Author Topic: Discussing Beliefs  (Read 1767 times)

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Discussing Beliefs
« on: September 23, 2017, 05:56:15 am »
Reasoning for Specific Beliefs

INTRODUCTION

Hello, and thanks for taking the time to read this. It’s always a win when philosophers choose to look into abnormal positions rather than focusing on popular ones or low hanging fruit, so hopefully I can make this worth your while. Religious belief isn’t as simple as “I believe X because Y,” there are numerous variable that all sway us one way or the other. Does the material world exist? Is there a god? Do humans have a purpose/meaning? How can we obtain knowledge? Only when we answer these questions, on top of many others, do we get a full worldview. I would like to address some of these big questions, especially since I’ve been asked like ten times in the last 24 hours what my reasons are for being a theist, and all I’ve had to provide are tons of links.

SECTION I: AXIOMS

So, let’s start from the absolute ground up – logical axioms. The Law of Identity is probably one of the most important philosophical discoveries of all time, even if most would see it as rather obvious. The Law is that A is A, or A = A, or A has identical characteristics to itself. A is A because both have identical traits, there is no difference between them, and like all things they get their identity through characteristics. There is no situation were A can be Non-A, because then we have different characteristics and therefore two distinct identities which are not identical. Since it’s an axiom it’s actually not even possible to argue against the Law of Identity, for it must be true for anything to make sense or be known. If A can be both itself and not itself, then our ability to know anything about A has been utterly decimated. Even trying to argue A = Non-A requires both A and Non-A to have specific characteristics, which do not match. 

The other axiom I want to touch on for Setianism is that of self-existence. Any self-aware and conscious being will find it hard to deny that they exist. Our own conscious existence is actually the one thing we can truly be certain of, though this by no means suggests we should accept Hard Solipsism as true (more on this later). “I exist” is an axiomatic statement for anyone making the statement. Like with the Law of Identity, there is no situation where one could state “I exist” while not existing. It is also impossible to argue against self-existence, as it requires a self to take in, process, and then debate the topic itself. Indeed, “I don’t exist” would immediately lead us to contradiction, for if you don’t exist who is there to make the statement?

Moral axioms are a little different than logical axioms. A moral axiom is a starting point that is accepted even though we cannot prove that morality valid. “Murder is wrong” is a common moral axiom in our culture, for most find murder to be a bad action but it’s near impossible to prove that this is somehow an objective fact about the universe and not preference in some way. A friend of mine put it well to his class: you would never post on facebook “is it REALLY bad to murder babies,” because most people will think you’re a psychopath, but in philosophy this is an important question because the fact is moral axioms just kind of float there, we have no real way of proving them unless they’re somehow discoverable by physical science or through direct, worldwide, divine revelation. The moral axiom of Setianism, to me at least, is that each conscious being is a discreet entity with full ownership of their body, life, and property, and this stems out of the fact that discreet individual existence is logically axiomatic. So for example, consent is key in sexual encounters as one has self-ownership of their body. Theft is wrong because you have ownership of your property. Murder does not allow one control of their own life/destiny. I still accepted that I cannot show this to be objective morality, but at least it comes from logic as opposed to an old text or reactionary thinking.

 SECTION 2: DUALISM

When we are looking for a complete metaphysical worldview, we come down to about three options: material monism, immaterial monism, and dualism/pluralism. Monism is a stance that believes all the cosmos reduces to one substance – for material monism this substance is matter, and for immaterial monism this is generally a form of experience/consciousness. Dualism and pluralism believe that there are more than one substance, and reductionism doesn’t allow us to fully understand, describe, or explain the cosmos which we live in.

Material monism certainly has some support for it, which we obviously need to address. For example, there is an insanely obvious correlation between mental events and the activity of the brain. Medications from opiates to SSRIs a physiological and can effect mental states, so clearly the two are connected. Technology has gotten so crazy that we can even guess what emotion people may be experiencing by what points of the brain are lighting up. Further, when the body is shut down we have no way of accessing consciousness, like with death or a coma, so it’s not hard to see why many would conclude that this implies consciousness depends on the brain. There are issues with these points as well though. For example, there’s the obvious issue that correlation does not imply causation. That consciousness cannot be accessed by others without a brain/body that functions could easily compared to how a broken television won’t play any stations for you, but this doesn’t mean we conclude the stations have ceased to exist. There’s also the problem of property dualism, which we will get into more below, but since mental and brain activity have different characteristics they cannot be identical things without violating the Law of Identity (see first section).

What about immaterial monism, perhaps better called idealism? It also has some support for it that we need to look at. For example, the self is the only thing we can know directly (see section I), and all else is known through that conscious, self-aware being. This means that we may be able to accept the existence of the self while doubting the existence of an external, or at least material, world. Some argue that such a world as ours needs a continuous consciousness to keep the universe ordered. The entire eastern concept of Maya – illusion – is based on the idea that this world of matter is simply an illusion. But to me, all this ignores the massive amounts of evidence we have for the physical world. Sure we can only know it through the self, but if we go that route we are just going to end with Hard Solipsism anyways, or at least a form of it (theistic solipsism? Idk). Science has shown that we can consistently predict material events, and psychology has shown that most of us share experiences, see the same reality, and so forth. Two amazing artists drawing the same tree will come up with a similar image, you’re not going to get a drawing of a unicorn with a drawing of the white house, because it appears there is something there which we truly observe. The idea that this is due to some ultimate consciousness who sustains the world is a far greater assumption than that the external world actually exists.

This brings us now to dualism, which by far seems to have the most support for it. It addresses the failures of both monisms while making less assumptions, and is far more supported by the evidence than monism. For example, if both the inner and immaterial self, and the outer material world exist, this is a form of dualism. Of course we cannot reject the axiom of self-existence, but it is so obvious and evidenced that there is a consistent world of matter that we need to accept both if for no other reason than pragmatism. It also allows for us to accept the TV stations still exist when the TV is broken, or in our discussion that it is possible for consciousness to continue without the physical body. Maybe not even without it, but simply that the mind and the brain are not identical in the sense that A = A. Dualism explains why drugs effect our mental state, and why mental states effect our physiology such as in cognitive behavioral therapy, visualization, etc.

Perhaps the biggest issue is what is known as property dualism, which in philosophical terms means that between X and Y there are varying characteristics, they are not identical. Again this shows the massive importance of the seemingly simple Law of Identity. If two things are non-identical then they must be discrete things. As far as dualism goes, we see this with the characteristics of the mind compared to those of the brain. For example, the brain is something physical that we can directly access, but the mind is something which appears to be immaterial and which nobody but the person themselves has direct access to. To illustrate, we could cut open your head right now and poke around your brain all we want, but the only way to know what’s in your mind or what your experience is is to rely on your own testimony of it. This is what makes fields like psychology so damn difficult. Another difference is that the mind has autonomy whereas the brain does not. The brain is a machine, you introduce something like opiates and the brain simply changes how it acts, there is not thought process behind that, its mechanical. However this is not the case with the mind, which can recognize what the brain is doing and willfully overcome it, which we see with things like self-regulation, placebos with or without deception, and cognitive behavioral therapy. Events in the brain are spacial, whereas those in the mind are not. The brain takes up a very specific amount of space, but mental events and activity do not use up any space at all, which makes sense if the mind is non-physical because something must be physical to take up space. Another issue which we’ve already slightly touched on is that it is possible that matter is an illusion, but impossible that consciousness is an illusion (see section I). Mental events are also private whereas material events like in the brain can be accessed by anyone under proper circumstances. The mind also deals with abstract objects, such as an imagined and envisioned perfect circle compared to the rarely perfect circles we can see/draw in the real world. Further, the brain would be the only thing we know of where subjective experiences accompanies matter, but subjective experience always accompanies mind. The list of property dualism can go on for a very long time, and I think there is enough here to suffice.

So what we see here is that there is a rather obvious divide here between mind and brain, one which can be confirmed through experience, reason, and even scientific investigation in some cases. No form of monism can explain how two obviously existent and separate things can co-exist like this, because it needs to reduce either mind or matter into the other, a violation of the law of identity and, in the case of material monism, a violation of axiomatic self-existence as well.

SECTION 3: KNOWLEDGE

The question now becomes how we can know things, to what extent? Obviously beyond axioms any skeptic could argue it is impossible to know anything, and they may be right. But we can set this aside for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, and our knowledge often seems rather consistent. One of the big problems with knowledge for us is that we exist in a material world of never ending change. Our planet is always in a different location, every moment we evolve as a person due to more and more experience and wisdom, hell even our bodies have been entirely replaced by new cells several times in our lives. This is a problem because we cannot really obtain knowledge on anything that’s in a constant state of change. Imagine you’re holding an apple, and at any moment that apple can turn into any other fruit. How can we really know the object when its characteristics are able to change? This would violate the Law of Identity because the characteristics of the former object would not match the current object, and we would be stuck with the paradox of 1 object = 2 objects.

Well human beings, and the material world as a whole, are in constant states of change. No these aren’t as dramatic as an apple turning into an orange, but we can certainly say that even perhaps moment to moment, the present self and the past self are non-identical. And yet we recognize ourselves as a discrete and continuous individual, a seeming violation of the Law of Identity. Further, we can recognize 2 non-identical things as being part of the same category based on what their traits are. Like say we draw two different triangle, with different angles and different side lengths, clearly non-identical. Why and how, then, can we recognize both these things as the same category? Another example to use would be a chair. We can recognize a chair as a chair if it has four legs, if it has no back, if it is just a bag filled with beans. We can even recognize a chair as a chair even if it changes and one of its legs fall off – it’s now still a chair just broken. Since we cannot know things in constant states of change, how can we recognize and know all of this?

An updated version of Plato’s Theory of Forms gives us, by far, the best explanation of how knowledge can be and is attained despite constant change. For example, when we look at different triangles we recognize the same Form in them – that of a three sided, three pointed shape that can be flipped twice and rotated three times. Not a literal, material triangle of course, but an abstract/immaterial Form, one that all triangles partake in, giving them certain identical characteristics without the objects actually being identical (as in A = A). A better way to illustrate this is to look at a characteristic triangles share with something else entirely. For example we can look at a triangle, a rectangular coffee table, our front door, a knife, or even a writing utensil, and see that all of them contain at least one similar characteristic: points. They are “pointed.” None of those points are identical with each other, and yet they are identical characteristics. This is due to the fact that they all partake in a Form of Points, that abstract essence all points must partake in, similar to the Form of Triangles. Thing-In-Itself, in other words.

The Forms themselves, unlike everything in our material universe, do not change. Let us again look at our triangle and its Form. If we change the word we use for triangle, it is true that the name of the Form (Form of Triangles) would change to match the new word, but this does not in any way effect the Thing-In-Itself of the object in question. If we draw a triangle, then erase a line to make it into a “V”, this does nothing to change the Thing-In-Itself either, it simply stops the image from partaking in one Form, and makes it partake in another.

1.   We can know things about ourselves and reality.
2.   We cannot know about something if it is in a constant state of change.
3.   The material world is in a constant state of change.
4.   So, we cannot know something from the material world alone.
5.   The Forms are unchanging.
6.   So, we can know the Forms.
7.   Therefore, the Forms are a better source of knowledge than the material world.

SECTION 4: POLYTHEISM

It is my understanding that the existence of Forms supports the position of Polytheism. The Forms we have addressed like those of Points and Triangles are simple, they describe physical characteristics. But if there are Form for everything this includes more complicated Forms. For example, things exist such as consciousness, love, desire, growth, knowledge, …, which are themselves not material (see section II). The Form of a Triangle cannot partake in itself, for then it would have to become a specific, physical manifestation, and therefore no longer a Form. Similarly, the Form of Large Objects cannot be large itself, for that is a physical characteristic. But with immaterial things, the Forms can partake in themselves without contradiction. To illustrate, a defining part of higher consciousness is self-awareness, desire, rationality, and things of that nature. Since there is no physical trait here, the Form of consciousness itself can be aware, desirous, rational. Knowledge itself is another example, for knowledge includes things like self-awareness, rationality, driven effort, etc.

The reason I see these Forms as deities is that they seem to match with the actually views on original gods before monotheism. Such polytheistic gods were never thought to be all-knowing or all powerful, they weren’t perfect and they could have vastly different goals and personalities. They were immaterial, abstract, unchanging, and could partake in things like knowledge, desire, love and hate, etc. In other words they share identical characteristics to polytheistic gods (A = A, see section I).

When we are looking at theism, polytheism is actually far more logical and likely than most forms of monotheism. Many sects of “Abrahamic” religions believe that God is all-loving and all-powerful, which brings about massive problems from the problem of evil. Throughout history, different groups of humans have had vastly different religious experiences and cosmologies. For monotheism this is a big issue because one essentially must be “an atheist to every other god.” Yet obviously with polytheism this is not a concern, because it inherently accepts that other gods exist. In fact, polytheism tends to come with henotheism, an acceptance of many gods but a focus on/preference for one or a small group of those deities. On the other hand, atheism simply does not work because the Forms must exist, and certain forms are identical to polytheistic gods.

Another point for polytheism is that the universe has a clear plurality of substances and things. Humans for instance have a discrete and individual experience, rather than some unified mind/experience like a “collective (un)consciousness.” We recognize a vast amount of species, of elements, of atoms and particles. We have also already discussed many of the biggest reasons why monism does not work (see section II).

SECTION 5: MORALITY

An important aspect of any worldview is morality. Many religions simply try to claim their morality is objective due to the fact that their deity/deities have made it so. On the other hand, it seems more and more common to believe that there are no objective morals at all. While I may agree that we can never fully prove and moral system beyond a reasonable doubt, I think we can come to some systems rational enough to treat as objective. The best place to start as with all things are the axioms, in this case the fact that all is founded within self-existence (section I). It then makes sense to infer that the “right” thing to do is to use self-existence as the foundation for our moral system.

So we have these discrete, individual beings living within a big shared universe. The next logical step is to look for things that protect and foster self-existence, and avoid things which work against or even to destroy self-existence. A focus on self-actualization, for example, is beneficial to self-existence because it provides for one’s needs and allows them to find their place as a solid individual within society. On the other hand, a submission and destroying of individual selfhood, such as with brainwashing, ego destruction, all such things work against a health self-existence. When we investigate self-existence a bit more, we come to concepts such as consent and self-ownership. From this a very simple moral system can be build, based around protecting individual freedom and self-ownership. Murder is immoral because it violates an individual’s right to choose whether they live or die. Rape is immoral because it violates one’s right to control of their body, not to mention is often works heavily against self-existence and degrades the individual in physical as well as psychological ways. All this in only a few steps, rooted in logical fact, without the need for a god to command it.

SECTION 6: LIFE FIELDS

Perhaps the best scientific evidence for both/either Forms or Gods is the existence of Life Fields discovered by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr. Dr. Burr wondered how the body was able to recreate itself almost perfectly every few weeks/months (as discussed in section II). The cells even adjust to addresss things such as scars and tattoos. He wanted to know what preserved the design. At that point the answer to this question was still entirely unknown. In the end Dr. Burr discovered that what preserved the design was what he came to call Fields of Life.

Dr. Burr and his peers ran literally thousands of experiments showing that physiological changes can be predicted by measuring what they called the Life Field or L-Field. One such example was the ability to predict cancer before any symptoms showed up, predicting ovulation cycles, accurately predicting the layout of future nervous systems in eggs, the list went on and on. Put simply, the Life Field was discovered to act as a blueprint for physical and even mental development.

Following Dr. Burr was Dr. Leonard Racitz, who discovered that Life Fields not only predict physiological changes, but mental changes as well. Time preferential for focus and time where one would be less effective at their jobs could be predicted. Flare ups in mental disorders could be predicted as well, and it was even discovered that cycles such as that of depression could be mapped out rather well using L-Fields. Edward Russel stated that “L-Fields are the “bridge”… between the mental and the physical. Thus they offer evidence that the mind and body are quite separate…”

Dr. Burr and many of his followers believed that L-Fields, as a type of blueprint, were evidence specifically of a creator God. As Dr. Burr said, “…Life Fields are the links in a ‘chain of authority’… upwards to an infinite, ultimate authority, about which we can only speculate.” Indeed it seems reasonable to think a blueprint would need a creator, but does it necessarily imply a classical creator God?

Using the Theory of Forms (section III and IV), Dr. Michael A. Aquino suggested that the L-Field is actually part of a field connecting the individual to the Form of the individual itself. Since the Form of the individual would be outside of space and time, the Form would be aware of any impending changes to the body or the mind. Rather than everyone having a blueprint laid out by a God, Dr. Aquino suggests that the L-Field is simply a byproduct of the present self partaking in its Form.


SECTION 7: WRAPPING UP

We are on page 8 according to Word, so I think this is probably far past a good place to stop! The beliefs I have attempted to defend and discuss here are:

1.   A is A (Law of Identity).
2.   Self-Existence is axiomatic.
3.   Dualism is far more plausible than any form of Monism.
4.   The Theory of Forms is true and the only real way to attain knowledge.
5.   The Theory of Forms suggests polytheism through the Law of Identity.
6.   That we can come up with a logical moral system based on premise 2, without the need for any deity, but without resorting to moral relativism.
7.   Life-Fields support both Forms and a Teleology of the human body. They are essentially a blueprint that the Self adheres to.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

pi_rameses

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2017, 01:23:05 am »
Your thread on Occam's Razor helps me to make sense of the section on dualism. I, for one, have had suspicions that the Razor is misused in ways that William of Occam himself would not have granted. A glorified cop-out.
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra

Kapalika

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2017, 11:23:50 am »
I didn't read all of this as I was just browsing but this really stuck out to me:

When we are looking for a complete metaphysical worldview, we come down to about three options: material monism, immaterial monism, and dualism/pluralism.

Why those are our 3 options you never explain, you just claim it. Also there is more to nonduality than just those 2 monisms.

Without boring anyone, things like emenationalism, neutral monism and realistic idealism aren't accounted for in that. Also I don't see why dualism would necessitate it be pluralist too. I think you meant it in another sense but pluralism is the idea that there is more than one reality. This is distinct from non-plural duality. And in many ways realistic idealism is basically nondual pluralism.
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2017, 02:16:07 am »
That's a good point, I'm sure there are theoretically infinite possibilities actually. Will fix that in later drafts.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Setamontet

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2017, 10:37:39 pm »
Why is it that such a heavily guarded Black Magical principle is so heavily attacked and defended?

"O learn the Law, my brothers of the night - the Great Law and the Lesser Law.
The Great Law brings the balance and doth persist without mercy.
The Lesser Law abideth as the key, and the Shining Trapezoid is the door!" - Anton LaVey

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2017, 10:39:27 pm »
"Our own conscious existence is actually the one thing we can truly be certain of, though this by no means suggests we should accept Hard Solipsism as true (more on this later)."

I'm wrong. Along with "I exist" comes "non-I exists", which itself disproves hard solipsism.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

pi_rameses

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2017, 10:50:14 pm »
Being and non-being. Not unlike the Way of Virtue.
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2018, 10:21:53 pm »
I think this is about where I am at?

1.   The Self axiomatically exists.

2.   The world of matter also exists.

3.   The Self and world of matter are non-identical.

So Dualism is true.

4.   The Self/mind is something unnatural.

So, something besides "Nature/Matter" must explain "Self/mind".

5.   Along with Mind and Nature/Matter, there are several other ontological categories such as mathematics, order, and logic.

So, to understand the cosmos we need a worldview which accounts for all these categories while allowing them to interact.

6.   The Theory of Forms best explains this information.

So, the Theory of Forms is the best explanation for the above facts we currently have.

7.   The Theory of Forms implies polytheism.

So, we are most supported in believing that polytheism is true.

8.   As the mind exists and is unnatural, there must be a Form/deity which is unnatural.

9.   This Form/deity is, by definition, the "Prince of Darkness" (Ancient Serpent, Set, Prometheus, Lucifer, Satan, Odin and/or Loki, etc.)

Therefore, the "Prince of Darkness" exists.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2018, 05:09:36 am »
1.   The Self axiomatically exists.
     a.   "I Exist" – this means that the person making the statement has objective existence. If we do
                not exist we cannot experience, question, or know things. To say "I don't exist" is
                contradictory because then who is making the statement?

2.   An objective world of matter also exists.
     a.   Conscious individuals appear to perceive the same universe.
     b.   We can predictably know things about the universe.
     c.   We constantly experience a "world of matter" when awake in the world.
     d.   Two decent artists sketching the same tree would draw similar pictures.
    
3.   The Self and world of matter are non-identical.
     a.   The Self cannot be rejected, but matter almost certainly exists as well.
     b.   The Self and Matter have different properties.
              i.   Matter has spacial dimensions, the Self does not.
             ii.   Matter can be physically and universally accessed, but the Self and Its contents cannot.
             iii.   Subjective experience accompanies the Self and Its contents, but does not accompany
                        Matter.
             iv.   The Self, particularly the mind, deals with abstract objects whereas Matter deals with
                        particular objects.
              v.   The Self and mind have intentionality, Matter does not.
             vi.   The Self/mind can affect the brain/Matter, and vice versa.


So Pluralism is true.


4.   The Self/mind is something unnatural.
     a.   The Self/mind is capable questioning Nature.
              i.   Metaphysics
             ii.   Science
     b.   The Self/mind is capable of manipulating Nature.
              i.   Creation of medication
             ii.   Changing of terrain
     c.   The Self/mind is capable of going against Nature.
              i.   Self-Regulation
             ii.   Cognitive Therapy

5.   There are numerous ontological categories.
     a.   Self
     b.   Matter
     c.   Nature
     d.   The Unnatural
     e.   Logic
      f.   Math


So, to understand the cosmos we need a worldview which accounts for all these categories while allowing them to interact.


6.   The Theory of Forms best explains this information (If X Exists, the Form of X Exists)
     a.   Allows for multiple ontological categories to interact.
     b.   Explains how something unnatural and immaterial can interact with something natural and
                material.
     c.   Explain mathematical ontology in full.
     d.   Explains how we can know things only intuition, such as the Laws of Logic.
     e.   Explains how we can have knowledge of things in constant states of change, such as the
                world of Matter.
      f.   Explains how we can recognize characteristics in non-identical things (such as 3 triangles with
                different side lengths and angles still being "triangles).
     g.   Explains the Mind-Body Problem.


So, the Theory of Forms is likely true.


7.   The Theory of Forms implies the existence of the "Prince of Darkness"
     a.   The Self Exists, so the Form of the Self Exists.
     b.   The Self is Unnatural, so the Forms of Nature and Unnatural must Exist.
     c.   This Unnatural Form of the Self includes all the characteristics of the Self.
              i.   Self-Awareness
              ii.   Intelligence
             iii.   Desire
             iv.   The ability to grow/change
              v.   Emotion
             vi.   Immateriality
            vii.   Axiomatic existence
            viii.   Etc…


Therefore, the Prince of Darkness (Ancient Serpent, Set, Tiamat, Prometheus, Loki, Lucifer, Satan, Etc…) Exists.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 05:18:57 am by Xepera maSet »

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2018, 06:23:02 am »
1. Pluralism is true.

2. A metaphysical system is needed which account for multiple, interacting ontological categories.

3. The Theory of Forms best explains these categories.

4. The Theory of Forms implies the existence of the Prince of Darkness.

Therefore the Prince of Darkness Exists.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Olive

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2018, 06:09:02 am »
1.   The Self axiomatically exists.
     a.   "I Exist" – this means that the person making the statement has objective existence. If we do
                not exist we cannot experience, question, or know things. To say "I don't exist" is
                contradictory because then who is making the statement?

Isn't it more accurate to say that a statement happens, actions happen, thoughts happen, etc? There is the process of a human lifetime and experience, but it's questionable to assert an essential 'being-ness' that is carried through and preserved throughout when you are talking about something that is always in flux, and disappears and reappears moment to moment, day to day.

It seems difficult to start at "I exist" when both of these words carry a lot of implications. ie What is this "I"? What does it mean to objectively exist when everything is always arising/changing/passing away?

I know our language is based around subject/verb, but I am not completely sure this is an accurate way to talk about reality. I find that mis-identifying can hurt one's ability to do internal alchemy. What is this self, to you? Do you just mean awareness, or consciousness? Even this comes and goes with birth/deep sleep/death. Doesn't this imply that awareness/consciousness is also a process and not a being or existing essence?


One more note, duality and nonduality are not separate. Nonduality is duality, or at least looks like it/contains it.
    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

Kapalika

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2018, 02:11:01 pm »
accurate way to talk about reality. I find that mis-identifying can hurt one's ability to do internal alchemy. What is this self, to you? Do you just mean awareness, or consciousness? Even this comes and goes with birth/deep sleep/death. Doesn't this imply that awareness/consciousness is also a process and not a being or existing essence?

I know you are speaking to someone else but I guess to me I hadn't ever considered "I" as the process but the thing under the process and also  the final result, if that makes any sense.


That said I also agree on the problem of verb and noun. It seems to me at least that a lot of metaphysical problems come down to language and how it's constructed since we base our logic on the language.

Quote
One more note, duality and nonduality are not separate. Nonduality is duality, or at least looks like it/contains it.


I'm of the persuasion that it contains it.
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2018, 07:50:06 pm »
Main Reasons I Changed to Setianism

1.   Platonism seeming sound. Platonism says that for anything that exists in our objective world of matter (X), there is a Platonic Form of X. There are many ways that we can conclude Platonism. One is that (1) our world is in a constant state of change but the world of Forms is posited to be unchanging, (2) and we can have knowledge of unchanging realities [i.e. math and logic], (3) therefore the realm of unchanging reality (Forms) must exist. Another is to take two similar things, like a small blue chair and a large blue table. We can recognize them as separate things – a chair and a table – but also recognize the similar characteristics they share – blue, four legs, etc. This is because all those things – the color blue, having four legs, being used for sitting/sitting at, etc – have their own Platonic Form. Obviously the blueness is not inherent in the table or chair, for then something non-identical to the chair could not be blue. Both the table and chair, and anything else blue, partake in the Form of Blueness, which is why we can recognize this identical characteristic in non-identical things.

2.   Platonism implying polytheism. If there are Forms for everything, there are Forms of knowledge, consciousness, love, anger, order, chaos, so forth and so on. Whereas something like the Form of a Triangle is not all that special (triangles don't do things like think, desire, etc.) and does not partake in itself (the Form of Triangles isn't a triangle itself, Forms are immaterial essence and this would require yet a greater Form), the Forms mentioned here do indeed think, desire, know, seek, etc., and as they are all immaterial properties themselves they partake in themselves. The Form of Consciousness, for example, has all those properties that make one conscious – self-awareness, desires, goals, knowledge/ignorance, and so forth. Same with things like Desire, Knowledge, and on. These Forms – immaterial, self-aware beings with their own identity, desires, knowledge, goals, etc. – share identical characteristics with polytheistic gods, who are immaterial, self-aware beings with their own identity, desires, knowledge, goals, etc. In other words, the by the Law of Identity, if Platonism is true then Polytheism is true, and the "gods" are how human beings have come to understand the Forms.

3.   The Human Revolution in consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. You see, humans existed as a species, physically/biologically, for around 150,000 years without any advances in higher consciousness. We were another animal, very slowly learning to mess with the world we lived in within a purely animalistic/survivalist mindset. Then, rather suddenly, came abstract thought, art, religion, jewelry, and eventually things like language and alphabets. Our consciousness greatly leaped forwards, and began exponentially increasing on such a level that it still hasn't stopped. Interestingly, interference from something like Set is by far more parsimonious than the entire humans species magically sharing the same mutation which overwrites the previous genetic makeup of the whole species, or even worse, having a massive leap forwards as some sort of uncaused event. This is doubly true when you understand that….


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

5.   We have millions – if not billions – of examples of religious experiences throughout all of human history, from the oldest recorded spiritual texts to the modern day, and every point in between. To deny these as delusional without a full explanation would be like calling one's pain delusional, or love delusional, or really all personal experience delusional. It is special pleading to reject this one specific experience but not all others. It's true that the experiences alone do not prove gods or anything, but they are interesting evidence which needs to be considered, especially in light of all the other evidence.


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

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


8.   A rejection of other proposed positions such as materialism and panpsychism. While Setianism appears to be supported and parsimonious, we of course have to look at other positions. These tend to rely on faulty logic and have little-to-no supporting evidence. Panpsychism, for example, thinks that all things are consciousness at every level of the universe, yet there is no evidence things like atoms or this computer are conscious in the way we are. Likewise, materialism is hopelessly plagued by things like the Mind-Body Problem, rejection of the Self, and a lack of evidence for reduction. Setianism just takes what we know now, and what we can logically infer, then makes its metaphysics from it without needing to take any further, unsupportable, non-parsimonious steps.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 01:11:25 am by Xepera maSet »

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Liu

Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2018, 06:30:42 pm »
That's a good summary.
It's helpful for seeing where we disagree. Maybe you could clarify those points?
Main Reasons I Changed to Setianism

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1506
  • Total likes: 1706
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Discussing Beliefs
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2018, 08:34:07 pm »
 
Quote
If there are forms, they are much more basic - blue for example would contain dozens of forms, each of them a shade of blue, and it's only through how our brain works that we put similar shades into one category.

Remember, Forms are hierarchical, and do partake in each other and overlap. The different Forms of blueness all fit under the overarching category of "blue".

Quote
Here we differ in our definition of consciousness. I don't think that consciousness (i.e. awareness) automatically includes self-awareness. The other characteristics (desires, goals, knowledge) seem to be characteristic of a mind (although I'm not 100% sure whether they are all fully obligatory for that), so if anything they are what constitutes a mind. Many animals seem to have minds (and to be aware) without being self-aware.

I agree, I meant more specifically higher consciousness, like that of humans, which includes self-awareness.

Quote
If it can be proven that culture came to be on different continents or similar suddenly and simultaneously in groups of humans that hadn't had contact in thousands of years, then that would be a huge indication for some external influence. But if not I'd ascribe this to natural evolution. If the Life-Fields theory you mentioned above is true, then that would also be a way of explaining it, though.

That's what the evidence we have seems to suggest - a "revolution" or "great leap". I am curious to know why you think life-fields explain this better though? The way I understand, life-fields are basically the same in nature to matter, but simply the field precedes the matter itself. So instead of, say, Set influencing our literal brains he would influence the L-Fields. I'm not sure if this change could spontaneously happen in the L-Field on its own?

Quote
Unless what Set did to us (in case he did so) changed our complete ontology, I wouldn't consider it unnatural. Everything that exists within this reality is part of nature by definition. So Set would have to be from a realm beyond even the laws of logic to be truly unnatural.

I would say our ontology does seem to have changed, we are ontologically different from things without higher consciousness. By nature I more mean the material, deterministic, objective universe aspect of Reality. What you call "nature" I would call "reality" in this case, with the mindless material/natural and the mindful immaterial/unnatural existing as parts of reality.


"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460