Page 2 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#113367 - 07/07/17 02:11 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XeperaEmSet Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/10/16
Posts: 53
It's worse than that though Dr. Aquino, almost all metaphysics reaches the same monstrous conclusion, subjection or hate of the Self in submission to god/matter/the way of the east. The story of esoteric Satanism is a Chaoskampf myth, in which the hero is consciousness, and the monster of chaos is natural law or the ultimate reality or god itself. The united states does this whether they are Christian or not.
_________________________
http://www.orderoftheserpent.org

Top
#113372 - 07/07/17 08:34 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: XeperaEmSet]
fiendish Offline
member


Registered: 02/27/16
Posts: 270
Now, you're demonizing everything. I totally agree with you, but there's no metaphysics entanglement.
_________________________
The truth cannot be deleted.

Top
#113381 - 07/09/17 01:40 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: XeperaEmSet]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XeperaEmSet
It's worse than that though Dr. Aquino, almost all metaphysics reaches the same monstrous conclusion, subjection or hate of the Self in submission to god/matter/the way of the east. The story of esoteric Satanism is a Chaoskampf myth, in which the hero is consciousness, and the monster of chaos is natural law or the ultimate reality or god itself. The united states does this whether they are Christian or not.

The core dilemma confronting the 1966-75 Church of Satan was that if Satan & co. were real, then it would seem that God & Co. would need to be too.

Yet the Church's position was that "God id dead" [if indeed he ever existed at all].

As has been noted here, one of the work-arounds for this was to represent the Church and its rituals as mere psychodrama for purposes of satire, entertainment, etc. And of course this was revived by Anton post-75 and remains the canon of the "CS" today.

However in the original Church this was always considered just a cover-story for the public. Behind closed doors our invocations, ceremonies, and workings were very real and literal. It took a long time to grok this, and indeed not fully until the Temple of Set post-75.

Punchline: Atheism is wrong. There is comprehensive intelligence behind the existence and operation of the OU.

(1) Physical science explains only the observed regularity of natural events (e.g. “natural law”), to the extent these are observed and recorded (“scientific method”). But science does not, and cannot explain the why of natural law: why it exists as it is, and not otherwise nor absent (chaos). What is obvious is that the entire body of natural law is omnipresent and omnipotent universally; it is enforced as absolutely on the Moon or Saturn as it is in Berkeley. This creative and enforcing force requires a creator; it is nonsensical to attribute it to “accident”. That creative agency is “the gods/God”. This is inescapable proof of their/its existence and power.

Dimestore atheists usually try to argue against gods/God because they demand “miracles” (violations of natural law) as proof. They’ve got it backward: If natural law were breakable, that is what would disprove actual divinity - or at least show that the “natural law” in question was not completely known, thus accounting for its apparent “violation”.

(2) Atheism prefers evolution to creationism. That’s fine if you go no further than the simplicities of the J/C Bible. However it’s idiotic to posit that the complexity of natural existence and law is completely random and accidental. The construction and operation of your pet cat, from brain to tail, is a stunningly complex whole which could not possibly have resulted from millennia of random recombination.

(3) While you’re having fun with “evolution”, ask yourself why there should not be innumerable variations in construction and intelligence, not just a few very sharp divisions. In a completely accidental evolutionary environment, there would be many varieties between humans and “low intelligent” apes.

Summarily the OU is ordered by the "natural Neteru" [or "God" for simple-minded monotheists]. This is a "deistic" reality [look up "Deism"]. It can be apprehended and appreciated, but there is no point in asking it for "exceptions" (special attention, favors, punishments, etc.). All of that stuff in the slave-religions is just White Magical self-deception.

The phenomenon of what we originally perceived as "Satanism" and later undersrtood fully in the Temple of Set is that human consciousness is distinct from the above, giving it both perspective and discretion.

That's the whole enchilada [in one 600C post]. ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113383 - 07/09/17 02:34 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
samowens84 Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 87
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
.

Punchline: Atheism is wrong. There is comprehensive intelligence behind the existence and operation of the OU.

(1) Physical science explains only the observed regularity of natural events (e.g. “natural law”), to the extent these are observed and recorded (“scientific method”). But science does not, and cannot explain the why of natural law: why it exists as it is, and not otherwise nor absent (chaos). What is obvious is that the entire body of natural law is omnipresent and omnipotent universally; it is enforced as absolutely on the Moon or Saturn as it is in Berkeley. This creative and enforcing force requires a creator; it is nonsensical to attribute it to “accident”. That creative agency is “the gods/God”. This is inescapable proof of their/its existence and power.



Why does this require a "creater?" As I understand it there are places where "natural law" breaks down, or at least appears to. For example, the quantum level has things acting apparently without "cause," or the closer one looks at the "beginning" of the universe the less reliable current laws are at predicting a reliable "law." Much of what is made here is an argument from incredulity. You could claim that there could be other meta laws that account for abberhant universe behavior, but that is speculative question begging. I have a question. Why does a universe that is consistent and uniform necessitate conscious direction? Do you have examples of universes that are less orderly to compare them to? As was once said "design must be proven before a designer can be infered." As far as can be understood there are no valid comparisons to the universe that could justify appeals to apparent order that requires consciousness.

It is theism that demands certainty, not Atheism. Many theists prefer to try to define Atheism for them and knock it down. "You have to be omniscient to know no gods exist," and the standard Atheist rejects this definition. This is known as a straw man. Atheists define themselves as lacking a god belief, and not the rigid stance that no gods exist. Point being that the burden of proof is on the theist to prove it. All one has to do to claim "Atheism" is to suspend judgement on what the machinations at play are, while being skeptical of theistic claims.

Your alleged "skepticism" of science to insert "theism" makes the same mistake that Christian theists make consistently. It makes the observation that there are apparent unknown machinations at work therefore "god." It offers no intelligable explanation for the behavior of the universe nor offers deeper insight into the universe except to give satisfaction to incredulity and the need for certainty. Its a non-answer disguised as an "explanation."

What is wrong with admitting that one doesnt know? Why is any explanation, even one that really explains nothing, prefferable to admitting limitations in knowledge?


Edited by samowens84 (07/09/17 02:46 AM)

Top
#113384 - 07/09/17 03:07 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Kori Houghton Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 71
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
(3) While you’re having fun with “evolution”, ask yourself why there should not be innumerable variations in construction and intelligence, not just a few very sharp divisions. In a completely accidental evolutionary environment, there would be many varieties between humans and “low intelligent” apes.


But the "sharp divisions" are being blurred as new discoveries are made, such as H. naledi

Variations, as in hybrid humanoids?

I'm one. My health issues, as it turns out, are due to a bit of Neanderthal DNA in a spot where modern human code should be. Finding out about this inspired a huge difference in my self care; the amazing thing is that it worked so well. My doctor was amazed at my last blood work results. How lucky for me that the study of human evolution may have added years, if not decades, to my life expectancy!

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Summarily the OU is ordered by the "natural Neteru" [or "God" for simple-minded monotheists]. This is a "deistic" reality [look up "Deism"]. It can be apprehended and appreciated, but there is no point in asking it for "exceptions" (special attention, favors, punishments, etc.). All of that stuff in the slave-religions is just White Magical self-deception.


Which is why Don Webb is still rattling on about using "magic" to heal friends/family in hospital? Or isn't "magic" considered an exception?

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The phenomenon of what we originally perceived as "Satanism" and later undersrtood fully in the Temple of Set is that human consciousness is distinct from the above, giving it both perspective and discretion.


So you can heal people with magic?

I don't think this hybrid human has that kind of consciousness, which is no loss.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
#113385 - 07/09/17 03:43 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1160
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
Punchline: Atheism is wrong. There is comprehensive intelligence behind the existence and operation of the OU.


Why say "Atheism is wrong", why not say "Atheism could be wrong", is that part of the Mindwar? Seems odd for anything to be an absolute here.

The popular conception follows along a progressively less egocentric path, in my opinion.

Under the premise of: The tendency of the "OU" is to follow a carbon copy trajectory does not necessarily infer "master design".

There does not need to be intelligence. Just a brief moment that allowed for inflation to occur, mass takes over designing duties from there.

Alternative: A spontaneous fluctuation in an infinite quantum vacuum.

The two concepts are compatible, along with many others.

We could also be in a simulation... and then at the end it turns out they are personal headsets anyone can own.

The difference is degree of convolution for each premise to hold true.
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#113392 - 07/10/17 06:29 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Shaytan Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 16
Hi

In the first place I'm sorry for my English. I found this article on the net. The site says the author was Anton LaVey and the article was publish in THE CLOVEN HOOF, number 4 July/August IX A. S. (1974). Is it authentic ?

"Quo Vadis?
Among our mail we find a significant number of comments something like this: "When I joined the Church of Satan, I thought that I was becoming a member of a religious organization dedicated to the worship of the Devil. At least the Satanic Bible left me with this impression. But, while the Cloven Hoof is all very interesting from a philosophical and materialistic standpoint, it seems to regard 'devil-worship' as little more than a convenient allegory. Is this a church? Does Satan really exist? If so, where and in what form? And why are the leaders of the Church of Satan so reluctant to discuss questions of literal demonology?"

Before we respond to this, a brief preface is in order. During the days of the original Magic Circle in San Francisco, and for the first few years of the Church itself, little effort was made to disguise the literal core of our doctrines. At that time there were no Wiccans, pseudo-Satanists, journalistic "occult authorities," or dime-a-dozen "Dark Shadows" films reducing the Prince of Darkness to soap-opera status. There was only The Church of Satan.

We are all familiar with what happened next. "Rosemary's Baby," produced with the Church of Satan's guidance, touched off an international fad greater than goldfish-swallowing, phone-booth-stuffing, hula hoops, and Zoot suits all together. Suddenly everyone was "into" the occult. If one was swashbuckling, one was a Satanist. If timid, a Wiccan. If fuddy-duddy, a theosophist or a Rosicrucian. If sexually obsessed, a sado-masochist. If altruistic, a Jesus Freak. If chicken, a reporter or observer. But always "an authority."

Satan himself became a tennis-ball. Prior to 1966 he was allegorical. Suddenly it was de rigueur that he was very, very literal - much more so than God (Do you remember that old Time cover: IS GOD DEAD?) Then someone made the profound discovery that "Satan" was a Hebrew term, and there were one or two religions on this planet besides Judaism and Christianity. Immediately Satan was passe'. The thing to do now was to revive the worship of the primeval fertility gods and goddesses that the Neanderthals grunted over. Finally some enthusiasts actually managed regress past the Neanderthal stage to Krishna-Consciousness, Scientology, and Guru Maharaj-Ji.

Is it really any wonder, then, that the Church of Satan withdrew "literal Satanism" from the public arena? In our pronouncements, publications, and press-releases the Devil became an allegory for materialism and the unchained human ego. Speaking in such terms we could continue to gain the ear of the people who really mattered - the de facto Satanists of the world. Had we continued to champion a literal Devil, media distortion would have lumped us together with nut elements, and our access to serious channels of communication would have been seriously paired.

Now we have reached the end of the boom. "The Exorcist" was the Last Gasp. A few of the occult flower-children still remain, but they have become relics, throwbacks within their own subculture. No one listens to them; they have nothing new to say. One by one, rats deserting a~ sinking ship, they quietly lay aside their capes, swords, and amulets. it's is all over. Time to find a new toy.

And so it is that Satan awakes. To his disciples who, after long years of frustration, are minded to leave Rome, he appears echoing God's admonishment to Saint Peter: Whither goest thou? Having seen so much, having partaken of my knowledge, having known me for what I truly am, abuse not my trust and confidence. Return to Rome, and together we shall begin the building of our new empire.

Indeed Satan exists. Not as just a myth, nor as a mere psychological archetype, nor as only a colorful figure of speech - but as an essential, intelligent entity.

"You knew this, Winston. Don't deceive yourself. You did know it - you have always known it." The tongue in which his name is voiced is unimportant, just as the shapes and substances of his manifestation are unimportant. "God" is an automatic, non-conscious, dispassionate cosmos - in which man, yearning to be rid of the burden of his identity, seeks to immerse himself. Satan is That which has infused man with that identity, thus endowing him with the key to turn the inertia of the cosmos to his amusement - to make of man a god. Would it surprise you to discover that the true Prince of Darkness is is not the Devil of Judaic/Christian legend? That figure is a simple caricature. Rather Satan is the true intelligence manipulating the "God" of the Bible and other "divine" personages weaning man from subservience to all gods by making their demands increasing1y intolerable.

This is the truth behind all religious institutions thoroughout history: gradual deification of man despite his most determined efforts to regress to the status of a non-thinking beast. While bowing before the Cross, man has actually been succumbing to a Diabolical Double-Cross of such ingenuity and complexity that it staggers the comprehension. Call it, if you like, The Greatest Practical Joke Ever Pulled. Or, to put it another way, humanity has been had!

Does it suddenly ring true to you, Satanist? Do you begin to see what it's really "all about"? Do the peculiarities of human evolution now fall into place? Yet, if your mental block remains fixed, it is appropriate; the shock of "awakening" may drive unprepared individuals quite mad. This "awakening" is the actual Abyss whose existence is dimly sensed by traditional occultists. Yet they have always failed to perceive its true function, and have failed miserably in their efforts to challenge it. For those who cross the Abyss, there is no return.""


Edited by Shaytan (07/10/17 06:31 AM)

Top
#113394 - 07/10/17 11:33 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

It's not necessary to have a "crisis" in order to be an Existentialist, nor of course to grok Freddy N.

Presumably the "crisis" theme is the result of Sartre's Nausea, in which the protagonist goes bananas once he realizes that he exists.

You don't have to be wacko to be a Satanist either, but it helps. \:\/


To clarify, I have always been an implicit Atheist. I took your identification to mean, an adherence to Existential Philosophy and in relation to having a set of beliefs dismantled. That tends to create crisis. For instance, Existential Philosophy asserts that existence precedes consciousness. I'm rather Hard Agnostic to that point and perfectly content with "I don't know." Whereas Existentialists tend to have an answer for everything (much of it batshit in my opinion).

The tendency to put each person in their 'place' by such categorizations will be met with much dissent. ;\)

One can believe they understand Nietzsche but not necessarily 'get it', then presume to correct others, live by some quasi-Nietzschean code and then act as if reading Nietzsche is a requisite of Satanism - it isn't.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113397 - 07/10/17 03:54 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: samowens84]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: samowens84
there are places where "natural law" breaks down, or at least appears to. For example, the quantum level ...

I was curious about the "quantum mechanics" argument and looked into it extensively. In a nutshell it's bullshit: simply an expedient fantasy to fill an annoying hole in accepted science, like Black Holes, curved space, wormholes, and similar nonsense expedients. I won't bother to detail this; you can look into Q yourself and either the lightbulb will flash on for you or it won't.

Natural Law is omnipresent wherever it is looked for, and "exceptions" simply requires it to be refined: Those "exceptions" will then be validated as non-Es in all other similar circumstances. This is standard scientific method.

The sole exception is discrete self consciousness (what we call "the Gift of Set"), which is in all its manifestations unbound by NL. Cf. Eric Hoffer, "The Unnaturalness of Human Nature", etc. [We are not talking about the assuredly-natural functions of the physical brain/body. Cf. MindStar.

I am not trying to browbeat you into this - just save you some, perhaps years of wasted time. I fought my own way through the underbrush the slow, hard way.

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley
I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me. I do not regret this. All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worth seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine. I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions. I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle.

I am just offering you a sharper machete, and perhaps a few warning signs about quicksand pits. ;\)

My book FindFar includes extensive discussion of the five dimensions, with all the Einsteinian woolly thinking stripped away. There is nothing incomprehensible about the "great secrets of the universe"; you just have to look for/at them without blinders.

For instance "time" is a measurement of 3D change; if there is no change, there is no T. It is thus a dynamic, not static dimension. Fortunately the OU is dynamic, as is human thought. Thus you can create and manipulate T by mere thought.

Ergo the NL of T is a very freaky thing, since it is exists by phenomena "not itself". It requires no "prior creator" (gods/God) since it is both nowhere and everywhere, and is in a condition of continuous creation and dissolution. All this was right under AE's nose and he blew it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113401 - 07/10/17 05:21 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
It has been in my observation, as a remark to your "punchline", when people congregate a certain "hive-mind" or "gestalt-entity" arises. Not so much gods or deities but moreover an accumulation of ideas into an incorporeal mind.

No spooky beings looking at middle-aged men and women in shabby costumes singing out of tune.

The ignorance on why things are the way they are and the subsequent follow-up of "and therefor GOD" is not a valid excuse. It is not because someone is ignorant that he might not learn or is even prohibited to learn and push the boundaries.

Your second point underlines your ignorance when it concerns the mechanisms of evolution.

Your third point underlines your lack of knowledge where it concerns biology and diversity. Granted that the given argument seems valid, it actually is the result of PC, morality and the human-centered emotion of "unity" screwing things up.
If I were to use and apply the same naming rules being used on animals, but this time transposed to humans, suddenly a lot more human species will pop-up.

As an example I'll use skin-colour (a differentiating factor frequently used). If I were to account for this factor I'd already be at 36. If I were to continue with average height (in combination with place) I'd already be surpassing the hundreds and getting more closer to the average amount of differentiating animal "species" we normally embrace.

If I were to turn it the other way round and put animals on the same level as humans (as to not hurt their feelings...) there'd probably be around 5 cat species (naked, short-haired, long-haired, big cats (tigers etc..)). You might make the argument that the differences there are "more obvious". The question can be bounced back as a negro is also clearly different from a caucasian man in build and colour. Make of it what you will but I'll probably call anyone an idiot for failing to see the irony in it.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#113412 - 07/10/17 11:58 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
your ignorance when it concerns the mechanisms of evolution.

No, just your own susceptibility to the taboo-avoiding jargon of conventional evolutionary ideology. It ducks the questions that get in its way.

If you don't understand the points I made, I'm not going to teach you what it took me decades of reserch to discover and untangle. And of course I had to take care that I was not just looking for arguments to support a predetermined conclusion; that was the "scholasticism" so characteristic of not just the medieval slave religions, but also much of what passes for "accepted academia" today.

Satanism in one sense is the "ultiimate bucket of cold water" to free you of sacred cows - not just the ones you easily see in other frames of reference, but enemies more crucially in what you are accustomed and conditioned to take for granted.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113413 - 07/11/17 12:41 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: maa

Satanism in one sense is the "ultiimate[sic] bucket of cold water" to free you of sacred cows - not just the ones you easily see in other frames of reference, but enemies more crucially in what you are accustomed and conditioned to take for granted.


Indeed. One example would be the deeply ingrained yet completely irational idea of higher powers,non corporeal intelegence, and special creationism(in all it's many forms, from young earth to old earth to whatever event your magic aardvark saw fit to obliskify the monkeys)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#113415 - 07/11/17 02:00 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
Points are well understood and are considered as "bollocks".

But with all due respect... try me. Where do you see the problem?
Unlike most, I do not subscribe to incomplete pop-science a la "Bill Nye" and "Neil deGrasse Tyson" (granted they are capable of more but communicate a very boiled-down version for the plebs to understand).

What is this "question" which supposedly stands in my way?
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#113418 - 07/11/17 12:19 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: MA
I'm not going to teach you what it took me decades of reserch to discover and untangle.


I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding but rather a complete disagreement with your points.

You assume there were cows to kick. If you needed to be freed from imaginary shackles only to return to a slave morality; I question your ability to understand the world as it actually is.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113430 - 07/12/17 02:03 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
You assume there were cows to kick.

No. There are two basic questions concerning existence: How and Why.

In the case of the OU (including those parts of the OU which constitute the physical human body), the "how" has been resolved by science: the totality of Natural Law.

Obviously science hasn't codified all NL, but enough of it to make most OU projections. The verification of any component of NL is predictability in replication.

Primitive humankind did not yet have sophisticated, preponderant science. Explained natural phenomena by gods/God. The more that science dispelled mysteries, the necessity for g/G seemed to fade as well. "God is dead" today because we understand the "how".

But this ignores the other question: Why?

What created the OU [as well as our conscious externality]? Why is NL ordered as it is and not otherwise? [Or why is NL not absent, resulting in a chaotic OU?] Finally what continuously and everywhere enforces NL?

The scientific method useful for codifying "how" is utterly impotent for confronting "why". This has abandoned the question to religion, which relies upon mere faith and myth.

One of my more interesting realizations is that the slave religions "prove" God by alleging that he has the ability to transcend, to violate NL. In other words, he is proved by "miracles" (=NL violations). What such religions sell is protection from punitive miracles, and/or profit from helpful ones.

Atheists deny the "why" because they confuse it with the "how" (for which science has indeed dispelled the need for g/G). If "why" is mentioned to them, they refuse to see it, sweep it under the rug [as Gamoow declining to say where the pre-Big Bang ylem came from or why it exploded]. If still pressed, they reject the question as "unanswerable".

Agnostics are just lazy or unconcerned. By dodging the question they feel that they are at least on safe ground since they are not risking being wrong. I don;t bother with laziness.

The first answer to "why" is that it is necessarily there. The OU exists, is ordered, is enforced in its consistency.

It is absurd to attribute these three-abodes to "accident" unless you are one of those who really believes that enough monkeys typing long enough will indeed produce the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Randomization does not exlclude past combinations.

And the whole of NL is not just intricate in the extreme, but it is - and this is another importance - artistically so. NL is not a "dull sludge": It is breathtakingly beautiful in almost endless variety. The magic of a hummingbird exists along with that of a rock crystal, the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, the harmonies resulting from scaled musical vibrations. The necessoty for the "why" doesn't need to plead its presence; it is everywhere manifest.

The problem famiiliar to us, especially in 600C, is that the "why" has been historically dumbed down to the J/C Jehovah or similar crude images. The actual "why" (in my language the neteru) are far too subtle and magnificent for such caricature. It took me time to realize that their Egyptian identifications were never meant to be other than allusion: Rene Schwaller de Lubicz' Symbolique.

But finally apprehending the "why" is not just interesting for its own "detective story". What's really exciting and fun is what this implies for individual OU-external consciousness (the MindStar). We're on the threshold of a wonderful door. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 2 of 7 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.