|>> || 1532571769322.jpg -(14808B / 14.46KB, 220x188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>74730 |
Glad we could return the discussion to a civilized footing (just as much my fault.) Restores my faith in humanity by .02%. Will try to be as prosaic with my replies as possible.
>>But the majority of the most powerful people in this world, are members of this Dark OrderOk, granted, but I think they, numerically, are a very small percentage of the total membership of occult societies worldwide, so it's useful to try to distinguish them in terminology. For an analogy, nowadays polite people try to make a distinction between consensual BDSM practice and spousal abuse. Yes, on the surface sometimes they take similar forms, but because the intent of the people involved is totally different, it's important to specify. FWIW, within the chatter of groups who some people claim to be part of the 'Illuminati Mind Control' program, they of course have their own internal speculation and terms for who this 'mysterious secret cabal' that controls world affairs that all are aware of, but have their own understanding of. So, this is kind of a semantic thing but it has real world consequences. I can understand why, if you learned a lot about the occult from this guy's videos, you might not necessarily see that, as there are unique things about CoS (which is apparently where this guy got his background) that might lead him, after getting out of it, to be unaware of the kind of connection he was making or how more 'traditional' occultists would instinctively take it. I'll admit that the way he opened in that other video instinctively put me on a hostile footing to his ideas, simply because I knew he was including some groups that definitely shouldn't be included in a 'secret mysterious cabal' concept. If he had just tried to sell me on the idea that there was such a thing under some name or heading, I would of course accept. I think, personally, it is of cabal of a more financial than mystical nature.
>>It's subconscious. They operate on a predatory basis. Ok, I grant that phenomena like this happen. To me, this is a manifestation of the panpsychic forces of the id. It's not some 'Dark Order' pulling the strings of these subconcious members, it really is the tendencies of the Dark Gods which rest eternally, along with the Light, in the human soul. Humans are the best at projecting their id, and we even cooperate to do it, but I don't know (or necessarily believe) that even at the highest level there is true cooperation...only a 'devil's' sort of cooperation, in that their own selfishness is their own undoing, which is in the general service of evil.
>>The difference in base structure makes big differences later up. Like a ripple in a pond.Indeed, but
>>What does anything mean?My statement about the varieties of Truth could be taken in a lot of different ways. That, in and of itself, almost illustrates my point. What is 'true' is what is true for a given set of axioms, for a theory, in a world, under a hypothesis. Is there an objective world? Perhaps, and I would even say yes. But our points of knowing it are eternally feeble and dim. I think the concept of a truth or truths are exclusive to a mind at least, and a community of minds at most. I do not think it is a property of objective reality...but this is a highly nuanced discussion of metaphysics. Nonetheless, I believe the empirical method is one of the few instruments we have of accessing whatever is objective (but I would argue whatever comes back, though it may be shared, is still a subjectivity, but this is really a semantic thing) and that magic, occultism, as the original science, the one concerned with rightly orienting humanity and the self in relation with the universe, is really the only other. With one eye we can see, with the other we can change. Once we change what we see, what we see is ourselves. This is our condition.
>>the contradiction between objective truth and free willAgain, all this depends on what you mean by these terms. Under one treatment, if there is an objective truth in the strict sense, such that all mental phenomena are completely corresponding to a discrete set of physical phenomena, which themselves unfold in a deterministic sense according to the laws of physics, then if you knew all this information at once (as in the mind of God, and ignoring things about the Uncertainty principle etc. for now) you could know both the ending and the beginning of the universe. This is where one got philosophies like Deism. If this is so, then there cannot be free will, all choices are determined.
Without belaboring a bunch of stuff I'm sure you already know, one possible solution that has been put forth and is a popular hypothesis in occult circles (and others but perhaps in different terms) is that the seeming paradox between determinism and free will is an illusion of our level of consciousness (literally of the 3dness of our brains in tension with the 4dness of our minds.) That both the Everett and Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics are true but in a different sense; by perceiving reality we alter it, shifting it down different possible worldlines; but every part of reality is an observer, therefore panpsychism, and thus panentheism, is also to some degree true. So truth is infinite -- every possible explanation is the case in some universe. But it is also subjective -- what it ends up being is determined entirely by the sum observations of all the entities (whatsoever) in a specific worldline. I know that covers a lot of ground, and I agree it is a hypothesis open to criticism, but it is what I operate under which is why, again, I instinctively recoil from claims of 'One Truth.'
>>Enlightenment is about illuminationAh, I should clarify. I don't really mean that it's not about illumination. What I'm trying to imply by bringing up different kinds of buddhas from Buddhist doctrine is; is enlightenment something that really can come from without, or does it have to come from within? Is the most you can do try to foster the conditions for enlightenment, because if you actually try to put it in someone else, you often end up deceiving both them and yourself?
>>But when beardy longhair says it, it's trite...Well, to be honest, it was trite when the old Chinese bastard said it too. Truisms are a kind of rhetorical tactic and honestly a type of filler. As I've admitted I had a critical eye to his stuff, I mean, there's nothing wrong with saying it and for this crowd it's probably very helpful to point out, but I'm just saying he's not saying anything that's not also included in the doctrines of every other group he mentions, or at least based on that outline it seemed so. The time a truism is useful is before it is seen as a truism, when it is still seen as some kind of paradox. Sometimes solo speakers like him can have true insights about different systems and how they connect that are really exciting, and that's what I was kinda hoping for. But it is by no means wrong.
>>Having an ideal is necessary, even if you don't know what it is you still have it. Sure, I agree with what you say here. But while it may be important for your ideals to be perfect, that comes with an equally strong responsibility to know that the real world can never be perfect or match that ideal, no matter how much you change it (even though, both blessedly and insidiously, as you try to it will over time get closer and closer...but that's a separate problem.)
>>the restI'm sure people who would like a general intro to a variety of occult worldviews could enjoy this video a lot more, but I would caution them to take what he says, especially if he posits certain connections between them, with a grain of salt. If you have some specific parts you'd like me to check out, I'm game, but yeah, otherwise, I get where he's coming from but if I saw him in person I would have a few words with him about some of his phrasing.