journals / Re: Fr. Sisyphus' Archives
« on: March 21, 2018, 07:27:39 pm »
Man you're reading a lot of books at once. :D

I'd suggest you'd pick one to finish. :D

I only have two books I read in this fashion:

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (because it's mostly laid out in 'talks', I might read one at a time - it's also REALLY long, something like 4000 pages over 9 volumes) and a programming book. (I find it is actually counter-productive for me to jam through it because I like to work through the exercises.)

I'm pretty much focusing on completing a read through of "Eight Upanisads" Vol 1. by Swami Gambhirananda w/ commentaries by Sankaracarya. It takes some time, but it's really detailed. :D

General LHP Discussion / Re: How often do you perform rituals?
« on: March 18, 2018, 09:07:05 pm »
How often do you perform rituals approximately? Or, if you're into direct magick (vampirism, healing, etc) how often do you practice / perform it?

Never on rituals, as  don't feel the need.

The rest of what I'd do might be considered 'energy' manipulation (whatever that means) when I determine whatever it is needs to change but isn't influenced by macrocosmic forces beyond my control. I guess that's the difference in perspective versus my youth, in that, it's not how something is done by why and if. :D Perhaps. a better definition of what I do is theurgy - though not in a dualistic conception, I don't think the powers to do things reside outside of me, but within.

This came out literally when I started embracing Satanism, and it was scary as fuck. Because of this, I rarely would mention my interests in public for fear of physical harm. I can't believe how retarded people can be sometimes.

Satanism / Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist
« on: March 15, 2018, 06:19:53 am »
Well said Mindmaster. I'm glad you get fully where I'm coming from. My view is a little more nuanced in that I think negative feelings are acceptable so long as they don't burden, but true hate always burdens, and preoccupies. So it's best to minimize feelings like that that don't aid in the path.

Feelings are O.K., IMHO, if they are in the now. They come, they go, you forget them. If you do more than that it just gets you distracted and wastes all of your energy. That applies to all emotions whether or they're good or bad from your perspective, but understand I'm not conveying you should be an unfeeling monster or something. I'm merely implying that you should strive to live in the now and the more you can do that the more productive you will be at every single thing you are involved in. It's not even much better if you chase after things like happiness because when you feel you lack it you are sad. It just gets worse from there really... Trade them all for a disposition of serenity and profit, basically.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« on: March 10, 2018, 08:15:24 pm »
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't muddling of path apparent in all systems of beliefs and practice - this is a rule, rather than an exception in most cases. It's perhaps more beneficial to speak in tendencies, but don't mistake my convenience of language for some assertion that such divisions in reality exist. :D

I reject the divisions, in any sense but a colloquial convenience, because regardless of the subjective impressions of an individual outwardly others will see that accomplished person as great, accomplished, or a sage. Whichever path they decide to embrace this acknowledgement comes from others and matters so little with how one sees their actions themselves. In my view, binding your HGA and communicating with such a creature are the same action - they both seek awareness. It's not so much what you are doing with it that matters in the sense that they are your toys in your mind how you play with them is up to you. :D In my mind, such a creature doesn't exist because you have to think it for it to 'be'. You have to presume that your efforts in this regard will be productive, for example, and that's where the divisions become indeterminate again. Both the LHP or RHP approach require faith in this context, basically, so they aren't altogether different in analysis despite apparently different aims.

A realization of nonduality is something I can't give you and the words on the subject really don't do it justice. The best I can do is clarify that nonduality awareness doesn't invalidate a duality awareness. People often think that these ideas are in combat or opposed, but in reality the nondual realization is simply being aware of the bits that duality will fail constantly to explain. It is merely knowing that the separation and the concept of it are illusions and that the mind manufactures these perceptions out of convenience. That's not really the posture of denying they exist, but keeping them in the proper perspective - that the differences are insignificant or minor and often mask the truth of the thing. :D

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« on: March 10, 2018, 05:24:48 pm »
Definitely LHP. I can see the argument there, that it is RHP, but in my opinion, a religion or philosophy does not have to strive to destroy social barriers via transgressive acts to qualify as Left Hand Path. The path isn't really about transgression as much as it is a quest for self improvement and a more self-centric form of Enlightenment.

Do you not destroy all barriers by simply adhering to ones own nature above all?

The basic fundamental goal of the RHP and the LHP is a realization of the truth, in essence, they lead to the same destination. The RHP thinks you should approach this through ego-sublation, the
LHP thinks you should do it by cutting that hunk of cheese into the shape you prefer to consume. In the later case, to express that as enlightenment is a tad confusing, being that such terminology is used by those whom have completed a process of willful ego destruction and the LHP is all about boosting ego-mind-body connections to some extent. Sadly, where I am at now I see that the LHP is just a half-circle of a whole and if you truly reach the end of that curve you can see where they merge. If you perfect your mind-body unit you will come to fully analyze your useless traits and actions for what they are and in the process of doing that you will unconsciously move in the direction of the RHP since all roads lead to Rome, metaphorically speaking.

Whether that opinion holds popular with the majority of the membership on the forum or not it is pretty easy to arrive at this conclusion with a bit of introspection and time. :D

Setianism / Re: My GF just blew my mind a bit
« on: March 10, 2018, 05:02:37 pm »
So I'm guest speaking today and my SO came with me to observe. After the first class she informed me that I made a contradiction. The contradiction being:

1. Consciousness is axiomatic so cannot be debated.

2. God is consciousness (from Setian Idealism)

3. The existence of God can be debated.

4. Therefore #1 contradicts #3.

I think the issue is that self consciousness being axiomatic doesn't imply that god is consciosness or exists at all. However she countered that if God=Consciousness but we cannot debate the two the same way there is still a contradiction.

I'm... Not sure how to respond lol.

Though my previous post elucidates much of the matter from the perspective of my experience. I wouldn't say that whether God is debatable indicates a lack of existence, but rather begs the question of what does existence mean to you. :D

What is consciousness? Is it all these conditioned patterns and sounds good things running around in your head? Or is it simply awareness? You'd be conscious whether you were thinking of it or not, obviously.

Then this extends to the possibly of God-Consciousness being real regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. Without having an experience such as mine, you simply cannot know. The evidence of such a thing is in awareness and if you are not aware you can't do anything but mince words, debate, and doubt. Mind you, I don't feel my experience in this regard is unique or beyond the reach of anyone else whom is willing to commit to the goal but to say that these are merely words on the page in comparison to the perspective shift is an understatement to say the least.

Your error isn't so much in the conclusions you've presented, but in that the secret proof is a process of gnosis which others would have to obtain for their incorrect beliefs to erode from their mind. If they did have that direct knowledge there simply wouldn't be a discussion at all. So the real question is, since your logical mind can't make sense of this can you still believe it? The dilemma is not that she questioned your views, but you weren't operating from the perspective where you realized the arguments were non-arguments. :D

Setianism / Re: My GF just blew my mind a bit
« on: March 10, 2018, 04:40:13 pm »
To me "God" = the non-conscious mechanical natural order of the Universe.  How one could even begin to argue that "God" = consciousness is nonsensical imo, and a complete dismissal and total non-understanding of underlying Setian philosophy.  To even think there is a contradiction here is an absurdity and the whole idea is a non-sequitur.

Set, even though a Master of the Universe, is not "God", nor does he wish to be.

From a logical and dualistic perspective I agree with your assertions here. However, from the God-Consciousness camp (something like Advaita Vedanta) it's simply a process of onion layers. The objective reality is merely the skin, subsequent layers yield from the material to the ethereal or subtle, and so on. Such a God-Consciousness would simply underlie everything to such a degree that it would be imperceptible in any conventional means of reckoning it. That's not to say it doesn't exist, it's just it would be impossible for us to tell without having access to it or being aware of that directly in some other manner. In essence, the basis of their philosophy is realize your godliness rather than becoming one. (aka Xeper)

However, as an anecdote to all of this I had managed to have an ego-death experience before in my youth and as a result had a telepathic experience which still counters much of this reasoning. In that, I had managed to actually managed to enter another persons mind directly - if we weren't all connected or "the same thing" aka God-Consciousness this would be impossible - our mind-body limitations would require a means or vehicle to achieve such communication. By whatever mechanism this occurred, I was shocked, and didn't have the words to describe the event until recently. The impact of such an experience is impossible to explain fully, it's like being shown a secret truth of the universe and then having to live your life with that knowledge knowing everyone in your existence would deem you crazy for sharing it. In eastern philosophies, of course, all of this is easily explainable - I am God, you are God, and we're all parts of the same thing in many manifestations. I'm only really able to talk about it now because I've deemed my pride or shame as invalid reasons to obscure the truth of my experience and selfishly keep such knowledge from others. I felt it relevant to mention here, because it so relevant to your points in this post. :D

Satanism / Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist
« on: March 10, 2018, 04:09:11 pm »
Cross post from a debate topic I made on another forum:

Hate is a very strong emotion. Much is made, particularly among certain types, of the fact that humans are both hating and loving creatures. I honestly think such attitudes are rooted in tribalism. Love your friends, hate your enemies. Such has been the battle cry for eons of the warlike religions, political ideologies and governmental entities who sought to expand through violence and forced conversion.

It seems for some they feel as if they should love a few and default to a hateful attitude towards many others. I don't agree. Rather, I'd propose, hate should be rationed just as those like LaVey told the Satanist to ration love in The Satanic Bible (though I'll take this further later on). Hate is a destructive emotion by nature and its liable to backfire if one isn't careful with it.

"But but! Those intolerant, or evil or brainwashing x religion/group!" Well, my dear diabolical friend... simply moving the sword from the right hand to the left hand is still using a sword (see what I did there? :p). I've actually heard Matthew 10:34 and Luke 14:26 used to justify hate mongering, for example. Sadly the trap of hate is one easy to fall into. Those verses, Yeshua bringing a sword to divide, and saying one must hate others to love him, I chose for a reason and not randomly. It's again that tribalism; that old us vs them that's the trap I'm warning against.

I don't consider myself a LaVeyan in any sense, and I will break down a relevant statement in his Satanic Bible and what I disagree with, since this is what I am comparing my position to:

“Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.”  - Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible (1969)

Okay, so love and hate are intense. So far so good.  But the moment he starts talking about indiscriminate love he never contrasts about indiscriminate hate. Yes, I understand that most hateful Satanic types do discriminate, although too often I've seen it be over petty things. There's seems to be something in the id so to speak, that thrives on the release of hating people for stupid crap. This isn't to say this is LaVeyans specifically who do that, funny enough I've seen it with theists quite a lot, but in a lot of ways they take things like this to an extreme and so the passage merited quoting. I picked LaVeyan / Church of Satan out of any other sect as it's one of the few notable groups espousing a view on the pro-hate end of the spectrum. (also funny enough there are more LaVeyan influenced theistic Satanists than first impressions might give otherwise if my online interactions are any indication).

I don't know how we determine who "deserves" hate. What LaVey failed to account for is that since Satanism exalts the subjectivity of the individual there won't be any measure beyond whim for who "deserves" what. Such inclinations in my opinion quickly lend to tyranny of those higher up in the social "stratification" as LaVey's successor Gilmore would put it.

I don't think 99.9% of people can experience "indiscriminate love" but surely an attempt respect for all life is at least on some level rational. Satan is the god of man, of our nature. And there is a part of our nature that does seek to better itself. I'm reminded of an Episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the Android named Data (who wishes to be a human) says it's not important that he will never become fully human, just important that he is always trying to improve himself. That to me, that constant self improvement, and personal evolution is what is at the heart of humanity and Satanism. So why can't we aim to try to love more? Perhaps even universally so? It might not be possible, but it's surely worth the effort.

LaVey almost made a valid point, but missed the mark when he said "repressed hate" instead of "repressed emotion". Hate itself, from what I've come to understand of it, festers and grows off of itself. And that's the danger. Most people (I hope) don't take out their frustrations on other people or their loved ones. I honestly think LaVey might of been speaking from experience when he spoke on that.

If someone has someone they really dislike causing them trouble they might diffuse the tension with something healthy like a hobby or working out, whatever. But taking it out on a living being? Even loved ones if they can't against the aggressor? Something more is going on there that most well adjusted people don't have (or at least I hope so anyways).

There are times though, I think "hate" of a sort is warranted, but very rarely so. It's too subjective and honestly if something is that malicious one can address the person or situation indifferently and rationally. I also would say that hate is pretty much something people should avoid as much as possible since it uses up energy and effort. Quite literally it's not worth the effort. If they are truly that bad, it's not worth hating and getting worked up over. They don't deserve your hate. That's why I say, who really deserves hate?

A Satanist should seek to improve themselves, not get carried away with those who are against them. That energy is better spent on becoming a better person, a better Satanist, a better human. Maybe Data had a point. Maybe it isn't the fact that one will ever stop hating entirely but just the fact that they won't be consumed or distracted by it as much and can better spend that effort on themselves is all that matters.

And a topic for another time, but nor does that mean one should be self righteous or arrogant in their dismissal of those they now "don't hate" :) Truly not caring is even less than that; it's not having much of an emotional reaction at all.

Hate is simply a conditioned response, in essence it's being a robot and doing what other people have told you to do or you tell yourself to do based on some faulty logic that you trust in. It's a non-thinking position and therein lies the true folly of the thing. Acting without thinking is just about the most un-Satanic thing I can think you are capable of doing. It's a shame that no where in The Satanic Bible was LaVey clear about this other than in respect to obvious blunders like dogma, or other sacred cows.

The other point of contention, at this juncture, is another ultimate "Satanic Sin" that goes unsaid in TSB - wasting your time. Channel your hate, spend time trolling people on the Internet, or whatever - it's all wasting time you could be using to do something productive. If self-mastery is the ultimate goal of a Satanic path, then it behoves one to strike this attribute from ones character ASAP in the aim to optimize your path for efficiency. Displaying this, like I've seen so many others on the Internet affiliated with the top ranks of CoS, in public, is simply signalling your complete failure to implement and master the path. If you are an atheistic Satanist no doubt the worst thing you could ever do is squander your life on useless activities since this is all the time you have.

Many try to justify this behavior when their egos are bruised as well, as if that is any excuse. That is the fundamental flaw of the mind-body association in the first place, that your conditioned beliefs are you and that you must die for them. The proof that refutes is simple enough: Were you burdened by any of these ideas as a child? We don't start from a position of hate, we learn it - therefore it fundamentally is a delusion in our heads. How can it be real if we must be trained to behave in such a fashion? Our fundamental nature, of course, must be beyond this and the only reason we trust in it is because of others we trust in our lives echoing those sentiments. Again, this sleep-walking through life is the ultimate contradiction for paths which espouse some sort of self-mastery. What self are you talking about anyway? The one that basically was conditioned by being beat like a dog? It's a classic trap, if you buy into the bullshit of the thing. To achieve ultimate mastery of such a path, in my opinion, you must take the ropes off your body that are holding you down so you can act freely as you need. Without this, you really are just pretending to embrace the left-handed path in the sense that your ego deludes itself into thinking it is achieving the aim. One hog tied by a myriad of delusions is not mentally free, nor are they really following such a path.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5