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 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 50
Setian Philosophy / Re: Old Man Aquino: No Chill
« on: December 09, 2017, 09:30:21 pm »
While I disagree with a major part of what Aquino said in those quotes (not necessarily with the details but with the conclusions), still interesting as a concise summary. I guess next time I have to explain why I'm not a Setian I might come back to this  :)

General LHP Discussion / Re: Let's talk about a taboo subject: Necromancy
« on: December 09, 2017, 09:21:23 pm »
Haven't done anything really in regards to this topic. Also in parts out of reasons of legality, it's not really worth the trouble to me. Possessing any dead human body part is illegal here (except for donor organs of course xD), even if the person in question donated it to you. Should I happen upon some animal parts I might use them for rituals, though.

I've walked through graveyards once in a while while generally going for a walk, but those places didn't feel that much different to me to find much reason in meditating there of all places. Huh, now I think about it, they didn't have as much an atmosphere of death to me as rather a higher concentration of normativity and tradition.
...actually that might make them interesting places to meditate in, too xD But I digress.

Actually I wanted to post here to elaborate a bit in regards to definition.

Technically, e/invoking the spirits of the dead could be considered the same procedure as evoking any other kind of spirit. If you believe that at least some deities or demons once were human beings then e/invoking those would make it necromancy by that definition, too.
So I get when you say that it has to have to include some physical aspect to distinguish it from such.

That however would make even animal sacrifices (or even just meditating on the meat and bones of your food) a form of necromancy. Not saying that those aren't worthwhile practices nor that they would have nothing to do with this topic.

Also, while necromancy does literally mean "death-divination", there has been a lot of confusion in the past centuries of this word and the term negromancy (which would be a Latin-Greek-mix meaning "black divination", i.e. black magic).
Therefore, pretty much anything that anyone would refer to as black magic has been referred to by some people as necromancy and vis versa. No wonder that we still don't have a fixed definition of it.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: December 08, 2017, 06:18:45 pm »

Thanks for telling me that about Vexior. I'll have to check his facebook out, I'd love to track down the first Thursatru book. It's the only one I'm missing.

Hmm, I might have to actually read the Falxifer series. I'm interested in Cain recently. I liked how he came across in the interview I read and I heard great things about the series.

Ixaxaar is really putting out great Left Hand Path stuff in general. I quite like Fall of Man and Scarlet Imprint as well but they're more conventional LHP.
If I recall it right he deleted his Facebook in the meantime. But that's the link he posted: (admittedly, someone else seems to have done the uploading for him)
At that time I could download it there by logging in, but not sure whether that's still possible, that site has been pushing premium a lot.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: December 08, 2017, 11:15:13 am »
I'm not a huge fan of Plato but I feel like a lot of his stuff can be used for metaphors for spirituality and Occultism. He was definitely an individualist. I love Socrates. He was executed because he was such an amazing individual that he made people in charge, ie the state look bad. The recent he accepted his execution, at least in the Platonic recount of it, had nothing to do with the law. This is where the theories of forms are. He makes arguments about reincarnation and forms and states that a true philosopher who values and seeks wisdom is simply practicing for death. This is because he will finally know the true forms when he dies. His philosophical arguments for reincarnation mention something similar to an abyss. Also, he believed he would go to the positive afterlife where only exemplarary individuals would go in Hellenic schools of thought. However, we have no DIRECT writings from Socrates so there is a huge debate in how much Socrates actually said vs how much Plato wrote. 
I guess I'll have to re-read that then because I got a very different impression.

What's fucking horrible is that the actual good texts are hidden behind paywalls and limited editions. Ixaxaar, one of the priciest grimoire sellers, are really the only high quality Anti-cosmic stuff out there between their Thursatru lines and work of the guy who writers the Liber Falxifer series. Now, I have never read Falxifer but I find that his answers in this review is more accurate to my understanding of Anti-Cosmicism and expressed a much more mature, refined view.
Well, there's still file-hosters if you are tight on money or things are sold out... [or is it against our forum rules that I mention such?] Vexior even uploaded Gullveigabok himself and linked it on his Facebook so at least he doesn't mind.

I like the Falxifer books for their information on historical backgrounds (cult of Señor la Muerte) and their mythology re-tellings. Gave me a huge appreciation for Cain and increased my interest in botanics  :mrgreen: But a huge part of them consists of ritual instructions I'm not gonna use anyway, especially as many call for cumbersome or even impossible ingredients. Whatever it is you wanna use those rituals for, by the time you are done gathering all ingredients it's either not important anymore or at least you have put already much more effort into the ritual than you so far had put into the real-life-steps necessary for furthering the goal, or that's the impression I was left with. Also, I'm not really that much into necromancy.
Haven't read the 3rd book, though.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: December 07, 2017, 09:12:41 pm »
How is Panparadox?! I really love the author's Thursatru books so I've been meaning to read it. I stay away from a lot of anticosmics but I truly appreciate Vexior/Ekortu's views and work in Thursatru.
It's very emotional, a lot of UPGs as I said. Heavy on mythology, too. I enjoyed it, from what I remember. If I recall it right I read it all in one sitting or two, actually, so not that much of it stuck.

You know, I actually don't the historical origin of Athens, only the Mythological origins now that you bring it up. You could very well be right. But I do know a lot of cities were named after their respective cults back in the day, at least the capitals. We're talking like Akkhadian Empire times. I simply assumed the tradition continued which could very well be erroneous of me.
Not surprising when the priesthood and the government are the same people. Each city had their own deity who was basically the personification of it. Even that one city which had two deities (don't recall the name atm) only did so because it originally were two cities close to each other which had merged together.

So on the abyss, there's different areas to describe. Usually in a Thelemic sense, it referrs to the period in which you give up your practice to study philosophy. This results in a huge existential crisis known as crossing the abyss. There's a reactionary urge to refer to this as not the real abyss but people who have done this, including myself, will argue this is far more terrifying and potentially harmful than any abyss meditation.
Thanks, that makes it much clearer.
Well, strange, if anything I could say I'm struggling to reduce my studying in order to actually practice. But I guess each one has their own internal abyss to cross.

This doesn't necesarrily discount the idea of an astral or literal abyss. my understanding is that the abyss doesn't exist in the world, rather it's the "source wall". If anyone wants to see the Godhead in RHP belief, they must break through the abyss. This is why you often hear ego death as a spiritual experience or how people see God on psychadelics. There are various occult school of thoughts that use the abyss and void meditations for magick. Draconian is just one of them. Necromancy is a huge one, in some traditions. Hell, there's even a black metal band called Void Meditation Cult. Even after Crowley crossed the philosophical abyss, he trie to penetrate the mysteries of a literal abyss through Enochian Magick which can be read in Vision in the Voice.
Yeah, there's certainly at least some parallels between the psychological and the astral abyss.

As for the Platonic form approach. I know nothing of Temple of Set's philosophy on forms. But Plato is quite clear that "Truth", "Beauty" and the like were forms that we can not know in this world. They exist elsewhere and we must leave the physical world to know them fully. It's from the dialogue of socrates before he was poisoned. I highly recommend to anyone trying to understand the abyss. Socrates, filtered or even fictionalized by Plato, makes arguments for reincarnation.
I think I read that back in school, but that's been quite a while... never been that much of a fan of Platon, though. I mean, I love Socrates' praise of Eros in the Symposion, and also some of the allegories are top-notch, but regarding much of the rest I'm like meh, not convinced. Also, not like that would be a deal-breaker, but Platon was very nomistic and not really into personal freedom - hell, when Socrates was given the chance to escape his death sentence he even forwent his own will of continuing to live as he considered law more important, or that's at least how it's justified in Platon's writings.

However, mind as a form would come from Descartes' and "Er Cogito Er Sum" or "I think therefore I am." He sat out to disprove everything so that he could rebuild the truth up. He questioned if God existed and if he existed, could be an evil demon or mad creator tricking Descartes to believe reality- sound familar? Demiurge? His first discovery of truth was in any of this scenario, he had to exist. I got corrected harshly on my quiz for saying brain instead of mind because mind would be conciousness which we can not exists bioligically in Descartes' arguments.
Sure, I'm familiar with that. And now I'm also getting where you're coming from when you use the terms mind and consciousness interchangably. Still would keep them separate concepts, though.

My chaos beliefs are influenced from Atheistic Chaos Magic paradigm and Ekortu/Vexior moreso than Draconian philosophy. What I like about Draconian philosophy is that it emphasizes creating from the abyss and using passion as the driving force. The purpose of destroying the world is to create a new one in which you play which is very Satanic and LHP in philosophy. But Leviathan is linked directly to Satan theologically as well and only strengthened through various occult schools of thought. I think many spiritual schools, LHP and RHP, encourage an indifference to the universe at various phases. Well, at least the absurd nature of it. This differs from most Anticosmicism as they want to destroy the universe, they believe it bad. Ekortu's Thursatru can fall into this- However, most Thursatru and Nightside Norse practicioners disagree with him.
Technically also the anti-cosmics want to create something new - just so unlike the cosmos that it can't be really compared to it.

Ultimately, it comes down as I don't see the universe as bad or good, real, unreal, or ascribe moral value. I simply choose the illusion I want to live in and make it real. However, there's so many arguments for how they could be literally destruction and creation of the universe. Quantam Mechanics actually raises a lot of questions on how much this is true- For example, look at the Quantam Suicide Thought Expiriment wikipedia page. Now, apply this to spiritual theory or theory of magick.
Fascinating - I don't think I ever heard of that thought experiment before but the idea doesn't seem knew to me, like I already had that idea myself once.

I'd actually be interested in a Shaivite's understanding of any of this if you have the time to answer it, if there is any equivalent. I always wonderd if the abyss could be the bleed between the universes in a multiverse but never really knew where to look for a mysticism perspective of that.
I've never been much into multiverse theory (too little real-life-applicability I guess), so I can't really help you with that.
Also, while I'll gladly try to reply, too, Kapalika is the expert here on Shaivism - honestly, I'm too much of a syncretist and cherry-picker to be an expert on anything ;)

From what else you wrote, I can confirm that
many spiritual schools, LHP and RHP, encourage an indifference to the universe at various phases. Well, at least the absurd nature of it.
is at least true for the kind of Shaivism I can relate to best.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: December 06, 2017, 10:26:42 pm »
What a mess...
In the hopes that you all have calmed down by now, let me take that apart a bit as there are some valid questions asked but not answered yet.
I won't expand on all that you wrote, please don't consider me ignoring parts of your comments as me fully agreeing (or disagreeing) with those.

A lot of @Kapalika's questions are based on the fact that she hasn't read Michael Kelly's books. But while I would recommend them it's not exactly required reading, especially not for a Shaivite (or any other non-Setian).

I can try to explain some points, but there are a few that I would like to ask @King Mob (or whoever else feels so inclined) to answer them in my stead as I don't really know the answers either.

@Liu  I think most of us take a more Platonic approach to the mind.
As this was brought up again, could you please elaborate a bit on it?

It is one of the forms that exist that you can really only know through death such as a beauty and truth. You literally have to cross the abyss to die.

What is the "Abyss" and why do you have to "literally cross it" and why is death necessary? If you have to die (in a literal sense) to cross it how could anyone living know of it?
That part would interest me as well as "abyss" means very different things to different people in occult contexts.

I also find clever analysis of "There Is Never A Moment In Which You Are Not" recieved from Apep by Kelly to be a logical reasonining of conciousness exists in the void. And yes, I agree that the void is something that exists in the universe. Well, doesn't exist. You know what I mean. I think referring to Khaos instead of Chaos here might help clear up some confusion on that part.

This section is for Satanists and I don't know of any compelling reason why Apep of all gods would be related to Satan. I've never heard of a Michael Kelly outside of the actor so I don't know why he's considered important. Also what is "Khaos" as like, I don't see how chaos isn't chaos. The only reason "Magick" was a thing was to distinguish it from stage magic in writings at the time. What the hell are you trying to distinguish? I don't know of any other kind of chaos that could cause confusion.
I would guess that the distinction between chaos and khaos is that by chaos we mean disorder, by khaos we refer to the Ancient Greek concept of what was before creation. But that doesn't really make sense here, either.

Regarding Apep, if I'm informed correctly in later Egyption religion Set was demonized and equated with Apep. Setians normally relate to the older, not demonized version of Set, but that doesn't hinder some to nevertheless take inspiration from the concept of Apep, e.g. by equating it with dragons of other mythologies.

Well chaos magicians are very upfront about what they are doing. They are honest so we know we can't take it as a serious representation of the system. Particularly if it's involving fictional religions :P For that reason I don't think it's comparable.
Chaos-gnostics seem to tend to be quite an antisocial bunch, so don't be surprised if they don't bother being upfront about their exact beliefs. If you want to read a book by a chaos-gnostic that does include a chaos magick approach, read Panparadox by Vexior (there's a copy of it floating around on the interwebs). It's been a while since I read it, but if I recall it correctly he's pretty clear about using beliefs as tools in this book at least. (EDIT: Leafed through it again and well, really clear he's only on 1 page close to the beginning, afterwards it is pretty much UPGs presented religiously, but well, the disclaimer is there).

In the simplest way to put it, there is no "void" outside of the Universe or between hypothetical multi-verses. There are visual representations of that but it's because it's not possible to depict how reality really is, which is a self-contained closed system. Reality is bound not by impenetrable "boundaries" so much as it wraps back in on itself. It would be like trying to go to space by walking around the earth, except imagine that there is not a "nothing" beyond the earth.
Here we get into faith-realm. Qliphotic texts are most "clear" about this question what chaos-gnostics believe the "void" beyond the universe is like - namely it's beyond the duality of existence and non-existence, outside of the realm of not even the laws of physics but even logic. You can't argue with that, it's mysticism.

Also, in the vein of them saying the different worlds were places they could travel, seems even 600 years ago they thought it was an actual place on earth:
I agree with you that we needn't put anything on what the Vikings believed, but that is a tad unfair. 600 years ago, there was not much left of Germanic religion.
In the Edda for example (christianized as it might be), Ginnungagap is clearly stated to be the nothing that was before anything was and in whose midst earth was created (after a bunch of other stuff happened) out of the corpse of Ymir (similar to Purusha or Tiamat). If in the middle ages some Christians misinterpreted this then to refer to some place on the earth that doesn't mean that the story was already bullshit at pagan times.

Are you not aware of the existence of cults? You know, like having a whole city named after and worship one God or Goddess? Like Athens?
I thought Athena was named after the city of Athens and not the other way round? Also, it's not like they only worshipped her there. But I agree there were people also worshipping only one deity at that time.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: November 27, 2017, 11:57:16 am »
So, the first I find to be the most valid interpretations. Even within there one could have very different views but it also is acknowledging that there is some "noise" and what some in that group might accept as important texts might vary. The second group is typically following views espoused by the current orthodoxy and in their own way is valid by sheer history and amount of adherents and accumulated literature even if they may sometimes espouse a revisionist history. The third however is much more revisionist, inherently destructive of knowledge (in my view). They often just make up stuff, more or less and confuse the topic more by adding another layer to the complex system already in the previous two, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't just appropriating stuff from everywhere without respect for an authentic understanding or taking it totally out of context.
While I see your point, there is one issue I have with this ranking - how to know that the tradition that the first is an expert in is actually valid and not just itself dogma conserved only due to being traditional? Not saying that this is necessarily the case in the tradition you are probably hinting at, but how would one even be able to know, let alone as an outsider to it?
One important point of Satanism is the questioning of inherited traditions, so I'm not surprised when this is actually done.

Satanism / Re: Epicureanism vs. Hedonism within Satanism
« on: November 27, 2017, 10:48:59 am »

I basically agree with your assertion.
Pure hedonism is potentially self-destructive.

I wouldn't say it has no place in Satanism, though. Sometimes one first has to explore the extremes to find the balance in the middle. Shouldn't be done completely mindlessly, though, of course.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: November 27, 2017, 10:38:28 am »
To me, conciousness is the wode self, the black flame, true self, and don't mean this in the HGA way. It's simply the obersver. It's your conciousness that's left when you peel away all your false selfs. If you've meditated quite a bit you should have an idea of what its like, I found Yoga personally helps me to get in touch with that more but increased magickal practice will do it as well as crossing the abyss and returning from it.
I'm not new to meditation, and I think we then mean the same thing by consciousness.
Some descriptions of the black flame etc. rather seem to be refering to one's core personality (and therefore parts of one's mind and subconscious) than to one's awareness, though.

In terms of Sartre, if Existence precedes Essence than your false selves are you essence where conciousness is your existence.

How do you still exist to shape the world from your void? Well, do what you're supposed to be doing as a satanic occultist. Modify your conciousness to be so strong that it can exist in the void as well as create your will.
Imo consciousness is really nothing but the observer. How to modify something that is basically without any characteristics (except for its scope)? Will is part of the mind, that's why I said no will in the void. I suspect what people here refer to as the void is quite far from the actual void.
Well, one could perhaps try and bind parts of one's mind+subconscious (best those that form one's core personality) more permanently to one's consciousness so they cling to it even after death. Whether that's possible (or even just a good idea), I don't know.

Also, not saying that that's the be-all-end-all instruction manual that would have to followed to the iota, but as you know I've also started with Aophis/Ægishjalmur. And currently I'm quite a bit stuck at the first head since I got to delay what feels like 90% of it for now, mostly due to health reasons.

In essence, this is why I feel the anti-cosmics aren't really Satanists at all - they see only one path, wanton destruction as salvation. They basically took the Jehovah paradigm, and just tipped it on its head a little - you know Jehovah becomes Satan, Satan is the Chaos fountain, and Satan wants everything crazy so let's kill it all for him. It's absolutist and any thinking person is going to have issues with this sort of extremism of any sort, me included. It's not only irrational, but wasted energy... What good is it to fill your head with all of this garbage? :D
While this might be true for some, you can't really look into their heads. What I've read in regards to anticosmic literature (e.g. the books of Vexior) seems pretty non-dogmatic to me, at times bordering on chaos-magick in terms of how much the myths are mere tools.
Sure, once you get into their myth and ritual sections they give off the impression of dogmatism because once you are in a paradigm it makes often no sense to change to another one before you are done using it.
And at least in determination, anticosmicists seem, on average, to be taking the lead, so it can't be that bad an idea.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: November 26, 2017, 01:57:47 pm »
Nothing material. It seems to follow that only the consciousness (mind, or psyche) would remain provided it was cultivated. Otherwise, it would seem very dire that nothing of the self is left. So how is consciousness defined here?
Well, me, and also @Kapalika I think, consider mind and consciousness to be two separate things. Mind (or at least its content, i.e. thoughts, sensations and feelings) is caused by or a manifestation of physical processes.
Consciousness exists, too, but is nothing but awareness itself.
Therefore, I consider the mind and will to be so interrelated with the cosmos that without cosmos no will.

Others here, and also anticosmic satanists, seem to have a different view on that, considering at least parts of the mind to be not caused by the cosmos.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: November 26, 2017, 10:00:49 am »
As a Draconian, I believe conciousness is eternal and always present whether the universe is here or now.
I believe something quite similar - but what exactly do you mean by consciousness? Awareness per se, or also (parts of) the mind?

So if conciousness is eternal why would we want to destroy the universe? To create a new one where the desires we have are manifested are real!  :mrgreen: One could argue that we already do that each time we do an act of magick but the Draconians like to take it to the next level. In that system, crossing the abyss is not a permanent thing like Buddhist Nirvana but something you can then use to increase your magick with symbolism or use to not give a fuck when the world as it is displeases you.
The issue I have with this is, what of your self is left to recreate something after the destruction?

Just as there are problems with what constitutes knowledge, there are also some problems with justification of the belief. I can see this one play out either pro-cosmic or acosmic. In other forums where the age-old question is being asked whether gods exist or not, we are asking does the gods (specifically Satan) constitute the whole of the cosmos or something ethereal altogether.

I'm not making a dogmatic assertion either way that I have knowledge or that getting to know something or someone is impossible. Rather, that having beliefs on something are a step towards it and I'm still looking. Certainly, I would think of what I think of as true in a weird solipsistic way. But I do require better justification for things so as to make stronger arguments.
Yes, that's something important to keep in mind. Just, even if we ultimately don't know whether our beliefs are true or not, the question of this thread here rather seems to be, how could certain other beliefs be valid? And not asked in a dismissive way, but due to actual confusion about how to make sense of them.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: November 25, 2017, 02:24:36 pm »
I have been thinking about panentheistic Satanism lately, and that might be a possible way of how both pantheistic and anti-cosmic Satanists could be venerating the same something, just with different focuses.

Now see, your post is more of the kind I was looking for.

I can't say I agree with good chunks of it as I see it now... however you've given me some things to consider. As much as I can say for sure right now is that I don't see chaos as being anti-cosmic, I kind of see it how you said that the Cosmos is part of the cosmos... I guess I'm more saying the cosmos is chaos and the chaos is the cosmos. Otherwise we are talking about panentheism and not pantheism, in my opinion.

What I don't reply to below (and even then) I'll have to think about.
Great! Take your time.
It would be really helpful to have an actual anticosmicist here to explain these parts that we struggle to understand here. About most of the rest of what you replied I can also only shrug my shoulders.

I find it weird to think of pure consciousnesses without the Universe, since in my beliefs it's a subset of the Universe. I guess, what I'm saying, is that pure consciousness is not a "big" as Universal Consciousness. Some kind of "bigger than everythingness consciousness" would seem again to me to be panentheism not pantheism.
I agree, it would be closer to panentheism. But panentheism is still pretty close to pantheism, which is why I brought it up as the bridge that might help connect our pantheistic concepts with those of gnostics.

Satanism / Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« on: November 25, 2017, 01:49:56 pm »
It seems very bizarre to me that anyone would call themselves a Satanist and yet be against, or not believe in the physical Universe. If we are exalting our nature an as much animal as spiritual we have to recognize that we are material beings living in a very real place that isn't just a dreamscape. After all so much of what defines Satan and Satanism is of this world. The Christians, as wrong as they usually are, were at last (although by design) right in calling Satan "The Prince and powers of the air" and "Satan, who is the god of this world". LaVey, who popularized self-identifying religious Satanism personified this as it being "carnal" and inverting the traditionally spiritual pentagram to flip spirituality on it's head. He and many others before and after him also identified the self-denying of the anti-cosmic religions by ascribing pleasure and simply being alive as "sinful" or "unnatural". They wanted to make out the natural and this world to be evil so that people would recoil from it towards their imaginary not-universe plane of "heaven".
My issues with anti-cosmic Satanism go into a similar direction. If we take away all "cosmic" aspects of ourselves, what would be left? Pure consciousness, maybe? How could that even have any specific will when it has no definite properties?

But it doesn't seem to be a self-denying approach. The goal is still self-deification (in any of its many definitions). And while carnality seems to be seen more as a tool for fulfilling one's spiritual goals, it's not exactly shunned, either.

I don't really understand yet how it's supposed to work metaphysically, but the methods at least are not really different from other forms of Satanism.

Nevertheless, I really like it from a psychological/emotional point of view. And I suspect that all that edgy "we want to destroy the world"-stuff is ultimately a tool to get oneself to do the work. At least to me it's most useful when used in that manner.

Basically it's about aiming for a higher goal (namely the absolute freedom of lawless chaos) that might be actually out of reach to use the momentum to at least get closer to reaching individual freedom on this plane of existence.

(pardon this next part if I make any generalization or misscharacterization, I'm not terribly familiar with Gnosticism).

In my opinion anti-cosmic Satanism has more in common with Gnosticism and Gnosticism to me is just one small step away from Christianity. They already have this undesirable, "evil" Universe they want to escape from. They actually believe that the false god created this world and is the devil. Just like the Christian they wanted to escape and go to a heaven of sorts because this place is just so "evil".

//end disclaimer section///
Yes, anti-cosmic Satanism pretty much is gnostic Satanism, the two terms seem to be interchangeable in most contexts. Whether that makes it close to Christianity depends on what aspects of which version of either you compare. For example, there are also pretty pro-cosmic forms of Christianity, and the two religions certainly differ in most of their methods.

Anyways to me you can't have Satan without this "world", this Universe. Satan as far as I can ever tell is pro-Cosmic. From the moment I found Satanism pantheism just made sense, I have a hard time imagining what Satan is like without a tie to this Universe and the material. Even more generally just in a translation of the Hebrew "opposition" that's basically how everything in the Universe functions.. action and reaction, opposing forces. Counteracting frictions. It's why the sun's radiation pressure keeps the gravity from collapsing it and the gravity stops the pressure from ripping it apart. It's why when I take a step my feet can propel me and it's the movement and opposing forces of nature and elements that allow a series of resistant materials and conductive logic gates to interact to allow me to type and send this post.

So I don't see how "opposition", or Satan, whatever you want to call it... how it can be anything but cosmic.
I have been thinking about panentheistic Satanism lately, and that might be a possible way of how both pantheistic and anti-cosmic Satanists could be venerating the same something, just with different focuses.
In that sense, I, similar to the anti-cosmicists, would equate Satan with the chaos beyond the cosmos. However, I'd differ from them by stressing that the cosmos nevertheless still is a manifestation of chaos (gnostics normally believe that, too, they just say that chaos made a mistake by creating cosmos and that it's too far removed from it to be clearly perceivable as stemming from there).
Chaos from the anti-cosmic point of view is considered to be in opposition to cosmos and to fight against its laws. If assuming that this chaos actually exists, it seems to me to be of the same nature as cosmos, though, the source from which this oppositional/satanic existence stems from.

I'd say it depends on the definition.
In my understanding, physicalism is that everything follows the laws of nature (mainly those of physics, hence the name). Mathematical/logical laws would be included in those.
But there also seem to be other definitions of it (which are much more closer to your definition of materialism), so I suppose you rather mean those, e.g.
Quote from: Merriam Webster
Definition of physicalism:
a thesis that the descriptive terms of scientific language are reducible to terms which refer to spatiotemporal things or events or to their properties
That's what I would have understood by materialism, though.

Also, why would dark matter/energy refute materialism? Just because there is stuff that is not atoms, that doesn't mean that it's not matter. Wave–particle duality means that matter and energy are the same thing anyway.

In any case, my main argument against such theses would be the existence of consciousness. But even with that, it would be a matter of definition. If we consider consciousness and/or the mind a propery of something spatiotemporal, then it wouldn't contradict the definition I quoted. Natural science doesn't concern itself with things that happen in the mind. Only when the things that happen in the mind have an effect on physical objects it gets into the realm of science. But even then those effects are caused by certain properties of e.g. the human brain, namely its mental properties. Therefore, no contradiction.

General LHP Discussion / Re: My thoughts on Fatalism
« on: November 15, 2017, 07:05:44 pm »
I believe in determinism, and all explanations of soft-determinism I found so far didn't really convince me. Yours doesn't differ in that regard. But maybe you can still convince me otherwise.

To explain my position: The whole of existence - including both the "objective" part of matter/energy/space and the "subjective" parts of mind and awareness - can be considered to consist of a gigantic amount of states of being which interact by the laws of cause and effect. If the same situation should ever occur twice, and all aspects of it are identical to the previous time, then also the outcome will be the same.*

Of course one's "destiny" or rather destination does also depend on one's own decisions. However, those decisions are based on in parts the circumstances, in parts one's own state of being. Even if one can change one's state of being, even the decision to do so would be caused by one's previous state of being, leading to a sort of loop mechanism.

From a psychological point of view, it certainly can be helpful to embrace one's destiny, so to speak. But one is basically fated to embrace it or not. And even if one doesn't embrace it, even this non-embracing of it is part of one's destiny.

*There are theories regarding quantum physics that imply that this wouldn't be the case, but they don't seem proven yet, or I at least didn't understand yet how they would proof it.

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 50