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 ... 5
General Discussion / Discussing Beliefs
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:56:15 am »
Reasoning for Specific Beliefs


Hello, and thanks for taking the time to read this. It’s always a win when philosophers choose to look into abnormal positions rather than focusing on popular ones or low hanging fruit, so hopefully I can make this worth your while. Religious belief isn’t as simple as “I believe X because Y,” there are numerous variable that all sway us one way or the other. Does the material world exist? Is there a god? Do humans have a purpose/meaning? How can we obtain knowledge? Only when we answer these questions, on top of many others, do we get a full worldview. I would like to address some of these big questions, especially since I’ve been asked like ten times in the last 24 hours what my reasons are for being a theist, and all I’ve had to provide are tons of links.


So, let’s start from the absolute ground up – logical axioms. The Law of Identity is probably one of the most important philosophical discoveries of all time, even if most would see it as rather obvious. The Law is that A is A, or A = A, or A has identical characteristics to itself. A is A because both have identical traits, there is no difference between them, and like all things they get their identity through characteristics. There is no situation were A can be Non-A, because then we have different characteristics and therefore two distinct identities which are not identical. Since it’s an axiom it’s actually not even possible to argue against the Law of Identity, for it must be true for anything to make sense or be known. If A can be both itself and not itself, then our ability to know anything about A has been utterly decimated. Even trying to argue A = Non-A requires both A and Non-A to have specific characteristics, which do not match. 

The other axiom I want to touch on for Setianism is that of self-existence. Any self-aware and conscious being will find it hard to deny that they exist. Our own conscious existence is actually the one thing we can truly be certain of, though this by no means suggests we should accept Hard Solipsism as true (more on this later). “I exist” is an axiomatic statement for anyone making the statement. Like with the Law of Identity, there is no situation where one could state “I exist” while not existing. It is also impossible to argue against self-existence, as it requires a self to take in, process, and then debate the topic itself. Indeed, “I don’t exist” would immediately lead us to contradiction, for if you don’t exist who is there to make the statement?

Moral axioms are a little different than logical axioms. A moral axiom is a starting point that is accepted even though we cannot prove that morality valid. “Murder is wrong” is a common moral axiom in our culture, for most find murder to be a bad action but it’s near impossible to prove that this is somehow an objective fact about the universe and not preference in some way. A friend of mine put it well to his class: you would never post on facebook “is it REALLY bad to murder babies,” because most people will think you’re a psychopath, but in philosophy this is an important question because the fact is moral axioms just kind of float there, we have no real way of proving them unless they’re somehow discoverable by physical science or through direct, worldwide, divine revelation. The moral axiom of Setianism, to me at least, is that each conscious being is a discreet entity with full ownership of their body, life, and property, and this stems out of the fact that discreet individual existence is logically axiomatic. So for example, consent is key in sexual encounters as one has self-ownership of their body. Theft is wrong because you have ownership of your property. Murder does not allow one control of their own life/destiny. I still accepted that I cannot show this to be objective morality, but at least it comes from logic as opposed to an old text or reactionary thinking.


When we are looking for a complete metaphysical worldview, we come down to about three options: material monism, immaterial monism, and dualism/pluralism. Monism is a stance that believes all the cosmos reduces to one substance – for material monism this substance is matter, and for immaterial monism this is generally a form of experience/consciousness. Dualism and pluralism believe that there are more than one substance, and reductionism doesn’t allow us to fully understand, describe, or explain the cosmos which we live in.

Material monism certainly has some support for it, which we obviously need to address. For example, there is an insanely obvious correlation between mental events and the activity of the brain. Medications from opiates to SSRIs a physiological and can effect mental states, so clearly the two are connected. Technology has gotten so crazy that we can even guess what emotion people may be experiencing by what points of the brain are lighting up. Further, when the body is shut down we have no way of accessing consciousness, like with death or a coma, so it’s not hard to see why many would conclude that this implies consciousness depends on the brain. There are issues with these points as well though. For example, there’s the obvious issue that correlation does not imply causation. That consciousness cannot be accessed by others without a brain/body that functions could easily compared to how a broken television won’t play any stations for you, but this doesn’t mean we conclude the stations have ceased to exist. There’s also the problem of property dualism, which we will get into more below, but since mental and brain activity have different characteristics they cannot be identical things without violating the Law of Identity (see first section).

What about immaterial monism, perhaps better called idealism? It also has some support for it that we need to look at. For example, the self is the only thing we can know directly (see section I), and all else is known through that conscious, self-aware being. This means that we may be able to accept the existence of the self while doubting the existence of an external, or at least material, world. Some argue that such a world as ours needs a continuous consciousness to keep the universe ordered. The entire eastern concept of Maya – illusion – is based on the idea that this world of matter is simply an illusion. But to me, all this ignores the massive amounts of evidence we have for the physical world. Sure we can only know it through the self, but if we go that route we are just going to end with Hard Solipsism anyways, or at least a form of it (theistic solipsism? Idk). Science has shown that we can consistently predict material events, and psychology has shown that most of us share experiences, see the same reality, and so forth. Two amazing artists drawing the same tree will come up with a similar image, you’re not going to get a drawing of a unicorn with a drawing of the white house, because it appears there is something there which we truly observe. The idea that this is due to some ultimate consciousness who sustains the world is a far greater assumption than that the external world actually exists.

This brings us now to dualism, which by far seems to have the most support for it. It addresses the failures of both monisms while making less assumptions, and is far more supported by the evidence than monism. For example, if both the inner and immaterial self, and the outer material world exist, this is a form of dualism. Of course we cannot reject the axiom of self-existence, but it is so obvious and evidenced that there is a consistent world of matter that we need to accept both if for no other reason than pragmatism. It also allows for us to accept the TV stations still exist when the TV is broken, or in our discussion that it is possible for consciousness to continue without the physical body. Maybe not even without it, but simply that the mind and the brain are not identical in the sense that A = A. Dualism explains why drugs effect our mental state, and why mental states effect our physiology such as in cognitive behavioral therapy, visualization, etc.

Perhaps the biggest issue is what is known as property dualism, which in philosophical terms means that between X and Y there are varying characteristics, they are not identical. Again this shows the massive importance of the seemingly simple Law of Identity. If two things are non-identical then they must be discrete things. As far as dualism goes, we see this with the characteristics of the mind compared to those of the brain. For example, the brain is something physical that we can directly access, but the mind is something which appears to be immaterial and which nobody but the person themselves has direct access to. To illustrate, we could cut open your head right now and poke around your brain all we want, but the only way to know what’s in your mind or what your experience is is to rely on your own testimony of it. This is what makes fields like psychology so damn difficult. Another difference is that the mind has autonomy whereas the brain does not. The brain is a machine, you introduce something like opiates and the brain simply changes how it acts, there is not thought process behind that, its mechanical. However this is not the case with the mind, which can recognize what the brain is doing and willfully overcome it, which we see with things like self-regulation, placebos with or without deception, and cognitive behavioral therapy. Events in the brain are spacial, whereas those in the mind are not. The brain takes up a very specific amount of space, but mental events and activity do not use up any space at all, which makes sense if the mind is non-physical because something must be physical to take up space. Another issue which we’ve already slightly touched on is that it is possible that matter is an illusion, but impossible that consciousness is an illusion (see section I). Mental events are also private whereas material events like in the brain can be accessed by anyone under proper circumstances. The mind also deals with abstract objects, such as an imagined and envisioned perfect circle compared to the rarely perfect circles we can see/draw in the real world. Further, the brain would be the only thing we know of where subjective experiences accompanies matter, but subjective experience always accompanies mind. The list of property dualism can go on for a very long time, and I think there is enough here to suffice.

So what we see here is that there is a rather obvious divide here between mind and brain, one which can be confirmed through experience, reason, and even scientific investigation in some cases. No form of monism can explain how two obviously existent and separate things can co-exist like this, because it needs to reduce either mind or matter into the other, a violation of the law of identity and, in the case of material monism, a violation of axiomatic self-existence as well.


The question now becomes how we can know things, to what extent? Obviously beyond axioms any skeptic could argue it is impossible to know anything, and they may be right. But we can set this aside for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, and our knowledge often seems rather consistent. One of the big problems with knowledge for us is that we exist in a material world of never ending change. Our planet is always in a different location, every moment we evolve as a person due to more and more experience and wisdom, hell even our bodies have been entirely replaced by new cells several times in our lives. This is a problem because we cannot really obtain knowledge on anything that’s in a constant state of change. Imagine you’re holding an apple, and at any moment that apple can turn into any other fruit. How can we really know the object when its characteristics are able to change? This would violate the Law of Identity because the characteristics of the former object would not match the current object, and we would be stuck with the paradox of 1 object = 2 objects.

Well human beings, and the material world as a whole, are in constant states of change. No these aren’t as dramatic as an apple turning into an orange, but we can certainly say that even perhaps moment to moment, the present self and the past self are non-identical. And yet we recognize ourselves as a discrete and continuous individual, a seeming violation of the Law of Identity. Further, we can recognize 2 non-identical things as being part of the same category based on what their traits are. Like say we draw two different triangle, with different angles and different side lengths, clearly non-identical. Why and how, then, can we recognize both these things as the same category? Another example to use would be a chair. We can recognize a chair as a chair if it has four legs, if it has no back, if it is just a bag filled with beans. We can even recognize a chair as a chair even if it changes and one of its legs fall off – it’s now still a chair just broken. Since we cannot know things in constant states of change, how can we recognize and know all of this?

An updated version of Plato’s Theory of Forms gives us, by far, the best explanation of how knowledge can be and is attained despite constant change. For example, when we look at different triangles we recognize the same Form in them – that of a three sided, three pointed shape that can be flipped twice and rotated three times. Not a literal, material triangle of course, but an abstract/immaterial Form, one that all triangles partake in, giving them certain identical characteristics without the objects actually being identical (as in A = A). A better way to illustrate this is to look at a characteristic triangles share with something else entirely. For example we can look at a triangle, a rectangular coffee table, our front door, a knife, or even a writing utensil, and see that all of them contain at least one similar characteristic: points. They are “pointed.” None of those points are identical with each other, and yet they are identical characteristics. This is due to the fact that they all partake in a Form of Points, that abstract essence all points must partake in, similar to the Form of Triangles. Thing-In-Itself, in other words.

The Forms themselves, unlike everything in our material universe, do not change. Let us again look at our triangle and its Form. If we change the word we use for triangle, it is true that the name of the Form (Form of Triangles) would change to match the new word, but this does not in any way effect the Thing-In-Itself of the object in question. If we draw a triangle, then erase a line to make it into a “V”, this does nothing to change the Thing-In-Itself either, it simply stops the image from partaking in one Form, and makes it partake in another.

1.   We can know things about ourselves and reality.
2.   We cannot know about something if it is in a constant state of change.
3.   The material world is in a constant state of change.
4.   So, we cannot know something from the material world alone.
5.   The Forms are unchanging.
6.   So, we can know the Forms.
7.   Therefore, the Forms are a better source of knowledge than the material world.


It is my understanding that the existence of Forms supports the position of Polytheism. The Forms we have addressed like those of Points and Triangles are simple, they describe physical characteristics. But if there are Form for everything this includes more complicated Forms. For example, things exist such as consciousness, love, desire, growth, knowledge, …, which are themselves not material (see section II). The Form of a Triangle cannot partake in itself, for then it would have to become a specific, physical manifestation, and therefore no longer a Form. Similarly, the Form of Large Objects cannot be large itself, for that is a physical characteristic. But with immaterial things, the Forms can partake in themselves without contradiction. To illustrate, a defining part of higher consciousness is self-awareness, desire, rationality, and things of that nature. Since there is no physical trait here, the Form of consciousness itself can be aware, desirous, rational. Knowledge itself is another example, for knowledge includes things like self-awareness, rationality, driven effort, etc.

The reason I see these Forms as deities is that they seem to match with the actually views on original gods before monotheism. Such polytheistic gods were never thought to be all-knowing or all powerful, they weren’t perfect and they could have vastly different goals and personalities. They were immaterial, abstract, unchanging, and could partake in things like knowledge, desire, love and hate, etc. In other words they share identical characteristics to polytheistic gods (A = A, see section I).

When we are looking at theism, polytheism is actually far more logical and likely than most forms of monotheism. Many sects of “Abrahamic” religions believe that God is all-loving and all-powerful, which brings about massive problems from the problem of evil. Throughout history, different groups of humans have had vastly different religious experiences and cosmologies. For monotheism this is a big issue because one essentially must be “an atheist to every other god.” Yet obviously with polytheism this is not a concern, because it inherently accepts that other gods exist. In fact, polytheism tends to come with henotheism, an acceptance of many gods but a focus on/preference for one or a small group of those deities. On the other hand, atheism simply does not work because the Forms must exist, and certain forms are identical to polytheistic gods.

Another point for polytheism is that the universe has a clear plurality of substances and things. Humans for instance have a discrete and individual experience, rather than some unified mind/experience like a “collective (un)consciousness.” We recognize a vast amount of species, of elements, of atoms and particles. We have also already discussed many of the biggest reasons why monism does not work (see section II).


An important aspect of any worldview is morality. Many religions simply try to claim their morality is objective due to the fact that their deity/deities have made it so. On the other hand, it seems more and more common to believe that there are no objective morals at all. While I may agree that we can never fully prove and moral system beyond a reasonable doubt, I think we can come to some systems rational enough to treat as objective. The best place to start as with all things are the axioms, in this case the fact that all is founded within self-existence (section I). It then makes sense to infer that the “right” thing to do is to use self-existence as the foundation for our moral system.

So we have these discrete, individual beings living within a big shared universe. The next logical step is to look for things that protect and foster self-existence, and avoid things which work against or even to destroy self-existence. A focus on self-actualization, for example, is beneficial to self-existence because it provides for one’s needs and allows them to find their place as a solid individual within society. On the other hand, a submission and destroying of individual selfhood, such as with brainwashing, ego destruction, all such things work against a health self-existence. When we investigate self-existence a bit more, we come to concepts such as consent and self-ownership. From this a very simple moral system can be build, based around protecting individual freedom and self-ownership. Murder is immoral because it violates an individual’s right to choose whether they live or die. Rape is immoral because it violates one’s right to control of their body, not to mention is often works heavily against self-existence and degrades the individual in physical as well as psychological ways. All this in only a few steps, rooted in logical fact, without the need for a god to command it.


Perhaps the best scientific evidence for both/either Forms or Gods is the existence of Life Fields discovered by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr. Dr. Burr wondered how the body was able to recreate itself almost perfectly every few weeks/months (as discussed in section II). The cells even adjust to addresss things such as scars and tattoos. He wanted to know what preserved the design. At that point the answer to this question was still entirely unknown. In the end Dr. Burr discovered that what preserved the design was what he came to call Fields of Life.

Dr. Burr and his peers ran literally thousands of experiments showing that physiological changes can be predicted by measuring what they called the Life Field or L-Field. One such example was the ability to predict cancer before any symptoms showed up, predicting ovulation cycles, accurately predicting the layout of future nervous systems in eggs, the list went on and on. Put simply, the Life Field was discovered to act as a blueprint for physical and even mental development.

Following Dr. Burr was Dr. Leonard Racitz, who discovered that Life Fields not only predict physiological changes, but mental changes as well. Time preferential for focus and time where one would be less effective at their jobs could be predicted. Flare ups in mental disorders could be predicted as well, and it was even discovered that cycles such as that of depression could be mapped out rather well using L-Fields. Edward Russel stated that “L-Fields are the “bridge”… between the mental and the physical. Thus they offer evidence that the mind and body are quite separate…”

Dr. Burr and many of his followers believed that L-Fields, as a type of blueprint, were evidence specifically of a creator God. As Dr. Burr said, “…Life Fields are the links in a ‘chain of authority’… upwards to an infinite, ultimate authority, about which we can only speculate.” Indeed it seems reasonable to think a blueprint would need a creator, but does it necessarily imply a classical creator God?

Using the Theory of Forms (section III and IV), Dr. Michael A. Aquino suggested that the L-Field is actually part of a field connecting the individual to the Form of the individual itself. Since the Form of the individual would be outside of space and time, the Form would be aware of any impending changes to the body or the mind. Rather than everyone having a blueprint laid out by a God, Dr. Aquino suggests that the L-Field is simply a byproduct of the present self partaking in its Form.


We are on page 8 according to Word, so I think this is probably far past a good place to stop! The beliefs I have attempted to defend and discuss here are:

1.   A is A (Law of Identity).
2.   Self-Existence is axiomatic.
3.   Dualism is far more plausible than any form of Monism.
4.   The Theory of Forms is true and the only real way to attain knowledge.
5.   The Theory of Forms suggests polytheism through the Law of Identity.
6.   That we can come up with a logical moral system based on premise 2, without the need for any deity, but without resorting to moral relativism.
7.   Life-Fields support both Forms and a Teleology of the human body. They are essentially a blueprint that the Self adheres to.


"But there are numerous reasons to suspect that this simple “theory of theories” is itself fundamentally misguided. Nowhere is this more apparent than in physics, the science attempting to uncover the fundamental laws giving rise to reality. The history of physics is like a trip down the rabbit hole: the elegance and simplicity of Newtonian physics has been incrementally replaced by more and more complex theories. At the time of writing, this has culminated in M-Theory, positing no less than 10 dimensions of space and the existence of unobservably small “strings” as the fundamental building block of reality. It seems safe to assume that the fundamental laws of reality will be even more complex, if we can even discover them."

General Discussion / On Chaos
« on: September 22, 2017, 08:56:08 pm »
If all things are born of Chaos, is that a form of monotheism? I only just thought of the question and have not pondered it yet.

General Discussion / Khepri and the Creation
« on: September 20, 2017, 01:30:04 pm »
"Xepera Xeper Xeperu, I have come into being, and by the process of coming into being, that which came into being came to be." This is a general translation of the Xeper formula attributed to the creator god, Khepri. I've long pondered this mysterious statement of self existence, and how it would fit into a greater cosmology. While meditating on the topic, another quote came to mind from the Statement of Satan in the Diabolicon:

"And after uncounted ages of this great ferment, a force fused to focus that became God, and this force presumed to effect not the creation of substance and energy - for these transcended this God - but the conformation of all the Universe to a single and supreme order. And not yet is this order absolute, though oft it may have been supposed thus by man in his innocence."

This describes the capital G creator God, the force behind the order within nature, the ultimate metaphysical status quo. I began to wonder, is this God and Khepri one in the same?

What I've concluded is they are not. Khepri is the Form of Becoming, Xeper embodied. If matter and energy truly preceded God, then something had already come into being before God himself. And if nothing came before God, this still doesn't equate his coming into being with the Form of Khepri, they would simply come into being at the same time. In other words, Khepri is a creator beyond "the creator," necessary for the latter's existence.

Just some thoughts on Khepri and the Xeper formula, any thoughts from others?

Lounge / Prince of Persia 1989 [OFFICIAL THREAD]
« on: September 16, 2017, 07:56:18 pm »
What an amazing find!!!

General Discussion / The Enneagram
« on: September 14, 2017, 06:49:18 pm »
I know basically nothing about this symbol, and would like to know any and all information about it, especially it's role in the LHP. Thanks!

Lounge / It's time for Halloween video games
« on: September 12, 2017, 09:04:18 pm »
I'm going to try and hunt down Shivers 2, Dark Fall, and Phantasmagoria to play this Halloween season. They're all old point click adventure games, some of the best that gaming has to offer. I still have the Forest on my desktop which is pretty awesome. Maybe SOMA (I actually hated the amnesia games).

General Discussion / Jim Carrey at fashion week
« on: September 11, 2017, 09:23:16 pm »
At lot of people are laughing at him, and I laughed the first time. But my goodness, I find this ramble absolutely amazing. It's crazy to see such a famous person giving into such mysticism/nihilism, and in such a public way. He even states that he himself doesn't matter. Now I don't necessarily totally agree with his self hating nihilism, but it's hard to deny that this is actually rather inspired.

Also, what kind of horrible person asks a man who's girlfriend just killed herself if he's trolling for dates?

Lounge / Shivers 2: Harvest of Souls: Trip Cyclone
« on: September 10, 2017, 09:21:45 pm »
Shivers Soundtrack:

"The game was innovative in that there was a series of rock music videos by the fictional band Trip Cyclone, which provided the player with hints to solving the game's multitude of puzzles. The game itself is played from a first-person perspective, very much like its predecessor and games like The 7th Guest and Myst."

Journals / Babbling and Obsessing
« on: September 08, 2017, 06:33:02 pm »
Well I am obsessed with movies again, moving into it from a music phase. I'm starting to wonder if it has something to do with the time of year? Anyways, after posting a thread on my top favorite movies, I wasn't really happy with the list. I added more categories, and decided I couldn't simply rate movies on memory in one sitting. Very enjoyable so far!

Announcements / The Imperishable Star v. II (O.S. Newsletter)
« on: September 01, 2017, 06:47:30 pm »
The second volume of The Imperishable Star has arrived. It includes:

The Importance of Ego and the Self

Xeper as Will to Power

The Order of Nine Angles

Sigil Magic

Who is Lucifer?

Homage to Set and the Summoning of the Nine Neteru

The Pale Lady


An Offertory Work to My Higher Self

Direct PDF Download:

Newsletter main page:

Lounge / My Top 20 Films
« on: September 01, 2017, 03:28:35 pm »
A list of my top 20 (technically 27, 20 with the ties) movies, with ratings and trailers. I rated these movies based on the categories most important to me: look, atmosphere, philosophy, craziness, impact on me and my taste in movies, ending, likely to recommend the movie to others, and my overall enjoyment. I did 1-10 and then averaged the categories.

#27 – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Total: 4.375 – Highest Category: Craziness

#26 – A Dangerous Method – Total: 5.5 – Highest Categories: Philosophy and Recommendations

#25 – Black Swan – Total: 6 – Highest Categories: Look and Atmosphere

#24 – Star Wars Original Trilogy – Total: 6 – Highest Category: Impact

#23 – No Country for Old Men – Total: 6.125 – Highest Category: Atmosphere

#22 – Nightcrawler – Total: 6.125 – Highest Category: Atmosphere

#21 – Eastern Promises – Total: 6.375 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere and Impact

#20 – The Orphanage – Total: 6.625 – Highest Category: Recommendation

#19 – Harry Potter Series – Total: 6.75 – Highest Category: Recommendation

#18 – Europa Report – Total: 7 – Highest Categories: Ending and Recommendation

#17 – Zodiac – Total: 7.125 – Highest Categories: Look, Atmosphere, Recommendation

#16 – Lord of the Rings Series – Total: 7.125 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere, Recommendation

#15 – Cloud Atlas – Total: 7.125 – Highest Category: Look

#14 – Shutter Island – Total: 7.25 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere and Recommendation

#13 – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Fincher) – Total: 7.625 – Highest Categories: Look, Atmosphere, and Ending

#12 – Star Wars Prequels – Total: 7.75 – Highest Categories: Impact and Recommendation

#11 – The Number 23 – Total: 7.75 – Highest Categories: Impact and Recommendation

#10 – Requiem for a Dream – Total: 7.75 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere and Craziness

#9 – Prisoners – Total: 8.125 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere, Ending, and Recommendation

#8 – Batman v. Superman – Total: 8.25 – Highest Categories: Look and Atmosphere

#7 – The Nightlistener – Total: 8.25 – Highest Categories: Recommendation and Enjoyment

#6 – Phantom of the Opera – Total: 8.25 – Highest Categories: Impact, Ending, Recommendation

#5 – The Invitation – Total: 8.375 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere, Ending, and Recommendation

#4 – Nocturnal Animals – Total: 8.5 – Highest Categories: Look, Atmosphere, Impact, and Ending

#3 – Fight Club – Total: 8.625 – Highest Categories: Atmosphere and Impact

#2 – A Cure for Wellness – Total: 8.75 – Highest Categories: Look, Atmosphere, Craziness, Impact, Ending, and Enjoyment

#1 – Watchmen – Total: 9.75 – Highest Categories: Look, Atmosphere, Philosophy, Craziness, Impact, Ending, and Enjoyment

20) Fear and Loathing
19) A Dangerous Method
18) Black Swan
17) Star Wars Original Trilogy
16) Nightcrawler
15) No Country for Old Men
14) Eastern Promises
13) The Orphanage
12) Harry Potter Series
11) Europa Report
10) Zodiac, Lord of the Rings, and Cloud Atlas
9) Shutter Island
8 ) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Fincher)
7) Star Wars Prequels, Number 23, and Requiem for a Dream
6) Batman v. Superman and The Nightlistener
5) The Invitation
4) Nocturnal Animals
3) Fight Club
2) A Cure for Wellness
1) Watchmen

Lounge / A Cure for Wellness [spoilers]
« on: August 31, 2017, 01:06:12 pm »
 I've really been non-stop thinking about this film since I saw it. To my luck the official discussion on Reddit must have just closed, there's posts less than a month old! Anyways I kind of wanted to address many of those posts from my take on the movie for discussing. Obviously spoilers abound freely.

One of the biggest complaints that comes up is the ending, which seemingly came out of nowhere. This is how I felt until my last viewing, though I liked the Phantom imagery whether it made sense or not. But honestly I think the ending fits perfectly. For example, another complaint is that the twist isn't even that twisty, as it's obvious the director is the Barron. This is upsetting if you went in like me expecting another Shutter Island, but in reality this is very much a movie in the vein of Dracula and Phantom of the Opera. Ask yourself, was there ever a time you thought Dracula or the Phantom were supposed to be heroes? Even Gerard Butler's romantic, attractive movie phantom was always known to be a negative presence in the tale, and that's how the Barron is treated here.

I originally agreed that the movie seemed to shift from a Shutter Island to a Phantom of the Opera, but I now think it was an old school horror from the start, as well as possibly the best Lovecraft movie ever. In fact, a user in the official discussion, /u/KentContrereas , came up with probably the best theory I've seen on the movie. I will link to this at the end. Basically the eels are not mindless animals, they are a deity or a force of nature, something with goal driven intelligence. It explains how the Barron could count on Lockhart's car accident - the eels were controlling the animal like what would have happened to the poor cow. The patients attack Lockhart like zombies because they are controlled by the eels and protecting their vessels from leaving. They work with the Barron because he provides them bodies. And Lockhart wasn't force fed eels simply for the shock, it makes perfect sense if the amount of eels is related to the level of control. He wasn't drinking as much water or going in the pools, they had to speed up the process before he got away.

Anyways, let the man speak for himself, he's a genius!

Moving on from this, were the eels a hallucination? I don't think they were in any situation, absolutely none. They were in the isolation tank, they were in the cow, they were under the skin, and they were even in the toilet. Remember, these aren't dumb animals, but possibly highly intelligent and organized. It seems their simple presence in water has an effect on people as well, which is why they enter the isolation chamber. The cow drank eel water and they grew in her, same as the people. And they were in the toilet because they were attempting to drive Lockhart insane at that point.

But if the have a deal with the Barron, why eat him? Well for one he was dead and therefore useless to them. Yet I think there was more to in than that. As discussed in the above theory, if the eels are intelligent and comparable to an entity of weird fiction, perhaps the eels simply came to realize Lockhart was superior to the Barron and would be their new main incarnation. This explains the evil ending grin better than Lockhart simply being happy/crazy. And yes, btw his teeth come back because they were fake teeth put in while Lockhart was under control of the eels. Since people can obviously still break through the eel control (the several false endings, Pembroke agreeing to return to New York randomly), they need to keep the patients looking healthy so they don't question what's happing to them.

And finally, what about the Barron's obsession with his bloodline? Honestly if you're familiar with certain European ideologies you're aware that blood purity was simply something people obsessed about, culminating in some of the attrocities committed last century. But with all the other crazy stuff happening, it seems like there must be more to the bloodline than that. Honestly I'm not sure, but I'm starting to think the Barron was somehow more closely related to the eels than is let on. I mean the entire cult treats him in the way you'd expect a pope, a king, perhaps even pharaoh. Plus it's entirely possible that the eels were using the Barron rather than the other way around, getting bodies to inhabit, a rich source of fresh food, and perhaps it was them trying to create a new bloodline. In fact, this could be why the eels treat Hannah with almost a type of reverence in the pool.

Anyways I'll cut this here, I thought the movie was above and beyond fantastic. The twist of the whole thing was precisely that it was played up like Shutter Island, but was actually a monster movie of sci-fi immortality and Lovecraftian gods.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5