See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 76
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Thanks for the acceptance. Welcome!
March 30, 2017, 06:24:07 pm
1
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? I think that there are two inherently different yet equally valid forms of Thelema. The most common is more appropriately called Crowleyanism, because it follows Crowley and his interpretation of the Law of Thelema, rather than what AL actually says. This is obvious because Crowley brought about a very solar based religion, yet the Book of the Law goes to great lengths and imagery to show it is stellar based. Crowley, despite his imagery, very much sought do dissolve himself into the All, losing his isolate consciousness in favor of the will of Nature/God. AL, on the other hand, is an elitist text that draws heavily on the symbolism of the Pyramid Texts. The individual is elevated to godhood, the gods bow before them, the focus is on the night sky, and so forth. So while Crowley seems to have interpreted things as RHP, Thelema can equally be seen as LHP.
April 07, 2017, 03:44:40 am
2
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
If the gods bow to you, how is that any different than humans bowing to the gods, except that the roles are reversed? (collectivism centered) Isn't elitism just glorifying those who are the best at following and embodying the collective ideal?  (collectivism dependent)

I guess gods bowing before man is a poor illustration. I'd say the LHP is more about gods accepting a man or woman as one of their own.

April 07, 2017, 11:56:31 pm
1
Re: Setian Arcanum What is a Setian, and Why Set?

A Setian is a henotheist who focuses on gods of consciousness over gods of order. Set is the main focus as the god of isolate consciousness, the Platonic Form of the individual, self-aware Self. H Te Velde gives three roles for the god Set in Seth: God of Confusion: a trickster type god of confusion, of god of isolation and separation, and a god of intoxication. By look at these 3 faces of Set we can see why Set is a good representative for this isolate consciousness. To our knowledge the vast majority of life and matter goes about what it does unthinkingly, like a planet on its orbit, a plant growing towards the sun, or an animal hunting for food and making shelter. It is only with isolate consciousness that humans come to experience the confusion of question like purpose and meaning. We do not go about like a star in orbit, but have reason and doubt much to the terror of the Hermeticists. Isolation and separation is rather self explanatory, and is the way I most commonly see Set. Human-like consciousness is something cut off from the rest of the world, from other conscious beings. At any given moment what one is consciously aware of may be anything from every day moments to unimaginable, unrealistic vistas only imaginable by that single individual. And intoxication, well, there's a reason most of us would not give drugs to children, or even most animals. It's a way to effect consciousness, and something for consenting, informed individuals to engage in.

What is Xeper and What is Remanifestation?

Xeper is a type of personal evolution. It is a static verb basically, something english does not have. Xeper is something always happening, whether you control it or not, whether you recognize it or not, and all things undergo some form of Xeper. The goal in Setianism is to control the Xeper willfully and recognize it, but this is a henotheistic preference, and not some monotheistic dogma. People are welcome to do what they want and focus on what they want. Remanifestation is a word for what Xeper occurs that had occurred previously, comparable to what happens when you rediscover a band you used to love.

What are Black Magic and the Black Flame?

These are the terms used by Dr. Michael Aquino to describe certain universal ideas. The black flame is comparable to the kundalini serpent, the Ka of Egypt, a divine spark of any sort, and so one. Black magic is self-directed self-evolution, not being swept up in the flow of deterministic and mechanistic nature, but separating and isolating yourself from that and directing your own path.

April 08, 2017, 12:22:21 am
2
The Three Faces of Set
        This, like many posts, is an early version of one of the chapters in my upcoming book. I’ve been studying the works of H. Te Velde, the ultimate academic source on the God Set, quite in depth recently. Te Velde gives three aspects of Set: that of a trickster god, a god of isolation/separation, and a god of intoxication. Let us look at these three aspects, the defense and evidence behind them, and how they can apply to modern day Setianism and esoteric occultism. For now this is not cited as it is kind of “stream-of-consciousness,” but expect a reference list in a near-future version. The vast majority of this information is from H. Te Velde himself.

Set the Trickster God

         A trickster God is one who seems to be above or opposed to the Natural Order of the universe, the order of the Gods in general. In many cases what they do may be seen as purely evil, yet in the end turns out to be something necessary and positive. It is also common that the trickster god is the only one capable of fighting monsters, often specifically serpents, precisely because the serpent in this context is of Chaos, and the trickster themselves, though bound to Order, is Chaotic Itself to some extent.

         These are all characteristics that well match the God Set. Set came into this universe unnaturally in several ways. One is that all previous births in the Ennead of Heliopolis had been pairs of brothers and sisters. Shu and Tefnut, Geb and Nut, then Osiris and Isis, but Set and Nephthys then were the second pair born to Geb and Nut. There are also two main tellings of how Set came into existence. The most common is that Set tore himself out of his mother’s womb, while the other is that Nut spit Set out because Set was already unnatural. Like other trickster gods, Set is clearly something that is at odds with the Natural Order.
Set also is seen to do seemingly evil things which, behind the scenes and with proper knowledge, turn out to be positive and necessary.

         The main example is obviously tricking Osiris and murdering him, then chopping up his body. Especially among civilians and later Egyptian times, Set was generally seen as an evil monster for this. Yet within the priesthoods, and now with the benefit of hindsight, it is known that Set was more of an initiator, without whom Osiris could never have become god of the Duat. We also know that is was Set himself, in the form of a bull, who carried Osiris on his back into the Duat. Osiris is a static god who never acts on his own accord, and Set’s disruption as a trickster god was needed for Osiris to become deified and Horus to rule.

           As for fighting monsters, it was only Set who could defend the boat of Ra from the serpent Apep. After being abandoned by his family, Set was adopted by Ra for Set’s ability to fend off the hypnotizing stare of Apep. The singular desire of Apep was to return all the Ordered cosmos back to a state of Chaos and Non-Existence. For some reason Set had a foundational relationship with this being, unlike the gods born of pure Order, and so was able to resist and fight off the serpent. In this case Set was almost a solar savior!


Set the God of Isolation and Separation

   
        The second role of Set was that of the Isolator and Separator. Set represented that which was separate from the gods and Natural Order. Whereas all Egyptians from peasant to king were expected to uphold Ma’at, a proper form of Order, Set was not bound to Ma’at, something which terrified the Egyptians. Set was also the god of foreigners, all those from outside Egypt, those who were separated from their culture.

         In the Pyramid Texts, Set is a psychopomp who leads the dead into the Imperishable Stars, putting them above the gods of the Natural Order, and allowing them eternal, isolate existence rather than a loss of self. In the Coffin Texts, a single symbol was often used to name Set that was neither the full name of Set nor the Set Animal (Sha Animal). This symbol directly translates to “Separator” or “Isolator.” This symbol was a sign quite similar to the “fishhead lance”, used to sever the umbilical which was associated with Apep. This was envisioned as Separating the newborn from the primordial Chaos within the womb. It was also symbolized in many ways by the tail of Set itself, split to represent this tool of Separation.

Set the God of Intoxication

   Set seems to be associated with intoxication mostly through a connection with the Goddess Hathor. Intoxication disrupts the Order of the mind, which could be one reason it was associated with Set. Behavior is inhibited, leading to improper social actions, sexual encounters, and all around mischief, each of with were attributes of Set throughout Egyptian history.

Modern Day Setianism

   In modern day Setianism, Set is understood of the Platonic Form of Isolate Consciousness. This relates to these three historical faces of Set in many ways. The trickster aspect of Set really brings to mind the “Satanic,” Western Left-Hand Path imagery tied deeply with Setianism in the modern day. The symbolism alone actively and often openly sets the individual apart from society, and can often cause disturbances in the proper context. While the WLHP is generally seen as evil, oppressive, and opposed to all things good, anyone who takes the slightest time to investigate openly will find this to be incorrect, much like the views of Set. One of the main goals of Setianism is to stave of Chaos and Non-Existence, much like Set battles Apep. The very respect and love for the Form of Individuality, along with the desire for continuity of consciousness after death, clearly show the opposition to non-existence in Setianism.

   Central to Setianism is the desire to Separate the individual Self from the mindless, mechanical flow of deterministic Nature. Set’s role as Separator and Isolator are perhaps the most important to modern day Setianism, as it best summarized the idea of self-directed self-evolution, the recognition and willful control of one’s Xeper.

   As for intoxication, as the god of one’s consciousness it makes sense that Set is associated with intoxication. Set can be seen as more of a balance to the intoxication of Hathor, as such intoxication leads to a loss of self-control and self-regulation. One should also have a developed mind capable of metacognition before they are allowed to choose whether or not the wish to intoxicate themselves. From a Setian perspective, to allow children to take intoxicants, or intoxicate children, animals or any other thing which cannot consent, is entirely unethical.

April 11, 2017, 06:18:24 am
2
Re: Order of the Serpent introductory statement This differs from our main page, we need to fix one or the other. I like this one.
April 16, 2017, 02:14:08 am
1
Consciousness as the Field that Connects Brain to Form So I have been studying Dr. Aquino's Mindstar, which is basically his entire metaphysical foundation in a book. In it Dr. A seems to suggest that consciousness is the field that connects the brain to the personal Form/higher self, similar to the L-Fields proven by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr, and used by him to argue against materialism. This idea blew my mind, to say the least. I'm still pondering this idea and its implications.
April 19, 2017, 03:38:29 pm
2
Re: Music thread Great idea. This is one of my favorite LHP songs.

Sweet Blasphemy - Black Veil Brides


April 22, 2017, 06:30:52 am
1
Re: Music thread I am fine with cliche!


April 22, 2017, 06:46:49 am
1
The Comprehensive Argument for Set The Argument for Set

1.   The conscious Self axiomatically exists, it cannot be denied.

2.   The objective, material world also exists, and even if it does not we should act as though it does.

3.   The brain/objective material world and the mind have different properties, and are therefore not identical or reducible to one another. Even if the mind emerges from the brain it is something separate.

4.   The Theory of Forms is the best way to gain objective knowledge, and seems to be a logically sound, and therefore objectively true argument. It best explains how the mind and brain can exist as they seem to (#3).

5.   A Form of consciousness must exist if the Theory of Forms is true, the attributes of which match with polytheistic Gods (immaterial, non-temporal, perfect, self-aware, desirous, etc.)

6.   The best God to represent this Form of consciousness is the Egyptian God Set.

7.   Therefore, Set Exists.


Premise 1: the Axiomatic Self

We must begin with what we can know with absolute certainty, if there is anything at all. In our case, the one thing we seem capable of knowing is that we, ourselves, exist. We cannot even be certain that others exist, but when a human being makes the statement “I exist,” they are stating an axiomatic fact. An axiom is “an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom cannot be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction” (Importance of Philosophy, n.d.). The Law of Identity is one such example of this. For the mind-body problem, that the self exists is also such an axiom, as is easily demonstrated. For example, there are no premises more simply than “I exist”, because all those premises are known to and created by that self in the first place. You cannot argue that “I do not exist”, because you are the one doing the denying, the reasoning, and the claiming. If the claim were to be true, then you do not exist to do the denying, the argument is not made, and we enter a paradox. It also is not possible to be false, as the self is what understands and distinguishes between truth and falsehood. Best of all, if this is not axiomatic, it would be very easy to show. All one would need to do is attempt to claim the self does not exist without relying on the self in the first place. But much like trying to argue A as Non-A, this seems like it simply cannot be done. If the self is axiomatic, it raises a major problem for material monism, because matter is only known through the mind/self. Materialism has to essentially eliminate an axiom in order to be valid, a rather tall order for any position.

Premise 2: the Material, External Universe


While it cannot be known directly, it seems quite likely that the objective world of matter exists as well. Even if positions like solipsism or brain-in-a-vat were true, these positions are useless to us, and there is no reason to act as if our experience is not real. One reason to believe this is that science itself implies the existence of the objective universe and matter. If it did not exist, we would expect everybody to act unpredictably in all situations. In other words, when people are all looking at the same image, they tend to see the same thing. When people on the other side of the world recreate a successful experiment, they should expect to get the same results. Further, while we know the mind directly, it is also quite likely that matter impacts the mind just as the mind impacts matter. Brain damage (MSKTC, n.d.), drug use (Husain and Mehta, 2011), prescription medication (Mayo Clinic, n.d.), even the gut (Foster and Neufeld, n.d.) can have an impact on one’s cognition. So not only is there no reason to act as if the universe of matter does not exist, but there are many reasons to believe it does, in fact, exist.

Premise 3: Property Dualism

Property Dualism comes into play because the mind and brain seem to have different characteristics, in other words the two have different properties, properties meaning attributes, qualities, characteristics, features, types, etc. (Properties, 2016). Dualism in this case does not necessarily mean the dualism of Descartes, but simply that the properties suggest the mind and brain are two separate things. This is a problem for monistic positions, as they require all things to be reducible into one substance, from matter to some sort of spiritual mind of God depending on the individual belief. If property dualism exists, monism is not possible because two non-identical things, by definition and the Law of Identity, cannot be identical, and therefore are not reducible into each other. Again, this does not imply the dualism of Descartes. Rather, it implies a type of emergent pluralism, the position that substances can rise out of other substances, but become something separate. In other words, just because the mind may have arisen from matter does not imply that they are identical and reducible, but one emerges from the other. This can be compared to a mother and her child. In the beginning the latter is entirely reliant on the former, but over time they become completely separate, distinct, non-identical and non-reducible beings.

So what are the characteristics of a brain and how do they differ from a mind? For one, a brain is physical but a mind is not physical. To illustrate the difference, realize that we can see a brain and its contents, but not a mind and its contents. While an fMRI can show the physical activity occurring in the brain (University of San Diego School of Medicine, n.d.), it is not the same as seeing what is occurring in the mind and especially not even close to shared experience (Nagel, 1974). The brain, along with all of the material world, is bound to physical determinism. It follows specific laws at all times. This is well illustrated by things like the cycles of depression and of abuse, as well as things like the trip induced by taking a drug. Like a storm rolling in, the brain does not have any method of fighting off a cloud of depression, or supernaturally overcoming trauma from the past, and one with limited self-control can be seriously carried away in a psychedelic trip. Yet the conscious mind is able to become aware of (Cook, 2014) and overcome (Oakley, n.d.) such deterministic cycles. We can even use placebos effectively without deception (Kaptchuk, Friedlander, Kelley, Sanchez, Kokkotou, Singer, Kowalcykowski, Miller, Kirsch, and Lembo, 2010). The mind is also capable of imagining things that could never occur in nature, things from the fantasy Dreamlands of Lovecraft to the computer or phone we have actually brought into being – things that cannot grow in a garden no matter how hard we try. This is further illustrated by the fact that that one can even control their own dreams with lucid dreaming, in which one can engage in all sorts of activities that contradict the objective, external world. As these few examples show, the mind and brain have very different properties, and based in the logic above, cannot be identical or reducible. While the mind may emerge from the brain, it is still something separate and different from the brain, like a child to its mother. But as we have seen, not only does the mind differ from the brain, it seems to differ from the natural laws of the objective, material world. How is this possible?

Premise 4: Introduction to the Theory of Forms

This question is answered by the Theory of Forms, or rather this evolved version I will share here. A Form is the essence of a thing, the immaterial, unchanging characteristics that all things are rooted in. It should not be thought that this essence precedes substance, nor the reverse, but that the two rely on each other. When X comes to exist, the Form of X comes to exist. One way to illustrate this is with geometry. If we draw 10 different, unique triangles, we can still recognize them all as triangles because of the characteristics they share, in other words, because of their Form. An equilateral, isosceles, or scalene triangle are all recognized as similar because of the Form of the triangle, the three sides and three points that make the shape, yet “three-pointedness” is not a material thing.. This Form of triangles is not something that can be directly, physically accessed – it is something immaterial. Another example to illustrate this are ideas like beauty or justice. Certainly beauty exists, most people experience beauty, and yet what we find beautiful can differ greatly. So how do we recognize the concept of beauty when no interpretation of beauty is objective? By the Form of beauty. It is a certain objective experience individuals can gain access too, despite us being unable to objectively define what makes something “beautiful.” It is empathetic, not material in nature. This all makes Forms more objective than material manifestations. For example, a specific chair or specific experience of love my fade with time. Even in the body cells are constantly dying and being replaced, the entire universe is forever in a state of entropy and decay. Yet we recognize what a chair is at all times, what love is, who an individual looks like, and what the universe as a whole entails. This is because, unlike the world of matter, Forms do not change or deteriorate. The Form of a chair endures no matter what chairs exist, what they look like, what they made of, etc. and so on.

Premise 5: the Form of Consciousness

As discussed above, if X comes to exist then the Form of X comes to exist. As shown above, individual consciousness is something we know for certain came to exist. This forces us to logically conclude (if we accept Forms, which seems highly logical) that there is a Form of individual, higher cognitive consciousness. Like the Forms of triangles or beauty, we can know this Form by the characteristics share by beings with individual consciousness like that of high-cognition humans. It would be independent, bound to nature and the material world, yet distinct and separate from is as discussed above. It would be self-aware and introspective, as well as abstract and containing desires. Yet unlike conscious human beings, it would be fully immaterial, and it would not live and die as physical beings do, but exist so long as consciousness exists. What does an immaterial, mostly-immortal being with self-awareness, and desires most resemble? It is very close to the ancient, common conception of “Gods.” One could technically debate if this Form of consciousness is worth calling a God, but this would be hopeless as the characteristics match exactly what Gods are defined as. No it is not an omni-God, but it is identical with most polytheistic conceptions of Gods throughout history.

Premise 6: Set

To myself, the Ancient Egyptians, and many on the Left Hand Path, this God of consciousness is known as Set. Set is one of, if not the oldest Gods of humanity (even if not in his Egyptian form). The Egyptian form is simply the most complete, accurate picture of this Form in human mythology, the closest God it matches. Set’s name literally means “Separator” or “Isolator” (Te Velde, 1967), like the separation or isolation of the individual consciousness from the material world. The symbol of Set was used to cut the umbilical cord, quite metaphorical for my mother/child illustration of emergence. He was portrayed as a fantastical animal unlike all the other Gods (Te Velde, 1967; Budge, 1969; Aquino, 2014), as like the conscious mind he was something separate from the physical, natural world (which was comprised of most other Gods). Set was known for having been unnatural, forcibly tearing himself from the womb in an act of separation (Budge, 1969). It should not be thought, however, that Set is “just a symbol.” He is one interpretation, the most accurate interpretation in history, of the objectively existent Form of isolate consciousness, and nearly every culture has a similar interpretation: Prometheus, Lucifer, Satan, Tiamat, Ahriman, and many, many more . Being associated with the northern circumpolar stars, Set was also greatly associated with the serpent, an attribute that has lasted all the way down into modern Christianity as an evil force.

What about other Gods? On one hand, all conscious things are rooted in Set, so any other conscious Form, such as that of knowledge, experience, emotion, etc. are rooted in and an aspect of Set, though still very existent. An example of this is the God Thoth, Form of knowledge and intelligence. On the other hand, a Form may be defined as a God for its sheer power, like the Form of order which underlies all nature (Horus the Elder). These Forms have been interpreted differently by all cultures, as with most things, which is why there is such a large amount of Gods – one interpretation for each group, that’s crazy! It’s not that Set is the “one true God” or some dictator, I am simply a henotheist, and have a greater respect for individual consciousness than other Forms, though certainly one’s like knowledge are up there.

April 22, 2017, 06:56:48 am
2