Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#111295 - 01/23/17 06:18 PM Fuck Peter Carroll
edgy Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/28/16
Posts: 12
I'm reading Carroll's Apophenion right now.

Much of the book is just a rehash of the arguments we've all heard a million times on how theological traditions are absurd and lead to absuridty when taken too seriously, or how, "Hey, guise, maybe consciousness DOESN'T EXIST after all, and it's actually just the result of a bunch of PHYSICAL PROCESSES! How DEEP is THAT?"

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-jKmcNr_8[/video]

So far, I haven't seen anything in there that would be new information to anyone who's read any amount of books at all on psychology, physics, occultism, or philosophy.

Philosophy is what this book is about, however, first and foremost. It touches (sometimes quite incoorectly, using long-debunked concepts) on various aspects of physics, and it purports to be a book on occultism despite containing very little practical occult information, but the bulk of the work is devoted to Carroll's worldview.

And, interestingly, the number of parallels between it and the New Age channeling material by Jane Roberts and Seth, which I've also read recently, are interesting, especially when considering that the New Age material might actually be MORE insightful and useful, from philosophical, practical, and technical perspectives - which doesn't say good things for Caroll's paradigm or its legions of mindless, mundane followers (who, not unlike the brainless New Agers, have convinced themselves that they are more rational or enlightened than other paradigms, and/or that their paradigm is the harbinger of a literal new age in occultism and science, apparently under the mistaken impression that this is the first paradigm to combine the two).

To elaborate, from a Satanic perspective:



Edited by edgy (01/23/17 06:19 PM)

Top
#111296 - 01/23/17 07:05 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
edgy Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/28/16
Posts: 12
The focus of Caroll's work and the Jane Roberts channeling material are basically the same: consciousness and matter interact, there's some weird electromagnetic shit involved, things at the subatomic level are weird and unpredictable, and you can probably have some effect on these processes.

The vibe I get from Carroll's book (and this is one of the primary differences here) is overwhelmingly one of Neil DeGrasse Tyson-style atheistic finger-wagging and tut-tutting, using juvenile anus-anologies to "deconstruct" organized religion in a fashion that anyone with half a brain would have figured out for themselves ages ago (and misses a lot of points in the process), attacking ideas that no one in their right mind would have advocated for anyway, or attacking theological traditions while completely missing the point of their symbolism or the occult uses and implications of a sustained tradition, which is the reason such traditions are practically useful.

The Seth material and Carroll's themes are largely the same, again. They both note that even atoms and subatomic particles exhibit mind-like properties and have their own forms of consciousness, that all things are connected, and that there appears to be some way for your consciousness to interact with the consciousness of other items. But the two diverge only on the direction they take that information: the New Age material takes this information and says, "We are gods if we develop the ability to be. Nothing is impossible. We can do anything. Here is what makes it work, and with this, you can create your own realities. Our perceptions contain the power of creation. Consciousness is everything, and matter is created by consciousness." Whereas Carroll takes this information and says, "Oh, how our pretentions of consciousness have deceived us! We cannot, in fact, do nearly as much as we think that we can. Our perceptions create our subjective realities, but there is but one objective reality. Our perceptions trick us. Consciousness doesn't exist after all, and matter is fundamental."

And, sure, perhaps that paradigm will be popular with the LaVeyans and other materialistic types, but even Carroll here basically admits that whether one views matter or mind as predominant is a matter of viewpoint, yet still he chooses to view reality through the more limiting lens.

And, sure, I can hear the contrarian LaVeyan edgefags already: but that IS the more liberating lens! The carnal is all there is and ever was!

But, again, I can't help but feel that the underlying subtext will affect one's worldview - and thereby the effects of their magick - profoundly, and the subtext here seems to be, "No, no, you're not REALLY experiencing an exalted state of consciousness or godhood! You're just focusing on the effects of the endocrine glands. Isn't it funny how the mind plays tricks on us? We sure are great at deluding ourselves!"

My problem with this is twofold. Firstly, the point of meditation is to encourage certain effects, and if you always have in the background of your consciousness something like, "Hey, this isn't REALLY magick. This is just the mind playing tricks on itself," you've introduced an extra layer of separation between yourself and your consciousness that really doesn't need to be there.

After all, things like "endocrine glands" and "the brain" and how they work together are abstract concepts used by the human mind in order to classify the apparently synchronic movements of subatomic particles, and these are not inherent superior to classifying things using a psychotic religious system unless their effects justify the classification as the more useful one - and in cases where the religiously psychotic classification of these subatomic processes proves to achieve more effects, it should be the preferred state.

There needs to be room for religious psychosis. If religious psychosis didn't get results, religion would not have been so successful. And I'm not talking about "controlled" religious psychosis peppered with the the understanding that "it's not really true, it's all symbolic", because the idea of a "symbol" or the idea of something being "true" are not any more tangible that the idea of "Satan" (for example) as a real entity, and which ideas are used to classify information should be the ones that bring more powerful results in thought and emotion (and therefore in reality).

The focus should be on results, because the problem with religious psychosis invariably comes when people focus too much on the object of psychosis/worship rather than the etheric effects being generated.

As Satanists, we should always take the route that is more self-liberating, regardless of its conformity to dogma (LaVeyan or otherwise), and the New Age viewpoint is superior to Carroll's.

Are we gods who can do absolutely anything if we think that we can, or are we puny humans whose limited perceptions are constantly fooled by the bright, scary, mysterious, baffling reality in which we find ourselves? The answer is probably somewhere in between, but if I had to guess which viewpoint is the more practical when it comes to getting results in the real world, it'd be the former.

Also worth nothing that Seth's technical information is far superior to Carroll's. Some occultists call it "ether", some New agers call it "zero point", the Ra material calls it "time/space", the Russians call it "scalar waves", and people writing essays on occult mind control for the Army call it "t-polarized photons". Whatever the case, the Seth materials' technical descriptions on the operation of this phenomenon is many times more in-depth and useful than Carroll's reliance on (sometimes quite incorrect) ideas from general relativity and quantum mechanics, and most of the "technical information" found in Carroll's books can also be found on a casual browse through in5d or Collective Consciousness or a million other New Age scam sites. When I read the Seth material, I actually learned new things about how electromagnetic fields work and interact with consciousness.

All in all, I'm surprised that this paradigm has become so wildly popular considering that it teaches essentially the same things as the New Age paradigms of the 70's, and manages to do so in a decidedly inferior way.


Edited by edgy (01/23/17 07:12 PM)

Top
#111303 - 01/24/17 04:53 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
I suppose this topic will be useful to someone, somewhere on the web. I'm more interested in this:

 Quote:
As Satanists, we should always take the route that is more self-liberating, regardless of its conformity to dogma (LaVeyan or otherwise), and the New Age viewpoint is superior to Carroll's.


Speaking of New Age, the artspeak is thus: "Trickology is the tool of the trickster and those that trick us, must be tricked by any means necessary."

This includes our own perceptions and understanding of things.

What was that bit being given press this week? "Alternate Facts". I think it's more commonly used than any tie-ins to Trump or his perceptions. Many people have alternate understandings of knowledge and how the facts are constituted.


I don't know that the main goal is liberation anyway. I mean, a slave rarely believes himself to be enslaved. See: Allegory of the Cave.


I think alternate perceptions and self-trickery can serve the individual also. It accounts for why so many would-be Satanists indulge in pageantry and ceremonialism. It can often be a fake-it, till you make-it activity. If you can convince yourself you have ability beyond your scope, you tend to reach a little higher and further.

So again, I don't think it's liberation per se, many Satanists (such as myself) are just indulgent as fuck.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111305 - 01/25/17 01:32 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
edgy Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/28/16
Posts: 12
 Originally Posted By: SIN3

I don't know that the main goal is liberation anyway. I mean, a slave rarely believes himself to be enslaved. See: Allegory of the Cave.


That's true, but for those of us with the intelligence to see what's going on in our society and our world, liberation should be a goal. THE goal.

Any true Satanist would rather die proud and defiant than submit to anyone or anything that tries to overpower his/her Will, and living is preferable to dying, so fighting for personal sovereignty is the way to go.

There's nothing wrong with indulgence, but freedom is a much higher priority. There are very, very, very few indulgences in this world that would make slavery an acceptable state of being for me, so I fight and will continue to do so until I'm free.

Anyone who passively accepts slavery, and allows themselves to be housebroken like a dog by the power-that-be is no Satanist. Any true Satanist will gnaw at the leash until it's gone, ignore all treats and distractions offered and all "punishments" given, will sabotage their brain's own rewards system rather than allow it to be used against them.

Maybe it's just that "they" have been so cruel to me personally, but my brain doesn't function the way most people's brains do, most importantly in the sense that pain and pleasure hardly exist anymore... to me, sleeping in a nice, soft, comfortable king-sized bed in an air-conditioned house feels little different than sleeping on a rock under a bridge in the middle of winter.

There are probably still one or two things that would make me sigh happily and go back to dumbly staring at the pretty shadows on the wall, but VERY few at this point; for the most part, the pain is so intense that nothing can ease it, nothing scares me, and even crawling 200 yards through the mud with my leg compound fractured and dangling both ways after getting hit by a car by enemies wasn't THAT much more painful than sitting here typing this forum post. Everything's in the same order of magnitude now, so I have no choice but to seek liberation, because (almost) nothing else can possibly bring relief.

Thus, indulgence means very little to me at this point. I vaguely prefer the nice, comfortable, king-sized bed over the rock under the freezing bridge, but not enough that I'd sacrifice any integrity for it, not enough to make any practical difference. It's a good place to be in the sense that all I can do is fight to be free, and it's not possible to enjoy any type of indulgences until I achieve my goal.


Edited by edgy (01/25/17 01:33 AM)

Top
#111307 - 01/25/17 11:43 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
Enslavement tends to be a state of mind (sans a physical cage) this includes the ideas that cage your ability to see things clearly such as identity pins.

The 'True Satanist' is less important than what you do. You can believe yourself to be acting in your best interest and produce the opposite.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111308 - 01/25/17 02:51 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
As I understand it, the point of indulgence is not for indulgence sake, but another path to liberation. To quote Nietzsche empire building has been served well by convincing others that self violation is a virtue. Once the mind is set free from neurotic self flagallation, then the mind's energy is set free to engage in more creative thinking. The idea of indulging oneself away from hard labor and enjoying life has always been openly defiant of slave mentality within the capitalist system. During the colonial period many capitalists would bemoan how settlers would rather live as the natives, Fuck, eat, and enjoy the sun.

As for the cave allegory by Plato, the moral of the story is not that knowledge is impossible, but argues that when a philosopher has reached a pinnacle of knowledge, he or she has a societal responsibility to return to the cave to liberate those enslaved. That they don't know they are enslaved and are ungrateful for the philosophers attempts, suggest to me that I'd rather leave most of the populace as they are, except those who are predisposed to accept the truth. Whoever is "enlightened" I would judge would be how much one is prone to protest at being "misunderstood" or "judged" because in my experience those types are waiting for permission to live a free and fulfilling life. For me the free state of mind is self-validating.

Top
#111309 - 01/25/17 03:31 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1242
Loc: CA
 Quote:


Fucking this. Satanism is a personality type.

If ones code of honor has a strong defiant response when will is imposed upon, any reward system is nullified and any punishment is laughed at. To "play their system" and achieve reward leaves a foul bitter taste of personal dishonor tainting the reward anyway. Even if it brings negative results it's still a victory in independence.

Choosing disembowelment over a quick decapitation just to spit on their purple robe once more.


Edited by CanisMachina42 (01/25/17 04:30 PM)
Edit Reason: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vjWwG56gqm4

Top
#111318 - 01/26/17 10:54 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: samowens84]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
Liberation from what specifically? If you're already living in accordance to your own will, on your own terms and have moved beyond the rebellion of adolescence - what are you actually fighting?

This is why, at this stage, I merely point to ideas one is willing to consider. It's all a war of words and ideas for the most part.

Societal Responsibility? Give me a break, let them eat cake.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111319 - 01/26/17 12:42 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
For me, it's liberation from self-deception, or certain thought patterns that would turn the reigns over to an outward force. I think confessional culture has something to do with that, whereas people are conditioned to not feel ok about themselves unless someone knows "the real them." Or belief in an objective universal reality as a uniting force that privileges "outsider" opinions. From what I understand there are certain thought patterns that threaten personal autonomy that have been conditioned in the collective unconscious, and I use these few as an example. I would agree with you that simple adolescent oppositional defiance is not the mark of a free mind, and is a sign that one is waiting for permission to act in accordance with one's own will.
This fallacy is fraught with unnatural tensions, and suggests denial and repression, which can hardly be called free.

As for "societal responsibility," I was mainly pointing out the moral of the allegory of the cave, not advocating it. I have a personal preference, I couldn't care less what you do. Mainly, I am challenging your seeming assertion that it is impossible to know whether one is enslaved, and that's not true in my experience, nor is acting in accordance with your own will an automatic default, but takes vigilance and acute self awareness. It also takes action and strength, the willingness to go beyond words and make your will a reality, which to me goes beyond mindless hedonism and indulgence.

At risk of contradicting myself, I have found that once one recognizes the very base and selfish impulses and accepts them as self justifying, thus removing the need to justify my will to anyone else, then I have found much raw energy with which to carry out my will, which is made stronger because it is no longer encumbered by self-deception and justification. Finding that base and riding that wave is enjoyable, freeing, pleasurable and constructive as I find I can carry out my goals *liberated from artificial shame imposed upon by society, or imposition from other people's subjective moralities that feign objectivity.


Edited by samowens84 (01/26/17 01:04 PM)

Top
#111321 - 01/26/17 03:38 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: samowens84]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1242
Loc: CA
Defiant interjection reply:

Adolescent rebellion?

Please.

The defiant wiring of a satanist is along principled lines. The key trigger is imposition of the unnecessary.

In many respects this is, "Fuck your church, Mom and Dad". Yet the difference is not one of angst but one against tyranny, and one rooted in the core of the individual. There is no room to consider other options because THEN you're playing THEIR game. It's not doing the opposite for the sake of oppositional defiance but rejecting the rules of the game altogether and calling bullshit. Anything less is a form of compromise.

The best example is The American Revolution and those who would die before they paid unnecessary taxes and knelt to the crown. Sic Semper Tyrannus.

Another example gives us the core etymology of Satanism, Lucifer choosing exile over unnecessary and unfair demands.

It's not necessarily linked to a certain belief either, as what ground you hold is as arbitrary as your adversary.

Top
#111322 - 01/26/17 04:03 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: CanisMachina42]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
Defiant interjection reply:

Adolescent rebellion?

Please.

The defiant wiring of a satanist is along principled lines. The key trigger is imposition of the unnecessary.

In many respects this is, "Fuck your church, Mom and Dad". Yet the difference is not one of angst but one against tyranny, and one rooted in the core of the individual. There is no room to consider other options because THEN you're playing THEIR game. It's not doing the opposite for the sake of oppositional defiance but rejecting the rules of the game altogether and calling bullshit. Anything less is a form of compromise.

The best example is The American Revolution and those who would die before they paid unnecessary taxes and knelt to the crown. Sic Semper Tyrannus.

Another example gives us the core of Satanism, Lucifer choosing exile over unnecessary and unfair demands.

It's not necessarily linked to what you believe either, as what ground you hold is as arbitrary as your adversary.




I dare say we are not entirely in disagreement here, as everything I described would fit the description of a rejection of superfluous imposition. I just put it in an existential context, and you inserted it into a sociopolitical context.

As far as arbitrariness is concerned, to me that's kind of the point as far as how I internalize Satanism. It is to shed any imposition from the world except what works for me personally. Kind of like starting a blank piece of paper with the freedom to draw whatever I wish. With that comes an embrace of the responsibility to create what would be pleasing to me, and no one else. Everything is permitted, do as thou will. with the caveat to be willing to own my shit in the process. I would have no right to complain about my creation, so that no amount of whining can substitute for strength in action to whatever goal I may well choose.


Edited by samowens84 (01/26/17 04:09 PM)

Top
#111324 - 01/26/17 05:30 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
 Originally Posted By: not_edgy
{[T]he point of meditation is to encourage certain effects, and if you always have in the background of your consciousness something like, "Hey, this isn't REALLY magick. This is just the mind playing tricks on itself," you've introduced an extra layer of separation between yourself and your consciousness that really doesn't need to be there.


Utter futility.

/one-liner

You're a bit wordy, dude. Have you ever thought about writing a book? There's bound to be an audience somewhere, no matter how small . . .
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#111326 - 01/26/17 05:44 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: samowens84]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: samowens84
For me, it's liberation from self-deception, or certain thought patterns that would turn the reigns over to an outward force.


Fair enough. Each at their own level and in their own time.


 Quote:

I think confessional culture has something to do with that, whereas people are conditioned to not feel ok about themselves unless someone knows "the real them." Or belief in an objective universal reality as a uniting force that privileges "outsider" opinions.


How do you account for the opposite effect? Having been raised in a Roman Catholic household, I can tell you - many don't put much stock in it. People lie to their Priest with just a much ease a stranger on the street. It's a half-hearted belief. I've witnessed far more guilt over what one's own Mother thinks than whatever was unloaded on Confession day. My point is, people keep their secrets, to sway those opinions because gossip is commerce.


 Quote:
From what I understand there are certain thought patterns that threaten personal autonomy that have been conditioned in the collective unconscious, and I use these few as an example. I would agree with you that simple adolescent oppositional defiance is not the mark of a free mind, and is a sign that one is waiting for permission to act in accordance with one's own will.


You say this as if you've read up but have no real hands-on experience with it yourself. Have you never grappled with conflicting notions in your own head? Questioned where your own wants and needs come from? What the real uses of identity are?

 Quote:
This fallacy is fraught with unnatural tensions, and suggests denial and repression, which can hardly be called free.


Certainly and yet, even if you are astutely aware of your own hypocrisy and creature comforts, it doesn't necessarily mean you are enslaved by them. This is among the many points LaVey was trying to communicate, there's no need for guilt, or even to change it if it brings you pleasure. What's the point in being the Overman if you're still answering to what society says you should be doing?

 Quote:
As for "societal responsibility," I was mainly pointing out the moral of the allegory of the cave, not advocating it. I have a personal preference, I couldn't care less what you do. Mainly, I am challenging your seeming assertion that it is impossible to know whether one is enslaved,
That's not quite what I was getting at. There's a complacency to the human condition. It's not necessarily impossible to know but rather there haven't been any shocks. There are a certain sort that avoid confrontation thus they can't directly benefit from conflict.

 Quote:
and that's not true in my experience, nor is acting in accordance with your own will an automatic default, but takes vigilance and acute self awareness. It also takes action and strength, the willingness to go beyond words and make your will a reality, which to me goes beyond mindless hedonism and indulgence.


You've lept to mindless, this tells me you've been influenced by what you're reading and it's screaming for you to notice it. See my point?

 Quote:
At risk of contradicting myself, I have found that once one recognizes the very base and selfish impulses and accepts them as self justifying, thus removing the need to justify my will to anyone else, then I have found much raw energy with which to carry out my will, which is made stronger because it is no longer encumbered by self-deception and justification.
As I stated earlier, you can also convince yourself you've accomplished this thus producing the opposite. You can hold beliefs that you are doing what is in your own best interest and still be in service to a master.


 Quote:
Finding that base and riding that wave is enjoyable, freeing, pleasurable and constructive as I find I can carry out my goals *liberated from artificial shame imposed upon by society, or imposition from other people's subjective moralities that feign objectivity.


What if that artificial shame was never there in the first place? What then should one do? There is no 'we', as we couldn't possibly have had the same life experiences. It has always been an individual pursuit. Hence the conflict in end goals.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111328 - 01/26/17 08:19 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1242
Loc: CA
This actual impasse seems to surface quite frequently.

From where I stand.

In LHP application there seems to be two views that disagree.

One is: I will fight your imposition upon me, and place autonomy above well-being. This group rarely gives a shit about other ways so long as it doesn't impose on them.

The other is the somewhat passive Zen: I am beyond the contrived rules and will act on my own accord Unfortunately, they tend to criticize the former for being a dead end, even trying to show them their "error" - much like any other "my way is better for you" approach.

They latter may be right. The former may be spinning defiant wheels that only impede themselves. But in there is poetry.

You'd find that out if latter tried to change the mind of the former.

It be: Fuck your transcendence bullshit, I'll pick and choose what I will be beyond the trappings of. Let my core destroy me for all i give a fuck.

Top
#111330 - 01/26/17 08:51 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Originally Posted By: samowens84
For me, it's liberation from self-deception, or certain thought patterns that would turn the reigns over to an outward force.


Fair enough. Each at their own level and in their own time.


 Quote:

I think confessional culture has something to do with that, whereas people are conditioned to not feel ok about themselves unless someone knows "the real them." Or belief in an objective universal reality as a uniting force that privileges "outsider" opinions.


How do you account for the opposite effect? Having been raised in a Roman Catholic household, I can tell you - many don't put much stock in it. People lie to their Priest with just a much ease a stranger on the street. It's a half-hearted belief. I've witnessed far more guilt over what one's own Mother thinks than whatever was unloaded on Confession day. My point is, people keep their secrets, to sway those opinions because gossip is commerce.


I was speaking in broad strokes, but *speaking from my own experience, I've noticed that lesser magic tends to work best on those who come to me for reassurance. Contrary to your assumptions, most of my insight comes from my own experience. However, I'm not Catholic, and that is way off base from what I mean. I mean that I've noticed that for some people Ive come into contact with, they seem to believe they must confess whatever inadequacies they possess in order to feel safe and loved, and strangely, worthwhile. Not true of everyone, but certainly a problem I have encountered

Question: Do you feel you have to be open with your mother about everything in order to get emotional reassurance? That's the kind of power I'm talking about, irregardless of your answer.
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Originally Posted By: samowens84


 Quote:
From what I understand there are certain thought patterns that threaten personal autonomy that have been conditioned in the collective unconscious, and I use these few as an example. I would agree with you that simple adolescent oppositional defiance is not the mark of a free mind, and is a sign that one is waiting for permission to act in accordance with one's own will.


You say this as if you've read up but have no real hands-on experience with it yourself. Have you never grappled with conflicting notions in your own head? Questioned where your own wants and needs come from? What the real uses of identity are?
.


Your free to believe what you want, but no, I've gathered this from my own experience. Yes I've grappled with conflicting emotions, but not as much as I used too. I've discovered that much guilt and self deception came from trying to reconcile belief that a: I was a good person with b: I was acting selfishly. I had found that getting past that and allowing for selfish impulses, and even reveling in what can be termed "naughty" behavior was quite freeing of the mind. Also, I've noticed that there is cognitive dissonance between how others might see me, and how I might see myself. Allowing that others are equally traded in their own liminal space and separate reality as different from mine, which is the practical implication of understanding the relativity of subjective reality and morals. I don't feel any compulsion to convince myself that I need to conform to another's expectations, unless I recognize a personal benefit in doing so.

However, I recognize your critique. You're accusing me of binary thinking, that you are either a conflicted Christian or a unified Satanist. That is not what I am trying to communicate. I only point out that people emotionally resist uncomplimentary labels (like hypocrite) because it is tied to love and acceptance. And perhaps I am speaking in absolute terms here, so perhaps I should say that was true of me and many people I've run into. I agree with you on hypocrisy and guilt, but at the center of it, you are still accepting it, which suggests an easing of internal tension. It is knowing it and accepting it that I am hearing, which is true in my experience, and also not allowing someone else to tell you it is not ok, which paradoxically, still speaks to a *liberating experience where you decide what is ok, rather than seeking permission or outward validation that it is ok to embrace traditionally taboo emotions or states of mind.
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
[quote=samowens84]

 Quote:
and that's not true in my experience, nor is acting in accordance with your own will an automatic default, but takes vigilance and acute self awareness. It also takes action and strength, the willingness to go beyond words and make your will a reality, which to me goes beyond mindless hedonism and indulgence.


You've lept to mindless, this tells me you've been influenced by what you're reading and it's screaming for you to notice it. See my point?






The only point I see is the limitation of language and the near impossibility to transmit subjective experience. I'm aware that the way I wrote it makes me sound like a cheer leader, but for me that's just because of my enthusiasm. Honestly it does not matter whether you accept it as my truth or not, but it is my truth. One of my things that I've practiced what you've said is that I enjoy it when I receive positive reinforcement, even with the danger that flattery is often a tool for influence. I'm aware that it could make me a hypocrite, but I'm OK with that, because what appears to be a weakness works for me, because it motivates me to work hard and excel in my academic field. However I find I must be careful not to need it too much, lest I not be ok when I don't receive it. or indeed, get the opposing reaction. I say this only to say that people observe that I have the ability to bring my imagination to the real world in service of difficult practical problems. If you want to challenge me on this you're welcome, but I'd prefer it done via private message, because I have no desire to boast to greatly here, as I recognize that many here are probably just as adept as me, if not decidedly more so. I only bring it up because I've made the philosophy work for me on a practical level, and had been doing so even before I identified as a satanist.

"As I stated earlier, you can also convince yourself you've accomplished this thus producing the opposite. You can hold beliefs that you are doing what is in your own best interest and still be in service to a master."



Agreed. So I assume you agree with me then?

"What if that artificial shame was never there in the first place? What then should one do? There is no 'we', as we couldn't possibly have had the same life experiences. It has always been an individual pursuit. Hence the conflict in end goals."

I'm not concerned with what others should do. As you said, "Let them eat cake."

This is my quote that you referenced

"At risk of contradicting myself, I have found that once one recognizes the very base and selfish impulses and accepts them as self justifying, thus removing the need to justify my will to anyone else, then I have found much raw energy with which to carry out my will, which is made stronger because it is no longer encumbered by self-deception and justification."

Where do you see me reference a collective we? It seems obvious that I am only speaking from a first person perspective, but hey, we do live in a world of "alternative facts."


Edited by samowens84 (01/26/17 08:58 PM)

Top
#111331 - 01/26/17 09:11 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: CanisMachina42]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
I don't think the two exist in a binary. For example, I've drawn inspiration from Milton's Satan for being unwilling to cease resistance even in the face of certain defeat. It certainly helped me when I had a job as a grant writer. However, in my day to day affairs it helps to be somewhat emotionally removed from the herd, so that's when the transcendent bit works for me. I think the two can be harmonized if one adopts them in a situational kind of way. Works for me I guess, may not for everyone, cause as Sin3 said, it's an individual journey.

Edited by samowens84 (01/26/17 09:12 PM)

Top
#111333 - 01/27/17 10:01 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Originally Posted By: samowens84
For me, it's liberation from self-deception, or certain thought patterns that would turn the reigns over to an outward force.


Fair enough. Each at their own level and in their own time.


 Quote:

I think confessional culture has something to do with that, whereas people are conditioned to not feel ok about themselves unless someone knows "the real them." Or belief in an objective universal reality as a uniting force that privileges "outsider" opinions.


How do you account for the opposite effect? Having been raised in a Roman Catholic household, I can tell you - many don't put much stock in it. People lie to their Priest with just a much ease a stranger on the street. It's a half-hearted belief. I've witnessed far more guilt over what one's own Mother thinks than whatever was unloaded on Confession day. My point is, people keep their secrets, to sway those opinions because gossip is commerce.


 Quote:
From what I understand there are certain thought patterns that threaten personal autonomy that have been conditioned in the collective unconscious, and I use these few as an example. I would agree with you that simple adolescent oppositional defiance is not the mark of a free mind, and is a sign that one is waiting for permission to act in accordance with one's own will.


You say this as if you've read up but have no real hands-on experience with it yourself. Have you never grappled with conflicting notions in your own head? Questioned where your own wants and needs come from? What the real uses of identity are?



Just wanted to make one more observation. It's obvious that the limitations of language or, perhaps, poor communication, can lend itself to projecting yourself onto a neutral text. For example, I say "confessional" and assumptions are made that I can only be referring to the Catholic sacrament of confession, which as you said relates to your experience. This is amusing as it relates to something that I have been thinking about recently, and that language, especially text, is woefully insufficient to transmit subjective experience. Perhaps it is beyond the scope to expect anyone to move beyond their prejudice and bias, especially within a written platform. Of course, if you truly were confused about what I meant, although it's obvious that you misunderstood me, I suppose the responsible action would be to ask for clarification. However, I really don't have much care for it, except it's gratifying that although you've taken an adversarial role to my position, you also partially validate it unwittingly. This exchange is certainly proving to be amusing.

Top
#111335 - 01/27/17 11:22 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: samowens84]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Just wanted to make one more observation. It's obvious that the limitations of language or, perhaps, poor communication, can lend itself to projecting yourself onto a neutral text. For example, I say "confessional" and assumptions are made that I can only be referring to the Catholic sacrament of confession,


No, you misunderstand. I was using that as a basis for unloading so-called truthful errs on your own behalf. The same is true with unloading on a friend or family member. People rarely tell the other party the whole story or the truth.

Say for instance, I'm a pedophile. I'm not exactly going to tell my Mother the whole story about my impulses yanno? There's still a self-shame aspect there because of outside judgment. That's why I closed with "My point is...."

I hope that clarifies. Written medium is like a rabbit hole sometimes.


 Quote:
which as you said relates to your experience. This is amusing as it relates to something that I have been thinking about recently, and that language, especially text, is woefully insufficient to transmit subjective experience. Perhaps it is beyond the scope to expect anyone to move beyond their prejudice and bias, especially within a written platform. Of course, if you truly were confused about what I meant, although it's obvious that you misunderstood me, I suppose the responsible action would be to ask for clarification. However, I really don't have much care for it, except it's gratifying that although you've taken an adversarial role to my position, you also partially validate it unwittingly. This exchange is certainly proving to be amusing.


I wasn't confused at all, See: The Shadow Self, Jung. ;\)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111337 - 01/27/17 11:33 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Quote:
Just wanted to make one more observation. It's obvious that the limitations of language or, perhaps, poor communication, can lend itself to projecting yourself onto a neutral text. For example, I say "confessional" and assumptions are made that I can only be referring to the Catholic sacrament of confession,


No, you misunderstand. I was using that as a basis for unloading so-called truthful errs on your own behalf. The same is true with unloading on a friend or family member. People rarely tell the other party the whole story or the truth.

Say for instance, I'm a pedophile. I'm not exactly going to tell my Mother the whole story about my impulses yanno? There's still a self-shame aspect there because of outside judgment. That's why I closed with "My point is...."

I hope that clarifies. Written medium is like a rabbit hole sometimes.




Fair enough. My point isn't whether someone fully discloses or not, but in my experience that self-shame that you refer to implies that they are engaging in self deception, and in my experience are hoping to pretend that an "outsider" rubberstamp will lend some kind of ""objectivity" to their bullshit. What this means, regardless of whether they are fully disclosing or not, is that they are vulnerable to outside influence. I've had people coming to me hoping to get me to cosign on their bullshit, and I've noticed that I could push them either way, depending on what I wanted. That's what I mean when I say this is one way to "hand the reigns" so to speak from your personal sovereignty. Of course this is not always the case. Sometimes people aren't open to being pushed, and that happens I've noticed when people want to justify a compulsion like gambling or drug addiction. However, even then they are vulnerable, as I might gain their trust by pretending to cosign on their brown dotted line, while harboring some other agenda. For example, I might pretend to know some drug connection, lure them into the car, and instead drive them to rehab, or I could just simply rip them off. Or if one wants to really have fun with it the aim doesn't have to be so direct. For example, if you cosign on their bullshit they might be inclined to give you favors that might not be directly related. It's a nuanced and situational scenario, which I don't pretend is absolute, but I've found it to be true a significant enough times as to be worthy of note. I have had fun though. The possibilities for lesser magic when engaged with such a person are really only limited by the imagination


Edited by samowens84 (01/27/17 12:00 PM)

Top
#111367 - 01/30/17 05:14 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: samowens84]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: samowens84

Fair enough. My point isn't whether someone fully discloses or not, but in my experience that self-shame that you refer to implies that they are engaging in self deception, and in my experience are hoping to pretend that an "outsider" rubberstamp will lend some kind of ""objectivity" to their bullshit.


And my counter to that is, that person may be a player in a larger game. While I do agree that self-deception is a trap, it really depends on the individual or situation. Do you dismiss the usefulness of a fake-it till you make-it mentality? A lot of Esoteric thought is purposeful deception. Deception isn't all bad, nor an Evil. It just requires context. It's no so much that I'm opposing your points for that sake alone, I'm just wondering if you've considered others in your conclusions.

 Quote:
What this means, regardless of whether they are fully disclosing or not, is that they are vulnerable to outside influence. I've had people coming to me hoping to get me to cosign on their bullshit, and I've noticed that I could push them either way, depending on what I wanted.


Seems to me your personal experiences have shaped your viewpoints like a mound of mud, I'm wondering when you intend to move the stick in it.

 Quote:
That's what I mean when I say this is one way to "hand the reigns" so to speak from your personal sovereignty. Of course this is not always the case. Sometimes people aren't open to being pushed,


You don't say? ;\)

 Quote:
and that happens I've noticed when people want to justify a compulsion like gambling or drug addiction.
Justifications play their role as well as discernment from reasons. Take old Crowe as an example. He claimed to be dabbling in Heroine use as it pertains to making self-discovery. The addiction may or may not have been a byproduct of that, or a justification for it. Either way, he still managed to hit his goal. What power did he hand off in that regard? How could we prove it either way?


 Quote:
However, even then they are vulnerable, as I might gain their trust by pretending to cosign on their brown dotted line, while harboring some other agenda. For example, I might pretend to know some drug connection, lure them into the car, and instead drive them to rehab, or I could just simply rip them off. Or if one wants to really have fun with it the aim doesn't have to be so direct.
I'm wondering why you care at all whether this person is addicted to drugs to take any action.

 Quote:
For example, if you cosign on their bullshit they might be inclined to give you favors that might not be directly related. It's a nuanced and situational scenario, which I don't pretend is absolute, but I've found it to be true a significant enough times as to be worthy of note. I have had fun though. The possibilities for lesser magic when engaged with such a person are really only limited by the imagination


I suppose so, if you rely on others with such consistency that a system developed is required. We can lend an ear to bullshit or not, even that is a choice. If you've entertained it, do you resent your own decision or is this just retaliation for the intent? In either case, this seems to be an issue of morals and handing your power off to those you entertain.

_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111369 - 01/30/17 06:38 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
samowens84 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 198
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
 Originally Posted By: samowens84

Fair enough. My point isn't whether someone fully discloses or not, but in my experience that self-shame that you refer to implies that they are engaging in self deception, and in my experience are hoping to pretend that an "outsider" rubberstamp will lend some kind of ""objectivity" to their bullshit.


And my counter to that is, that person may be a player in a larger game. While I do agree that self-deception is a trap, it really depends on the individual or situation. Do you dismiss the usefulness of a fake-it till you make-it mentality? A lot of Esoteric thought is purposeful deception. Deception isn't all bad, nor an Evil. It just requires context. It's no so much that I'm opposing your points for that sake alone, I'm just wondering if you've considered others in your conclusions.




I agree that there are exceptions to every rule; however, that does not exclude me from making general observations to make a point. However in my personal habit I prefer to honor the exception at the expense of the rule, as you seem to as well. However, you seem to have ignored some points that I've made on the subtler issues. Honestly, I don't see us disagreeing so much as spinning our wheels and talking past each other. However, no, I wouldn't discount those things, except that the constant is that one is accepting their state of mind and working with it, which isn't so much self-deception as creating a reality through imaginative will. The measure of that would be the real world results. The question would be who is reaping the benefit of deception. Like if you've been "faking" it till you make it for years then it might be time to reevaluate, or not. If you feel I might be telling you what you should do, that's a misunderstanding. You do what works for you, and only you can decide whether it works for you, which is really the point I've been trying to make. That self-appraisal and acceptance or action with discipline has the potential to being more reliably made by the individual, rather than the outsider.

You (rightly) challenge me on whether I have the right to tell people whether they're doing it wrong. However, as you imply, it's their responsibility to decide what works for them or not, which is not different from the emotional separation from others that I was referring to.

" I'm wondering why you care at all whether this person is addicted to drugs to take any action."

I don't. In fact I enjoy not caring whether someone is hurting themselves. Let them die, it's on them. I was merely highlighting a vulnerability, which you seem to think is the same as advocating. I also said I could rip them off, so, which do you think I would do? I'll let you project whatever you want. What you think is what you think, and I am what I am.


"I suppose so, if you rely on others with such consistency that a system developed is required. We can lend an ear to bullshit or not, even that is a choice. If you've entertained it, do you resent your own decision or is this just retaliation for the intent? In either case, this seems to be an issue of morals and handing your power off to those you entertain."

Morals, no. The point I was trying to make, which you seem to agree with, is that I would prefer to take responsibility and trust my own perspective above others when it comes to the subject of self, cause if I'm not in control, then someone else is. This is not a remarkable insight, I'm just enthusiastic for what I've discovered in its practical application. My emotional point of view is as the eye of a hurricane. All may be chaos but I am calm at the center, because I'm fully cognizant of my goals and boundaries, or where I stop, and other people begin.

Bottom line I suppose is that all your examples are all fine and good, except it might be more prudent to have a conversation with oneself, before having a conversation with others. It's a question of wisdom, or living life skillfully, not a question of morality.

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to have a conversation with me. My point of view does not preclude me from learning from others. Which I suppose proves your point as well.


Edited by samowens84 (01/30/17 07:14 PM)

Top
#111371 - 01/30/17 08:56 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: CanisMachina42]
edgy Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/28/16
Posts: 12
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
 Quote:


Fucking this. Satanism is a personality type.

If ones code of honor has a strong defiant response when will is imposed upon, any reward system is nullified and any punishment is laughed at. To "play their system" and achieve reward leaves a foul bitter taste of personal dishonor tainting the reward anyway. Even if it brings negative results it's still a victory in independence.

Choosing disembowelment over a quick decapitation just to spit on their purple robe once more.


It's more like kicking them in the shin the moment before they swing the axe, stealing off with it and half the castle's treasure.

Someone came to me, lied to me, stole all my stuff, beat me brutally, lied about me to everyone else, took me to the very point of death, and then made very sure that they knew what all of my dreams were, and crushed them, and made sure they knew what brought me pleasure, and took it from me in the most obscene and humiliating ways possible, ensuring that I have no option to go back to sleep again, no option to ever really be happy.

If they had just said, "Hey, I have a great degree of influence around here, and if you don't want trouble with me, there are a few rules."

It's not about putting automony above well-being in all circumstances, but you also have to define "well-being", and if someone offers you a choice between (a) never ever being happy or fulfilled as well as being tortured and humiliated constantly, or (b) death, then what incentive is there for such a person to obey the oppressor's laws?

I never asked for much. If I had been allowed what very, very, very little I needed to be happy, I wouldn't bother with them. But not only did they go out of their way to take things from me, but they made absolutely certain that I could never ever experience happiness even if I went along with them, so... what's the point? Why SHOULDN'T I dedicate all of my conscious focus towards revenge and undermining their system, when I need very little no to be happy, they took it from me, and they bully me with it and appear to have no intention of ever giving it back? Even when you say, "Hey, I'd rather just get on with me life, can you please leave me alone and just give me my stuff back and fix what you did to my life? I just wants things to get better," and they spit in my face again?

And then goes on lecturing others about "degeneration", when they are the very embodiment of the sort of needlessly sadistic authoritarian corruption that causes people to revolt and precipitates corruption on all levels of society to begin with?

It's a personality trait, perhaps, but one that manifests in the face of having NO OTHER OPTION. I will not respect something that takes everything I ever cared about for its own amusement, even when it doesn't NEED to take, even when I'm not doing anybody any harm by having what I want, and when it wont' even allow me to just go be happy.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Liberation from what specifically? If you're already living in accordance to your own will, on your own terms and have moved beyond the rebellion of adolescence - what are you actually fighting?

This is why, at this stage, I merely point to ideas one is willing to consider. It's all a war of words and ideas for the most part.

Societal Responsibility? Give me a break, let them eat cake.


Liberation from complete and total unhappiness. A chance at liberty and freedom, when it's something you've never tasted before.

The war is a lot more tangible than that.

 Originally Posted By: Megatron
 Originally Posted By: not_edgy
{[T]he point of meditation is to encourage certain effects, and if you always have in the background of your consciousness something like, "Hey, this isn't REALLY magick. This is just the mind playing tricks on itself," you've introduced an extra layer of separation between yourself and your consciousness that really doesn't need to be there.


Utter futility.

/one-liner

You're a bit wordy, dude. Have you ever thought about writing a book? There's bound to be an audience somewhere, no matter how small . . .


I'll consider those things when my basic needs are fulfilled.


Edited by edgy (01/30/17 08:56 PM)

Top
#111372 - 01/30/17 11:52 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1242
Loc: CA
Interesting, seems common 'round these parts actually..

I'm not quite there yet, though.

 Quote:
Someone came to me, lied to me, stole all my stuff, beat me brutally, lied about me to everyone else, took me to the very point of death, and then made very sure that they knew what all of my dreams were, and crushed them, and made sure they knew what brought me pleasure, and took it from me in the most obscene and humiliating ways possible, ensuring that I have no option to go back to sleep again, no option to ever really be happy.


I'm still at an impasse with my "adversary". This person can't even get me to go along with them in the first place so it's just taunting and baiting currently. It hasn't really gone anywhere. Not that our situations are similar.

 Quote:
Hey, I have a great degree of influence around here, and if you don't want trouble with me, there are a few rules."


See, I want their trouble, don't give two fucks about their rules, and know their reach, but I can't get them off their lazy fucking asses to "play their hand" despite my best efforts. I haven't even got my ass kicked like promised.

So allow me to use my response to you to bait these fuckers one last time because I would welcome a situation like yours for its conclusive nature.

Starting to think the bitch is all talk and wondering what I'm doing wrong. I've tried one thing and I'm all out of ideas

If this makes no sense, disregard.


Top
#111374 - 01/31/17 05:53 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: samowens84]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
It's not so much a matter of "Rights". We all cast judgments, whether that be the actions of others (even if only from an analytical stance) or our own. Emotional separation implies that it's required. Say for example, a rather close friend is telling me they believe I'm making an error in judgment. I can disagree and have no need for emotional separation from that friend (or judgment for that matter).

 Quote:
Like if you've been "faking" it till you make it for years then it might be time to reevaluate, or not. If you feel I might be telling you what you should do, that's a misunderstanding. You do what works for you, and only you can decide whether it works for you, which is really the point I've been trying to make. That self-appraisal and acceptance or action with discipline has the potential to being more reliably made by the individual, rather than the outsider.


Not at all. I'm speaking of the time it takes one to reach a level. As you stated, maybe it takes years... Some things take longer than others to learn. A person can hear outside judgment and opinion all day and still not consider it advice. That should be rather evident by a refusal to adopt it.

 Quote:
cause if I'm not in control, then someone else is.


Determinism is like that and you may never pinpoint cause, or even be aware of it in all cases. Outward conflict is an aid in that regard. I think only the really truthful stuff makes a lasting impression.

Individually, people create their own moral codes. Whether you believe it's a moral ethic or not, is irrelevant.

 Quote:
Which I suppose proves your point as well.


Conversational discourse IS a path to self discovery.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111375 - 01/31/17 05:58 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: edgy
Liberation from complete and total unhappiness. A chance at liberty and freedom, when it's something you've never tasted before.


Do you believe everyone to be powerless and miserable, or were you speaking on an personal pursuit?

I am neither Unhappy nor Restricted.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111377 - 02/02/17 05:05 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3259
[Quick reply]
To repeat is to learn. What Caroll and others write about is nothing new. Different folks with differents strokes. One might like how another brings the subject to the table whereas another one loathes his/her manner of speech.

Some kids learn languages through Dora the explorer. Other kids find it more easy to follow a text book.

As such I see a bit of whining about "liberation" and freedom.
Liberation of what? There's no need for liberation of "something" when it isn't within your best interest nor if it isn't perceived as a burden. Although, sometimes yanking the chains can be a good sport. If only to see how the perception is received.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#111977 - 03/23/17 12:56 PM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: Dimitri]
edgy Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/28/16
Posts: 12
As far as the book goes:

I got to the end of it, and it did go into depth more than I'd expected, but I still ultimately reject it, because I feel like it's designed to hook people into a wild goose chase, duping them into learning useless shit like quantum physics and general relativity and all the math that goes along with that, only to tie it into a worldview that's astrally restrictive while being presented as liberating.

I feel like this book was designed for intelligent people who need a little bit more than what they might get from, say, A Course in Miracles, but still contains enough misleading information to cripple their development. It probably doesn't lead anywhere useful.

And I hate that he called it the Apophenion, when Apophis is the God of emptiness and formless chaos, while the book is entirely about structure and form.

Apophis is supposed to be the Form Destroyer, the force that eats away at the universe's structure, not the time dimensions that structure reality, what the Gnostics called the false spiritual world.

As far as my above post goes:

Okay, okay.

I just needa calm down a little. All the gaslighting has induced a state of psychosis to some degree, so I apologize for the spergout.

I'm gonna find a way out of my situation and increase my personal power. This is the only thing that can be done.

My position is bad, but I can do this. But I need to fix the psychological imbalances that recent events have caused.

My biggest enemy is my own lack of faith in myself. The odds are bad, but not insurmountable; everything I need is right here, within my reach.


Edited by edgy (03/23/17 01:02 PM)

Top
#111984 - 03/24/17 11:26 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7064
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: edgy
I'm gonna find a way out of my situation and increase my personal power. This is the only thing that can be done.


Now you're cooking with gasoline. It's pretty easy to criticize the works of others, when you have done no work yourself eh?


 Quote:
My position is bad, but I can do this. But I need to fix the psychological imbalances that recent events have caused.


When it comes to concepts of mind, 'balance' is the illusion. Start with your perception.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111998 - 03/25/17 10:14 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
Sorry, Opie, I can't do that. He's just an awesome football coach. BTW, he goes by Pete, not Peter. Your bad. And he's won championships on multiple levels, so suck it.
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#112650 - 05/01/17 03:40 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: Megatron]
aerial_dc Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/01/12
Posts: 79
I like Liber Null. I read it at a younger age and it definitely had an effect. The way Chaos Magic is described and the examples given have been useful for me. I would like it more if the IOT was mentioned less. Still, I like the flow, writing style, and descriptions. Even for someone who's not into Magic I feel like the chaotic book would be entertaining.

I've never read any of Carroll's other books. Reading the descriptions, it always seemed like he was trying to describe a constructed system for his group. As you said Edgy, his book "Apophenion" is more about structure and form. Are any of his other books like Liber Null? Are ANY books like it? I couldn't get into Austin Spare or Phil Hine, not that I checked everything out.
_________________________
Not about to see your light.

Top
#113762 - 08/06/17 02:39 AM Re: Fuck Peter Carroll [Re: edgy]
97and107 Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 280
Loc: New Mexico
Oh, if you don't like Peter Carroll, you'll really love Ray Sherwin's new book...Peter Carroll comes out looking like the Yellow King and a lying sellout who would trade anything for money, including the good faith of his followers:

http://abrahadabra.com/book-review-ourob...true-detective/

Xians accusing Satanists of ritual abuse are one thing, we all know to view that with suspicion, but the Father of Chaos magick citing hard evidence of the same at the highest levels of the Illuminates of Thanateros, his OWN magickal child?

Damning. I just love occult gossip and this is probably the juiciest piece of it I've seen in 20 years or more.

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.067 seconds of which 0.011 seconds were spent on 44 queries. Zlib compression disabled.