Author Topic: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes  (Read 387 times)

Olive

Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« on: December 10, 2018, 11:42:37 pm »

Category: Comparative Theology


Jungian archetypes are referenced quite often in communities like this, partially because they prove to be a useful framework for talking about the possibility space of possible human ideologies. They are a series of answers to the human condition. Like Tarot Cards, they can be seen as a system of describing the Platonic Ideas that lie behind certain processes always happening again in the manifestation. We can leave aside for the purposes of this discussion the metaphysical status of these ideas. I.e if they are Psychological, Material, or themselves Ideal.

Artemism is also a response to the human condition, and so I think it will be a fun exercise to attempt a quick analysis of Lunar Devotion as I describe it in the context of the Jungian framework. It's an imperfect fit, but perhaps something productive yet arise from it.

Twelve Jungian Archetypes:

1. The Innocent
2. The Everyman
3. The Hero
4. The Caregiver
5. The Explorer
6. The Rebel
7. The Lover
8. The Artist
9. The Jester
10. The Sage
11. The Magician
12. The Ruler


Because our tradition cannot be summarily connected with one of these 12, I'll instead list the 4 most applicable of these in order of most strongly related.

1. The Innocent

Innocence is a core value of Artemism, as might be expected for a group that pays homage to a Virgin Goddess. So, what is Innocence? A superficial view would be to say it is merely naiveté and inexperience. But this is not what we mean when we use that word. We refer to a purity of spirit and consciousness which is unbound by powerful attachment to any kind of thing. This noncommittal perspective is what gives the child his levity, but it is also the freedom of the wise woman who has seen through the illusion of the world and thus is not bothered by it. So there are two kinds of innocence: ignorant innocence, or purity by lack of experience; and wise innocence, or purity chosen due to abundant experience.

Similarly, the Virginity we praise as a virtue is not a literal or physical virginity (if such a thing could be accurately defined or measured), but freedom from craving or need. In other words, the one who is untempted and unconcerned with sexual desire is just as much of a Virgin to us as the one who has no knowledge of these things. Perhaps even more so, as this former condition is the more endurant of the two.

I am now referencing the principle of Reclamation of Innocence, or alternatively formulated Purity with Knowledge, that forms the central thrust of the ideological manifestations of Artemism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Anticosmicism and the like. We do not seek blissful ignorance, but the strength of will to look upon the evil of the world without succumbing to it. We do not fear the darkness, and the dirt - we know it perhaps best of all. We are like the lotus that grows in the swamp, but which blooms untouched by its surroundings. This is aptly stated in the bible as follows

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16 KJV)

2. The Sage

This is the other half of the formula previously mentioned. The impassioned drive for truth which produces the diamond-like gnosis [knowledge, or perhaps more appropriately wisdom] which allows us to conquer the conditions of material existence and attain perfection. The Sage uses analysis and the intellect to understand the world, and this forms one half of the dual pronged Artemist approach to existence. The intellect is the dark half which sees the reality of the things of the world despite their glamorous appearance, and the phenomenological practice is the light half which provides internal freedom and power through direct experience and understanding of the ground of being, which cannot be reasoned about.

The reason that wisdom is a better description of the Sage's virtue than knowledge, is because the quest for Truth will eventually reveal that Truth as such cannot be stated, and so it will never exist in the form of a linguistic expression which could be called the form of true knowledge. Every statement is susceptible to flaw and misrepresentation - even tautological statements are not free from this. Therefore gnosis lies in the intuitive understanding and experience of Truth as such which informs the wise person's use of the intellect.

But the Sage is not concerned only with meta-logical application of the Intellect, he also applies it to everyday processes and his own decisions, so that he can see clearly what the result of each is without being deluded by the projections of his own desires. The ability to put the results of Reason before the objects of desire is the primary attribute of the Sage, and one of the greatest methods of maintaining clarity of mind.


3. The Magician

The Magician is the will to affect change in ourselves and in the world in accordance with one's own vision and understanding. Whereas the Innocent provides freedom from compulsion, and the Sage provides understanding of Self and the World, the Magician uses methods to alter Self and World deliberately - by use of the tools of the Will. The Magician is most clearly seen in the Artemist respect of spiritual practice. Philosophy is a wonderful method of understanding, but it affects change only very slowly. What does it mean to work with Will? The tools of Will allow for self-directed evolution of our core Idea - which is defined by the motivations which drive it.

This ability to define our own motivations can be referred to simply as Autonomy. Autonomy has nothing to do with the philosophical position of Free Will. It means that one is able to set and follow rules of his own making.  This is why the methods of magic are called Practices and Rites; because they are designed ahead of time to produce a certain effect, and then followed diligently to see that effect accomplished.

A wise man once said "A man can do what he Wills, but he cannot Will what he Wills." And while this is true for nearly all of mankind, the Magician is the sole exception, who defines his own Will and ceaselessly works to solidify his aims.

In the context of Artemism, magical methods are primarily used to unify and purify the Will until it is indestructible. What are the objects of the Will to Purity?

TRUTH. FREEDOM. PEACE. BLISS.


4. The Explorer

The Explorer is that which makes use of the Freedom we earn through our devotion and spiritual practice. One term I like to use in the context of Artemism is Psychonautical Exploration; this only means active discovery and experience of the far-reaching possibilities of the mind/soul/spirit. To sail the waters of consciousness out to their furthest reaches. The first three archetypes we have so far discussed - The Innocent, The Sage, The Magician, when practiced to their fullest produce a state of flexibility in the mind which is unrivaled by any other walk of life. You can prove this to yourself easily. The mind which is unbound by contraction (grasping for a particular thing), which knows the possibilities of the world and himself (knowledge/wisdom), and which sets his own motivations and follows them willfully (Magic) is totally free to do what he will with the vast capabilities of his mind/soul/spirit.

There are secret places within us which the everyman will never reach or even conceive of because of the way he chooses to direct his attention. Our attention is focused on nothing else but visiting them and making them our home. The Artemist will likely never climb the tallest mountain, or travel to the farthest land - but despite that, she will in a very real sense be more of an explorer than the man who does those things. He experiences novelty of phenomena by changing the physical surroundings on which his attention may fall. She experiences it by changing the attention itself, its object, and the phenomena themselves directly through internal processes. His conquests provide merely a rare sight, which is really not so different from any other. Her conquest provides a truly unique vision which is so far beyond the normal range of experience that she could hardly describe it if she desired to.



Honorable Mentions:

1. The Caregiver. Artemists are primarily concerned with profoundly freeing themselves. But once a person is free and complete, it is only natural that she will want to be around others who have achieved a similar level of perfection. Or at the very least, she will be unable to stomach the delusion in others all around her, and will naturally attempt to heal their minds due to compassion and a more general level of peace.

2. The Artist. Likewise, she who is wholly complete and is a visionary beyond compare, will only naturally try to express the fullness of her inner life by whatever means she can. Sometimes in the freedom of imagery or sound, sometimes in the rigidy of the written word. Expression is an essential part of Reconciling one's realization with her life.




Challenge: Which archetypes most aptly relate to your tradition? Even if the choices are similiar - how do they differ in terms of ranking and explanation for you? What does that mean to you?
    Art thou pale for weariness
Of climbing heaven, and gazing on the earth,
     Wandering companionless
Among the stars that have a different birth, -
And ever-changing, like a joyless eye
That finds no object worth its constancy?

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Liu

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2018, 09:37:40 am »
Similarly, the Virginity we praise as a virtue is not a literal or physical virginity (if such a thing could be accurately defined or measured), but freedom from craving or need. In other words, the one who is untempted and unconcerned with sexual desire is just as much of a Virgin to us as the one who has no knowledge of these things. Perhaps even more so, as this former condition is the more endurant of the two.
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. 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.
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?

Quote
I am now referencing the principle of Reclamation of Innocence, or alternatively formulated Purity with Knowledge, that forms the central thrust of the ideological manifestations of Artemism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Anticosmicism and the like. We do not seek blissful ignorance, but the strength of will to look upon the evil of the world without succumbing to it. We do not fear the darkness, and the dirt - we know it perhaps best of all. We are like the lotus that grows in the swamp, but which blooms untouched by its surroundings.
Pretty much why I'm a pantheist and not a gnostic. How would you define "the evil of the world"?

Quote
Challenge: Which archetypes most aptly relate to your tradition? Even if the choices are similiar - how do they differ in terms of ranking and explanation for you? What does that mean to you?
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.

Olive

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #2 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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."

Quote
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 (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?topic=682.msg5775#msg5775), 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.

Quote
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".
« Last Edit: December 15, 2018, 08:05:59 pm by Olive »
    Art thou pale for weariness
Of climbing heaven, and gazing on the earth,
     Wandering companionless
Among the stars that have a different birth, -
And ever-changing, like a joyless eye
That finds no object worth its constancy?

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Liu

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2018, 07:15:47 pm »
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.
Thanks, your reply is encouraging to read :D

Quote
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.
Yeah, I pretty much only get "squishes", no "crushes", i.e. I can fall for someone but without wanting to start a romantic relationship and/or to have sex with them. I can think of some relationship-scenarios involving sexual activities that might work for me, but it doesn't really feel worth the hassle.

Quote
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.
Well, most things that I find arousing don't have anything to do with sex or genitals or things like that or even necessarily with other people. And that's why I wonder whether stopping to do anything sexual would stop me getting turned on by non-sexual things. And I don't actually mind being turned on, it feels good after all, it's only the compulsions that come with it that I want to conquer.

Quote
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.
I quite wonder whether that theory on hormone production also works on females and/or on transpeople on HRT.

Quote
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.
Edging is quite a bit dangerous as I find that very addictive. For now I first wanna get over that addiction by not giving in to the urge for masturbation at all for a couple weeks at least (almost 2 weeks done!) - because from my previous tries I know that once I do give in once it gets much more difficult the next couple days to fight the urge, but the longer I manage, the easier it gets (in general at least). Once I'm at that point, I might try some more mindful approaches to it, though.
And I do sometimes tend to get lost in fantasies and instead of fantasizing about some things I should either actually engage in them or come to the conclusion that they won't happen anytime soon (if at all) and get a grip on how much time I spend thinking about them. But I guess in that case one step after the other might bring me farther.

Quote
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.
It is basically about figuring out which buttons on one's psyche one needs to push to make the changes to it one wants to. Lots of experimenting and resolve needed.

I quite understand the drug metaphor, I just wonder whether it is possible to change one's psyche like that in a healthy manner - but well, I can only keep trying or give up ;)

Quote
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.
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.

Quote
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?

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".
Sounds close enough. As you wrote above, knowledge itself doesn't exist ultimately, but still seeking to expand one's mind and see the new avenues of thought opening up is its own reward.

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

Olive

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2018, 08:38:44 pm »
Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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). :)
    Art thou pale for weariness
Of climbing heaven, and gazing on the earth,
     Wandering companionless
Among the stars that have a different birth, -
And ever-changing, like a joyless eye
That finds no object worth its constancy?

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Liu

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2018, 01:51:43 pm »

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.
Well, then you can certainly understand why I as a transguy on HRT find these things difficult and decided that I need to put some work in getting better control on that.

Quote
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).
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?

Olive

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #6 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.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2018, 03:58:21 pm by Olive »
    Art thou pale for weariness
Of climbing heaven, and gazing on the earth,
     Wandering companionless
Among the stars that have a different birth, -
And ever-changing, like a joyless eye
That finds no object worth its constancy?

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Liu

Re: Artemism and the 12 Jungian Archetypes
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2018, 05:51:02 pm »
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?
So far I agree.

Quote
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.
In other words, from their own perspective there is nothing bad about it - only from the perspective of someone suffering (or someone feeling empathy with the one suffering) it's bad.

Quote
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.
Not necessarily true for all gnostics - I remember reading in an interview with one gnostic satanist that he said something like "I can't be a psychopath, I enjoy other people's suffering too much for that to be the case." Who knows whether he meant it literally, but that's what he said.
What I would take from that is, a gnostic may come to the conclusion that what they despise about the world is not that it causes suffering, but rather that it causes them to suffer, or limits them, or whatever else.
And as a pantheist I would differ from that in that I wouldn't consider myself separate from the world. If there are parts of the world that I don't like then I try to change the situation so that I like it more instead but I wouldn't put any absolute moral value on it that would make me want to separate myself from the world entirely as is common (even if not always the case) in gnosticism.