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.


Topics - Xepera maSet

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
2
Setianism / I will be publishing a book
« on: February 12, 2018, 07:50:23 am »
I am in the final stages of my first published work:

Educational Essays on Setianism - A Brief View on Setianism from Outside the Temple of Set

I will keep you posted of my progress, publish date, pricing, etc! Then after this it's back to The Imperishable Star v.4!

3
Announcements / New Spiritual Education subreddit
« on: February 06, 2018, 05:45:41 am »
This is a new subreddit started for inter-spiritual discussion. I know some are on both forums so thought I would share!

https://www.reddit.com/r/spiritualeducation/

4
Science / Saturn as the original Sun...
« on: January 30, 2018, 12:06:09 am »
Hadn't heard about this before.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7285.html

Quote
Here is a remarkable fact: though numerous figures of the Universal Monarch are translated conventionally as the "sun" god, the celestial power invoked by the world's first religions is not the body we call [the] sun today. In fact the star-worshippers specifically distinguished it from our Sun by calling it best sun, the primeval sun, the central sun.

https://www.maverickscience.com/the-saturn-myth/

Quote
The so-called “Saturn Theory” originated with David Talbott who, in the mid-1970’s, began investigating clues that the planet Saturn formerly played a significant role in recent Earth history, a history hinted at in certain ancient mythological traditions.  A cornerstone of Talbott’s reasoning was the singular insight that myths of Creation reflected eyewitness accounts of extraordinary planetary cataclysms in the circumpolar sky. More specifically, Talbott concluded that the ancients’ collective testimony pointed to the former presence of a unique configuration of planets suspended over the Earth’s North Pole—a polar configuration, as it were—involving Saturn, Venus, and Mars (among other celestial bodies). Talbott’s researches eventually culminated in the groundbreaking book The Saturn Myth (Doubleday, 1980), which, in turn, inspired Dwardu Cardona and myself to launch similar studies. Cardona went on to publish numerous articles and a handful of voluminous works on the subject, arguing that various aspects of Earth-geology could only be explained by the near-presence of a giant body such as Saturn over the North Pole (see Primordial Star among other works).

http://saturniancosmology.org/intro.php

Quote
What brought the Saturnian Polar Configuration to an end was an interaction with the planet Jupiter, which at that time orbited much closer to the Sun. Jupiter is massive -- it has more mass than all the rest of the planets of the Solar System together. Jupiter is also stable. With an enormous mass and rotating at a period of 9 hours today, it represents almost all of the rotational momentum of the Solar System. Jupiter would not budge. It tore the gas giant Saturn apart -- or so it looked from the vantage point of Earth.

This became the Egyptian tale of Osiris (Saturn) who was killed and dismembered by his evil brother Seth (Jupiter), his body parts strewn along the Nile river (the river of the zodiac, at that time already visibly cluttered with dust) and resurrected as Horus (Mars). The sister of Osiris, Isis (Venus), collected his body parts for burial and was instrumental in his resurrection as Horus. Other Middle Eastern sources have similar tales. St. Paul readily equated the death and resurrection of Christ with that of Osiris. Throughout all of the world (except initially in Egypt) Jupiter (the name translates as "youth" or "the younger") gains ascendancy to become the new primary god. In Egypt, Jupiter is identified first as Seth, the evil killer of Osiris, but later, and certainly by the time of the first spells of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, as Osiris himself.

5
Setianism / Consciousness is to the the body as a fetus is to its mother?
« on: January 29, 2018, 03:03:15 pm »
This is something I have thought about for quite a while now. Technically individual humans are emergent properties - we arise from a mixing of eggs and sperm within the womb of our mother, its something unavoidable for all life in one way or another. While growing, a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother. If the mother ceases the fetus ceases, if the mother is healthy the fetus should generally be healthy, if the mother is a drug addict the fetus will be born substance exposed, and so on. What if consciousness and the body are the same way? The body gives rise to consciousness which then grows and becomes strong and healthy if nurtured right, and after its growth is complete it becomes a separate entity from that which birthed it.

Any thoughts? I'm sure I'll have more to say on it when I am not at work haha.

6
Setianism / Towards Setian Idealism
« on: January 25, 2018, 03:37:44 pm »
Towards Setian Idealism

This is really just a thought experiment more than anything else for now. Setianism tends to be dualistic in nature, even pluralistic, and it would seem that the Theory of Forms would be incompatible with any type of idealism. I am interested to see if this is true. We will mostly be addressing Plato's "Theory of Forms" in the Setian understanding, Albert Whitehead's "Process Theism," and Bernardo Kastrup's "Ontological Idealism."

The key to a Setian idealism seems to lay in Horus and Set not being separate entities, but being two facets of the same ontological "thing", which we can perhaps call "god". In other words, Set-Horus is itself the ontological primitive, the two are not separate but two sides of a coin. This is a version of Set and Horus that has been recognized from the most ancient times of Egypt through Thelema and into the modern esoteric tradition in the form of Hrwy.fy, which sported both the falcon head of Horus and the sha animal head of Set. In this case, Horus would be the "primordial god" of Process Theism, the unchanging, primordial, fundamental aspect of reality, whereas Set would be the more personal god who grows with his creation, takes in new information, and is in no sense a tradition omni-god. In the words of Kastrup, we could possibly say that Horus is "That Which Experiences (TWE)" in that Horus is fundamental and acted upon, and Set is the Experience itself, the actual conscious aspect that can grow and change and act upon TWE. Kastrup, of course, points out that this is not a dualism but two halves of a whole, for Experience and TWE are not separate things.

So this idea of Set-Horus fits with Egyptian philosophy, Setianism, Process Theism, and Kastrup's Ontological Idealism. Now what about the aspect of Platonism so prevalent in modern Setianism? On one hand, it seems Forms and Process Theism are incompatible, the former being unchanging and the latter being always in a state of change. I would argue that Process Theism does indeed allow for unchanging universals, so long as they exist within the "Horus" aspect but not within the manifest universe. It is our manifest universe that is constantly in change, but even the acceptance of a "primordial god" in Process Theism requires there to be at least one unchanging aspect of reality. My current theory is that manifest things in the universe come to exist at the same time as Forms in the primordial "mind of god/Horus." In other words, Horus "remembers" things that are made manifest, as does Set. These "Forms" or blueprints are stored within the primordial aspect of god, which can then manifest again in our universe in different ways. In the end though, both the manifestation and the Forms reduce to the same ontological primitive – Hrwy.fy or Set-Horus.

What I personally can't figure out is if Set can be this other half of our idealism while still being the Form of Isolate Intelligence? It does not seem like Set can play both of these roles.

Perhaps an image will help illustrate where I am coming from, if I can manage to draw one!

https://i.imgur.com/ejpGWPk.jpg

7
General LHP Discussion / Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« on: January 24, 2018, 08:49:59 pm »

This is a bit of a weird little writing for me. Generally I am writing about things I already have in-depth knowledge of, but this time I am learning and investigating as I type. So let's dive into this together.

It appears that Process Philosophy (PP) is at odds with most of the main philosophies of our day, perhaps even throughout history. Whereas most philosophy believes that there are set, stable aspects of the universe, PP believes that dynamic change is a fundamental aspect of nature. Everything is always in a constant state of change, and there is no stability. What first drew me to studying PP was the fact that this fundamental belief was a more perfect match for the Egyptian concept of Xeper, so important to Setianism, that I've ever seen. Temporarily stable things can exist, like you physical human body, but even that is constantly changing, aging, experiencing. PP is focused on the process of Being and Becoming, and analyzes what there is, what is occurring, and ways that things occur.

One example that shows the position of PP is to look at a river. Those who reject PP would see a single river, flowing through a single location, and say that every time you step in that river you are stepping in the same river. PP says the opposite – that the river is never the same because the water changes, the banks widen, the rocks in it become smoother, and so forth. In other words, every time you step into that river you are stepping into a new river that has simply kept some of its old traits.

At the center of PP are "actual occasions" or "actual entities," which can be everything from a sub-atomic particle to the individual human soul/consciousness. PP states that all actual entities are self-determining, experiential, and related to each other. Note that "self-determining and experiential" do not necessarily imply some sort of universal consciousness on every level. The body is a society of actual occasions that are organized by a single, dominant occasion – the human mind. There is no dualism here as both body and mind are the same ontological category, these "actual occasions."

We can compare PP to the Ontological Idealism of modern philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, who argues the "That Which Experiences (TWE)" is the fundamental ontology of reality. The different variations of TWE are more or less identical to these "actual occasions." It supports a monistic explanation of reality without needing to rely on either materialism or panpsychism. Enduring objects, the "alters" of Kastrup, are made up of "societies" of actual occasions.

As for Process Theism (PT), god is seen as an actual entity himself, and like everything else undergoes change. It is not an omni-god, nor does it control things in the universe piece by piece. It is a constantly developing and actually existent entity, not simply a principle. Further, god is seen as dipolar, meaning that part of its nature is the foundation of reality and the storehouse for universals (like the Platonic Forms), while the other part is a limited being that is constantly taking in data and changing as the world changes. This is also very interesting to me personally because it perfectly matches the idea of Set-Horus, the two-headed god, who represented aspects of both god – the pharaonic order and the chaos of free consciousness. God is a creative being, but not the ONLY creative being, for humans among others can also be creative.




8
Other Religions / Property Dualism 101
« on: January 23, 2018, 03:50:40 pm »
Property Dualism is an extremely important concept in modern philosophy, and it seems many have a lot of trouble understanding just what property dualism is and why it is important. I am hoping this will be a concise but thorough look into what property dualism means and why it matters.

To start we need to look at some definitions. In philosophy, a "property" is a "characteristic" or "feature" that can be attributed to something, and "things" are said to possess certain properties [1]. In other words, properties are that which give something its identity. "Identity" in philosophy is what a thing is in and of itself – its characteristics, what it IS. Two things are the same if they have the same identity, which means that they share identical properties [2]. Another important concept is the "Law of Identity", which is a logical axiom – an axiom being something which must be true and cannot be false, and cannot even be argued against [3]. The Law of Identity recognizes that every individual thing has its own nature – its own specific properties which give the thing its identity, and since the law is an axiom, this implication must be objectively true. It states that an object cannot have more than one identity, and that only by having identical properties can two things be the same [4]. Finally, in philosophy the term "dualism" is the position that there exists two kinds of reality which have different properties and are therefore non-identical – meaning that both things exist objectively and do not reduce into each other [5].  So, property dualism then is the position that things have their own identity, and that the two things in question have identities that do not match, therefore showing the two things are not identical or reducible. In the case of the Mind-Body Problem, these two things are the brain and mind, for example. Keep in mind this is just the logic of it, not support of any specific position at all. We are simply starting with based philosophy and definitions to help clarify this issue.

Now, there are many examples we can use to show property dualism is true of our objective world, specifically that both the material and immaterial exist. To do this we will use the most common one – the property dualism between the mind and the brain, where the brain represents the properties of matter, and the mind properties of the immaterial.

So, what properties can we assign to the brain/matter at large? For one we know that the brain is accessible to the senses. If we cut the head of a normal human open we are going to see the brain, be able to touch it, technically be able to smell and taste it if we were so inclined. We could take the brain and show it to everyone in the room, take picture of the brain and theoretically show it to everybody in the world. From this we can extract certain properties – directly accessible to the senses, universally accessible to anyone. Another property of the brain is that it works in a linear way, X  Y  Z. If we give a dose of LSD to an animal like a chimpanzee for example, we can see the very linear course from sober to intoxicated and back again, and the same is true in the vast majority of humans. Likewise we know that if, say, a child is afraid of snakes, and you expose them to a snake, they are going to experience fear. Further, the brain, like all matter, takes up a set amount of space. From a tiny electron to the largest galaxy in the universe, physical matter takes up space. This obviously includes the brain, which takes up place in the skull, or on a table during an autopsy, etc. These are just a very small number of example to try and keep the paper concise. So properties of the brain/matter again include being accessible to the senses, being universally accessible, acting in a linear way, and taking up physical space.

So what about the mind? Inner experience is not something that is accessible to the senses, unlike matter/the brain. You cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or smell anything of another's subjective universe, only that which they choose to share, which of course can be severally unreliable. You're not going to capture something like experience on film, or be able to record inner dialogue on a tape. And tied to this we can see that the mind is not universally accessible. Unlike cutting open a head and seeing a brain anyone can see, again all we have to access the experience of another is testimony. So the mind is not accessible to the senses and certainly not universally accessible, two properties that contradict those of the brain/matter. Further, minds do not act in linear ways. You can jump from thinking about philosophy to thinking about your dog, leap forward in time to plan the future or back to the past to relive a memory. Things like cognitive therapy and placebos without deception even show us that the mind can go against a natural brain process, such as learning to recognize and counter symptoms of depression, or the lessening of pain through belief without any actual physiological changes. Another contradiction in properties. Finally for our fourth example of space – mental events do not take up space. If you imagine a beautiful woman standing in front of you, there is no actual displacement of the space in front of you. When someone's thoughts are racing they do not fill up an office space or a room, because they do not take up space.

What we see then is that the brain/matter and the mind have entirely different properties, which also tells us that the mind is immaterial since it has contradictory properties to matter. Keep in mind that none of this requires any type of belief in ANYTHING, it's literally just an observation of the facts we have at hand. Once again, what we see is that matter is accessible to the senses, universally accessible, linear, and takes up space, whereas the immaterial, in this case the mind, is not accessible to the senses, not universally accessible, non-linear, and do not take up space. Per the law of identity, this means that brain/mind and matter/immaterial are not identical, and therefore both exist, creating a dualism.

To wrap up here, this is not to say that we should accept dualism and never question it. We should question everything all the time imo. Immaterial monism may show that what we think of as "matter" is actually an illusion caused by the mind or some more fundamental consciousness. Likewise, Material monism may show that the mind and consciousness reduces to the brain, they may provide a mechanism by which unconscious matter creates consciousness seems immaterial. What it comes down to is that neither position has provided convincing reasons accept them, and cannot (as of yet) explain how this seeming dualism arises but is not accurate. Pretty much every position likes to think they are the default position today, but none of these positions are default. They look at the world, gather data, and apply philosophical reasoning, thus coming to a conclusion about how the world is. If anything, the default position is solipsism and we move beyond that based on logic and empiricism.

Summary / TLDR:

Properties are what give a thing its identity, and things with different properties cannot be identical. This is basic logic. Matter, like the brain in our example, and the mind/experience, have different properties based on our knowledge of the universe at this time, and so are not identical. It is therefore on any form of monism to explain how one of these sets of properties reduces to and can arise from it without contradiction. This has not been accomplished yet.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/#1

[3] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html

[4] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

[5] http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_dualism.html





9
Announcements / Happy Anniversary!
« on: January 22, 2018, 03:25:08 pm »
Hello everyone! As of today the Order of the Serpent has existed for one year! It's amazing to me that it's only been that short of a time. We've managed to build a thriving forum for the LHP, published 3 fantastic newsletters on LHP topics, kept a thriving library of resources on the LHP, and have reach a surprisingly wide level of recognition. It's been an amazing ride, and Onyx, Setamontet, and myself are deeply thankful to all who have participated and even just supported us. The O.S. isn't for one specific part of the LHP, it is for all who walk the path, and we hope to continue to help those who also dare to reach for the darkness.

Thank you, eternally, for all your unyielding support, and like the Ancient Serpent, so too may you endure!

10
General LHP Discussion / Thoughts or input on this Map (draft)?
« on: January 17, 2018, 05:19:52 pm »
I've attached the "map" below. If my intent is not clear from looking at the attachment let me know, because that is part of what I am trying to do. I kind of want people to be able to figure out where they stand, and understand how these different paths and ideas relate to each other.

11
Setianism / "Mysteries of the Graal" from Black Runa
« on: January 14, 2018, 05:51:32 pm »
From Dr. Flowers' work for the ToS Order of the Trapezoid.

https://imgur.com/a/Qk0Dl

12
General LHP Discussion / LHP Methods of Surviving Terrible Jobs
« on: January 03, 2018, 01:19:51 pm »
I am soooooo finished with my job. Luckily I have an interview tomorrow, so hopefully that works out for me. But until then, I'm not sure how to handle work. Hell we've been back 1 day and now I'm taking day 2 off because I just can't lol.

What are some tips for surviving the shitty jobs and days that crawl by? I'm locked in a little room of whiny, complainy people who for some reason have decided they don't like me (never want to have the best numbers if you want to be popular!). They're constantly just off topic, shoving pictures of their kids in each other's faces, etc. My boss is a nightmare, she's hugely inconsistent, unprofessionally close with certain team members, and thanks to her the job is nothing but a constant loop of the same busywork. Not only were we lied to about hours, what the job entails, etc, but we're not even doing social work any more, just pushing papers.

I've had some shit jobs, but never one's where I sit there basically on the verge of tears all day wishing I could just quit. So I'm looking for some more advance tips from LBM or GBM to help survive!

13
I was thinking about this for my own job and I really am not sure. I feel like nothing could be done on the grounds of religious discrimination, unless you live in a right-to-work place as I do. It's funny, because when I imagine someone wearing an inverted pentagram at work I just imagine everyone flipping their shit, but I have no idea if that would really happen! So I'm curious what you think would happen if you wore a pentagram to YOUR job. I'm just talking about in the office, I would never wear a pentagram around clients just so that it didn't cause issues in the client-worker relationship.

15
Movies / 2017 - my picks for films
« on: December 29, 2017, 12:58:20 pm »
#3 - The Void



#2 - Justice League



#1 - A Cure for Wellness


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8