Is this about semiotics? If so, study the Greek letter Φ, as in φιλοσοφια (philosophy), and the Λ, as in λακεδεμονοιοι (Spartans). Observe the shape of the letters. Philosophy is essentially the study of the ‘feminine’, the increasing, perpetual, chaos: nature.
Yes, many circles and triangles in the greek alphabet. Indicating that it deals heavily in the basic male and female difference. Forget any western science into this ("Semiotics"). Feeeeel it! Just imagine those pharaohs of Egypt, that had these huge Pyramids! And look at us, living mostly in box-shaped houses today. Nothing good can come off that. That does something to the people dealing with these shapes. In terms of entropy or order. The pyramid of course also being a symbol for the hierarchy. Another ancient ordering tool.
The "Runes" are a very archetypical alphabet. With direct relation to nature:
The poem Hávamál explains that the originator of the runes was the major deity, Odin. Stanza 138 describes how Odin received the runes through self-sacrifice:
I know that I hung on a windy tree nine long nights, wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin, myself to myself, on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run.
No bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn, downwards I peered; I took up the runes, screaming I took them, then I fell back from there.
Philosophy from my limited pov is a masculine scientific approach to the "female". There are other systems like Esotericism, that are already closer to the female. There is a whole area, Philosophy doesn't go into: the occult. And that makes Philosophy dry, lifeless and masculine. Never reaching for those depth of understanding nature and reality.
Last edited by Laconian on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
That's because there's no credible evidence for the paranormal, so philosophers ignore it.
I will not go into the paranormal here. Some occultism does, but I don't. I hope my "Lessons" will be of value.
Lesson 2 - The Vertical Worldview
What does a cow, a monkey, a dog, a cat and a horse have in common? -They're all animals.
What do red, white, black, yellow, blue and green have in common? -They're all colors.
What do bed, table, chair, lamp, bookshelf and sofa have in common? -They're all furniture.
What do waitress, manager, pilot, engineer, musician and salesman have in common? -They're all jobs.
What do T-Shirt, pullover, pants, skirt, dress and shoes have in common? -They're all clothes.
What do rain, sunshine, wind, breeze, storm and lightning have in common? -They're all types of weather.
The above is what we consider horizontal categories. The Western mind is very occupied with these categories.
The vertical thinking is strange to us. But let's explore it. Let's look at what a vertical category is:
a.) What do the color purple, the metal pewter, a horse, a Redwood tree, Beethoven and the movie Ben-Hur have in common? More difficult?
b.) What do the God Thor, Jeans, the adjective: hot, spring, war, rhino, Chili, Samuel Hahnemann and teeth have in common?
So these categories are more difficult to classify for a western mind. Since they are not related horizontal, but vertical. Each of the above categories a.) and b.) belong to a certain archetype. a.) belongs to the archetyp of Jupiter, the Greek God Zeus and the star sign Sagittarius. (This is the time quality we are in at the moment.)
b.) belongs to the planet Mars, the God Ares/Mars and the star sign Aries.
This knowledge can be practised in everyday life. It can help you to judge situations and people better.
Last edited by Laconian on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lesson 3: Female Weapons 1.) Love, decadence, prestige, deception, wealth, status, wellness, enjoyment, relaxation, luxuries, lust, desire, need, greed, shallowness, avarice, fetishism, materialism, need for security, ignorance, rigid, stationary, peer pressure, need for beloning, superficial.
2.) Lunacy, irresponsibility, childishness, not caring about others, not caring for the consequences of ones own actions, sentimentality, emotional weakness, self-chosen victim role, manipulation of moods, sulking, whining, nagging, criticizing, being sore, flight, dependency, serfdom, bondage, enslavement.
3.) Sexuality, lure, seduction, destruction, leveling, weakness, weakening of will, pulling down, keeping on a primal base level, holding down, dread, filth, kinkiness, perversions, sadism, masochism, violence, obsession, revenge, abuse, fanatism, self-destruction.
4.) Silence, mysticism, indecisiveness, unclarity, blurred, unclear, melancholic, addiction, chaotic, insanity, confusing, dissociation, corrosion, mania, loss of identity, being cast out, self pity, feeling of degradation, antisocial, dishonest, amoral, lying, life rejection, deception, diminishing borders.
5.) Lost in details, fussy, overly tidy, nosy, getting in someone elses space, work'o'holic, coldness, hardness, strictness, unwillingness to learn, insistence on being right, obtuseness, fear, envy, ruthlessness, compulsive, depression.
6.) Worry, anxiety, living not lightly, taking minor matters very serious, not being able to relax enjoy let go have fun, rumors, chattiness, gossip, pedantry, hairsplitting, cynicism, sarcasm, condemning others, devalutations, ordering- and tidiness craze, despotism.
Astrology has nothing to do with the horoscope, you find in the newspaper. And it doesn't mean that the stars influence anything here on earth. Compare it to the seasons. You don't go swimming in a lake in December, but in July or August, it may be more suitable. Our earth and its nature show us some of these seasonal changes. The stars are just another factor. Like in early November there was again some war in the Gaza area. Was it because of Scorpio and the planet Pluto!? No but those events merely fit together. You can draw an analogy!!!!!!!!! Like I taught you in lesson 2, above. Astrology is a tool to learn the thinking in analogies. The vertical worldview. Instead of JUST staying within our rational modernistic linear time- and worldperception. It doesn't mean to erase the linear way of thinking either. It just offers an alternative. It has nothing to to with magic or superstition. I have experienced that in December (before Christmas), people are likely more happy. And that is in analogy to Jupiter. Jupiter doesn't cause people to be happy. But it's a happy planet and he somehow seems to be around when people are happy too. This happiness doesn't have to have just a good outcome, it can be very egoistical too. So there are no good or bad times, just certain times for individual things. Knowing that, is an advantage. Like knowing the seasons, when planning the vacation at the beach.
Last edited by Laconian on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:33 pm; edited 2 times in total
Lesson 6 - Like cures like (similia similibus curentur, lat.)
I will give you a pop-cultural analogy to explain the above phrase.
Batman thought he was a "white knight" in the movie "The Dark Knight". The Joker showed him and evoked in him his "shadow" (C.G. Jung). So Batman saw, that he isn't just good, but has the potential for evil in him also (when aiming for the greater good or his love interests life is threatened).
In "The Dark Knight" rises, the Catwoman is introduced. She represents the "dark side" as well. Only in a little bit lighter fashion, than the joker. More accessible to Batman. Why? Because:
Like cures like (similia similibus curentur, lat.)
The Batman and the Catwoman are more alike, than the Batman and the Joker. That's why he can learn better from the Catwoman, than from the Joker. The Joker was too far away, too contrary, not similar enough. He was his opposite. He a modern day Apollo and the Joker a Dionysus. Batman couldn't kill the Joker, because he sensed this deep connection. That the Joker is Batmans shadow, but too far away, to integrate.
Catwoman of course also has her own issues, that Batman could cure. Like cures like. Very simple. Contraries on the other hand crash together. And no one learns anything, like in "The Dark Knight". The Joker in the end was still a Dionysos, and Batman still a Apollo. Whereas in the end of "The Dark Knight Rises"... I don't want to give the ending away for people who haven't watched it.
In all of Buddhism there is the dogma of the Four Noble Truths, which goes back to the earliest and therefor original buddhist texts.
Quote :
1. "This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha."
2. "This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."
3. "This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."
4. "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."
I've witnessed Buddhists pushing these dogmas too far. The Buddha never meant to found a Religion (Buddhism). Just like Jesus didn't want to father Christianity (But Paulus invented it). Within Buddhist sanghas this leads to narrow mindedness and to much focus on the suffering aspect of existence. But it's valuable. For further information on original Buddhism, this is a great source (non sectarian, academic):
In the case of Esotericism I strongly believe in the value of oral transmission. Live is the best. The closest thing I can offer here, is a youtube lecture. It is on the 4 Noble Truths, or The 4 Great Seals of Dharma, as they are called here. It is a young, but very high tibetan Lama. I like his authenticity. Enjoy:
I kind of feel like I should give some oral transmission on the above topic as well. I'll do it as laconic as possible in writing. I feel humbled with my little experience and knowledge in this sector by the long history of Indian tradition. But I'll give it a try.
So Buddhism is founded in Indian Brahmanism. The Buddha was an Elitist AND a Liberal. This is my perspective. Which makes him hard to judge. He appeared at the end of the declining civilization of India. And was soon assimilated within Hinduism. They merely made him one of their Avatars. Buddhism was never a "thing" (I hesitate to call it Religion) for the masses. The Buddha was a prince and philosopher. He got a group of followers, but never intended to found a Religion, or even monasteries. No such thing. In the 7th and 9th Century A.D., two journeys were made to save the then already evolved Buddhist teachings, by getting them from India to Tibet. The first by Guru Rinpoche (which was ended by some King) and the second by Marpa the Translator. Other Yogis were involved, too. It was then an oral tradition, with a very dedicated master(teacher)-student relationship. The most famous one being the one of Marpa and his main student Milarepa.
The reason why I , in other topics, spoke so critical about tibetan Buddhism (creeping poison in the West), is that it is already influenced by Bön (or Bon), a form of Shamanism, that was very widespread in that area at the time around the 7th and 9th Century AD. Hinduism and its Pantheon. And probably also: Judeo-Christianity. This is to be recognized, to truly appreciate it, for WHAT IT IS. And it can surely be appreciated, I just haven't found a person yet, who could grasp this. (The Abidharma, which are today considered the most intellectual buddhist teachings are non-canonic from the pov of the original teachings and very dangerous, if not looked at with care. The tibetan monastery tradition is even worse. Still there is deep truth and gems to be found in there. A view of life, that is very opposite from our western one, that it is very transforming for westerners minds. But also full of traps and possibilities to lose oneself in these teachings and their fundamental Nihilisism.) Buddhism today can only be found in its tibetan form in the West, so that's why people need to pay attention to these influences. I don't want to hold anybody back from making some experiences with a western sangha. (For me it was a bridge to search for my own spiritual roots...and I learnt meditation, which is a very useful tool) But they all tend to be very sectarian (especially the ones that pretend not to be) and the Dalai Lama, who does know, keeps most his knowledge to himself and only passes out crumbs. (Buddhism historically in Tibet has also been used to suppress the poor and keep them as anxious servile slaves. Hard physical punishments for crimes were the law still only 50 years ago in Tibet. The latest scandal of abuse in a Buddhist monestary -besides all the power misuse by Lamas towards their female students in the West- is the case of the Kalu Rinpoche (so also not different from Catholicism):
His lecture early this year is pretty great though (It's on his shoulders, I guess, that the future of Buddhism rests.):
It has become a Religion for liberals, yuppies and feminists in the West. But find out for yourselves.
The above website (which now has restricted access) is dedicated, to what is called original Buddhism. Or Alt-Buddhismus (German) (Old Buddhism) as founded by Georg Grimm, who followed Schopenhauer. This Buddhism is solely relying on the earliest sources of the Buddhist texts. (Even before Theravada/Hinayana, which is, as the Abidharma it includes, already to be considered a sectarian offspring and therefor non-canonic).
What still fascinates me with Buddhism is the Buddha himself. We are also in a declining civilization (from O.Spenglers pov), so the buddhist teachings may be suitable for our time, as Julius Evola also saw, and published two or three books on the subject.
On the one hand Buddha clearly was a libaral. He attested Buddha Nature to not only every man, regardless of race (or caste, at that time in India), but also to animals. Buddha Nature, being the capability to reach enlightenment. But he was elitist in saying:
Quote :
"The Tathagate (Buddha) teaches only Aryans (arya),...not puthujjana (inferior, profane)" [Majjhima Nikaya 2]-Gotama Buddha
He also first excluded women from this, but changed his mind, after his favorite student asked him for it.
The following quote is from the above website. It gives a state of the modern Buddhist sects and captures the picture very well in my opinion:
Quote :
"Silly-putty Buddhism" - Modern Buddhism is somewhat like the toy "Silly Putty" which can be shaped into a variety of grotesque clumps as young children are wont to do. All the people who play with this Buddhist putty, however, are not the same. Some wish to shape it into religious agnosticism. Others, who are quite pessimistic, are eager to shape it into a form of mystical suicide - or worse yet, nihilism. Others just want to look at it because it is something quite novel and antiquarian. Still others wish to shape it into global do-goodism being a rationalization to handout ham sandwiches to the poor. Others are of the conviction that whatever shape the putty takes in the hands of its user, it is the right form of Buddhism.
The Sock-puppet philosophy of modern "Buddhism":
1. Zen sock-puppet heresy: "If I put the sock-puppet on a zafu cushion with correct posture for a long enough period of time it will eventually become enlightened." Rebuttal to Zen: "Whether he walks, stands, sits, or lays on his side; so long as his mind (citta) is sovereign upon his very Soul, he is thoroughly quelled" [KN 4.82].
2. Theravada sock-puppet heresy: "This sock-puppet is composed of five aggregates alone and is animated by mere karma and ignorance. There is nothing underneath the sock-puppet in reality since all phenomena are devoid of a Soul. If you hazard a look under the sock-puppet you would find only another sock-puppet composed of karma, one after another through many lives driven by desire and taints. Ultimately the sock-puppet is just name and form, and when by wisdom this is known, the sock-puppet can be unraveled by its very thread to reveal that there is ultimately nothing whatsoever; knowing this is Arahantship." Rebuttal to Theravada: The mind (citta) is none of the five aggregates [MN 1.436]. "To be fixed in the Soul is the other shore, is having gone beyond." [Theragatha-Att. 3.6.]. "The Soul is Charioteer" [Jakata-2-1341].
3. Vajrayana sock-puppet heresy: "Our sock-puppet comes from a long and honorable unbroken lineage of sock-puppets which can be traces all the way back to the very first sock puppet "Sock-yamuni Buddha". All our sock-puppet gurus were approved of by their sock-puppet masters whom we serve and give money to in hopes that they will shed their wisdom upon us, the pathetic and undeserving. Emptiness is our supreme teaching, for our sock-puppet gurus tell us that if you take the sock-puppet off your hand and look inside, there is nothing at all; this emptiness is the great Sock-yamuni's Buddha nature which he discovered and taught!" Rebuttal to Vajrayana: Vassakara asks Ananda whether anyone had been specified by the Buddha as one who would, after his death, become the leader of the Order or as a successor under whom everyone would seek shelter. "The Buddha (speaking of himself) does not appoint a succesor to the Order [DN 2.158]" "My teachings will, after my passing, be your teacher." [DN 2.134]" "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asunna)" [Uparipanna'sa-Att. 4.151].
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Would you say that the way Buddhism is understood and practiced in the west is really a modern variant resulting from a general decline of the spirit behind the original teachings?
I’ve heard that the original doctrine did not allow females to enter the path towards becoming a Brahman, but that this rule was alter changed to allow females to enter.
It is an uphill battle trying to fight to clean the terms Esotericism, Mysticism and so on. I resign. I think they are forever tainted and will always be associated with secrecy, an elite, one does not belong to, and generally anti-science, emasculated new-age fags, deluded and abusive powerhungry gurus, anti-progress, superstition... too bad so much value is lost along the way... (All hail Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists! I love you Big Brother! 2 plus 2 equals 5.)
Modern Buddhism is an altered form to make it appealing to the masses. Original Buddhism is the opposite of modern (tibetan) Buddhism. Luckily we are still able to study old Buddhism today. (Georg Grimm, Arthur Schopenhauer and Julius Evola wrote books on the subject. The Webmaster of the Kathodos Website and the Aryan Buddhism Blog, seems to me the most trustworthy guide for Original Buddist sources.)
Women own modern Buddhism. (There are way more women than men in Buddhism in the West.) It is heavily connected with Feminism even! So sad. Here is the wikipedia article (wikipedia itself heavily favors feminist topics and tends to write history new):
From my experience mostly women in their late 30's and 40's, 50's, who didn't find a husband flock to tibetan Buddhism. It's an escapist route. And they want to get laid. Live promiscuous like before. Without any emotional bonding or commitments of any kind. They actually do seek some kind of masculinity and ordering in the practices for themselves. Especially the younger ones, in their 20s. The older ones just want to get laid. It's all pretentiousness. In reality they just want to get fucked, by the feminized yuppie male "buddhists". Who aren't doing the job, which is funny to watch.
What do you see? . . . . . There are plenty more fancy ones online. In german "Vexierbilder", in english, they're merely called "picture puzzle", "optical illusions" or "hidden faces".
The clue here is that you can either see a vase or two peoples faces turned towards each other in profile. You cannot see both at the same time. This is our state of perception, in the world. We perceive the world as polarity. As duality. We are constantly forced to make choices in this world, to decide for the one or the other. We can never perceive "unity", the "one", "god", "singularity". We are forced to make choices and thereby lose our inner equilibrium. Become unhappy, unbalanced. Only throughout the detour of time, can we look at the other side too and "integrate" it. We can never see it all at once. That both are there simultaneously: the vase and the faces, in the above example. But we have to decide and thereby become unbalanced towards either the black or the white. The faces or the vase, in this case.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
But the reason they are called 'hidden faces' is because you see the vase first, as this is what is common to us in everyday life, not two perfectly symmetrical profiles staring each other in the eye.
If anything it's a feminine trick designed to make people question what they see, a sleight of hand by the simulacrum. Not evidence that we are forced to perceive the world as a duality by our physical nature.
_________________ “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - - George Orwell
Important is, that you cannot perceive both images at the same time. You can merely switch from one viewpoint to the other and perceive either the vase or the faces.
In Esotericism, we distinguish between the "I" and the "Self". As I showed in my final lesson above "Polarity and Unity", we are forced to decide constantly, which way to go. The right path or the left path. Choices. Even doing nothing is a choice. We cannot perceive unity, but only polarity. The "I" (or Ego) is blind to this fact and therefor identifies one pole as "good" (or preferable) and the other as "evil" (or lesser) and the "I" tends to nourish the pole that it identifies as "good". Thereby man becomes unbalanced towards this pole.
Take "Christians", who only prefer the white and nice and lovely aspects of life and nourish them only. They've closed their eyes to the unity (which is also called "God") and decided to only stay in their comfort zone. They become big Egos. Like any pastor at your local church. Or take "Bodybuilders" who identifiy only with their muscles and tend to neglect their brains/intellects. They too become one-sided. And you and I too! Everybody, in his/her fields of preferences.
The "Self" on the other hand represents both sides of every coin. To "know thy self" therefor is the opposite of "to build thy ego" (to know thy "I"). To "know thy self" is to tear down your ego and see all sides of the spectrum. There's an Indian phrase (which has several meanings): "Tat wam asi". One translation is: "that over there is also within me."
For Christians it means to realize, that they also have the capability to do evil within them. And for Bodybuilders, that they are not just their muscles, but also brains, heart and so on.
Acknowledging that every known psychological archetype (represented in the greek pantheon) is also within yourself: is to know thyself. It's not an ego identification of heritage, race, geography, family, wealth, ... Those are all "I"dentity markers, but are as such part of the "I". The "Self" is beyond the "I" (the "ego"). It's ego-lessness. Some eastern traditions call this realization "Enlightenment".
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
To know yourself is to explore your past as far back as you can.
The further back you get the more you disappear in the everything.
At some point the absence of an absolute, which life is a reaction to, is this rejection of void by establishment a self, an ego. The ego is what distinguishes you and makes even the perception of your own imperfection and the absence of an absolute possible.
The ego, is another projection of the absolute...an idea...an ideal. Going towards it is a movement towards godliness. God is a representation of a completed SELF.
That ego has become a word of shame is part of the feminization process. See, why I equate your eastern philosophies with feminization?
This is more of a social and political tactic. Take the ego out of the individual and you turn him into a good, humble, automaton...an emasculated robot that can then be trained to be anything...including an empty husk of a man ready to receive orders from his betters.
To know yourself is to explore your past as far back as you can.
The further back you get the more you disappear in the everything.
The Eastern Traditions have the way of meditation to "disappear in the everything", without a need of exploring the individual past, though it is not prohibited to do so and often done as well. (Since everything that ever was, can still be found in what is present at this moment.) The Indian (Brahmanism) that is, and the original Indian Buddhism. They call the everything Brahma ( a name for the deity. Deism).
Quote :
At some point the absence of an absolute, which life is a reaction to, is this rejection of void by establishment a self, an ego. The ego is what distinguishes you and makes even the perception of your own imperfection and the absence of an absolute possible.
But everybody has an Ego. There is no need to try to establish an ego, it is there from earliest childhood on and growing. This is the root of dukkha (skt. for "suffering), the identification with the Ego and the non-realization of the Self.
Quote :
The ego, is another projection of the absolute...an idea...an ideal.
It is very real to me and everybody else I know and see around me, who are all suffering from their identification with the "I" (the ego) and have not realized the "Self".
Quote :
Going towards it is a movement towards godliness.
From my perspective growing an even bigger Ego, than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction.
Quote :
God is a representation of a completed SELF.
Yes and "the Self" has transcended the "Ego". It has seen itself in everything and everyone. And doesn't need to distinguish itself anymore, by race, class, heritage, family, job, favorite music....
Quote :
That ego has become a word of shame is part of the feminization process.
It hasn't in my opinion. I see all kinds of perfume, car, cigarrette, watches, make-up and beauty products in general commercials, where the "I" , the "ego" is very much promoted. "Because I am worth it", is one of their slogans. Everything in pop-culture is centered around the Ego. You can become a super-hero too, is the message of Batman. And so on.
I've had two teachers in the past 5 years and the second one also claimed that the Ego is important. He said it's root was "I go". E go. From E for electrical. And go from going (to go). So without an Ego (I go), you stand still. And that is true. You need the Ego to reach the "Self", but it is only a tool on the way. So I agree that some eastern traditions slander the Ego and thereby miss the mark. And never reach the self, but lose themselves in wellness meditation, which is then pure Ego-stroking (as I've witnessed with western tibetan Buddhists), being neither hot nor cold, but luke-warm, like Jesus said. And are "spit out" (to stay within this biblical metaphor), by Enlightenment (Brahma, "God").
Quote :
See, why I equate your eastern philosophies with feminization?
Yes. I look at these traditions as a tool box. My roots is western esoterics. On this foundation, I see some very valuable tools within easter philosophies though. Plus the FOCUS within eastern tradtions is correct. In Western traditions there are many traps also (with theism and dogmas, that often get added to a deistic outlook, like in Kabbala or Gnosticism). And you can lose focus easily by all the mulitple distinctions, categories and so on. Easterners are more spartan in their ascetism and simplicity.
Quote :
This is more of a social and political tactic. Take the ego out of the individual and you turn him into a good, humble, automaton...an emasculated robot that can then be trained to be anything...including an empty husk of a man ready to receive orders from his betters.
My first teacher ended up like that (actually he is rebelling, but hates himself for doing so, which is extra absurd). The second one, who emphasizes the ego isn't much better off though. He is in his late sixties, has two grown up children and a mother still alive and brothers/sisters, who he has NO contact with. (And doesn't care or see a need to step into contact with.) Instead he uses every opportunity to stroke his ego. He is into all kinds of Ego affirmative esotericism, like huna shamanism. And the mayan calander according to Argüelles and channeling and all sorts of stuff.
My favorite myth is the one of Prometheus. He rebels and than later he takes his place in the cosmic order. (As marked by Goethes Poems: "Prometheus" and "Limits of mankind", that I posted on here.) He builts up a very strong ego. And people should do that until their mid-life crisis. But there is also "a way back", towards the self, towards unity. And the end-sixties guy, I mentioned above, should long be on his way back, towards the self. Which includes his family of course and acceptance, integration of all. But he still rebels and struggles and thinks he knows it all best and has just an immense Ego, that he constantly keeps adding to. He doesn't face his jungian shadow. He pushes away immense parts of reality. The Ego always relies on an illusion. That's why he cannot face me, because I pointed some of them out to him. He too is immensely feminized. He thinks of himself as masculine, but it's a caricature of masculinity. It's a farce. He is full of suppressed anger of course at anyone, who points out any truth about him and only seeks the young and weak that he plays the teacher for. This guy had some severe stomach problems. And psychosomaticly stomach represents "reception"/"receptivity". He is just like a chatter-box, who cannot listen to anybody else, but himself. In astrological archetypical psychology it is the moon element that he misses. He is all sun. Smiling and (fake) shining all day. But he's superficial, because he doesn't learn.
I've been called a theist on here before and rightfully so, because I haven't taken the time to explain myself in more detail. I am a deist and have studied Religions more than Philosophy. Call it weakness, whatever. I've been fascinated with Religion for a very long time, growing up with Atheist parents. Once on a vacation we were in Spain visiting a huge beautiful cathedral and in the middle aisle, I was only seven or so, I went on one knee and did this cross sign, like the Catholics do. And my father pulled me away and hit me behind the ear. He said "this is blasphemy". Of course I could have never understood the term blasphemy at that age, nor do I until this day know, why my father hit me and said it. So this is where I kind of sensed that there was something unexplainable, big about Religion, that even my father, who I of course idolized far beyond the age of 7, feared. So this is my personal story. In the US at 16/17, living there for a school year, I experienced some charismatic gospels. I studied Nietzsche from 20 until 25. But it was only with 26 that I started to allow myself the study of Religion.
So I am a deist today. I think there is some kind of order within the "cosmos" (a term that means "order" in its greek origin), even with the Universe expanding. And that this order can be understood to some degree, even. (Gnosis)
We have a blurred line between Deism and Theism. And that is because mans wish has always been to make sense of the unity. The Oneness. The Cosmic Order. You can see this in the materialization of God. In the Old Testament. But more so in Jesus Christ, who was an Avatar. In the Indian Gods and Avatars. In the paintings of them. Some of the Jews too are waiting for a different Avatar, than Jesus. So there is a desire to make God into Man. To make him touchable.
2.) Gods Sexuality (The Sexuality of God)
In this context God has a Sexuality too. In Indian and Tibetan drawings you can see that. You even see the deity uniting with a female partner. Having sexual intercourse. In the ancient greek creation myhts, you have this too: a male and a female entity. In Shintoism also. Also in the Western Gnosticism and Kabbala. But in the western exoteric theism this is of course unimaginable. Even mother Maria had to be made into a virgin.
3.) God is unheal
God is "unheal", not in unity anymore (after a partly fall into matter), according to Gnosticism and Kabbala. This is where the "Great Work" comes into play. The dynamic. He longs for his lost "Shekhinah", his female half, which is this earth, mankind. We must look up and seek him and unite with him. He is broken in two halfs. We are one half and this half is needed for his completion, so that he can become "One" again.
This belief is something unique to Western occult traditions as far as I know.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
But everybody has an Ego. There is no need to try to establish an ego, it is there from earliest childhood on and growing. This is the root of dukkha (skt. for "suffering), the identification with the Ego and the non-realization of the Self.
No, ego, the self , is what is becoming. It is active, so nobody fully possesses it, or knows it.
Laconian wrote:
From my perspective growing an even bigger Ego, than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction.
Then you've been nifected with the Judeo-Christian, modern, nihilistic shame concerning ego.
Ego is another word for self...ego is the Greek term for it.
Quote :
Yes and "the Self" has transcended the "Ego". It has seen itself in everything and everyone. And doesn't need to distinguish itself anymore, by race, class, heritage, family, job, favorite music....
Then it is assimilated.
To identify with a Greater Self, like God, Nation, Otherness, Ideal is to surrender self to the Stronger, uniforming, assimilating Superorganic Self.
Paganism was originally a worship of one's dead ancestors. The father figure was the connection to them...a holy figure for his family.
By worshiping them he essentially worshiped himself, his own existence. The prayer was esoteric as the past was present in him.
Then I should draw the line between "Ego/Self" on the one hand and the "I" on the other hand.
We live in a culture that worships the "I", like in "iphone" and debases the "Self/Ego". In its common usage the "Ego" is unfortunately an inflated "I" even.
I am not here to change common trends (usages of words). I just want to point something out, that I've realized to be true.
Satyr wrote:
Quote :
Laconian wrote: From my perspective growing an even bigger Ego, than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction.
Then you've been nifected with the Judeo-Christian, modern, nihilistic shame concerning ego.
No, I just put "Ego" and "I" together and contrasted it with the "Self". You corrected me, giving the correct greek origin of the word. So it is "Self/Ego" vs. "I". So let me correct my phrasing:
From my perspective growing an even bigger "I", than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction. Better would be a working towards the Self/Ego. Which there are more than one ways towards. The old pagan way of ancestor or family head (father) honoring being one. Meditation being another.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
You are adding complexity when you should be trying to simplify.
Here's the thing, from my perspective:
Language often uses multiple words to describe the same concept with only a slight variation.
Take the concept of the absent absolute. Because it is absent it can be anything: Self, Here, Now, One, God, Idea, Ideal etc.
The "I" is simply another term for self/ego. it is the same concept from the first person perspective. The other is the same concept from a second person perspective. The mind detaches itself, from itself...like how self-consciousness is a partial detachment of a part of perception , mind, from the rest.
Take consciousness or life. It is a part of existence detaching itself from the rest attempting to complete itself by separating and isolating itself from the world. Self-Consciousness, in turn, is a part of consciousness detaching and separating itself from consciousness. It can be thought of as an agency.
Like I the Matrix...all the characters represented a part of the Matrix...both participating within it but separate...trying to become independent. This is how the concept of freedom, independence, makes sense.
So, freedom is, yet again, another term for the absent absolute. It is the desired which is lacking...and we experience, interpret as need/suffering.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37248 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I am all for simplification. And I read your "Encapsulation", which is very much in line, with what I have read from the Webmaster of Kathodosdotcom (and Aryan Buddhism Blog). To stay within Dawkins terminology the question remains: are you an atheist? an agnostic? or a pagan? And what am I, out of these 3?
Quote :
Self-Consciousness, in turn, is a part of consciousness detaching and separating itself from consciousness.
In my view self-consciousness and consciousness are the same.
Quote :
What is order, after all, but limited possibilities. A singularity would have one possibility, as it would encompass all others.
Limited possibilies is disorder from my perspective. Even the highest form of disorder. In the most chaos, possibilities are limited the most. Or as Heinz von Foerster stated in his Ethical Imperative:
Quote :
Act always so as to increase the number of choices.
_______________
Quote :
The point, is yet again, another term for the absent absolute.
Correct, that's why we can only perceive and imagine a circle or a ball, but not a point (without height, width, depth, length...)
So for me agnosis is a tool to learn. It's a dynamic tool. If I say: "I know something", than learning (more) becomes impossible. There is no more drive to learn, if I already (think I) know. On the otherhand I do not completely reject the possibility of knowing. Nor do I claim that everything is an illusion and in reality nothing exists. The things that I perceive and I myself exist. AND they don't exist. It is actually both. And the human mind is not capable to understand this. It sounds crazy. So Dawkins categories are helpful only to a degree and become mere tools for somebody, who doesn't have a political agenda, like he does. I don't want to belong to an atheist, new atheist, agnostic or pagan club. Therefor I don't have to decide for one of the categories and can look at all of them as tools. And I would add the category: Gnosticism (in its combination with the Kabbala or Neoplatonism), that draw very useful models of this complexity and thereby simplify it (unfortunately sometimes mixed and distorted by political agendas, like all human constructs). But not to the degree of oversimplification, that limits the possibilities of the individual, like Dawkins categories, which are purely for politically distinguishing friends and foes. I could be friends even with a theist, like Guenon [the difference between a deist and a theist isn't yet fully established. Guenon like many others was a very vivid deist at least. To call him a theist is a perspective, that might do him injustice. It is just my current perspective.], who used and applied his belief consciously to learn about life, in a very meditative way. (I haven't read him yet. Ananda Coomaraswamy was like that, too.)
It is almost impossible to escape the dichotomy of good and evil. If you say the right-wing is good and the left is evil. Maleness is good and femininity is evil. Discrimination is good and Egalitarianism is evil. The jews are evil and aryans are good. Hedonism is evil and ascesis is good. Religion is evil and science is good. The West is good and the East is evil. Paganism is good and Christianity is evil. Whatever categories you chose, you are within this paradigm. Good and evil is the hardest category to ever transcend. I've grown aware of this in my early twenties, reading Kafka and Nietzsche. And ever since, distinctly searched for what is considered "evil" by most of society, or at least my immediate surroundings. I've always played the devils advocate. But in modern times there are too many of us devils advocates. The devil himself is unemployed, because there are so many clones of him running around. It's hardly a special position anymore, but desired and fought for, by many. In fact the opposite: the good side is what is becoming more and more void. Every good deed is immensely calculated. An act of weakness, by the weak to establish a social security net of their own. Evil is the norm. And Goodness comes only in portions, in the form of social acts, that are sponsored by taxpayers money. They're not heartfelt, but done out of pure necessity. Egotism.
Evil in my definition is everything that is incomplete (one-sidedness). Like Hubbard above. He is more complete than his offspring (the Harry Palmer, that I posted elsewhere), but still lacking. And this simplicity works. The cults in self empowerment. I know many people who are involved with this one way or the other. These courses work for the simple minded. But they are self perpetuating and system relevant. All carriers of the modern system. Like the Aurini. He states he is not like the MRA, but doesn't create anything on his own. Mere criticism doesn't get you anywhere. If you have an idea of your own, you've got to market it. You've got to take it out there. Being an introvert helps nobody. Not even yourself. Nobody is unaffected by the stupidity of the masses. Unless you belong to the old money elite, you are somehow affected by modernity. Unless you can buy your freedom, you are a slave. That's why the focus on money by all cult-leaders and groups is a given.
Evil is the own limitation, towards the goal of survival.
So evil is nothing to be rejected. It is merely a tool. All of creation is "evil". But you've got to know how it's done to manifest a reality that is livable for you.
In our world of polarity we must decide either for one thing or the other. It's the acceptance and integration of both sides of the coin that makes a person whole and not one-sided anymore.
Change
Change in Esotericism has nothing to do with opinions. In fact opinions have no place whatsoever in Esotericism. As an esoteric I am not right or left. Male or female. Good or evil. I don't identify by anything physical. That's why many call it escapism and nihilism. It is a tool. And a very usefull tool. Nihilism can be a tool. You just have to perceive it as such. That is important. Esotericism is a higher layer of meaning. Life is a stage, where all kinds of things are done and happen, involving persons. But the esoteric has a view beyond. He has found a way to make sense, to a certain degree. Some more, some less. It is this gnosis, that allows him an escape from the reality, within the reality. He does not leave his body. He still depends on food and shelter, like everybody else. But he has learnt to ask for things. He knows how to ask and who to ask. Take "money". You don't ask someone who's mind is occupied with the accumulation of money to give you money. You ask somebody who wishes to reach some higher stage of awareness or enlightenment. Who wants to be a Bodhisattva. You take a different route: knowing people and being able to imagine a more ideal state of the world. Not hallucinating, merely envisioning. This is not about positive thinking, empowerment, self-affirmation. It is actually the opposite. It's a parasitism. You are not a producer. You are a consumer. Everybody from the 19th Century onwards, is set on production. Be a productive member of society. You've got to make them youtube vids, where you educate them people about your experiences. You've got to help the weak.
Change in Esotericism is a constant dying and birth process. It involves the person as a whole. The old Karma dies off, and the newly created appears, until all is gone someday eventually.
Pretentiousness
In Esotericism you pretend so long until you become it. You pretend to be a Buddha until you become one. You pretend to be a Bodhisattva until you become one. It's a mechanism called Guru Yoga. You study Satyr until you become Satyr. I've first realized this mechanism in Basketball. I'm not very skilled at sports, but somehow exceeded in Basketball. It's because in my youth I watched long hours of basketball on television. Later in school I imitated what I had seen Michael Jordan doing in basketball. I pretended to be him. Abundance
Every Religion that has its foundation in esotericism and is not an exoteric offspring like Judeo-Christianity knows that the principle within nature is abundance. In fact it is only the cult of Darwinism that invented scarcity. Darwinism is the only Religion based on scarcity, because it was modelled after the british industrialisation of the 19th Century. The Class system like Marxism. It is in this sense completely ANTI NATURE. But it is of course found everywhere in our modern world today. But people cannot see that it is a problem of distribution of goods and wealth, demographics, overpopulatuon, privatisation, and a looting of natural resources that got us into the mess of scarcity. It is UNNATURAL. You don't have to been an idealist to recognize that.
The Secret and the more important law of fate of polarity
You've probably all witnessed, if only as bystanders, the hype about "The Secret - The Law of Attraction" only some years ago. I've posted a scientific refutation of its claims on here somewhere. Actually of it's predecessor documentary "What the bleep do we know?" First off, let me mention what I like about "The Secret - Law of Attraction". I like that they kind of demystified the terms "Secret Traditions". Occultism and Kabbala (Quabalah) can be directly translated as "Secret knowledge", "Secret wisdom" or "secret groups". Even "Esotericism" contains such meaning. It was Hans-Dieter Leuenberger ( an honest esoteric ) in the 80's that already stated that secrecy is not the future path of Esotericism. And that was before the internet. He was right of course and now every moron can get any ancient esoteric text. BUT the secret stays secret, the secret keeps itself, like it always has for all millennia, because a moron still won't be able to make sense of it alone all by himself. He will just look at it like an old outdated text and fall prey to the many online gurus out there, who have at least read and understood some. Maybe had teachers. Maybe within a real oral tradition, like all true esotericism is transmitted and preserved. (Never through written texts alone, always at least accompanied by verbal teachings or even bodily exercises in some traditions, such as tantra and yoga.) So what I liked is that the movie kind of went against this secrecy. It used the term for self-promotion though.
To the criticism:
The Law of Attraction comes after the Law of Polarity (as explained in an above posting of mine). So all these positive thinkers out there just like Christian-Churchgoers just want to nourish the good, the white pole and reject the dark pole, the dirty, the base. This comes back at them. Because within polarity you cannot push anything away. The Law of Attraction works, once you've understood the other one and see the other one (Law of Polarity) as superior.
Masuro Emoto
This guy appears in the "Bleep" movie. I think he cannot be criticized and his pictures are evidence. Only evidence of what? And that is up to interpretation. But I think it is interesting to look at the analogies of sounds/words and the effects on the water they have, just for the sake of observing relations. (Vertical Worldview, see post further above)
Traditionalism good. Progressivism evil. ... I probably forgot some...
This good and evil dichotomy can then also be linked to the Law of Polarity. Once you label Progressivism evil, negroes evil, jews evil, egalitarianism evil, religion evil, spiritual new age esoteric cults and gurus evil.... your world becomes very small. Smaller and smaller. Your choices and your knowledge becomes very restricted and you become one sided in all these areas where you push something away from yourself. Satyr has of course this funny metaphor: that these new-age sluts (sluts evil!) should all give homeless people blowjobs, if they claim to be so integrating. So all loving. And he is right to challenge these cunts. And most cultist cunts hide in their cults. It's just a social security net for them. Just a back-up, for their lazy hedonistic asses. (Laziness evil! See how much I am also involved in this pushing away of certain aspects of life. Being a lazy ass myself.) Theory and practice are two pairs of shoes. You practice to be a Buddha, until you become one. Or a Jesus. Buddhist cunts are egotisic anyways. It's always Christians who help the homeless and the poor. Buddhists in the west are exotic and think they're too good for that. So YES the Buddhist cunts are right. It's about INTEGRATION of both sides of the polarity. Most haven't understood this actually. Actually none that I know of. Well, that's why I am teaching on here. You have to integrate both: good and evil. Nice and ugly. All sides of the polartity. All principles this cosmos exists of, to reach enlightenment. As long as you still point outward, saying: "these evil feminists", you still project (onto). You still haven't found the feminist in you. But there are different methods to "integrate" and different paces also for different temperaments, different esoteric teachings. An enlightened Buddha for example, maybe wouldn't give a beggar money, but just walk by and the beggar just seeing the Buddha in his enlightened state would be inspired to follow him. Like that. There are no prescriptions that fit every situation. And why not let a beggar die? Maybe he deserves to starve or freeze to death. That is karma then. Good or evil. You have to look at eastern traditions to at least have the chance to transcend some of this dichotomy. In this particular field western traditions stand behind.
As long as you are still unwilling to see the similarites between you and a feminist, a progressivist, a negroe, understand what religions, cults, certain gurus are all about, you are one-sided and ignorant. You just nourish the one pole of the polarity. Whiteness, maleness, traditonalism, science. Thereby you are just like the Judeo-Christians, only that your distinctions between good (preferable) and evil (lesser, below, to be rejected) are different from theirs. But just LIKE them you're unable and in most cases UNWILLING to escape the basic dichotomy, that always relies on some sort of good and evil distinction. On its very fundamental level.
You said it yourself though you can only perceive one given perspective at a time never both at once. Whether you stand on the side of the pole of whiteness, maleness, traditionalism, science or feminist, progressivist, a negro, you can only empathize with one side at a given time. You can never come to a full comprehension of a side outside of your own (the self) you can only place yourself in another's shoes so to speak. In this way you can only be a self and never an other. What I take from your post is that you are purposing that one keeps subjective and objective values blended together and in this sense you come closer to finding a truth, a better understanding of the world. I don't know if it is so much as unwilling to see as it is being unable to see. If you choose to blend a self perspective with an other that is still your own perspective, your own way of seeing the world. Just like if you were to choose to see one side of the coin that is your own form of identification. Basic dichotomy such as good and evil, simplification is the only way to come to a the closest thing to a complete (as close as possible never quite full) understanding of the world in my opinion. You start with a simple model and then add complexity not start with complexity and add simplification. And if merging is possible then it would have to start with understanding your own view (the simple) and moving on to the more complex (the view outside of your own).
You said it yourself though you can only perceive one given perspective at a time never both at once. Whether you stand on the side of the pole of whiteness, maleness, traditionalism, science or feminist, progressivist, a negro, you can only empathize with one side at a given time.
You can emphazise with all sides. In polarity it is just impossible to perceive everything at the same time. You always take an indiviualist perspective and only by time can work your way to integrate other perspectives too.
Quote :
You can never come to a full comprehension of a side outside of your own (the self) you can only place yourself in another's shoes so to speak.
Listen to the Hubbard vid above. The first step in esotericism is to place mind over matter. Consider yourself a spirit, don't identify with the "meat bag" (your body).
Quote :
In this way you can only be a self and never an other.
I am not talking magic here. Just mental models.
Quote :
What I take from your post is that you are purposing that one keeps subjective and objective values blended together and in this sense you come closer to finding a truth, a better understanding of the world.
Don't blend anything together. We are in a time of massiv ego pursuits, started by Nietzsche, Freud and Darwin in the 19th and early 20th Century. All suffering comes from this focus on the Ego.
Quote :
I don't know if it is so much as unwilling to see as it is being unable to see. If you choose to blend a self perspective with an other that is still your own perspective, your own way of seeing the world.
Don't blend anything together.
Quote :
Just like if you were to choose to see one side of the coin that is your own form of identification.
If you already know that there are two sides of a coin, then that is wonderful. Then you already know there is another side. You've already integrated that knowledge. Now all you need to do is let go of your strong identification with your side of the coin and see what the other side is all about.
Quote :
Basic dichotomy such as good and evil, simplification is the only way to come to a the closest thing to a complete (as close as possible never quite full) understanding of the world in my opinion.
Like I said, it's rather impossible, to transcend this dichotomy of good and evil. The eastern traditions are way ahead of the western ones in this regard.
Quote :
You start with a simple model and then add complexity not start with complexity and add simplification.
Take a child. A child perceives the world as complex. So a learning model is always geared towards simplification of what is perceived as chaos, by ordering (reduction of complexity).
Quote :
And if merging is possible then it would have to start with understanding your own view (the simple) and moving on to the more complex (the view outside of your own).
I am not talking about merging anything. You start with your own view, your Ego and then you learn whatever possible, without loosing your integrity as an Ego, as a Being, as an healthy organism, and so on. Do what is possible for you and what you like basically. I just present mental models here, no living advice. If you need a strong self, with heavy Ego walls, than that is so. Sometimes that is important in life for survival reasons. Some people never give up a mere survivalist perspective. They are always in the warrior or fighter perspective. If you think that is necessary, then that is what it is for you, I won't argue. I don't know your lifes circumstances.
