Author Topic: The Comprehensive Argument for Set  (Read 1836 times)

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« on: April 22, 2017, 06:56:48 am »
The Argument for Set

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.   Therefore, Set Exists.


Premise 1: the Axiomatic Self

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

Premise 2: the Material, External Universe


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

Premise 3: Property Dualism

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

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

Premise 4: Introduction to the Theory of Forms

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

Premise 5: the Form of Consciousness

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

Premise 6: Set

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

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

"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

Hammerheart

Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2017, 06:57:20 pm »
The Theory of Forms makes a lot of sense to me now. For example, let's say that our force of consciousness stems from an undefined source and radiates outward. Therefore, it is constantly being replaced by new energy. Even though the material energy is not the same, the "force" is consistently the same by virtue of character being the same. That is sort of where the term "essence" comes in. The essence is the nature seperated from the material.

I think that Set does fit as a personification of the giver of the Black Flame, however, I believe that this applies to many other gods, especially Odin, as well as other proto-Satanic gods such as Ea. I use Odin as the official name, however, "Satan" and "Set" can be used as titles in alternate contexts, e.g a dedication ritual.

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2017, 10:30:54 pm »
The Theory of Forms makes a lot of sense to me now. For example, let's say that our force of consciousness stems from an undefined source and radiates outward. Therefore, it is constantly being replaced by new energy. Even though the material energy is not the same, the "force" is consistently the same by virtue of character being the same. That is sort of where the term "essence" comes in. The essence is the nature seperated from the material.

I think that Set does fit as a personification of the giver of the Black Flame, however, I believe that this applies to many other gods, especially Odin, as well as other proto-Satanic gods such as Ea. I use Odin as the official name, however, "Satan" and "Set" can be used as titles in alternate contexts, e.g a dedication ritual.

I agree that Set is just one of many names for this Form of Consciousness. Odin is one of the more interesting ones imo, if only because the connection is so mysterious to me!

"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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2017, 10:58:59 pm »
I'll be working on an update. 

"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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2017, 10:18:01 pm »
Argument for Set short version
 
This is an updated, simplified, and clarified version of my Argument for Set. It is not a full elaboration. I have also taken the liberty of providing the simplest, most straight forward way I can imagine to refute each and every premise in itself. Surely if one cannot come up with a more solid argument or evidence, they can refute this argument based on these simple refutation possibilities provided.
 
                Premise 1: The Self is Axiomatic

This is quite simple in my opinion. Our own self-existence is the only thing we can be certain of, not even our experiences or thoughts, but the mere fact that “I exist” for each self-conscious individual. It is an axiom because there is no way to engage in reasoning without it, nor a way to attempt to deny its existence. The easiest, most straight-forward way to refute Premise 1 is to successfully argue or empirically show “I don’t exist” to be true without ever relying on “I exist” being true.
 
               Premise 2: The Objective, Material Universe Exists in Some Sense

Also rather simply, there is an external world of matter which we seem to consistently perceive. Were there not, science would not have any success, for it is rooted in the idea that there are objective truths and falsehood. This can be refuted simply by showing that there is not a consistent, external world. Have to sane people with 20/20 vision look at the same tree and see separate objects, or simply show that simple scientific knowledge, such as the maximum velocity of a falling object, is not consistent.

                Premise 3: The Axiomatic, Self-Aware Consciousness and the Objective, Material Universe are Non-Identical.

                This is known as “the Hard Problem of Consciousness,” more specifically the problem of Property Dualism (or Emergent Dualism). As we said in Premise 1, the Self-Conscious Self cannot be denied in a logical position, which leaves any type of Material Monism at a severe loss, as it must reduce conscious experience to the physical. Yet as we said in Premise 2, the external world of matter cannot be denied either. It can be questioned, such as by idealism or solipsism, and yet continues to remain consistent and have a recognizable impact on us. If Monism cannot answer the question, and substance dualism seems hopelessly lost, what best explains this situation? Again, the individual only needs to reject premise 1 or 2 successfully. Besides this, one may simply show that there is a misunderstanding in property dualism.

                Premise 4: A Modified Theory of Forms is the Best Explanation of the World

Let me try to keep this explanation simple, as things quickly become complicated. “Pointedness,” the characteristic of “having a point (as in physical point),” is the perfect example of a simple Form. Your coffee table, a nearby writing utensil, your television and computer, and many other things likely contain the characteristic of “having one or more physical points.” Yet the pointed objects are not, themselves, pointedness, which would violate the Law of Identity, but rather both share in the same characteristic of pointedness. Pointedness being something immaterial that you can never actually show in a physical sense other than through different manifestations of the characteristic. This allows the world of matter and of internal existence from 1 and 2 to be connected yet separate, solving the problem of Premise 3. Of course Forms are simple to disprove, just show “pointedness” to itself be physical, or that characteristics are not free of the mind.

                Premise 5: Forms and Consciousness

The Theory of Forms tells us that for any one thing which exists, a Form of it exists, as well as Forms to explain them. In other words, if X exists the Form of X exists. Self-Aware onsciousness obviously exists (Premise 1), and so a Form of such consciousness must obviously exist (Premise 4). Rejecting premise 4 rejects premise 5.

                Premise 6: The Form of Higher Consciousness and “God”

Unlike pointedness, which is a simple and lone characteristic, consciousness, especially of this kind, has many characteristics to it. In the sense of the higher, isolate consciousness human beings have, characteristics include self-awareness, rationality, emotion, desire, biases, etc. and so on. This means that any being with Higher Consciousness partakes in these characteristics, as do any Forms lower down the hierarchy, such as “desire” and “emotion.” Yet Forms themselves are immaterial (Premise 4), as well as eternal, timeless, etc. and so on. These characteristics are identical to those of many gods from polytheistic traditions. It is immaterial and eternal, but conscious, aware, desirous, and so forth. Through this realization we can see that this Form of Higher Consciousness is identical to a traditional, polytheistic view of gods. To refute this one only needs to explain why the characteristics of the Form do not match with the gods of paganism and polytheism.

                Premise 7: Set

Simply put, the traditional Egyptian god Set is the closest match to this Form of Higher Consciousness in human history, from its physical form to its mythological positions. This premise is fully elaborated upon in my “Mysteries of Horus and Set,” and “Setian Pyramid Texts.” If there is issue, simply a more appropriate replacement, but otherwise refuting 6 refutes 7. 

"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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2017, 04:11:56 am »
I'm still not entirely happy with this, but it's pretty close to my thoughts.

"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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2017, 02:01:05 pm »
Premise 4 doesn't seem to work as is, as there seems to be mind, matter, and Form. As mind is not itself the Form, premise 4 doesn't seem to solve premise 3. Perhaps there needs to be an added premise on the idea that mind is the field which connects brain to form, but I do not entirely understand that theory yet, so looks like that's my next area of investigation. 

"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

Hammerheart

Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2017, 08:08:17 pm »
^^^^

I think that the force of the "Black Flame" or Greater Mind is both a kind of form as well as a kind of physical energy. It may well be a channel used to connect Form and Matter, that isn't too far fetched. 

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2017, 03:27:59 am »
Premise 4: A Modified “Theory of Forms” is the Best Explanation of the World

Let me try to keep this explanation simple, as things quickly become complicated. “Pointedness,” the characteristic of “having a point (as in physical point),” is the perfect example of a simple Form. Your coffee table, a nearby writing utensil, your television and computer, and many other things likely contain the characteristic of “having one or more physical points.” Yet the pointed objects are not, themselves, pointedness, which would violate the Law of Identity, but rather both share in the same characteristic of pointedness. Pointedness being something immaterial that you can never actually show in a physical sense other than through different manifestations of the characteristic. Of course Forms are simple to disprove, just show “pointedness” to itself be physical, or that characteristics are not free of the mind.

Forms set the precedent for immaterial but objective things, related to yet distinct from the physical world, such as Self-Conscious Existence (Premises 1 and 2). In the Theory, if X exists then the Form of X exists. Yes, this means there is a theoretically infinite number of Forms. It also means that for each individual human being, there is a unique and distinct Form of each human being. Like all points partake in pointedness, there are several characteristic all human partake in, such as being conscious, existing in a physical body, having literally thousands of characteristics all humans have. This means there are Forms for each of these, which we will discuss in premise 5.

But what is consciousness, exactly? Currently we have mind, body, and Form, but cannot explain the connection between them (the mind/body problem), and therefore cannot solve Premise 3. Dr. Michael A. Aquino has proposed, unlike the vast majority of his contemporaries who poorly address this question, that consciousness is simply the field which connects the physical manifestation to the Form. There are varying degrees of consciousness and/or experience, which is due to the physical manifestation of each thing, which also explain why the brain is important to consciousness, and why the complexity of its connections matter. 

"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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2017, 06:04:42 am »
This is an attempt to explain my metaphysics, and support it hopefully, from the ground up.
 
We start with what we can be certain of: the statement of each self-aware being that “I exist.” Self-existence is the only thing we can be 100% certain exists, and is the only thing we directly know. All else is known through this “self,” even one’s own experiences! Further, this self-existence seems to be axiomatic, meaning that we cannot reason without relying on it being true. This means that the default, starting position is solipsism.

Is there good reason to reject solipsism? Absolutely. We have consistent evidence of a stable, objective world that all individuals inhabit. Science and the achievements of human beings further confirm the existence of this objective world, for they would not be possible if we existed within some sort of random chaos. Next, it seems that other people we interact with, even other animals, seems to have internal experiences similar to ours. They seem to have emotion, to be self-aware, to have their own opinions, fantasies, and so on separate from our own. Yet the solipsist may still say that this does not prove the position incorrect, that it is simply a hallucination. To that we must say that pragmatically speaking this position is absolutely and utterly useless. If this is the case, if we are some sort of brain-in-a-vat, we know no other reality, and this one seems to clearly affect us. If we are in this vat, we like have no possible way of acting otherwise, and so it is beneficial to treat the external world as true. If one must consider this a “leap of faith” then so be it.

Now, it seems that the internal experience of individuals which do not directly interact, and the external world we all interact with, are wholly different things. The most compelling evidence of this is property dualism, which shows that the mind and objective, physical world are categorically difference. Let’s look at several examples. First, as listed by /u/hammiesink on Reddit: mental events do not have spacial dimensions where matter does, it is possible that matter is an illusion but impossible that one’s mind is an illusion (see above), mental events deal with abstract objects but matter only deals with real particular objects, mental events are private but material events can be shared, and subjective experience accompanies mental events but not material ones. /u/Honey_Llama lists, among others: the mind has intentionality but matter does not, the mind allows for free will but matter does not, and the mind is nonphysical but matter is physical. We can directly poke at anyone’s brain under the right conditions, but can literally never gain access to their experience. Yes, mind and brain are obviously deeply correlated, but correlation is not causation. How these two interact is known as the mind-body problem, and we will come back to it below.

For now we must diverge from this thought to provide a simple, confirmable, and logical worldview which can replace the failures of all monism due to the above facts. This is a modified Theory of Forms, which will take some discussion and patience to understand. Let us start simple. “Pointedness,” the characteristic of “having a point (as in physical point),” is the perfect example of a simple Form. Your coffee table, a nearby writing utensil, your television and computer, and many other things around you likely contain the characteristic of “having one or more physical points.” Yet the pointed objects are not, themselves, pointedness, which would violate the Law of Identity. Rather, both share in the same characteristic of pointedness, pointedness being something immaterial that we can never actually show in a physical sense (other than through different manifestations of the characteristic). Of course Forms of this nature should be simple to disprove if false, just show “pointedness” to itself be physical, or that characteristics are not free of the mind.

Forms set the precedent for immaterial but objective things, related to yet distinct from the physical world, such as the self-conscious existence discussed above. In the Theory, if X exists then the Form of X exists. Like with the points of the coffee table, because that specific characteristic exists, its Form exists, which is easily confirmed by the presence of the characteristic in other distinct objects. Yes, this means there is a theoretically infinite number of Forms. It also means that for each individual human being, there is a unique and distinct Form of each human being. Like all points partake in pointedness, there are several characteristic all human partake in, such as being conscious, existing in a physical body, lust, pride, strength, knowledge, and so forth. There must, then, be Forms for all of these characteristics.

If Forms and the material world coexist, it still does not explain consciousness itself, and therefore cannot address the mind-body problem in and of itself. Yet unlike physicalism which fails to propose any sort of mechanism, or idealism which fails to explain away the outside world, the Theory of Forms can indeed answer this question. Obviously Forms and matter must be connected in some way, like a point to pointedness, but what is this field which connects them? Dr. Michael A. Aquino suggests that consciousness/experience itself is this very field connecting brain to Form. At all levels of existence all things experience, even if not in a self-aware way. Experience can be as little as an equal and opposite reaction. Essentially for any one thing Y there is something it is like to be Y. This does not mean we, personally, can ever experience what it is like to be Y, or that Y even has conscious experience in the way humans do. This is due to the fact that for any one thing Y, there is a Form of Y (and something it is like to be Y). This explains matter, mind, and Form in a successful way.

What about materialism? Why is the mind connected to the brain? Why do changes in the brain correlate the mental changes? As we have known for quite a while now thanks to evolutionary science, it is likely due to the complexity of our physical brain that we have such higher levels of consciousness compared to what we observe around us. Sure a single cell may only experience in the sense of stimulus reaction, but animals go far beyond that, and humans a step farther. The field between the physical/chemical/biological individual and their Form is stronger specifically because of that complexity. Damage to the brain is like damaging a radio, no longer allowing it to receive signal. Yet it does not imply anything more than that things have been scrambled, the signals do not cease to exist.

What about idealism? Why are Forms more likely than all being mind? Why is non-monism necessary in this case? It seems obvious that the strength of consciousness depends on the physical brain and body. Messing with that brain and body allows us to impact experience and consciousness. It is a far greater leapt to assume there is some all controlling mind constantly manifesting a consistent out world, than that the world simply exists. Idealism also cannot address the mind-body problem due to the issues of property dualism.

 

"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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2017, 02:21:09 pm »
(continued as I go...)

So in what further ways can we show this Form of the individual exists, and how does this lead us to Set specifically? On rather simple was is to ask everyone reading this if they recognize their loved ones across time. Our entire physical bodies decay and are replicated several times over in life, and our personalities and experiences are consistently change, yet we recognize individuals as themselves throughout their lives. This is because we inherently recognize the characteristics which make that individual themselves. In monism they are either a clump of identical fundamental matter or consciousness, and should be indistinguishable. It is because of their objective characteristics, their Forms, that we recognize them.

Further, Forms are necessary to explain the teleological electromagnetic fields proven by Dr. Harold Burr to guide cell replication in humans. Dr. Burr showed that not only do his “life-fields” exist, but that changes in the L-Field precede changes in the physical body. He further argued that mindless cell reproduction does not explain the consistent replication we see in the human body, which even changes to account for something like a loss of a limb or the addition of a tattoo. He believed that there must be an ordered telos to the human body which the physical changes essentially followed, they “know what to do” in a way cells shouldn’t. Essentially, this “blueprint” is what the body grows into, and only falters if the blueprint breaks down. But unless we are willing to accept some monotheistic all-god, Forms are by far the best explanation for why this happens. If there is a complete, timeless version of all our characteristics, it makes sense that its connection to the body would cause such a field for the body the essentially grow into, for the Form is easily aware of all characteristics and can easily be aware of impending illness. This does not mean by any means that natural selection evolution is wrong, only that it cannot explain the process in its entirety. It also explains why when we observe the physical world we see a consistent image, despite the fact that its really not what the thing in itself looks like physically. When you look around wherever you are you don’t just see wavelengths or even particles that are nearly identical, what you see is those wavelengths collapsed into a very specific image each and every time you look at it.

So the rejection of Forms, if incorrect, should be rather simple: we just show that characteristics are physical in and of themselves, or that they do not exist independent of the mind (physicalism and idealism respectfully). They explain how we know things, when we see consistent external images rather than simply atomic or quantum interactions, how the cells of a living organism know to replicate, why EMF field changes can predict things like cancer or a menstrual cycle before the event, and even answer the mind-body problem, all by simply looking at how the world is right now, through experience and scientific knowledge, without the need for further assumptions. But we cannot, however, stop there.

The key aspect to humanity, and any other similar life which may be out there, is that we have a higher consciousness, a self-aware aspect, and isolate intelligence that seems to be distinct from the world we inhabit, and capable of interfering with and changing that world. As we show above, if X exists its Form exists, and so there must be a Form of this higher, self-aware, isolate consciousness, itself containing all the sub-Forms/characteristics of that consciousness. In other words, we can know this Form by looking at ourselves. We have self-awareness, desire, we love and hate, we partake in meta-cognition, we can be happy and sad, excited and bored, lonely and introverted, and so too must the Form of isolate consciousness partake in these characteristics as well. But as a Form there is more to it than this, for it is inherently immaterial, eternal, and outside of time. This means we have a nonphysical, timeless, self-aware, desirous, human-like being, which one should quickly recognize as the description of Godlike beings. Not in an omni-sense, but certainly in a polytheistic sense. This is reinforced by the fact that so many other Forms themselves must partake in consciousness (such as desire, knowledge, belief, etc), meaning that this Godlike being is not alone and further reinforcing a polytheistic view.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2017, 02:44:28 pm 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: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2017, 06:51:40 pm »
(Part 3/3)

But why is this Form not the Christian devil or god, not a god of Hinduism or Islam, not a god of the Yezidi, or not the gods of Scandinavia? Even worse, is this question the wrong one to be asking? The oldest known religious scriptures in history, known as the Pyramid Texts, written in the first human language, gives us the absolutely foundational views of the first human religions. In it they describe a being named Set, born unnaturally into the world, opposed to the Osirian gods so popularly worshiped, who nevertheless is the only being which can stave off chaos. It is related to, but considered something apart from, the natural world of the natural gods. Set was not an all-powerful threat, or a trickster like devil, he was simply capable of questioning and going again Ma’at (proper natural order). He was benevolent to man, and the central god of nomadic humans of the area relying on oases and rain rather than the stable rise and fall of the Nile. Through study of the texts related to this being, we see it is desires, self-aware, it sometimes was featured in comedic ways, sometimes in entirely demonic ways, and everywhere in-between. It was crucial to the idea of conscious existence separate from the body, beyond the natural cycles after death, long before the material focused mummification.

In short, it was entirely relatable to the higher consciousness of human beings. Related to the natural world but with a feeling of being separate, capable of influencing that world but without full control over it. This is exactly what is feared in most religion, the freedom of human mind and will, which has the capability of going against “Ma’at” if not kept in check. And what of other gods? At this stage in anthropology we are well aware that cultures experience things relatively and subjectively based on many variables, such as geographical location, wealth divide, education, war, and so forth. It’s not that Set is the “one true god.” Set is the Form of Higher Consciousness itself, the Egyptian interpretation of this objectively existent Form, and other cultures simply vary in interpretation for well-known reasons listed just above. 

"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: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2017, 01:14:29 pm »

Quote
Yes, this means there is a theoretically infinite number of Forms. It also means that for each individual human being, there is a unique and distinct Form of each human being.



@Xepera maSet The frequency of incidents of agreements is astounding. I am beside myself. Just reread your first part of 3. But can you elaborate on that second sentence? Does your modified theory of Forms get into particular/specific Forms for each person on a 1 to 1 ratio as I initially read it? Or is it as before where there is the Form of the ideal human?


Master Willem was right. Evolution without courage will be the ruin of our race.
-Lawrence

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1661
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2017, 06:49:20 pm »

Quote
Yes, this means there is a theoretically infinite number of Forms. It also means that for each individual human being, there is a unique and distinct Form of each human being.



@Xepera maSet The frequency of incidents of agreements is astounding. I am beside myself. Just reread your first part of 3. But can you elaborate on that second sentence? Does your modified theory of Forms get into particular/specific Forms for each person on a 1 to 1 ratio as I initially read it? Or is it as before where there is the Form of the ideal human?



Yes there are specific forms for each individual, a 1:1 ratio. 

"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: The Comprehensive Argument for Set
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2017, 02:26:02 am »
OK. Understood.
Master Willem was right. Evolution without courage will be the ruin of our race.
-Lawrence