Page 9 of 14 « First<7891011>Last »
Topic Options
#41496 - 08/06/10 01:30 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
How long is this guy going to be allowed to preach this hocus pocus nonsense anyway?

No need to listen to it a moment more, Dan, because boy, have I got a special deal just for you! For only one Kellogg's Corn Flakes boxtop and a left-handed smoke changer, I will send you your very own, glow-in-the-dark, custom stamped out in cheap green plastic with the edges untrimmed, statuette of Set, mounted on a suction cup for the dashboard of your pickup truck. And that's not all: Just wind it up, and while it unwinds it will play a genuine ancient magical incantation guaranteed to double-whammy your consciousness, impress your friends, and get you laid. Step right up - but hurry: this is a limited-incarnation offer and supplies are going fast.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41498 - 08/06/10 01:52 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
There is no difference between this and the good news of christ.


In all fairness, he's articulate, courteous, colorful, humorous, and he cites a lot of sources (even if he's citing himself). I'm not saying it isn't B.S., but it's some of the most finely dressed-up B.S. I've ever seen. It's all in the packaging.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (08/06/10 01:52 AM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41499 - 08/06/10 01:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Are you seriously saying you are fine with being fed bullshit as long as it is presented with the right garnish? You should be ashamed of yourself.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41500 - 08/06/10 02:03 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Are you seriously saying you are fine with being fed bullshit as long as it is presented with the right garnish? You should be ashamed of yourself.


*heavy sigh* I really hope you're being facetious. I know I was. I suppose I should lay off the sarcastic comments until people know me well enough to be able to tell when I'm being sarcastic. It's my curse; when I'm joking, people thing I'm serious, and when I'm serious, people think I'm joking.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41511 - 08/06/10 08:16 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

 Quote:
And if this is not in any way sensory then what is it - dont you regard thinking as sensory?

Ahem, Descartes? ... Well, you can think about all sorts of OU phenomena and how to Lego them, and that creates the casual illusion that you need Lego pieces in order to think. But the capacity and action of thinking itself is prior to how you may apply it, whether Lego-practically or imaginatively/creatively, leading ultimately to the creation of SU universes (what Nietzsche referred to as "horizon building").


This is obviously where "belief" sets in as there are no proof that the "ka", as you prefer to call it, pre-exists the lego sts. And I am familiar with Descartes but I also recognize him as one of the most negative influences on western philosophy ever with his descartian dualism which is horribly out of date today anyways.

In his theory even if there was no lego there would still be an "I". I however stand by my Nietzschean notion that we are ever changing and that everything depends on everything else. There is no core that exists solely by itself and we are not even a Self but rather a hierarchy of Selves and without things to interact with we wouldn’t exist either because "we are it". I find it interesting that you want to back up your descartianism by a reference to Nietzsche seeing as they were on opposite ends in regards to theories of the Self.

 Quote:

You're asking several different questions here, but the thread common to all of them is that one's consciousness of being (the ka) is prior to any constructs it has arranged, memorized, and accustomed itself to in the OU, which include all physical surroundings, im/expressions, and in some cases (such as Alzheimer's) memory. The ka may continue to indwell the body in any number of manifestations, such as an "OU-memoryless" state of instantaneous experience only. Or it may depart the shell, leaving it to metabolize [or be artificially metabolized by other humans]. each situation is unique, as you will also see for yourself when/as/if.


Basically you claim the "ka" can take any form in regards to how we perceive it and it can even leave the body. So what you say is that regardless of how it looks and regardless of scientific evidence, or anything else, there is still a ka even though there appears to be none (or in the extreme case it has left the body). This of course leaves us with the claim of the existence of a thing that is impossible to argue against since it is based almost on a form of circle reasoning. No matter what you have an answer for what has happened with the "ka" but never can we provide satisfiable evidence that this is the case except from theories.

Top
#41519 - 08/06/10 01:29 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
...never can we provide satisfiable evidence that this is the case except from theories.

The phenomenon of the isolate self consciousness is obviously extant and verifiable. It's why "you are you". You seem to be looking for "OU machinery to explain and define it", and conclude that if there isn't any, it defaults to an illusion, a "ghost in the machine". That's understandable, but only if you deny a priori anything beyond the OU.

What I am saying is that the existence of this phenomenon is significant precisely because it is not of the OU, and therefore is not subject to its laws. The Egyptians called it the ka (and indeed several other more particularlized names); later it has been called the psyche, the soul, etc.

The existence of this "thing" is of course the basis for all the "Devil", "downfall", and "original sin" myths of history, because it is this which sets us apart from the collective, unified OU (God, the gods, the neteru). [This is, as you know, why it has always struck me as so ironic, and not a little funny, that a forum of "Satanism & Satanists" should be so terrified of this principle.]

I am repeating myself [again] here, but it is in response to the same question over and over again on 600C. My answer remains the same: You can choose to regard this thing in yourself as a mere OU mechanism, in which case, like the Hotel California, you will become a citizen of, and never leave the City of Dreadful Night. You certainly have that right, and I am not here to "preach" you out of it. As Captain Willard said in Apocalypse Now, "Everyone gets everything he wants."

Or you can choose to adventure into this mystery of your self, apprehend it, and fully Become (Xeper) it. Which is for every being a unique experience, never a standardized one. [That's why we call the Temple of Set "just a toolbox".]

I don't get Brownie Points from Set for "converting" anyone, and the Temple of Set has never proselytized or evdevilized since its 1975 reemergence. What each resident of Plato's cave chooses to do is absolutely his own business, which is why it is so pointless for Dan Dread to throw his tantrums. He, like you and everyone else here, can do whatever he likes, for whatever reasons comfort him.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41521 - 08/06/10 01:50 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Are you seriously saying you are fine with being fed bullshit as long as it is presented with the right garnish? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Bless my [imaginary] soul, are you seriously saying that the whole world doesn't float on bullshit, and that 600C isn't steaming with it as well?

Here comes yet another LBM guidebook from the infamous Temple of Set Reading List.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41522 - 08/06/10 02:10 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Yes, the world is indeed filled with bullshit. And it will continue to be as long as there are people like you to keep promoting it and people who are willing to believe it.

Luckily there are still people who see you and people like you for the charlatans that you are. And yes, a good number of those people can be found on this very site.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41524 - 08/06/10 02:35 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The phenomenon of the isolate self consciousness is obviously extant and verifiable. It's why "you are you". You seem to be looking for "OU machinery to explain and define it", and conclude that if there isn't any, it defaults to an illusion, a "ghost in the machine". That's understandable, but only if you deny a priori anything beyond the OU.


Yeah? Verifiable? Show me evidence that there is an isolate self consciousness that does not depend on the objective universe. Had such a thing existed I’m sure it would have made headlines all over the world. There is no such validation.

And we've been through this "you are you" thing before. There is nothing that suggests that there is a core Self. As I’ve said before I believe that the Self, metaphorically, is like a wave. It appears to be solid and one but in reality the water it consists of and the energy that produces the wave is continuously changing. So while we can follow one wave from its beginning to its end what constitutes its appearance has changed a million times between it "birth" and its "death". Yes, this can’t be proven for a fact either but modern science tends to agree with this. I don’t claim it to be verifiable like you try to claim that the SU is isolate from the OU and not subject to its so called laws.

Your view on the universe seems to be hopelessly stuck in the classic notion that the OU is like a machine while all evidence today would rather suggest that it is organic or that living beings are autopoietic.

 Quote:
What I am saying is that the existence of this phenomenon is significant precisely because it is not of the OU, and therefore is not subject to its laws. The Egyptians called it the ka (and indeed several other more particularlized names); later it has been called the psyche, the soul, etc.


Now granted the term "law of nature" isn't all that clear and the so called laws seem to change depending on how we understand them but there is no evidence of any kind that the human consciousness is not of the objective universe or not subject to its laws. That is unless you definition of nature is everything non-human. But then again you are stuck in the notion of the OU as a machine or as determined while you believe humans to have free will (neither of which are verifiable). Both notion are not only considered of the old school of physics but it is also the classical Christian view (except that they have a problem with Gods plan contra the free will of humans).

To me the circle reasoning does not fit in well with otherwise thought through opinions. Basically you say that the ka has a certain personality, the personality of the individual. But it has different manifestations (was that your way of explaining changed personality in regards to brain injury?) and when the personality is all gone you can always explain it with “it [the ka] may depart the shell, leaving it to metabolize”. So basically without providing evidence you have a nice little circle here that explains everything but proves nothing.


Edited by TheInsane (08/06/10 02:40 PM)

Top
#41527 - 08/06/10 03:10 PM Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
If I may quote an earlier post by Dr Aquino:

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As L-fields are distinct from the physical body, T-fields are also superior to and separate from the physical machinery they manipulate and use. Here we are talking the basis for out-of-body consciousness, persistence of the psyche after physical death...

Here is the crux of this kind of metaphysical hypothesis - the possibility of survival of the ka/psyche/soul after brain death. Herein lies the raison d'être for much of this kind of belief, which can certainly be comforting for any who are able and willing to believe. The idea that our three score and ten years as a mechanical meat machine is 1) somehow not enough (or at least depressing and somehow a limited worldview), and 2) not all there actually is (due to some kind of afterlife).

Let's see what Mad Freddy had to say on this issue:

 Originally Posted By: Thus Spoke Zarathutra
I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not.

They are despisers of life, dying off and self-poisoned, of whom the earth is weary: so let them fade away!

Given the discussions on various threads concerning the ONA and its view of "mundanes", the word 'mundane' is actually derived from the Latin 'mundus' meaning 'world'. Another definition of 'mundane' (from Google's dictionary) is "Of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one." Given this basis for the concept of the mundane, it would be at odds with Nietzsche's philosophical basis to "remain true to the earth" to either use the term "mundane" in a pejorative manner (as the ONA does), or to offer the comforting belief of consciousness continuing outside the physical body (as many forms of theism do).

Furthermore, here is another quote by Nietzsche on the "soul":

 Originally Posted By: Thus Spoke Zarathutra
“Body am I and soul” – so speaks a child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened, the knowing one says: body am I through and through, and nothing besides; and soul is just a word for something on the body.

Nietzsche, unlike many other thinkers, does not accept metaphysical materialism or physicalism as propositional or dogmatic truth. Rather, it's more of a throught experiment and test of character as to whether one can dispense with the metaphysical notions of a soul and life after death, and still live a fulfilling life. (Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence' was also meant in much the same way - as a thought experiment and test of character rather than literal dogma.)

This also reverses the views of various mystics that perceiving oneself as a spiritual being is more 'evolved' or 'mature' than viewing oneself as purely physical and fleshly (carnal). With Nietzsche, as with LaVeyan Satanism, it's the other way around. Dispelling with spiritual pipe dreams, hypocritical self-deceit and false hopes is the more rational and mature option, embracing one's vital existence as a human animal.

Meq

Top
#41528 - 08/06/10 04:02 PM Re: Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: Meq]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I agree with you Meq but then again I am very much influenced by Nietzsche. And you're right about the eternal recurrence as a hypothetical though. It is most often interpreted as a thought experiment rather than an actual attempt of describing the world. Your attitude should be to affirm everything and hold no regrets. if someone asked you if you would be willing to live through it all again (good and bad and everything in between) you should answer with a proud "Yes!". This being said I dont think Nietzsche ever denies that the eternal recurrence is in fact an objective reality. However that is not themost important point.

Another interesting thing is the concept of "will to power" and how Nietzsche in general spoke bad about metaphysics. Still his thoughts on "will to power" sometimes come very close to a Nietzschean metaphysical theory. Such an interesting philosopher though and probably the man who single handedly had most influence on my philosophical development.

Top
#41529 - 08/06/10 04:16 PM Re: Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: Meq]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Meq
Given the discussions on various threads concerning the ONA and its view of "mundanes", the word 'mundane' is actually derived from the Latin 'mundus' meaning 'world'. Another definition of 'mundane' (from Google's dictionary) is "Of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one." Given this basis for the concept of the mundane, it would be at odds with Nietzsche's philosophical basis to "remain true to the earth" to either use the term "mundane" in a pejorative manner (as the ONA does), or to offer the comforting belief of consciousness continuing outside the physical body (as many forms of theism do).


I disagree. I think this has been debated before but to Nietzsche language wasn't Euclidean; meaning it having a fixed and static value. In being such, anyone can define anything as he sees fit. Not saying it doesn't complicate things but it certainly is not at odds with Nietzsche.

D.

Top
#41530 - 08/06/10 07:10 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Anonymous]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
As I have not sought to dissuade any here who wish to enter the City of Dreadful Night #XIV 49-84, I fail to see why they should be both so emotionally livid and so adamant that everyone else must accompany them there too.

Back in the 1980s I was once asked if I saw myself as the real Damien Thorn. I said, "Every now and then, but unfortunately not most of the time."

600Cers are all individuals too. Just be whatever you want.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41531 - 08/06/10 07:55 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
Aquino, have you ever felt that weird feeling that you're not welcomed somewhere; or that you have over stayed your welcome lol?

Seems as thoe your trip down memory lane here has become you just lingering... like a fart that hovers in a warm room, that just won't go away. Is all this animosity worth the "nostalgia?"

I still think you are here trolling and fishing for the awakened 600 clubers. Even your 5 members over at religious forums admit they have no idea why you are in here chillin with Satanists.

You also seem wishy-washy in your feeling with the 600 club. You tell your "son in law" this forum is not Setian calibre, then you say this is the greatest forum full of wonderful people in other thread here, and then you go off subtly attacking the 600 club, 600 clubers, satanatheists like you are here... with your annoying smiley faces.

So tell us again about 1975 and Set... I can never get enough of it. Kori is attacking you over at religious forums by the way. She brought up a great point about how your a Crowley fanboy who needed to make believe that your Toser Organization was the fulfillment of prophesies in the Book of the Law to look legit to your followers... just FYI. Your followers there seem too retarded to retort to the argument brought up.


Edited by Caladrius (08/06/10 07:58 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41536 - 08/06/10 08:21 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
A single remark is hardly an attack;
 Quote:
Kori Houghton
It's a great parody of rituals in the style of the Aleister Crowley fan clubs, including the OTO and the Temple of Set. I heart the hilarious barbarous names and incantations. I swear the Harvard Lampoon people are logging in as Blackwood so damn funny!
I don't think TOS members venture outside of the Setian DIR forum, so no one would be aware of her post . . . or care for that matter.

I believe Dr. Aquino has stated many times his agenda for being here. Trolling or recruitment was never mentioned.

Top
Page 9 of 14 « First<7891011>Last »


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.