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 - Liu

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Other Religions / Re: Thursatru
« on: March 04, 2018, 01:11:30 pm »
Gullveig is usually in most people's views Freyja.  I view though Gullveig is also Holda/Mother Holle.  Both are goddesses of the Mother/Maiden/Crone Variety.  Holda is also seen as a giantess and has a positive side, but also a negative and powerful side.  She is also closely related to the rune of Hagalaz. 
Could you elaborate on this, please? Especially, I'm not very familiar with these goddesses, but from what I know of them, I see no real reason for considering them triple-goddesses. Gullveig maybe due to her 3 incarnations, but the others? And even in Gullveig's case, the 3 incarnations seemed fairly similar to me (well, not like we knew much about them), and she begot a child in each of them.

Science / Re: Saturn as the original Sun...
« on: January 30, 2018, 03:55:12 pm »
Also, I would rather have associated it with the myths of the older gods (Saturn, Kronos, Tiamat/Absu, Ymir, ...) being conquered by the next generation (Jupiter, Zeus, Enki/Marduk, Odhinn, ...), not with anything from Egyptian mythology.

Lounge / Re: Who is this guy?
« on: January 30, 2018, 11:31:25 am »

I guess you are called RPSTOVAL on RF?
Well, then it was me who first linked you this forum when you asked for the BOCFBN.
(although I assume that @Xepera maSet was a bit more explicit in recommending it :mrgreen:)

In any case, nice to have you here.

Science / Re: Saturn as the original Sun...
« on: January 30, 2018, 11:17:39 am »
Mythologically/Astrologically it makes a lot of sense (and I actually heard some YTer mention something about Saturn's solar aspects 2 days ago).

Whether there is any astronomical truth to it, no idea.

I'm not even sure that was the term that was used there - the quotation marks were not supposed to mark it as literal quote.

But I think it was in some book by Aquino.

I remember a discussion I had with @Setamontet in which one of use brought it up, too, over on RF quite a while ago, but I can't find it atm.

That's an interesting concept. I had similar, if much more vague ideas, but didn't put them into such tangible terms before - it's really a nice metaphor of how self-deification might work in metaphysical terms:
It would be the start of an explanation how spirits could exist and why nevertheless our psyches are dependent on our bodies.

It reminds me of the metaphor I read in some Setian text of us being "godseeds".

If we only had more information on what kind of soil we need to mature, and where to find it...

General LHP Discussion / Re: How often do you perform rituals?
« on: January 26, 2018, 05:30:09 pm »
To me, spontaneous devotional "rituals" without structure or real goal come much more naturally than rituals with a magick purpose. The devotional kind I do like every day (often just short prayers, sometimes much more lengthy stuff).

But haven't even done much active meditating recently, mainly due to health reasons.

The only other kinds of kinda spiritual rituals I currently do regularly are "meditations" on goal-setting, and a daily single-card Tarot reading.

I also sometimes do self-work via guided trances, and do general mindfulness-practices whenever I think of doing so.

On one side I kinda feel third-eye-blind anyway in regards to direct magick - if something like this, that is supposed to have a semi-immediate effect, at best gives me headaches, what use can it be? On the other I know that I'm a beginner with much too less practice who doesn't even really know where to start and is struggling with his tendency to immediately dismiss anything possibly paranormal as bullshit.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« on: January 26, 2018, 04:56:46 pm »
@Olive I guess the misunderstanding is once again based on what we mean by self.

If I understand it correctly, @Kapalika means awareness per se, whereas @Olive means the mind/psyche, with a special focus on the ego/personality.

@Kapalika: I really enjoyed your post, and I'd gladly read your new blog post.
From my vague knowledge of Kashmir Shaivism I come to similar conclusions. I'd mainly equate Satan with Shiva in that system as Shakti is a part/emanation of Shiva and therefore he encompasses her as well (at least that's how I understood it in that book on Abhinavagupta you recommended me and which I recently started reading).

Regarding semiotics, well, I have some passing familiarity with it from a linguistic point of view - it's a very wide field, though, not a single philosophy/theory.

Regarding the nihilism of Buddhism, I can't tell how Buddhist see it, but what you wrote reminds me of what I read in the texts of many an anti-cosmic Satanist when they talk about returning to the nothingness out of which everything would stem. I would guess the closest parallel to that in your belief system would be the pure awareness-aspect of Shiva, i.e. the unchanging part without Shakti. That of course is incompatible with our goals since we certainly don't want to completely stop experiencing the world. But it would seem likely to me that a philosophy like Buddhism would come to a different conclusion.

General LHP Discussion / Re: What are your beliefs about Satan?
« on: January 25, 2018, 01:35:29 pm »
Great summary @Olive.
That shows pretty well how it can be that us Satanists arrive at such different conclusions about the nature of our deity - some focus more on some aspects of it, some more on others, but they seem to me a bit like the elephant and the blind. Not that I'd claim to already know that it's an elephant, but at least I know that I'm as blind as them.

it seems like I didn't state my own beliefs in this thread yet.
Once again, I have to say that from all people who posted here I find myself in most agreement with @Kapalika

To me, Satan is the best representation for what I'd refer to as the divine, i.e. the underlying something of which reality is a manifestation.
It's a try to personify and relate to something fairly abstract, with a special focus on those aspects of the divine that the Satanist in question has the most direct connection to, especially their own will and subconscious, and those things they value.
I'm agnostic to the actual metaphysical details, I just know that I'm a devotee of this, that it helps me, and that I feel that I am ruled by it. I love it.

If spirits/polytheistic deites do in fact exist, I would assume that some or all of the entities referred to as Satan exist as well on their own or under different names.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussing Beliefs
« on: January 18, 2018, 11:19:20 am »
Remember, Forms are hierarchical, and do partake in each other and overlap. The different Forms of blueness all fit under the overarching category of "blue".
I agree, didn't think of them being hierarchical. But how does it work if the same shade fits both under the category of blue and green?

I agree, I meant more specifically higher consciousness, like that of humans, which includes self-awareness.
Okay, so this also would be a combined form. Not sure whether I like that concept.

That's what the evidence we have seems to suggest - a "revolution" or "great leap". I am curious to know why you think life-fields explain this better though? The way I understand, life-fields are basically the same in nature to matter, but simply the field precedes the matter itself. So instead of, say, Set influencing our literal brains he would influence the L-Fields. I'm not sure if this change could spontaneously happen in the L-Field on its own?
Why not? As I understand L-Fields, if there is one mutation, they can cause the spread of that mutation in ways that other theories of genetic evolution can't explain. I would prefer that explanation as it doesn't rely on a singularity.

I would say our ontology does seem to have changed, we are ontologically different from things without higher consciousness. By nature I more mean the material, deterministic, objective universe aspect of Reality. What you call "nature" I would call "reality" in this case, with the mindless material/natural and the mindful immaterial/unnatural existing as parts of reality.
I don't believe that reality is objective but that it's inter-subjective, and I believe that also higher consciousness is deterministic, so there doesn't seem that much of a difference.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussing Beliefs
« on: January 17, 2018, 06:30:42 pm »
That's a good summary.
It's helpful for seeing where we disagree. Maybe you could clarify those points?
Main Reasons I Changed to Setianism

1.   Platonism seeming sound. Platonism says that for anything that exists in our objective world of matter (X), there is a Platonic Form of X. There are many ways that we can conclude Platonism. One is that (1) our world is in a constant state of change but the world of Forms is posited to be unchanging, (2) and we can have knowledge of unchanging realities [i.e. math and logic], (3) therefore the realm of unchanging reality (Forms) must exist. Another is to take two similar things, like a small blue chair and a large blue table. We can recognize them as separate things – a chair and a table – but also recognize the similar characteristics they share – blue, four legs, etc. This is because all those things – the color blue, having four legs, being used for sitting/sitting at, etc – have their own Platonic Form. Obviously the blueness is not inherent in the table or chair, for then something non-identical to the chair could not be blue. Both the table and chair, and anything else blue, partake in the Form of Blueness, which is why we can recognize this identical characteristic in non-identical things.
The issue I have with this is, what determines whether something is a form or not? Where are the borders between similar forms?
I agree that having 4 legs (or at least having x of something) seems like a basic form. But how do you define a leg?
Or, perhaps an easier example: How do you define blue? Different languages have different borders between the colours and so people perceive certain shades to belong to different colours, based on their cultural background.
That constitutes my main doubt in the theory of forms. If there are forms, they are much more basic - blue for example would contain dozens of forms, each of them a shade of blue, and it's only through how our brain works that we put similar shades into one category.

2.   Platonism implying polytheism. If there are Forms for everything, there are Forms of knowledge, consciousness, love, anger, order, chaos, so forth and so on. Whereas something like the Form of a Triangle is not all that special (triangles don't do things like think, desire, etc.) and does not partake in itself (the Form of Triangles isn't a triangle itself, Forms are immaterial essence and this would require yet a greater Form), the Forms mentioned here do indeed think, desire, know, seek, etc., and as they are all immaterial properties themselves they partake in themselves. The Form of Consciousness, for example, has all those properties that make one conscious – self-awareness, desires, goals, knowledge/ignorance, and so forth. Same with things like Desire, Knowledge, and on. These Forms – immaterial, self-aware beings with their own identity, desires, knowledge, goals, etc. – share identical characteristics with polytheistic gods, who are immaterial, self-aware beings with their own identity, desires, knowledge, goals, etc. In other words, the by the Law of Identity, if Platonism is true then Polytheism is true, and the "gods" are how human beings have come to understand the Forms.
Here we differ in our definition of consciousness. I don't think that consciousness (i.e. awareness) automatically includes self-awareness. The other characteristics (desires, goals, knowledge) seem to be characteristic of a mind (although I'm not 100% sure whether they are all fully obligatory for that), so if anything they are what constitutes a mind. Many animals seem to have minds (and to be aware) without being self-aware.

3.   The Human Revolution in consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. You see, humans existed as a species, physically/biologically, for around 150,000 years without any advances in higher consciousness. We were another animal, very slowly learning to mess with the world we lived in within a purely animalistic/survivalist mindset. Then, rather suddenly, came abstract thought, art, religion, jewelry, and eventually things like language and alphabets. Our consciousness greatly leaped forwards, and began exponentially increasing on such a level that it still hasn't stopped. Interestingly, interference from something like Set is by far more parsimonious than the entire humans species magically sharing the same mutation which overwrites the previous genetic makeup of the whole species, or even worse, having a massive leap forwards as some sort of uncaused event. This is doubly true when you understand that….
This is less of a miracle if one considers that some processes simply do first need a range of conditions to be true to get started at all, but when all these conditions are given, the process goes along extremely fast.
Also, I don't know much about pre-history, but perhaps it didn't actually happen that fast and the remains we have simply are not reliable enough?
If it can be proven that culture came to be on different continents or similar suddenly and simultaneously in groups of humans that hadn't had contact in thousands of years, then that would be a huge indication for some external influence. But if not I'd ascribe this to natural evolution. If the Life-Fields theory you mentioned above is true, then that would also be a way of explaining it, though.

4.   Said consciousness can go against Nature, in other words it is "unnatural" to an extent. We can question, manipulate, and even go against the deterministic, material, machine like universe we all objectively inhabit. We can question it, looking for meaning, looking for answers, trying to understand the very natural world we came from unlike any other material life we know. We can manipulate it, such as making advanced medications to treat natural illness using our intelligence, or such as by envisioning an architectural structure on the nature world, and then building it, or removing entire mountains to build cities and roads. And finally, we can go against deterministic nature, like how we can use self-regulation to overcome our natural urges, such as animalistically punching your coworker in the face, or redirecting chemically-induced thoughts of mental illness due to our natural body, using cognitive therapy or placebos. This would be like a computer, or some part of the greater universe, magically and randomly going against its own programming - questioning, manipulating, and going against it (an AI creator's worst nightmare I'm sure!) Again, Set is actually far more parsimonious than the magic implied by positions like materialism or creationism.

Unless what Set did to us (in case he did so) changed our complete ontology, I wouldn't consider it unnatural. Everything that exists within this reality is part of nature by definition. So Set would have to be from a realm beyond even the laws of logic to be truly unnatural.
Also, how could re-writing something very natural like our DNA lead to something metaphysically unnatural?
Therefore, if anything, I'd take the term "unnatural" here to mean just "untypical for nature, but not impossible within the laws of nature".
But I guess that's semantics.

6.   The rise of religion in groups entirely independent of each other. Human beings seem to have spread out across the globe before the advent of consciousness in the UPR (discussed above). While some groups had contact with others, many groups, including the ever famous Egyptians, existed in an isolated environment as their religious ideology formed. Yet in literally any religious tradition we can see the same general deities, myth cycles, symbols, archetypes, even though these traditions did not interact and influence each other until far later. All these groups, without brainwashing from superiors or anything of the sort, came to believe in what we call "gods." Of course these pantheons are not identical, we know well how things like culture, economy, weather, geography, etc. can affect a group's interpretation of the universe around them, but the same patterns exist throughout. To use this to say these gods were just based in ignorance, or made up or whatever because they are not identical is like saying the stars don't exist because ancient people pulled different constellations from them based on their culture. Further, if gods do indeed exist, they can act freely it seems, unlike something like the laws of physics, and so we shouldn't expect identical results across the board anyways! This is similar to how it is far harder to reproduce experiments in psychological science compared to physical science, due to the unique and extremely individual ontological nature of human beings compared to mindless matter.
I would ascribe that mainly to all these cultures consisting of humans, i.e. beings with similar bodies and similarly working brains.

7.   The objectively measurable benefits and downfalls of religious belief. Again like #5 this would never be worth anything on its own, but when taken as a whole it is quite interesting. Things like prayer, ritual, and willful belief have well known benefits to the individual, and likely have since people started doing such things. Not only that, but religious belief and dedication to certain gods/ideals can cause some of the most immense evil known to man, from the ritualistic Nazis to the traditionally religious, murderous crusaders, even to the modern Islamic State.
That rather seems like a reason against supernatural influence. If having a religion has objective benefits then it's clear why it spread.

8.   A rejection of other proposed positions such as materialism and panpsychism. While Setianism appears to be supported and parsimonious, we of course have to look at other positions. These tend to rely on faulty logic and have little-to-no supporting evidence. Panpsychism, for example, thinks that all things are consciousness at every level of the universe, yet there is no evidence things like atoms or this computer are conscious in the way we are. Likewise, materialism is hopelessly plagued by things like the Mind-Body Problem, rejection of the Self, and a lack of evidence for reduction. Setianism just takes what we know now, and what we can logically infer, then makes its metaphysics from it without needing to take any further, unsupportable, non-parsimonious steps.
I rather subscribe to panpsychism. There is no evidence for it, so I'm not fully convinced of it either, but it at least seems the most logically sound to me: We all have awareness, and awareness does seem to be something not explainable by pure materialism. Therefore, it seems to be independent of our bodies. Our minds, i.e. our cognitive abilities, perceptions, feelings, etc., all seem to be dependent of our bodies however. So either awareness is something that naturally occurs whereever there are minds, or awareness is already there without being attached to a mind, but only if the mind is highly developed enough it gets aware of being aware. That would also explain why we don't see evidence for atoms, computers etc. not being aware - they don't even notice it themselves.
That theory far from explains every single question of metaphysics, but it at least doesn't seem to be in contradiction to anything, as far as I noticed, and therefore I prefer it as a default. I do agree with you however on the rejection of pure materialism.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Controversial topic: Armanen Runes.
« on: January 15, 2018, 02:34:41 pm »
If historical correctness would really matter, then people would take much more care to use proper Latin, Hebrew, Sumerian etc. than they do.

With the runes, there is one difference to other alphabets in that its use for magical and religious purposes seems to historically have been more important than its mundane use.
Also, it might due to that be that its structure is already a ready-made system which might therefore be more optimized than forcing something made for other purposes into some magical system.

Those advantages would probably not be given in the Armanen-runes.
But considering the fact that most about the original use of the runes is lost, we need to re-invent most of it if we use them anyway, so it in and of itself doesn't matter whether that re-invention is done now by us or in the previous century by some nazis.
Unless of course these nazis had no idea what they were doing and their system therefore makes no sense.

Another disadvantage is that we normally know that the Armanen-runes are later inventions - even if we also know that everything was a new invention at some point, we still subconsciously tend to put more trust into something "ancient" than something "fake".

I'm not inclined to work with the Armanen-runes, at least not before I've gained more familiarity with the original ones.
And also, I normally avoid working with things pertaining to the nazis on principle. And my reluctance to work with their stuff would probably be detrimental to it if I tried to.

Reading / Re: What are you reading?
« on: January 12, 2018, 07:55:55 pm »
Would be nice to have a translation of that, couldn't find one though.
I could help you with the Latin and German parts, it's more difficult to read than to understand.
Sounds fairly basic, though.
Page 1: "Signs of elemental spirits, fire, water, earth and air".
Page 2: "The ??? of hand-chess(?) of the operation, inside" (can't read the third word, but grammatically must be at the place of the ??? if I read the rest correctly)
Page 5: First line: That's how Belzebub appears"
Would have to look more closely onto the rest as it's fairly hard to decipher.
I might need to practice deciphering manuscripts for professional reasons anyway, and doing so with that kind of content might actually be fun.

Music / Re: potential cover for something of mine
« on: January 12, 2018, 05:42:54 pm »
Most of India is pretty rural and they got power lines lol. Maybe the barn is styled a bit' western.
Yeah of course, just taking about the impression caused by cliches.

Maybe a more important question is, what do you think of when you see that photo, and what would you think if you saw that as an album cover? What kind of theme or vibe would you get? What kind of music would you assume is inside of it?
Post rock or post black metal.

Granted it would be really hard to get the right shot of something that dark of morning's first light with so much mist since it's dependent on the weather. That photo wasn't altered in any way at all not even in color or saturation. The palette and lighting was just perfect.
I agree, this is a really good shot.

Really that abandoned haunted/creepy feel I guess. I wanted it to kinda give an indication of the feel of my music but maybe my sense of visuals is off
Dunno, it doesn't look creepy to me. A bit abandonded, sure, but rather depressive if anything.

Announcements / Re: Problems with the forum
« on: January 12, 2018, 05:09:48 pm »
I posted in the Lounge and a few minutes later in the Music section, but on the main page, the former post of mine is listed as last post. Shouldn't also the sub-forum posts be counted for that?

Also, recently there was a post listed as last post in the Longue and when I clicked on it there was "access denied" or something.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5