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 ... 15
General LHP Discussion / Re: Morality of children?
« on: January 20, 2019, 05:01:10 pm »

Ew. No.



We are all born the same, I assumed the Black Flame was given to humanity as a whole, not to specific individuals. It is nonconsent as if you don't have free will in the first place you can't consent to being given it!

It's the exact same argument about having children. It's literally the same thing, they didn't consent to existing, but they couldn't of, not could they of not consented. It's the same thing.

The way I understand it, Set is said to have given existing beings Freedom to choose their own fate. How is that in any way the same thing as creating those beings in the first place? Set is not the Allfather.

You are suggesting that according to my ethics freeing someone who is gagged and being tortured is wrong because they weren't able to give their explicit consent. This would be an equivalent situation to Set freeing proto-humanity. Obviously that is not right. What is wrong is the torture itself - because the victim is being deprived of the freedom and sovereignty of his own being. Furthermore he is being forced to experience positive suffering at the whims of the torturer. This is a nonconsensual situation. It is right to end it.


No, it's based on consent then. Nonconsent is wrong because it causes harm in my opinion. In your view you are saying that harm is wrong because it violates consent.

You (from what you said:

Consent -> harm reduction


harm reduction -> contextual consent

The difference is, I recognize sometimes you need to violate *some* people's consent to protect others or yourself. I can logically do this as it's harm reduction that is the basis. Violating consent does do harm, but again it's harm *reduction* not abstaining from any harm.

You're misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that "consent" in the general sense of the word is something to be maximized as an ethical principle. I am saying the ethical impetus is to reduce or eliminate Torture/Rape/Imprisonment/Enslavement on any given level of reality. Instead of writing all four words every time, I instead use the term Nonconsensuality, which I have specifically defined for my purposes. Why is this? Well if you contemplate the four terms I mentioned, you will realize that none of them can be consented to. They are fundamentally nonconsensual. If one did choose to experience one of them, it wouldn't truly be Torture/Rape/Imprisonment/Enslavement, because it was done as an exercise of Will.


An ascetic chooses to spend 40 days on a 2ft square board which in on top of a 30ft pole. He is not imprisoned. He wants to be there.

A man is captured by his enemy and left in a 5ft cage for several months while he starves. He is imprisoned. This constitutes nonconsensuality and is wrong.

By my definition, which I have made explicit a few times across the board,

Nonconsensuality = Suffering = Evil = Torture/Rape/Imprisonment/Enslavement (on any given level of life)

Paraphrasing what you said, sometimes someone must be subjected to nonconsensuality in order to reduce the greater amount of harm which would otherwise be done. This is still in line with the principle of reducing Evil/Suffering/Nonconsensuality.


A serial rapist is put behind bars in relatively humane conditions in order to prevent him from continuing his crimes and harming many others and their loved ones.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Morality of children?
« on: January 20, 2019, 07:34:24 am »

WTF. What is the alternative, all life dies out for "morality"?

Calling for the extermination of all life is a separate but related position - promortalism/efilism. I don't subscribe to that. I'm not saying that we should seek to exterminate those who are already alive; I believe that individuals have a right to their own lives. But it's not unreasonable to suggest that we evaluate the process of procreation with a critical eye before engaging in it. After all, it is one of the single biggest decisions any of us will make.

Creating a new human is to affirm the world in the highest sense. The parent becomes Brahma and the abrahamic Father. Any time a person has asked why they are here, or questioned why they are doomed to insufferable (sometimes unpreventable) torment - the answer was this: because someone else chose to create you in an unjust world, for selfish reasons. Sometimes it wasn't even a choice for them. That's not to say that there aren't other kinds of answers to those questions - those which are existential and spiritual in character. But in any case that much is true.

In Hamlet, Shakespeare famously posed the question "To be, or not to be?" In other words, is life worth living? But those of us who already live are somewhat invested, and must do what we can to preserve our lives or face terrible suffering. The deeper question hidden within that one, is whether or not to create life. The unborn has no stake in coming into existence, and nothing to gain by doing so. To create it anyways would result in the doubling or tripling of the needs of the parent because of the new hungry mouth. He would only do such a thing if he thought he could get something out of it; or if he simply never considers the ramifications of the action and stumbles into it through ignorance and irresponsibility.


Again I want to ask how this can be compared to say Set or the Prince of Darkness giving the Black Flame, since as I understand it we can't really consent to that as it is the quality of it that allows us to make such choices in the first place.

I don't see them as comparable situations. I'm not sure that the 'gift' was as literal as you're suggesting, but let's just grant that. Granting the freedom of choice and self-knowledge to existing beings that are enslaved by ignorance and deterministic systems is the opposite of nonconsensuality. It's gifting freedom and truth - one of the highest actions one can take in a moral sense. Compare this to the act of creating a child, which creates ignorance, limitation, and need -- with only the possibility of realizing freedom/truth. Both things are very hard-won in this reality.


So I have to conclude that it's not always immoral to do something without consent, and I think having children in a responsible manner is one such instance. The gift of the Black Flame, another one. Basing morality on harm reduction rather than free will alleviates a lot of these problems and also protects free will, but I don't think it's perfect either but it's the best I can think of off the top of my head.

My system of ethics is based on harm reduction. Nonconsensuality is a necessary prerequisite condition for harm. By my definition, Nonconsensuality is Enslavement/Imprisonment/Rape/Torture on any given level of reality. I don't consider it real harm if one chooses for oneself to experience these things as an act of his own Will.

Maximizing Free Will seems like a poor guide for an ethical system. It is poorly defined, and easily manipulable. In fact, the whole question of whether or not "Free Will" (however you define it) exists is largely irrelevant to the morality of procreation, which is in question.

General LHP Discussion / Re: sex magic with partners
« on: January 19, 2019, 09:51:37 pm »
Lol... if you could pull that off, it would be an example of magic applied to sexual encounters. But to be honest with you - most women aren’t fooled. They can tell when someone’s packing heat, and when someone is full of bluster. If they pretend to be fooled/impressed in order to enhance the experience for their partner, then the magical relationship to sex is opposite what the man assumed. :D

General LHP Discussion / Re: Morality of children?
« on: January 19, 2019, 09:36:11 pm »
Hey - it’s good to see consensuality ethics being employed by someone else around here! :)

The argument you’ve stumbled on is actually a pretty solid one in my opinion, and it has been a mainstay for argumentation in antinatalist circles for some time. If you’re interested in this topic, David Benatar’s book Better Never to Have Been goes into a lot of detail on this argument and other adjacent ones.

The basic argument holds water on its own; however the immortality of procreation becomes much more apparent when one starts considering the motivations of pursuing childbirth, and the conditions the child will experience for the first 18 years of its life (harsh environment, forced subservience, lack of rights, constant attempts at brainwashing).

Having a child, in the plainest possible terms, is forcefully creating a being that is helpless, at one’s mercy, and who is full of deficiencies, needs, wants, and ignorance. There is no possible acceptance of this arrangement by the individual-to-be. They are dragged into the situation of life solely through the whims, desires, and plans of the parents.

There are two main categories of antinatalist argument, though other methods exist.

Firstly, Philanthropic Arguments - which focus on the harm the child will be forced to endure thanks to its non-consensual creation. (The points I made above fall into this category).

Secondly, Misanthropic Arguments. They instead focus on the harm the new individual will necessarily inflict on others/the environment thanks to their nonconsensual creation. Just as a quick example - let us consider someone who is a vegan because of concerns about reducing suffering and their environmental impact. This position is irreconcilable with that of Pronatalism, as the child himself probably will not maintain the Vegan position, and will in any case require an enormous amount of resource investment to reach maturity. Therefore this theoretical person’s lifestyle is not consistent with his stated motive.

I have quite a few resources on this topic, if anyone is interested in further discussion, or in challenging the antinatalist position.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Fosforos
« on: January 06, 2019, 11:17:34 pm »
It’s certainly frustrating to be kept out of important information by price gatekeeping. One of the reasons I support totally free and open dissemination of modern occultists. Magical practices take a lot of commitment but it shouldn’t be financial commitment at the outset if it can at all be avoided.

This is also a problem for academic texts in a big way. Woe to the independent autodidact! There are several volumes I’m pining to read that are practically outside of my modest disposable income. Even good scholarly work done 45 years ago can still run into the hundreds for one piece, with little or no alternative.

Mercuræn Luciferianism / Re: On Man's Carnality and its Deception
« on: January 06, 2019, 10:58:19 pm »
I agree with all but one thing. Time is actually part of the subjective universe, it is a perception. Specifically it is the perception of things occuring in 3-Dimensional space. That times exists for us shows that we are, at least to some extent, separate from the 3D-reality / OU.

How can something “occur” within 3D space unless a temporal dimension is fundamental to it? I could see an argument for time being subjective if we consider that the OU is actually four-dimensional and already “completed” so to speak from start to finish. Then we could say that time is the subjective perception which plays each 3D slice of the whole in sequence. Like a needle sliding down the ridges of a record. But this seems to have certain philosophical consequences - like Fatalism, for instance.

I understand the argument that time is a perception, inasmuch as matter and space are also perceptions. Are you saying that the OU has a separate existence of space and matter, but that time is not a part of it?

I guess I'd only find its merit if it appealed to one's individual nature. My nature would see all of this as dull, rote, uninspired, and pedantic. :D

Would it be novel or inspired to stare at one's hand for an hour straight? Or to sit without moving for extended periods focusing on the breath? Not at all, and the same is true for many magical practices. Even so, these things still have a powerful effect, which was the point.

Why not carry a firearm instead of a staff? It's far more symbolic of chaos. :D

Why not dedicate eating cheeseburgers and defecating to gnosis as well? :D

Do these things, but always unto me.   :D

Anyway, such a comprehensive set of observances just doesn't fit in with a modern life. Got a wife? Kids? Whatever, you certainly have something going on... Who has the time? So, it's just some weird occult dick waving which no one, not even Carroll is likely to partake in.

Good points, but it seems to me that a lot of the traditional techniques and lifestyles don't fit in with the modern way of doing things - and we suffer for it. Of course we can find new ways to go about this stuff but we can't throw out all the inconvenient parts until we know what we're dealing with. And we won't be able to reach the levels that those who came before us did if nobody has the time to try. Just my perspective, but I suppose I am a bit less committal than most.

I hardly find time to get a normal spiritual practice in between sleep apnea and pursuing my PhD, let alone for something like this.

Nevertheless, one could argue that it would be a spiritual goal to be free from real life commitments - but that's not necessarily the point of the LHP. Even in the Indian vamachara tradition there is the concept of the householder's path, of pursuing one's spiritual goals while still taking care of real life and not becoming a monk. (seems to also be a thing in Buddhism now that I googled for it, but I only had heard that term before in a book on some early historical forms of the vamachara).

Yes, indeed. Buddhism actually has quite a history of lay practitioners. Figures like Layman Pang, Ikkyū Sōjun, the Upāsakas, the Anagarika, and so on.

I'm not recommending that anyone should take on the full list of these observances - certainly we all have to find what works for ourselves. But I do think the concepts behind the observances are a solid starting point to consider deriving from.

Discipline is so so important for developing Will power and focus. I spent the early part of this year travelling to different monasteries and trying to find one which would be suitable for me to retire and focus on the work. Because of where I live this was quite the challenge. On top of that, most of them would require me to shave my head, which was a problem as I had already taken a practice-related vow to keep my hair long (breaking one vow to take another that is meant to achieve the same result is usually a bad move; better to carry out the one and then only take on another austerity when you will it). I thought I'd found a place with some promise, but I had a vision in which I saw (years later) the head monk snapping my wand in two. He was attempting to teach me a lesson -- that my magical practice was a final fetter preventing me from obtaining the end of his path. I knew then that while I would indeed advance dramatically there, it would never lead me to the fulfillment of the path I set before myself, only the fulfillment of some other path. The only option was for me to continue my individual practice with renewed vigor.

I've kept many of these vows for long periods of time in the course of my practice. I don't keep a dream journal, but I work with them in other ways. Instead I try to record all I can of visions received while waking, but I find that the density of information in these experiences make it almost impossible to communicate everything relevant. At some point you have to choose what you spend more time doing: the work or the recording of the work. Of course they're not mutually exclusive but for me it's an easy choice.

I actually love the idea of carrying one's magical staff at all times to keep one's focus directed properly. It is quite inconvenient but I've found that usually the difficult disciplines are the most beneficial ones (that's why one of my favorite asanas is the Ibis - very challenging to master). I do similar things to return my attention to my practice throughout the day, such as never leaving the house without my silver amulet, and wearing white clothing a large portion of the time. But actually keeping a inconvenient magical object at hand at all times is a novel way to up the ante so to speak.

I don't have an appropriate staff but I'm considering keeping that vow with my wand. Although I can't mark it. It remains pure white and unadorned due to theological significance. Besides, that might be a good way to indicate that I am a nun in perpetuo and not only provisionally.

Has anyone else tried some of these vows during a retreat, or on a more long term basis?


But we should note that “calculation” here does not refer only to mathematical and analytical processes but also all of the other small subconscious exchanges of energy that take place when a being solves a problem or contemplates an object of experience.

That was not meant to be an airtight definition, I was just describing one way that the intellection process is measured. The fact that AI researchers and super computer technicians optimize for calculations/second of course means that they have considered this angle. However, there is obviously a structural component involved as well, as is evidenced by the extreme efficiency of the human brain, as well as more recent developments in back-propagated deep neural nets.

The first part of this post just contains some quick thoughts and aphorisms, not a thesis for the rest of it. Note that I didn’t refer back to it anywhere and throughout I speak more about philosophical type thought than anything else.

I think there is more value in human mental activity than just reasoning and it’s results. However, if you consider the value of a mind to be primarily its ability to calculate and draw conclusions, then perhaps there is reason to worry that human thought is or soon will be “less than” the thought of our machines. :)

Thanks for stopping by, idgo.


Thought about Thought
Reason, the Intellect, Conclusions, and Magic

Category: Casual philosophy/theology

The average man seeks happiness.
The clever man seeks truth.
And each has as much as he can,
Though both of these are but phantoms

Strength of Thought can be considered in terms of calculations performed, or in terms of time spent.

Both of these measures are interlinked in the measure of calculations per second.

But we should note that “calculation” here does not refer only to mathematical and analytical processes but also all of the other small subconscious exchanges of energy that take place when a being solves a problem or contemplates an object of experience.

Thinking is a rational approach to mental activity.

Therefore a man who is dull-witted and yet adopts this approach will be lead to grasp his own truth in the personal conclusions he forms.

The Purity and Defilement of Logic

Schopenhauer once said that Reason or the Intellect is the only pure thing in existence (Pure in this context meaning free from the domination of the Will to Live). In truth this is blasphemy, as there are several others of note that constitute the heavenly realms. We shall speak about them again in another installment.

Moreover, as the sharp reader may have already noted, Reason itself is not always free from the influences of intention. In fact, it is more accurate to say that the process of the Intellect is pointed at the object of the Will, and the results thereby gained are always colored by the context of the initial investigation. Two examples to demonstrate the point:

1. When a fascist investigates global affairs with an eye to the influence of certain groups, he will always come to the conclusion that yes - The Jews really are in control of everything. He is able to argue this point resolutely with supporting facts that all derive from the initial motivation of his investigation to find such evidence.

2. Schopenhauer, one of the greatest philosophical geniuses of the western tradition, full-throatedly argues misogynistic points in his Essay on Women with the same authority and solemnity with which he approaches most of his subjects— and yet when we look back on this with modern eyes we can see that some of his assertions are patently false and absurd. Schopenhauer gives us a clear account of the behavior of women in his time, but fails to penetrate the level of understanding which would reveal that these behaviors indicate what the then-current power structures made of women, and not what they are in themselves. A similar principle is at work in the noted Racism of Kant. (Note that we are not dismissing racial and gender-specific differences in people at once, but the overt positive claims made by supporters of these ideas still reveal themselves to be palpable sophistries.)

Rigorous thinking and Magic

But when one contemplates an object, doing all that is possible to do away with all prejudices and bias to the best of his ability - and even then always questioning his conclusions as he subjects them to the crucible of repeated experimentation, then he begins to pursue a more rigorous approach to thinking. This process is known as the Purification of the Intellect. When the intellect has been totally purified, it becomes like the Vajra - the diamond hard faceted jewel, reflecting the light of clarity.

Even at this stage, the intellect is ultimately unable to reach its goal of truth in fullness. As the Artemisian saying goes, Truth is in Silence, and not in words. However, the cultivated reason should still be considered one of the great bodies of purity in the manifestation, as it can produce clear-sighted conclusions at a deep level, which then inform the thinker’s mentality moving forward - eventually forming something of an unspoken understanding which culminates in Wisdom.

Rigorous thinking results in a clear-seeing of the processes in the world, considered apart from the needs, wants, and opinions of the individual organism. We could romanticize this in so many ways; “seeing with the eyes of god”; “the cosmic perspective.” But in reality it is not so fantastical - although it’s results on important subjects can be equally dramatic. The power of certain conclusions is such that it can immediately impact the Will of the individual, so that his behavior is forever changed.

Because of this, intellectual conclusions are a primary method of magical practice. One who has sufficient flexibility of mind can allow himself to reason from a point of view which he does not hold, or to reach certain conclusions that would have otherwise been undermined by the honest operation of the intellect — and this is one method of forming a constructed perspective and mentality through black magical methods. Practicing the purification of the intellect described earlier amounts to a kind of Internal Alchemy, which can be understood as a specific school of magic. (Greater white magic - or the sage way.)

It is the characteristic of the Chaos Magician that he makes use of multiple conflicting perspectives/mentalities at the same time, and is able to put all away and put on a new one without qualm.

The Trajectory of Contemplation

Regardless of the aim with which the intellect is used as a tool for the transmutation of self, the process of doing so follows something of a pattern. As more and more objects are contemplated, they string together to form wider conclusions and eventually whole schools of thought. Each object of contemplation passes through the following stages:

1. Defining
2. Analyzing
3. Synthesizing
4. Concluding
5. Integrating
6. Deconstructing
7. Full Understanding

Oh look at that - an even seven. Praise the Moon! Let us describe each step simply.

1. Definition Drawing lines. One of the simplest actions of the Reason is to draw the boundaries of a concept. When a concept is created, it must be described in terms of what it is and what is not. When this criteria is met, the concept attains to a quality, and can be given a word such that the thinker can distinguish what does fit the conditions and what does not. This allows for interpretation of the interplay of various qualities and objects of experience. Contemplating is a more advanced action of the Reason, which involves the usage and comparison of many different definitions. And so the beginning of contemplation lies in defining the object of the investigation. What is it that is to be understood, and in light of what factors? Clear and honest definition of terms and queries will greatly advance the rigor of one's contemplation.

2. Analysis Now that terms and goals have been established, one can begin the process of analysis. This involves comparison of definitions, and dedicated attention to the question at hand. More and more data is collected as the contemplation continues, drawing from direct observation, memory, and empirical evidence - depending on the exact method of investigation. Solid analysis reveals what a thing seems to be, what its behavior is, what is thought about it, what its apparent motivation is, and so on.

3. Synthesis Once a sufficient amount of information has been gathered about an object, one can begin to form positive ideas about the how and why of the object. These ideas must conform to the data collected and should not be contradicted by the raw analysis of the object. The ideas must be tested and retested against competitors by experimentation and fresh analysis.

4. Conclusion Conclusion represents a first end of the investigation after thorough analysis and synthesis, partitioned by the definition, and to the rigor of the method pursued. A conclusion is a solid claim of function and predictability about the object of its investigation, which has not been contradicted by rigorous study and experiment, and which is aware of other possible solutions and the criteria which make it a better model than those.

5. Integration Integration is the next natural step of the thinker who seeks to be intellectually honest not just with his thought structures but also with his daily activity. A man is not truly a great thinker until he has lived his ideals. If the conclusion is honest and rigorous in its revelation, then it should be a worthy guideline by which to live and think going forward. Note that some objects of contemplation are too rarefied to have much impact on daily life. In these cases a more abstract kind of integration happens in which a conclusion affects the mentality of the thinker as he pursues further philosophy and meditative practice. Meditation itself can be considered a kind of integration as one enters into and becomes the idea at hand.

6. Deconstruction Deconstruction is the natural consequence of honest integration of honest conclusions. As one remains with the conclusion/ideal and lives with it, it begins to show itself with new life and color. Deconstruction is a kind of second analysis which takes place from inside of the conclusion, rather than from outside the object. It goes back and critiques the definitions and methods which lead to the conclusion, and takes an overview of shortcomings, accomplishments, unexpected ramifications, and the possibility of practice without belief - truth without concept.

7. Full Understanding Full understanding is a high stage of contemplation which only the serious thinker has any share of. In the same way that deconstruction is a kind of second analysis, Full Understanding is a kind of second conclusion. This is the stage at which the investigation is fully satisfied and quieted by the acquired wisdom of the adept. This stage comes with knowledge of why the object exists, how exactly it works, why it is necessary, the paths one can take in response to it, and the ramifications of doing so. Here the knowledge of the investigator transcends thoughts and becomes a systems-level understanding and culmination of the object itself.

... thoughts? ;)

Setianism / Re: Death of the King in the early Stellar/Sky Tradition
« on: December 22, 2018, 09:04:58 pm »
I just found this thread thanks to your mention of it in the shoutbox, Xepera.

I appreciate the sort of gnostic tinge that has been more evident in your recent setian stuff. It’s refreshing to read clear-minded analysis of phenomena. I hope your practice offers you a solution to this absurd scenario we find ourselves in. ;)

I’ve shared my opinion about suicide and voluntary euthanasia before — I won’t get into it again here as I know it can sound kinda edgy and cold. But I’m of a mind to agree with you, in that it’s actually wiser to leave this life on one’s own terms rather than waiting to lose our raison d’etre and see ourselves fall apart. The ancients knew how to die nobly and without fanfare when the time came; what a shame that in general we’ve lost this talent, and therefore vastly increased our fear of death.

I find it distasteful to criticize even those who kill themselves due to depression. Probably the most ethically sound argument against it is what Xepera mentioned: the suffering inflicted on loved ones. But this ignores the amount of suffering that the would-be suicide sustains. I tend to weigh the relief of the individual who chooses to end his existence far higher than the pain of those who used him or relied upon him in some way. True, his suicide was unnecessary; he could have used the moment of crisis to reforge himself into something strong enough to survive. But this redemption arc is also unnecessary; and whether he dies wisened or a fool the ultimate result will be the same.

Emil Cioran said

‘Suicide is a sudden accomplishment, a lightning-like deliverance: it is nirvana by violence.’

Artemism / Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« on: December 16, 2018, 03:49:39 pm »
If that's your position I can understand that.
Just, if everyone doesn't want these to happen to anyone else, why do some people then nevertheless do them to others, and even enjoy doing so?

Largely due to ignorance, selfishness and outright cruelty. Sorry - I may have worded that poorly. I didn’t mean that everyone is perfectly compassionate or has perfect moral knowledge. I meant that when we recognize suffering in ourselves, it always has to do with the four categories of nonconsensuality. Sometimes we are under their effects without noticing if they are subtle enough - and we all have varying levels of tolerance. But when the suffering/evil/nonconsensuality is beyond what we can tolerate, all of us would admit that suffering is real, and that we desire freedom to move away from that suffering. Who can choose to remain under torture that is already far more than he can handle? Who can leave their hand on the stove and not recoil?

People commit evil acts because there’s something in it for them. The desire to escape personal suffering is such that people will even do the cruelest things to one another to give themselves a better chance to avoid it. If you’re violently extracting value from another being - hey, you can’t feel his pain, but you are profiting massively from inflicting torture/enslavement/rape/imprisonment.

There is no cosmic moral force that will set this situation right and rule against you; you probably know that. There are only other beings who are more powerful than you and thus could put you in the same situation if they desire it. Nature adores wickedness. That in itself is half of the gnostic premise.

Artemism / Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« on: December 15, 2018, 08:38:44 pm »
I quite wonder whether that theory on hormone production also works on females and/or on transpeople on HRT.

Definitely an interesting question to pursue! I’m a trans woman on HRT and I’ve found that it’s still pretty effective for keeping high energy and sexual potency, but it’s certainly not the same as when I had testosterone. I would get almost manic performing that practice back then.

I would normally consider my view on ethics as amoral or perhaps epicurean (not bothering enough with theories of ethics normally to tell whether that really applies), but I can get behind that view of yours at least to a certain degree. Where we may differ is that I believe in moral relativism, i.e. I wouldn't describe anything as objectively evil, it's all in the eye of the beholder. From my impression, gnostics tend to see that differently. But I'm not sure about your stance on this as either seems to be compatible with what you wrote.
Btw, your link doesn't seem to work.

I fixed the link! And I can respect that. I used to be a moral relativist as well, but thinking long on the problem of suffering changed my mind. I started contemplating whether or not human existence has any inherent value in it that is not informed by individual opinions. I realized that it does, and that value is a negative - suffering. Is what a person feels when they are raped, or starved for 40 days, or forced to do backbreaking labor, “in the eye of the beholder?” Really consider this. We can all agree that we do not want the four forms of non consensuality I mentioned done to ourselves or anyone else. We are not able to want them even if we try to. This is fundamental to what it means to live as a being, as it concerns our very existence. All humans can agree on this, and so it is objective - and the basis of moral reasoning. We don’t need to prove that those 4 would be Evil for some other type of existence which is unlimited and feels nothing; this is the only existence we have access to, and it is limited, individual, and subject to nonconsensuality (by definition).

So the difference to the Jester would be seeking a calm, permanent state of well-being instead of fleeting pleasures?

That’s about the size of it. Changing what we can do and how we feel about bare existence (path of serenity) vs feeding new and varied stimuli to our bare existence to keep it pleased (path of hedonism). :)

General LHP Discussion / Re: Rituals
« on: December 15, 2018, 08:03:36 pm »
These are the only parts that matter.

Incorrect. I may have some of my most revealing moments while doing more advanced methods that I didn’t describe in detail; but success in those moments would be impossible without the wellspring of willpower, focus, awareness, confidence and self-knowledge which was built by the routine I mentioned. Never underestimate a regular practice!

Artemism / Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« on: December 15, 2018, 04:56:08 pm »
As someone who is trying to pursue the path of chastity myself in order to gain more self-control and to have more time to spend on some hobbies, I wonder what exactly you mean by some of the terms you brought up here.

Hey, that’s awesome. I’ve been chaste for about 1.5 years and it has been amazing for me. If you want to increase your creative output and your reserves of willpower, this is definitely a powerful path to explore. I can’t guarantee that your results will be the same as mine for a number of reasons, but you can be sure that I will be expanding on this topic and it’s adjacent methods here in this subforum as time goes on.

I mean, I'm asexual anyway, i.e. I don't feel any desire for having sex with others. Freedom from the craving to act on arousal is something I am pursuing, albeit I don't know whether one can ever be fully free from that - if you have any tips I would quite appreciate that.

If you’re already beyond the desire to bind yourself to another in this way, you are already well positioned. The worst results of sexual indulgence are often to be found in the over-reliance and extreme emotional attachment that forms when one person craves another or two people crave each other. Since you are not beholden to someone else, any impulse for sexual gratification followed up on will only be a momentary diversion from your aims, and will probably not be enough to consume all of your thought power and effort in the same way that a relationship easily can. I’ll say a little more about this directly.

But getting rid of arousal altogether seems if not impossible so at least not like something one might actually want to do as that means suppressing a massive part of one's psyche and all the benefits it may give - or what other method would one use for that besides suppressing?
Which do you mean by "freedom from craving or need"? Freedom from craving to act on arousal, or freedom from arousal?

It is not impossible to get rid of sexual arousal - you just have to decide if that’s the route you want to take on your personal journey.

The Buddhists discovered that if the sexual impulse is not indulged in, eventually it never bothers the monk again. Early Christians also discovered this, with some of the dedicated wise men of that era living into their 80s either virgin or continent.

Daoists would prefer to take the route of allowing sexual stimulation to keep energy levels and hormone production high, while otherwise taming and not indulging their lust.

Personally, I don’t have a moral crusade against masturbation - no one has to feel guilty about that. It doesn’t cause any harm, and it’s only as intense as one wants it to be. There are even magical and spiritual practices which involve using sexual energy to have astral experiences and to enter into certain realms of being. Of course it can still cause problems for a practitioner, but mindful use is not so bad. It can still be a large expenditure of energy and will power depending on how it is done, but so also is fantasizing or attempting to ignore it for longer periods of time. You are the only one that can judge how it should be used for you.

If you do want to conquer also the desire for self-gratification, then I would recommend not hardcore repression, but going about the activity as mindfully as possible. Watch everything that happens carefully, especially the reactions within yourself. Don’t allow yourself to become lost in fantasy, just commit the act coldly and watch yourself. When you’re done, carefully consider whether the experience was worthwhile, and what if anything you got from it. Another option is to indulge yourself only so far, and no further. I.e. stimulating oneself but not to the point of orgasm. At this point stop and move on with your day. This method is good because it demonstrates your power over the situation and gradually takes your pleasure away from the moment of ecstasy and instead relates it to the self-control you exert during the process. This is a good foundation towards shifting the object of your desire further.

The only thing that will make a difference is a change in the object of your Will - wanting something different from life and so applying your effort differently. This is not an easy process, because altering your Will means changing who you fundamentally are as a being. This is what magic is about.

A note about repression:

Let’s liken sexuality to a drug problem, which it often resembles in so many ways. A man is a recovering addict. Using is a massive part of his psyche. Should he attempt to repress this natural function of himself, destroying even the potentially useful parts of his habit? It is only necessary for him to repress his desire for his drug of choice to the extent that his Will or motivation is pointed the mental or physical effects which it can produce. The Will is strengthened in its aims by two things: The obsessive power of Thought; and the indulgence of it's object. These alongside the physiological needs that can develop are the primary building blocks of addiction and craving. When the man attempts to leave his drug behind, he will continue to be compelled by the momentum of his previous obsession, and so will find that he is at odds with himself. Repeatedly he will be compelled to seek the high, and he must deny himself if he is to succeed in attaining the new Will he has envisioned for himself. Each time he denies his compulsion, a tiny seed is planted in his heart that will grow towards his new object rather than his old. If he ever manages to purify his Will in accordance with his true motives, he will find that all the time and effort he spent obsessing over, seeking out, and denying his old object - is now free to him. It can be spent planting new seeds which will also ripen to their natural outcome.

It is very much the same with the sexual drive. The only difference is that this object of compulsion comes built into our organism, and so supply is never an issue. Denying oneself does take effort as it is moving against a large amount of momentum built up over the course of the preceding lifetime. But each time one refuses to serve this drive, it becomes easier to exert control over it. When you have mastered self-control in this aspect, it becomes effortless to do or not do in accordance with one's true motivation.

I would recommend taking a full inventory of your sexual practices and thought structures and habits, and then coming to a conclusion about how to move forward. Use your power of autonomy to instate a clear and concise rule for yourself, and endeavor to follow it. Afterwards, each time that comes where you have to make a decision about how to spend your time and effort, you will remember the rule and have a choice between following or not following it. Your bliss and sufferings under this condition will reveal how suited you are to the necessary circumstances of your end.

"As a man thinketh in his heart; so is he."

Pretty much why I'm a pantheist and not a gnostic. How would you define "the evil of the world"?

Very simply. I define Evil as Torture. Imprisonment. Rape. Enslavement. (Which beings are subject to on various levels throughout their lifetime.) You will notice that these are the opposite of the ideals I listed for Artemism in the Magician section. If you want it in one word, it would be Non-consensuality. My ethical system is a form of negative utilitarianism centered on individual freedom and wellbeing. That's a theme that you'll find pretty consistently in my writings. You can read more about my ethics and meta-ethics here (, or you can do some research into negative utilitarian arguments in general to get a better view of the philosophical landscape. I believe that what I describe as non-consensuality is the same as that which has always been recognized as evil throughout the world, as it is the primary cause of suffering.

That's a difficult question. To me personally, the Sage would be the most central goal. But nigh all of the others can also be the most central ones to a Satanist. Some are more stereotypical, e.g. the Outlaw, the Explorer or the Artist, though.
I haven't looked into the details behind these Archetypes, though, only going from your overview and some things I remember having read elsewhere.

It's a framework for describing one's highest ideal, and the motivation which animates his life. Identifying yourself as the Sage would indicate that you are primarily interested in Truth, and your foremost goal is to attain greater understanding. Does that sound accurate?

As my top choice was Innocence, that would indicate that my highest motivation is Bliss, and Well-being. That makes a good deal of sense considering that the entire purpose of Artemism is to create a school of practice and philosophy that can be conducted individually to raise the practitioner to the highest states of serenity. (Which does of course include engagement with Truth and the other virtues I mentioned). This is a more accurate description of the deeper Idea behind Innocence than "Safety" ever could be.

The chart is just for reference. If you have the Will of a sage, you will know for yourself what the highest goal is to a much better degree than is described by "knowledge".

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15