#32124 - 11/22/09 11:06 PM
Theosophy?
[Re: Sceevin]
|
TheCusp
Douchebag
stranger
Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 14
|
I was wondering where you guys rank Theosophy compared to Satanism. Not trying to promote it, I just happened to find some of the topics it covered interesting once upon a time.
The OP reminded me of the time I attended a theosophical discussion group that turned out to be a theosophical lodge. Also turned out to be not so much open discussion as indoctrination. There were some interesting people there, like a university professor who could read and write Sanskrit, but holding hands in a circle for group meditation was just too much to take and I never went back.
I only ask because I left the place with their publication "the light bearer" or light bringer had a luciferian ring to it, even though it was filled with garbage.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#32142 - 11/23/09 12:49 PM
Re: Theosophy?
[Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
|
Michael A.Aquino
veteran member
Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 1247
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Our esteemed Setian member, Dr. Aquino, holds an interest in the theosophical pursuits, and my own interests in the field are limited to the literary and the memetic. I cannot give the theosophical discipline any credence beyond that for the simple reason that it is forcing the student's hand by presupposing an ulterior cause to all the earth's religions, namely a *real* divine force.
My interest probably stopped short of yours. Clear from the outset that HPB was a wacko & con artist who could write enough flowery fantasy to attract, well, "the usual suckers". [How someone as smart as Iyer got involved is anyone's guess.]
There are a number of what could loosely be called "metaphysical societies" around, of course, from the serious & sincere to the farcical & fraudulent. Some are initiatory. Some are magical. Some have at least some wise things to say mixed in with the dingdong. Most are harmless and even socially beneficial. Some like the People's Temple & Heaven's Gate & the "OTO Solar Lodge" can be dangerous/lethal.
Some consider themselves religions in competition with/contrast to conventional religions. Some profess that they are not religions, mostly in an effort to avoid persecution and also to attract religion-affiliated members.
If there is a common "mystery" underlying all such enterprises & efforts, it is simply that while science can increasingly explain the "how" of universal existence & order, it cannot explain why such a complete, universal, integrated, and intricate UE should be at all [as opposed to either nothing or a something of random chaos]. So people hypothesize gods/God as the cause/"prime mover"/"watchmaker" (or cosmic sadomasochist, take your pick), and then it's just a question of coloring in the dots for your favorite iconography.
Atheists generally feel that the "why" is fundamentally inexplicable, or at least beyond their brainpower, so they take the comforting position that the question shouldn't be asked; therefore it "doesn't exist". Sort of Orwellian "crimestop". Agnostics allow the question to be asked, just confess they can't, theoretically "yet", answer it. So they're off the same hook, just a little less dogmatically.
As for "atheistic Satanism", I still think that it is transparently merely an excuse for atheists yearning for "cocktail-party glamour" to try to steal some from the delicious imagery of Judæo-Christian Devil worship. And that is somewhere between silly and pathetic, since it just lays all the more bare the dullness and drabness of "honest" Atheism. The 600 Club wouldn't last a week without Satan to color itself with, the Goat of Mendes atop its mainpage. [Prove me wrong: Eliminate the imagery and the affected "Satanic"/"Satanism" jargon in all posts, and see if it survives.]
The impulse behind authentic Satanism is essentially the complement to that underlying universal-metaphysical efforts (such as Theosophy, or at least Iyer's refreshment of it); it apprehends and idealizes individual/isolate presence & consciousness against that "universal everything-else" and seeks not only to fully comprehend it, but to fully actualize & express it. That's "Satan", Set, or whatever other term one utters to represent it.
In fact, is that demon within each of us really an enemy, as we have so long been taught? Or will it be recognized as the guiding spirit of enlightenment which it actually is? You must remember that the word daimon does not imply “evil”, but simply a “guiding spirit”, a “motivating spirit”.
Man must quit kidding himself. Only when he emancipates himself from dubious interpretations of good and evil - when he can truly rise above good and evil, beyond good and evil, realizing that these terms are probably the most relative terms in his existence; when he can accept the long, obscene name of “Satan” [because that is a dirty word, “Satan” - the occult world seems to find it even more so]; when he can accept this word, this name into his vocabulary as a sound to be honored - then he will be free! Until then he will walk in fear of the very scapegoat he has created, and his potential guide will remain his nemesis.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino
[On Ignore: Dan_Dread, 6Satan6Archist6, Caladrius, MindFux]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#32145 - 11/23/09 01:08 PM
Re: Theosophy?
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
6Satan6Archist6
senior member
Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2233
Loc: Oregon
|
As for "atheistic Satanism", I still think that it is transparently merely an excuse for atheists yearning for "cocktail-party glamour" to try to steal some from the delicious imagery of Judæo-Christian Devil worship. And that is somewhere between silly and pathetic, since it just lays all the more bare the dullness and drabness of "honest" Atheism. The 600 Club wouldn't last a week without Satan to color itself with, the Goat of Mendes atop its mainpage. [Prove me wrong: Eliminate the imagery and the affected "Satanic"/"Satanism" jargon in all posts, and see if it survives.]
Do we really need to be starting in with this again? Maybe you went into Satanism looking for "cocktail-party glamour" but that doesn't mean all of "us" had the same motivations.
You wanna know what I think is silly and pathetic; grown men who talk to imaginary friends. Actually, you can go ahead and remove "silly" from that because it is really just pathetic.
I wonder how long ToS would last if all mentions of Set were removed. I bet a strip club wouldn't last very long either if they got rid of the strippers. The bar down the street from my house would close down right quick if they stopped serving alcohol.
I realize some people may be somewhat "star-struck" as to your presence here but IDGAF who you are or what you have done. So you were in CoS a million years ago and started ToS - BFD - I am not so easily impressed.
To me it seems like you have a bone to pick with Satanism. If you take so much issue with "Atheistic Satanism" one wonders why you decide to become a member of a site that champions it. That is like Jesse Jackson joining the KKK or Elton John singing with the Westboro Baptist Church.
_________________________
Ultimate Satanic Bad Ass of Ultimate Satanic Bad Assery PhD Esq. LLC Inc.^∞ DCLXVI°
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#32149 - 11/23/09 02:27 PM
Re: Theosophy?
[Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
|
Michael A.Aquino
veteran member
Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 1247
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
[quote=6Satan6Archist6]If you take so much issue with "Atheistic Satanism" one wonders why you decide to become a member of a site that champions it.
I don't take issue with it - just acknowledge it for what it actually is, as everyone here knows too. Some, as Anton quoth so very often, just can't bring themselves to admit it. It puzzled him, and me, why this curious mixture of "need" and "brittleness". He finally shrugged it off, and where "Satan/Satanism" is concerned, I generally do too. Linus is happy with his blanket; why should I be Snoopy and snatch it away from him?
I visit the 600 Club both out of historical interest and because underneath much of the "atheistic Satanism"-chanting (which reminds me ever so much of the "we're-witches-not-satanists!" mantra of the Wiccans), I see lots of authentic Satanic genius struggling, frequently very eloquently and thoughtfully, to express itself. I like that, and if it means putting up with nervous Atheist-disclaimers along the way, so what? The Satanists here will eventually get over that.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino
[On Ignore: Dan_Dread, 6Satan6Archist6, Caladrius, MindFux]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#32152 - 11/23/09 03:23 PM
Re: Theosophy?
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
CJB
member
Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
|
Just gonna throw in my four cents (...damn inflation)
I'm an Atheist because I see no definitve, objective proof of any deity. Asking the question "Why did the universe begin?" (etc.) to me is like asking why rocks erode or why stars blow up: it's assigning conscious causation (something happened, something must have done it, that thing must have had a reason) to something that requires no conscious causation in the first place...yes, the rocks erode, they do that due to the rain and wind, but there need not have been a person planning on sending rain, etc. that way in order to do it.
If a person, for some reason, decides that there was a conscious cause, upon observation of the objective universe, one would logically come up with deism. Following current scientific thought, such a being would basically be a computer programmer: before time, this guy made a universe using a system of rules, hit the "play" button on his Cosmic Computer, and set the program in run. After the program is in run, there isn't much he can do to change it that wouldn't alter the entire program. And if he did that, we wouldn't even be capable of knowing about it, because the original would have been erased throughout all time and the replacement would appear, to us, as the original. Even with such a model as this, there's no way to prove the existence of our programmer-god, and I would have to ask the question on why would we worship (or even acknowledge) such a being. You say militant atheists have a problem with people asking why. I don't...I just ask them "why ask why?"
The requirement for belief in a personal deity (or other supernatural power) would require some sort of subjective evidence; something Christians may call a conversion experience. If you have some such conversion experience, than I can't touch you, and more power to you. Something happened to you that defies logical, natural, objective-universe explanation, and if it did, more power to you. I've never had such an experience that I couldn't explain with simpler mechanisms (Occam's Razor), so I don't believe. I will admit that part of me is jealous that I haven't had such an experience, and were such an experience to occur, I would become an instant believer.
So, with that in mind, why am I a Satanist as well? Well, the philosophy really appeals to me. And I like the aesthetics, so yeah, I guess I am just stealing Christian symbolism (...oh, like they didn't steal their imagery first). I have yet to be invited to a cocktail party or had wild orgies, so that's not my reasoning, although if I were, I would say that's a rather nice fringe benefit...
I'll end with a quote from Will:
[q]"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."[/q]
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
