I never really got around to chapter 4, but I have nothing going on tonight so I guess I'll polish this puppy off.
>Whether the gods truly bear personhood or are simply reifications which serve as a mental tool of mediation for the “common caste” who cannot comprehend the abstracted Absolute, is unknowable...Some modern Indo-European pagan perennialists might phrase it as saying that the gods/devas represent the infinite personalities of (in this case) Vishnu/Bhakti/Saguna Brahman.
Yes, I think what the Platonists argue is that there are two different varieties of "gods" -- those who change (Daemons) and those who don't change (Henads). The big deities tend to be Henads, with some exceptions, while Daemons are attributed to ever-changing elements of nature. For example, an animistic spirit of a mountain is a Daemon. As for the person-ness of the gods, I think several classical philosophers do explain why the gods are not just "metaphors" but that the principles of reality must necessarily have an intellectual agent similar to the grander intellect. Unfortunately, I'm not very well versed in this line of argument yet, I'm still learning about it.
I believe that what Vishnu is referencing is the Kathenotheistic nature of the Hindu gods... In the Vedas, hymns grant omnipotent traits to multiple deities based on whichever deity said hymn is dedicated to. The idea among the Platonists, I think, is that each Henad (as opposed to Daemons, who are still worthy of worship but are just lesser in nature) represent their own self-contained Hypostasis. While here on earth it may seem like certain gods share attributes, it is more the other way around, that certain things in the world we live in are simply a quality of the substances emanating from these two self-contained and completely distinct deities. I think they are described as modes of the One, and so by worshipping them you are worshipping the One. I'm not super sure if I am ready to accept the notion of the Henads yet, it is a very late Platonic idea that I don't fully understand, and very late Platonism is very lofty and complicated that it's sort of hard to follow from a modern perspective unless you have a long time experience with it.
Another fine Platonic argument for the existence of intellectual gods is simply "argument from prior knowledge" -- basically using the Platonic idea that we are familiar with the world of the forms deep within our consciousness, and in life only rediscover them through recognition of their instances. By this logic, you could say that our intuitive deifying of things is evidence of intellectual gods. It seems like a non-insignificant amount of Greeks (and other ancients) sort of just took it for granted that the world was run by eternal intellectual entities, like to them it was just so obvious that they were waiting for evidence of the contrary to ever believe otherwise.
>Manifestations during spiritual daylight are not to be taken as literal occurrences of a divine being stepping foot on Earth at a particular time, but rather represent broad transformative events.
Yes, the idea that myths are these historical events which happened on the "timeline" is more of an Abrahamic thing. It's kind of a cliche to say this at this point, but to the Greeks the myth "was happening" all the time.
On the topic of "wanderers", I don't think that they are anti-intellectual at all. The "wanderer" is probably not literally a manifestation of the god on earth, but men clearly are creatively possessed by divine energy all the time. The poet, the shaman, the frenzied dancer. The Fuhrer...*cough* *cough* and in a sort of opposite way a man can have such a profound degree of excellence and consequence that his soul (which is immortal and existed before he ever walked the earth) ought to be retroactively deemed a god. And by soul, I don't necessarily mean his conscious experience, but the essence of his character in the world. Like, the soul of Alexander the Great is certainly worth as much consideration as the soul of some hurricane or wind. So I would not relegate belief in any of this stuff to the simple-minded.
As far as the ages go (yuga cycle, Hesiodic ages, etc) I think they are more of an allegory for the sinusoidal nature of order and disorder rather than a literal way to interpret history. Order invites disorder, and disorder destroys itself leaving order to spring back out of the waters.
>Vritra has the etymology ‘vrit’ (‘to exist’) and ‘ra’ (‘one who possesses’) = one who possesses existence. In the Rigveda (10.129.4), existence is understood as a mind that has desire. A mind that is free from desire is said to be [beyond existence]. In this context, Vritra represents desire in the mind. Indra slaying Vritra and ‘releasing the waters’ signifies the process of returning the mind to its [beyond existent] state (cessation of desire).”
Hmm, I find this contrived. The "to possess" element probably refers to Vritra's hording of water and cattle, the latter of which is a trait of the serpent in Indo-European myth at large. He is a hoarding dragon, he is a wasteful dragon who causes drought. Indra's slaying of Vritra allows for the correct ordering of the world through the freeing of the waters and the return of cattle to those who will properly sacrifice them, it is a classic Chaoskampf myth.
>Any kind of creation myth worth anything usually describes the archaic or original reality as something vacuous or otherwise something that can change shape or form. Water or liquids take the shape of whatever they’re contained in or whatever they’re limited by, as well. Basically, the universe or created reality could be said to be the ordering or facilitation or disordered primordial material or substance
Exactly what I was talking about with the Vritra stuff. And yes, I would argue that Yahweh in genesis is simply shaping the essential substance, he is a Demiurge. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I talk about this in my post on Abrahamism, that the decision to interpret genesis as "creation ex nihilo" is one of the primary differentiating traits of Abrahamic religion
Oh no worries, I’m always glad to get feedback and my goal is to make this as exhaustive as possible. My target audience is laymen and atheists, so the more I can educate and convince them, the better.
Wow, chapter 3 is long. I might have to postpone Ch.4
>The distinction between the Absolute and relative can also be described in terms of a “masculine” and “feminine” element, wherein God is seen as the Creator (masculine) and Generator (feminine). The “Creative aspect is the metaphysical aspect, which gives form to formless Essential Substance (prakriti), [while the] Generative aspect creates that Essentia Substance itself which remains formless until it is given form by the [masculine] element.
Wait, I am confused at this part. I understood it as "The Ineffable" --> "The One/Being" & "Nonbeing" --> "Nous/Intelligence/Quality" & the composite of Nous which is sort of ambiguous but can be vaguely characterized as "chaos/unorganized-substance/necessity/time/ferment". But you seem to either be skipping a step. Or is the final step the product of interaction between the Absolute and the Relative?
Plato and I think also the Orphics (?) had a fairly similar notion to the Hindoos and the OrthoSLIMES!!! It is the union of Nous (characterized as Zeus) and Necessity (Ananke) that brings rise to the material world. Don't quote me on the Orphics one, I'm not entirely sure. In Norse Mythology this is represented through the formation of the world with the body of Ymir and the handiwork of Odin, Vili, and Ve. Still, there is a big inconsistency where Purusha is being associated here with the Nirguna Brahman. Meanwhile in the Platonic and the mystified pagan traditions it is associated with something subsequent.
Veteran_Rangers on iFunny sent me an essay his friend wrote about the cosmic man in Indo-Iranian comparative myth, but it is in image form which is annoying. But I can probably send u them if u want to read, it is like 15 pages iirc
>Both materialists and (especially) physicalists might hold a position of eliminationism, which holds that consciousness itself is an illusion of interactions between mundane particles in the brain. This is a perfect inversion of the spiritually monadic position: where monism sees Consciousness as the Ultimate Reality and the content and function of matter, physicalism sees consciousness as an illusion of matter.
Yes, this seems to be the primary disconnect between the "Atheist" crowd today, and "Religious" crowds. It isn't that Atheists don't believe in some sort of underlying unity in the universe, it is that they believe matter -- particularly "natural matter" is the underlying unity, or at the very least that matter precedes idea/form/consciousness. Meanwhile, the "Non-Atheists" are all Idealists in the weakest sense, that Idea precedes, if nothing else, matter and phenomenal reality.
>So why reify the nothingness as a “supreme spirit” then? Because Buddhism is a purely esoteric devotion. They are seeking Enlightenment, the total abolition of the “false self” and its “attachment” or “misidentification” with the world. Any and all reification is thus perceived as an obstacle to this goal, since it identifies with what they view as a provisional and therefore illusory reality. Reification and a personal “God”, however, is necessary to anybody who is not seeking this path; those who live in the world must know its author, so to speak.
Do Hindoos not also seek this through Moksha? At least, Advaita Vedanta
>we can also turn to say the Slavic myth for an excellent example, where we see the primordial ocean, known as Nun, acting as a source of unformed chaos out of which the supreme deity Ra or Atum rises to begin taming the chaos and dividing it into the first duality: the divine couple Shu and Tefnut
I think you meant Egyptian myth here. Also, I talked about this a little bit in one of my posts on this site, but a really good representation of the "primordial waters" myth comes from Mesopotamian Mythology with the story of Tiamat. Also, thoughts on the Chaoskampf? I talk mainly about this in my post, that the chaoskampf is a more violent representation of the union between the intellect and the "residual chaos", the latter being represented by the serpent or dragon or other beast which often ascends out of these waters like Leviathan.
>As my acquaintance Clark explains
I know this nigga
>Thus, Saguna Brahman, or pure Being at the relative level, is pure Consciousness. Moreover, since consciousness is a state of perception, this fits with the Thomistic description of God as a state of “pure act”. The result, as we will see, is that God as pure Consciousness engages in the pure act of observation to give rise to things.
Here too the problem of a missing puzzle piece between the Platonic system as I understand it and this system being described drives me off course. To me, consciousness is something which arises with heterogeneity between existent beings, rather than distinction between existence and non-existence. Hence the need for this middle figure between the ineffable One and the intellect. One as Being is in between these and does not really require a complement because the complement to existence is non-existence, which doesn't exist. I guess from the Pythagorean point of view you could say it goes 0-1-2. But Pythagoras knew not of zero and I don't think he considered the ineffable so much. Ehh, but maybe I need to review some stuff. Maybe what I am calling consciousness, you guys are calling "awareness"
>God prefers Good to Evil because Good means God's design is fulfilled.
This, hmm, I don't know about. Whatever happens is God's design, there is no "unfulfilled design" of God. Perhaps you can say "that which is evil is self-destructive/self-contradictory" but evil can also be destructive towards good. The main purpose of the "cycles of history" in Grek and Hindoo mythology is to characterize the sinusoidal nature of good/evil. Good arises, evil destroys good, evil destroys itself, good once again has arisen. The middle two stages of this can be compared to Ragnarok and even the Zoroastrian eschatology where the evil is essentially burnt out of people's souls. Theoretically one can become "close to God" through evil, it would just be a path which would be terrible and which almost all people would find aesthetically repugnant. This is sort of expressed in some left-handed Tantric traditions where they take dangerous drugs and use semen and poop and blood as libations and practice cannibalism. Also, those of us who have chosen the side of good must fight evil, and any intermediate position between good and evil is basically just an inconsistent position, not a real rational path of action and thought.
>by simply being a potential or a possibility, or having an essential character, or as the result of an actualization of a potential, this means that the more contingent that a being is, the more relative properties it has when compared to its essential properties, or ‘what it is truly made to do’.
Why?
>So, in summary: “Good" is a measurement of how close “beings” (principles and conditioned manifestations, in this context) resemble the First Archetype (God), while “evil” is a perversion which occurs “horizontally” due to a multiplicity of conditioning factors being able to obscure “beings” from fulfilling the ideal praxis of their archetypes. The idea is that the farther things emanate or “fall out” from God, the more “relative” they become.
Like I implied earlier, I would say that beings don't really become more or less "like god" in one direction here, if at all, because you're dealing entirely with things from God and things intermediate between two states maximized simultaneously within God.
>The idea is that Awareness simply became “fractured” at some point, self-refracted, and then condensed into the consciousness of all substance. And the more fracturing, refracting, and condensing there is, the more relative and less Absolute things become. Some would apply this to humans in the context of God’s “self-actualization”. Clark has a good way of depicting this: “The esoteric truth contained within myths of figures like Indra, Thor, Michael, Yahweh, or other deific figures slaying great demons or dragons, is that of a human being through various alchemical processes; removing himself from the comings and goings of the material world, so as to make of it what he will.”
This is exactly the issue though. If God is perfect, and God desires fulfillment of good over evil, and evil is generated by further qualification, then God would never have self-multiplied. The Clark quote is quite good though -- these figures are an excellent representation as to why it was believed Heroes achieved godhood. They are doing two things at once -- emulating the act of creation by exerting their will onto the world, and affirming the creative blueprint by beating the world into an orderly shape. Philosophers also emulate the act of creation through introspection, and Artists as well as people in general who pursue excellence and beauty. This may not end in "self-immolation" but it is the "good" way of becoming close to God at the very least, to have an intimacy with God (not in a freaky way). It is similar to the Christian idea of Heaven, where you are not "one with God" but are in a sort of "ecstatic union" with him. Or even like the Elder Scrolls idea of CHIM. It is like the end of the Roblox Obby when you can get the gravity coil.
The demiurge is the reification of Nous, which is just the Greek term for the intellect (the second principle after The One). From what I understand. Anyways I must go, I have to visit the Vatican and make sure the next pope is the reincarnation of Fiscino heheheheh hueueueueue
Ehh, yeah sorry, technically it is the third principle but the ineffable has no truly knowable characteristics and the One has no existent complement so it is sort of the “first incomplete being”. And I think Plato only implies it’s existence I’m not sure if he ever actually mentions the ineffable separate from the One
9.) Tantra I would say is undoubtably sinful and will not grant you good karma or any chance of entering Heaven. Maybe you can achieve Enlightenment that way, but I’m not sure. Shivism is ehhh. You’re basically just worshipping the side of God that most people aren’t comfortable with and so it’s repulsive, but I wouldn’t think it’s actually evil in the way something like Luciferianism is where the focus of worship is not even on death/decay but on obfuscation/rebellion/ego.
I would certainly hope that these sort of extreme tantra guys (not all tantra are like this, just the left-handed ones) face some sort of negative blow for their hubris, but I understand their logic. It is clearly a display of hubris though, they're trying to game the system. I would say that the Satanists do a lot of left-handed stuff but their egoism is just a misstep on their own part. Lucifer is kind of a weird character, I have never seen something exactly like him outside of Christianity. Prometheus and Loki have some similarities but are no where near as antagonistic.
Also I am adding an addition to the Problem of Evil section rn that ties into Free Will vs Determinism, and then contrasts Shivaism (worship of decay) with true evil like Luciferarianism (worship of ego)
I would say destruction is in some ways more of a second side to creation which both stand in contrast to "regression" or "stagnation"... A state of pure entropy where nothing is created or destroyed. You talk about this in the essay, how when one thing is destroyed another is created
8.) It’s not necessarily that they become “less like God”, since all is God, but rather they decline in Absolute-ness; they become more “distant” from the pure status of the Absolute. When Praxius and I say that beings are no longer doing “what [they are] truly made to do”, what we’re getting at is not a prescribed “duty” imposed upon beings, but the simple reality that they are far more relative and skewed than the Absolute source.
Also, God doesn’t “desire” anything in the extrinsic sense. God only “desires” goodness in the same way that a beating heart “desires” not to have its aorta blocked. We’re speaking in reified terms here. The Absolute Awareness did not “desire” or “choose” to fracture; it just did.
Hmm. I think, I think I will have to think about this more, but I would say that if you cannot say the Absolute "chose" to fracture as it is not a "chooser" or a "willer", then it is nonetheless part of its nature, part of the way it works.
7.) I do make the distinction between Awareness and Consciousness in its own section. Before that, I don’t get that nuanced, for simplicity’s sake. I’ll have to look at see where I wrote that quote.
Chaoskampf is basically the battle between the hero who is seen as a restorer/establisher of order, against some primordial chaotic dragon or serpent. It is also often related to the "war of foundation" between gods and their enemies because the enemies of the gods often represent the more chaotic and embryonic state of the world which the gods must beat into proper shape. Thor vs. Jormungandr, Indra vs. Vritra, Tarhunz vs. Illuyanka, and Zeus vs. Typhon are IE examples but others exist like Yahweh vs. Leviathan (which is likely derived from the stories of Lotan and Marduk).
Yes, also speaking of which I was a bit confused about the section before that where you talk about Indra's creating stuff out of boredom. Are you suggesting this as bad or good? Or just neither
But to put it briefly, you can sort of think about it mathematically. Set-theoretically to be exact. Ananke is basically just the complement to the intellect, which is associated with Zeus as the demiurge. And not really Zeus as we would recognize him but as a sort of amalgamated triune deity. But the identity of the deities involved seems to be different depending on the author. Some view it as Zeus-Cronos-Ouranos. Some as Zeus-Poseidon-Hades. Some say Zeus-Chronos-Rhea I think. There are also other identities attributed to the intellect. Like the Sol Invictus crowd had some interesting views on the whole stuff. I think I will try and look into some of the Sol Invictus stuff while on vacation, you know, in this country there are ancient relics, it is the oldest of countries almost. I will be cracking open very ancient stuff here, keep it on the down low. Very powerful, magicka artifact here.
I'll try and get back to you on it. Right now I should probably finish packing as I'm vacationing in a "third world country" starting tomorrow and ending next week. I'll still have my computer and phone, but I'll be busy "dealing arms to the local paramilitaries"
1.) So one of my main goals with this essay was to try to simplify the language and terminology in a way that would make it more accessible for lay audiences, especially since a motivation for writing this was to make an appeal to atheists, who typically know nothing of these topics. That’s why I often reduced God to a simple binary, such as Creator and Generator. There’s a few points in the essay where I mention more than two degrees, but perhaps I’d be wise to clarify on those parts, expound more, and incorporate your terms as well, since I like to make sure I cover as many vocabularies as possible.
Oh-Nigga! 110 minutes now? This just keeps getting longer and longer... Once again I have to grind on fortnite after I finish my current 'stack because the assholes at Epic games made it really difficult to get XP this season frankly, but if I'm not too tired I'll try to knock out Part 3 and 4 when I'm done
I’m planning to add even more content soon in light of the essay from Praxius that I restacked yesterday. So if you don’t want this thing getting even longer on you, I’d say read it soon!
I have an 8 hour long flight in a few days, but I've been reading the Divine Comedy and would like to have Purgatorio finished by the time I land. So I'll try to read it before then
I might actually suggest you wait until after the next revision patch because Praxius has the perfect comprehensive solution for the Problem of Evil and you might be fascinated by it. If not, I’d really suggest reading his Verticality essay that I restacked. It’s only a 15 min read but it’s really dense.
Here is first comment. I only read the first half so far.
>Specifically, perennialism is the position that most natural religions have mystified what is in fact the same quintessential truths regarding the metaphysical structure and organization of Reality. It is not the position of “all religions are true”, but rather, it is the position that most religions speak to the same abstract truths which are obfuscated in myths that must be demystified.
My main problem with Perennialism (which I talked about in my response to Praxius over Pagans) is that a lot of the Traditionalist/Perennialism crowd like to pick and choose what thinkers to pick up as evidence of the widespread Perennial Tradition, and throw those with other ideas out as “decadent” or something-something. I think they’re right but in a bit of a redundant way. All religions require an Idealistic element because almost all religions with set beliefs (as opposed to purely ritualistic religions) are supernatural. Monism, ehhhhh… It’s really hard to say, because a lot of ancient religions either just weren’t really caught up in the “original cause” or were, but didn’t leave records on it.
But I’ll admit, I’ve become a little bit more sympathetic to the notion of a Perennial Tradition in the past few months. I originally used to consider myself a Perennialist, but I stopped. Maybe at the end of this I’ll return.
>“…This incongruency in logic is enough to likewise dismiss the notion of pantheism, which equates God with the universe, despite the fact that the universe is clearly conditioned by principles and laws greater than its scope, such as temporality or mathematics. The only ontologically justifiable position is one which is monadic, emanationist, and panentheistic, asserting that Ultimate Reality is a Oneness, that all faucets of reality are contained with that Oneness, and that this Oneness both contains and is beyond the scope of the universe itself”
Ehh… If you consider non-physical things as “reals” then Pantheism also includes all of that stuff — mathematical principles, objects, temporality, etc etc. What you are describing as “Pantheism” is more like Physicalist Monism, like what the Stoics were up to. I’m pretty sure Spinoza (who people seem to think of when they think Pantheism) actually did believe in non-physical things as reals, he wasn’t a Physicalist Monist.
My issue with Panentheism is that it seems pretty much redundant and serves mostly to reconcile certain Abrahamic dogmatic notions of God with the Monistic notions of the Greks and others. How could God be *more* than the sum of his parts? If this “transcendent” element exists, and comes from God, then surely it is also a “real” in the world.
>The first article of this three-fold synthesis holds “that what exists as an effect necessarily presupposes a cause.” Superficially, this is a replicable and perennial fact of reality: that things as they are, once were not, and thus were caused to be. It is demonstrably observable to the point of gross obviosity.
I ultimately agree with the “uncaused cause” argument stuff, but I’ve always found it a bit unrigorous. Intuitively, it is definitely true, I think the problem is semantic. “cause” is probably not the correct term — I heard a more refined attempt at this argument without using “causiness” years ago from a fellow Monist, but I forgot the jist of it. You sort of go over this in the paragraph or two after this about how timelessly existent objects or events still necessarily have a “cause”.
>Additionally, it is worth noting that we perennialists take things a step further, arguing that because God is Existence or Being itself, that He is inseparable from the reality He creates; all being is Being. This idea will be explored more throughout the essay.
TRVTHNVKE.
Uhh yeah, I have no comment on anything in particular in 2, because I was already pretty familiar with these concepts from Platonic stuff, but one time in a computer science course my teacher was talking about classes and objects and I told her its like Platonic forms and physical manifestations. And then every woman in the class started screeching at me and ripping their skin off and eventually I had to use instant transmission to bug out of there before they could attack me
Ehh yeah, expect more comments tomorrow because I don’t feel like reading the whole thing tonight. But I am liking it so far, and also some of the sections I haven’t read yet look right up my alley.
Hey Sectionalism, I’ve been having a lot of great dialogue and witnessed some great debate lately concerning how Awareness can be justified as the ultimate content of reality, and I’ve decided that tomorrow I will be adding in a new section to chapter 3. If you haven’t read chapter 3 yet, I would advise you to wait. Otherwise, you can go back and read the new section when it’s added in.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and provide me with feedback. If I make any edits based on your feedback, I will credit you for it in my notes.
Perhaps you make a decent point on panentheism being a redundant reiteration of pantheism. I just tend to view things like a vertical series where the principles of the universe precede its particulars, and the unconditioned precedes both. Creating the distinction between pan and panen may look like splitting hairs to you, but I think really you and I most likely have the same view but understand it a little differently.
I agree not all perennialists are honest and can be picky-choosy, but I try not to be that way. I’m willing to take into account the whole spectrum of well-developed natural religions.
I never really got around to chapter 4, but I have nothing going on tonight so I guess I'll polish this puppy off.
>Whether the gods truly bear personhood or are simply reifications which serve as a mental tool of mediation for the “common caste” who cannot comprehend the abstracted Absolute, is unknowable...Some modern Indo-European pagan perennialists might phrase it as saying that the gods/devas represent the infinite personalities of (in this case) Vishnu/Bhakti/Saguna Brahman.
Yes, I think what the Platonists argue is that there are two different varieties of "gods" -- those who change (Daemons) and those who don't change (Henads). The big deities tend to be Henads, with some exceptions, while Daemons are attributed to ever-changing elements of nature. For example, an animistic spirit of a mountain is a Daemon. As for the person-ness of the gods, I think several classical philosophers do explain why the gods are not just "metaphors" but that the principles of reality must necessarily have an intellectual agent similar to the grander intellect. Unfortunately, I'm not very well versed in this line of argument yet, I'm still learning about it.
I believe that what Vishnu is referencing is the Kathenotheistic nature of the Hindu gods... In the Vedas, hymns grant omnipotent traits to multiple deities based on whichever deity said hymn is dedicated to. The idea among the Platonists, I think, is that each Henad (as opposed to Daemons, who are still worthy of worship but are just lesser in nature) represent their own self-contained Hypostasis. While here on earth it may seem like certain gods share attributes, it is more the other way around, that certain things in the world we live in are simply a quality of the substances emanating from these two self-contained and completely distinct deities. I think they are described as modes of the One, and so by worshipping them you are worshipping the One. I'm not super sure if I am ready to accept the notion of the Henads yet, it is a very late Platonic idea that I don't fully understand, and very late Platonism is very lofty and complicated that it's sort of hard to follow from a modern perspective unless you have a long time experience with it.
Another fine Platonic argument for the existence of intellectual gods is simply "argument from prior knowledge" -- basically using the Platonic idea that we are familiar with the world of the forms deep within our consciousness, and in life only rediscover them through recognition of their instances. By this logic, you could say that our intuitive deifying of things is evidence of intellectual gods. It seems like a non-insignificant amount of Greeks (and other ancients) sort of just took it for granted that the world was run by eternal intellectual entities, like to them it was just so obvious that they were waiting for evidence of the contrary to ever believe otherwise.
>Manifestations during spiritual daylight are not to be taken as literal occurrences of a divine being stepping foot on Earth at a particular time, but rather represent broad transformative events.
Yes, the idea that myths are these historical events which happened on the "timeline" is more of an Abrahamic thing. It's kind of a cliche to say this at this point, but to the Greeks the myth "was happening" all the time.
On the topic of "wanderers", I don't think that they are anti-intellectual at all. The "wanderer" is probably not literally a manifestation of the god on earth, but men clearly are creatively possessed by divine energy all the time. The poet, the shaman, the frenzied dancer. The Fuhrer...*cough* *cough* and in a sort of opposite way a man can have such a profound degree of excellence and consequence that his soul (which is immortal and existed before he ever walked the earth) ought to be retroactively deemed a god. And by soul, I don't necessarily mean his conscious experience, but the essence of his character in the world. Like, the soul of Alexander the Great is certainly worth as much consideration as the soul of some hurricane or wind. So I would not relegate belief in any of this stuff to the simple-minded.
As far as the ages go (yuga cycle, Hesiodic ages, etc) I think they are more of an allegory for the sinusoidal nature of order and disorder rather than a literal way to interpret history. Order invites disorder, and disorder destroys itself leaving order to spring back out of the waters.
>Vritra has the etymology ‘vrit’ (‘to exist’) and ‘ra’ (‘one who possesses’) = one who possesses existence. In the Rigveda (10.129.4), existence is understood as a mind that has desire. A mind that is free from desire is said to be [beyond existence]. In this context, Vritra represents desire in the mind. Indra slaying Vritra and ‘releasing the waters’ signifies the process of returning the mind to its [beyond existent] state (cessation of desire).”
Hmm, I find this contrived. The "to possess" element probably refers to Vritra's hording of water and cattle, the latter of which is a trait of the serpent in Indo-European myth at large. He is a hoarding dragon, he is a wasteful dragon who causes drought. Indra's slaying of Vritra allows for the correct ordering of the world through the freeing of the waters and the return of cattle to those who will properly sacrifice them, it is a classic Chaoskampf myth.
>Any kind of creation myth worth anything usually describes the archaic or original reality as something vacuous or otherwise something that can change shape or form. Water or liquids take the shape of whatever they’re contained in or whatever they’re limited by, as well. Basically, the universe or created reality could be said to be the ordering or facilitation or disordered primordial material or substance
Exactly what I was talking about with the Vritra stuff. And yes, I would argue that Yahweh in genesis is simply shaping the essential substance, he is a Demiurge. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I talk about this in my post on Abrahamism, that the decision to interpret genesis as "creation ex nihilo" is one of the primary differentiating traits of Abrahamic religion
You’ve provided some excellent insights here. I will have to revise chapter four and incorporate these. Thank you!
Heheheh, I hope I’m not forcing you to sidetrack from your other projects in order to add to this. It’s already a masterpiece as is
Also I really appreciate the compliment :)
Oh no worries, I’m always glad to get feedback and my goal is to make this as exhaustive as possible. My target audience is laymen and atheists, so the more I can educate and convince them, the better.
Wow, chapter 3 is long. I might have to postpone Ch.4
>The distinction between the Absolute and relative can also be described in terms of a “masculine” and “feminine” element, wherein God is seen as the Creator (masculine) and Generator (feminine). The “Creative aspect is the metaphysical aspect, which gives form to formless Essential Substance (prakriti), [while the] Generative aspect creates that Essentia Substance itself which remains formless until it is given form by the [masculine] element.
Wait, I am confused at this part. I understood it as "The Ineffable" --> "The One/Being" & "Nonbeing" --> "Nous/Intelligence/Quality" & the composite of Nous which is sort of ambiguous but can be vaguely characterized as "chaos/unorganized-substance/necessity/time/ferment". But you seem to either be skipping a step. Or is the final step the product of interaction between the Absolute and the Relative?
Plato and I think also the Orphics (?) had a fairly similar notion to the Hindoos and the OrthoSLIMES!!! It is the union of Nous (characterized as Zeus) and Necessity (Ananke) that brings rise to the material world. Don't quote me on the Orphics one, I'm not entirely sure. In Norse Mythology this is represented through the formation of the world with the body of Ymir and the handiwork of Odin, Vili, and Ve. Still, there is a big inconsistency where Purusha is being associated here with the Nirguna Brahman. Meanwhile in the Platonic and the mystified pagan traditions it is associated with something subsequent.
Veteran_Rangers on iFunny sent me an essay his friend wrote about the cosmic man in Indo-Iranian comparative myth, but it is in image form which is annoying. But I can probably send u them if u want to read, it is like 15 pages iirc
>Both materialists and (especially) physicalists might hold a position of eliminationism, which holds that consciousness itself is an illusion of interactions between mundane particles in the brain. This is a perfect inversion of the spiritually monadic position: where monism sees Consciousness as the Ultimate Reality and the content and function of matter, physicalism sees consciousness as an illusion of matter.
Yes, this seems to be the primary disconnect between the "Atheist" crowd today, and "Religious" crowds. It isn't that Atheists don't believe in some sort of underlying unity in the universe, it is that they believe matter -- particularly "natural matter" is the underlying unity, or at the very least that matter precedes idea/form/consciousness. Meanwhile, the "Non-Atheists" are all Idealists in the weakest sense, that Idea precedes, if nothing else, matter and phenomenal reality.
>So why reify the nothingness as a “supreme spirit” then? Because Buddhism is a purely esoteric devotion. They are seeking Enlightenment, the total abolition of the “false self” and its “attachment” or “misidentification” with the world. Any and all reification is thus perceived as an obstacle to this goal, since it identifies with what they view as a provisional and therefore illusory reality. Reification and a personal “God”, however, is necessary to anybody who is not seeking this path; those who live in the world must know its author, so to speak.
Do Hindoos not also seek this through Moksha? At least, Advaita Vedanta
>we can also turn to say the Slavic myth for an excellent example, where we see the primordial ocean, known as Nun, acting as a source of unformed chaos out of which the supreme deity Ra or Atum rises to begin taming the chaos and dividing it into the first duality: the divine couple Shu and Tefnut
I think you meant Egyptian myth here. Also, I talked about this a little bit in one of my posts on this site, but a really good representation of the "primordial waters" myth comes from Mesopotamian Mythology with the story of Tiamat. Also, thoughts on the Chaoskampf? I talk mainly about this in my post, that the chaoskampf is a more violent representation of the union between the intellect and the "residual chaos", the latter being represented by the serpent or dragon or other beast which often ascends out of these waters like Leviathan.
>As my acquaintance Clark explains
I know this nigga
>Thus, Saguna Brahman, or pure Being at the relative level, is pure Consciousness. Moreover, since consciousness is a state of perception, this fits with the Thomistic description of God as a state of “pure act”. The result, as we will see, is that God as pure Consciousness engages in the pure act of observation to give rise to things.
Here too the problem of a missing puzzle piece between the Platonic system as I understand it and this system being described drives me off course. To me, consciousness is something which arises with heterogeneity between existent beings, rather than distinction between existence and non-existence. Hence the need for this middle figure between the ineffable One and the intellect. One as Being is in between these and does not really require a complement because the complement to existence is non-existence, which doesn't exist. I guess from the Pythagorean point of view you could say it goes 0-1-2. But Pythagoras knew not of zero and I don't think he considered the ineffable so much. Ehh, but maybe I need to review some stuff. Maybe what I am calling consciousness, you guys are calling "awareness"
>God prefers Good to Evil because Good means God's design is fulfilled.
This, hmm, I don't know about. Whatever happens is God's design, there is no "unfulfilled design" of God. Perhaps you can say "that which is evil is self-destructive/self-contradictory" but evil can also be destructive towards good. The main purpose of the "cycles of history" in Grek and Hindoo mythology is to characterize the sinusoidal nature of good/evil. Good arises, evil destroys good, evil destroys itself, good once again has arisen. The middle two stages of this can be compared to Ragnarok and even the Zoroastrian eschatology where the evil is essentially burnt out of people's souls. Theoretically one can become "close to God" through evil, it would just be a path which would be terrible and which almost all people would find aesthetically repugnant. This is sort of expressed in some left-handed Tantric traditions where they take dangerous drugs and use semen and poop and blood as libations and practice cannibalism. Also, those of us who have chosen the side of good must fight evil, and any intermediate position between good and evil is basically just an inconsistent position, not a real rational path of action and thought.
>by simply being a potential or a possibility, or having an essential character, or as the result of an actualization of a potential, this means that the more contingent that a being is, the more relative properties it has when compared to its essential properties, or ‘what it is truly made to do’.
Why?
>So, in summary: “Good" is a measurement of how close “beings” (principles and conditioned manifestations, in this context) resemble the First Archetype (God), while “evil” is a perversion which occurs “horizontally” due to a multiplicity of conditioning factors being able to obscure “beings” from fulfilling the ideal praxis of their archetypes. The idea is that the farther things emanate or “fall out” from God, the more “relative” they become.
Like I implied earlier, I would say that beings don't really become more or less "like god" in one direction here, if at all, because you're dealing entirely with things from God and things intermediate between two states maximized simultaneously within God.
>The idea is that Awareness simply became “fractured” at some point, self-refracted, and then condensed into the consciousness of all substance. And the more fracturing, refracting, and condensing there is, the more relative and less Absolute things become. Some would apply this to humans in the context of God’s “self-actualization”. Clark has a good way of depicting this: “The esoteric truth contained within myths of figures like Indra, Thor, Michael, Yahweh, or other deific figures slaying great demons or dragons, is that of a human being through various alchemical processes; removing himself from the comings and goings of the material world, so as to make of it what he will.”
This is exactly the issue though. If God is perfect, and God desires fulfillment of good over evil, and evil is generated by further qualification, then God would never have self-multiplied. The Clark quote is quite good though -- these figures are an excellent representation as to why it was believed Heroes achieved godhood. They are doing two things at once -- emulating the act of creation by exerting their will onto the world, and affirming the creative blueprint by beating the world into an orderly shape. Philosophers also emulate the act of creation through introspection, and Artists as well as people in general who pursue excellence and beauty. This may not end in "self-immolation" but it is the "good" way of becoming close to God at the very least, to have an intimacy with God (not in a freaky way). It is similar to the Christian idea of Heaven, where you are not "one with God" but are in a sort of "ecstatic union" with him. Or even like the Elder Scrolls idea of CHIM. It is like the end of the Roblox Obby when you can get the gravity coil.
Actually could you go more into detail about the “Nous” as well?
The demiurge is the reification of Nous, which is just the Greek term for the intellect (the second principle after The One). From what I understand. Anyways I must go, I have to visit the Vatican and make sure the next pope is the reincarnation of Fiscino heheheheh hueueueueue
But you placed it as the third step rather than the second?
Ehh, yeah sorry, technically it is the third principle but the ineffable has no truly knowable characteristics and the One has no existent complement so it is sort of the “first incomplete being”. And I think Plato only implies it’s existence I’m not sure if he ever actually mentions the ineffable separate from the One
Ahh I see. I think this concept would probably be a bit confusing to people who are beginners in all of this, so I probably won’t be adding it in.
9.) Tantra I would say is undoubtably sinful and will not grant you good karma or any chance of entering Heaven. Maybe you can achieve Enlightenment that way, but I’m not sure. Shivism is ehhh. You’re basically just worshipping the side of God that most people aren’t comfortable with and so it’s repulsive, but I wouldn’t think it’s actually evil in the way something like Luciferianism is where the focus of worship is not even on death/decay but on obfuscation/rebellion/ego.
I would certainly hope that these sort of extreme tantra guys (not all tantra are like this, just the left-handed ones) face some sort of negative blow for their hubris, but I understand their logic. It is clearly a display of hubris though, they're trying to game the system. I would say that the Satanists do a lot of left-handed stuff but their egoism is just a misstep on their own part. Lucifer is kind of a weird character, I have never seen something exactly like him outside of Christianity. Prometheus and Loki have some similarities but are no where near as antagonistic.
Also I am adding an addition to the Problem of Evil section rn that ties into Free Will vs Determinism, and then contrasts Shivaism (worship of decay) with true evil like Luciferarianism (worship of ego)
I would say destruction is in some ways more of a second side to creation which both stand in contrast to "regression" or "stagnation"... A state of pure entropy where nothing is created or destroyed. You talk about this in the essay, how when one thing is destroyed another is created
Byeah. Sin is sin. Karma isn’t a judge they can appeal their case to; they’re getting reincarnated into cockroaches!!!
8.) It’s not necessarily that they become “less like God”, since all is God, but rather they decline in Absolute-ness; they become more “distant” from the pure status of the Absolute. When Praxius and I say that beings are no longer doing “what [they are] truly made to do”, what we’re getting at is not a prescribed “duty” imposed upon beings, but the simple reality that they are far more relative and skewed than the Absolute source.
Also, God doesn’t “desire” anything in the extrinsic sense. God only “desires” goodness in the same way that a beating heart “desires” not to have its aorta blocked. We’re speaking in reified terms here. The Absolute Awareness did not “desire” or “choose” to fracture; it just did.
Hmm. I think, I think I will have to think about this more, but I would say that if you cannot say the Absolute "chose" to fracture as it is not a "chooser" or a "willer", then it is nonetheless part of its nature, part of the way it works.
7.) I do make the distinction between Awareness and Consciousness in its own section. Before that, I don’t get that nuanced, for simplicity’s sake. I’ll have to look at see where I wrote that quote.
6. Not familiar with Chaoskampf. Please elaborate. Also I’ll be back. Need to shit rq
Chaoskampf is basically the battle between the hero who is seen as a restorer/establisher of order, against some primordial chaotic dragon or serpent. It is also often related to the "war of foundation" between gods and their enemies because the enemies of the gods often represent the more chaotic and embryonic state of the world which the gods must beat into proper shape. Thor vs. Jormungandr, Indra vs. Vritra, Tarhunz vs. Illuyanka, and Zeus vs. Typhon are IE examples but others exist like Yahweh vs. Leviathan (which is likely derived from the stories of Lotan and Marduk).
Actually if you could find the time, I'd like to hear you expound on the Chaoskampf stuff more
Ah, so it's about the great fights of the Strikers then. I may need to look into this and expand on my talk about the Strikers in Ch. 4
Yes, also speaking of which I was a bit confused about the section before that where you talk about Indra's creating stuff out of boredom. Are you suggesting this as bad or good? Or just neither
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you pull a quote for me so I can Ctrl+F it?
Oh wait, my bad, it is in the part where you talk about the strikers not specific to Indra
5.) Oh good catch. Yes that would be Egyptian. My bad.
4.) Yes Hindus seek the same through Moksha. But that section was only focused on Buddhism.
3.) I think I have the Vet essay you mention. Is it the one with “Departure” in the title?
Yup
2.) If you have Discord, or could DM me on here, I’d like to hear more about Zeus and Ananke.
But to put it briefly, you can sort of think about it mathematically. Set-theoretically to be exact. Ananke is basically just the complement to the intellect, which is associated with Zeus as the demiurge. And not really Zeus as we would recognize him but as a sort of amalgamated triune deity. But the identity of the deities involved seems to be different depending on the author. Some view it as Zeus-Cronos-Ouranos. Some as Zeus-Poseidon-Hades. Some say Zeus-Chronos-Rhea I think. There are also other identities attributed to the intellect. Like the Sol Invictus crowd had some interesting views on the whole stuff. I think I will try and look into some of the Sol Invictus stuff while on vacation, you know, in this country there are ancient relics, it is the oldest of countries almost. I will be cracking open very ancient stuff here, keep it on the down low. Very powerful, magicka artifact here.
I'll try and get back to you on it. Right now I should probably finish packing as I'm vacationing in a "third world country" starting tomorrow and ending next week. I'll still have my computer and phone, but I'll be busy "dealing arms to the local paramilitaries"
1.) So one of my main goals with this essay was to try to simplify the language and terminology in a way that would make it more accessible for lay audiences, especially since a motivation for writing this was to make an appeal to atheists, who typically know nothing of these topics. That’s why I often reduced God to a simple binary, such as Creator and Generator. There’s a few points in the essay where I mention more than two degrees, but perhaps I’d be wise to clarify on those parts, expound more, and incorporate your terms as well, since I like to make sure I cover as many vocabularies as possible.
I will respond to this in increments in a few hours.
Oh-Nigga! 110 minutes now? This just keeps getting longer and longer... Once again I have to grind on fortnite after I finish my current 'stack because the assholes at Epic games made it really difficult to get XP this season frankly, but if I'm not too tired I'll try to knock out Part 3 and 4 when I'm done
I’m planning to add even more content soon in light of the essay from Praxius that I restacked yesterday. So if you don’t want this thing getting even longer on you, I’d say read it soon!
I have an 8 hour long flight in a few days, but I've been reading the Divine Comedy and would like to have Purgatorio finished by the time I land. So I'll try to read it before then
Ok I’m done revising now. You’re gucci
Ok so I went ahead and completely revamped the part about the Problem of Evil tonight. I may also update the QM chapter. Not sure yet
I might actually suggest you wait until after the next revision patch because Praxius has the perfect comprehensive solution for the Problem of Evil and you might be fascinated by it. If not, I’d really suggest reading his Verticality essay that I restacked. It’s only a 15 min read but it’s really dense.
Here is first comment. I only read the first half so far.
>Specifically, perennialism is the position that most natural religions have mystified what is in fact the same quintessential truths regarding the metaphysical structure and organization of Reality. It is not the position of “all religions are true”, but rather, it is the position that most religions speak to the same abstract truths which are obfuscated in myths that must be demystified.
My main problem with Perennialism (which I talked about in my response to Praxius over Pagans) is that a lot of the Traditionalist/Perennialism crowd like to pick and choose what thinkers to pick up as evidence of the widespread Perennial Tradition, and throw those with other ideas out as “decadent” or something-something. I think they’re right but in a bit of a redundant way. All religions require an Idealistic element because almost all religions with set beliefs (as opposed to purely ritualistic religions) are supernatural. Monism, ehhhhh… It’s really hard to say, because a lot of ancient religions either just weren’t really caught up in the “original cause” or were, but didn’t leave records on it.
But I’ll admit, I’ve become a little bit more sympathetic to the notion of a Perennial Tradition in the past few months. I originally used to consider myself a Perennialist, but I stopped. Maybe at the end of this I’ll return.
>“…This incongruency in logic is enough to likewise dismiss the notion of pantheism, which equates God with the universe, despite the fact that the universe is clearly conditioned by principles and laws greater than its scope, such as temporality or mathematics. The only ontologically justifiable position is one which is monadic, emanationist, and panentheistic, asserting that Ultimate Reality is a Oneness, that all faucets of reality are contained with that Oneness, and that this Oneness both contains and is beyond the scope of the universe itself”
Ehh… If you consider non-physical things as “reals” then Pantheism also includes all of that stuff — mathematical principles, objects, temporality, etc etc. What you are describing as “Pantheism” is more like Physicalist Monism, like what the Stoics were up to. I’m pretty sure Spinoza (who people seem to think of when they think Pantheism) actually did believe in non-physical things as reals, he wasn’t a Physicalist Monist.
My issue with Panentheism is that it seems pretty much redundant and serves mostly to reconcile certain Abrahamic dogmatic notions of God with the Monistic notions of the Greks and others. How could God be *more* than the sum of his parts? If this “transcendent” element exists, and comes from God, then surely it is also a “real” in the world.
>The first article of this three-fold synthesis holds “that what exists as an effect necessarily presupposes a cause.” Superficially, this is a replicable and perennial fact of reality: that things as they are, once were not, and thus were caused to be. It is demonstrably observable to the point of gross obviosity.
I ultimately agree with the “uncaused cause” argument stuff, but I’ve always found it a bit unrigorous. Intuitively, it is definitely true, I think the problem is semantic. “cause” is probably not the correct term — I heard a more refined attempt at this argument without using “causiness” years ago from a fellow Monist, but I forgot the jist of it. You sort of go over this in the paragraph or two after this about how timelessly existent objects or events still necessarily have a “cause”.
>Additionally, it is worth noting that we perennialists take things a step further, arguing that because God is Existence or Being itself, that He is inseparable from the reality He creates; all being is Being. This idea will be explored more throughout the essay.
TRVTHNVKE.
Uhh yeah, I have no comment on anything in particular in 2, because I was already pretty familiar with these concepts from Platonic stuff, but one time in a computer science course my teacher was talking about classes and objects and I told her its like Platonic forms and physical manifestations. And then every woman in the class started screeching at me and ripping their skin off and eventually I had to use instant transmission to bug out of there before they could attack me
Ehh yeah, expect more comments tomorrow because I don’t feel like reading the whole thing tonight. But I am liking it so far, and also some of the sections I haven’t read yet look right up my alley.
Hey Sectionalism, I’ve been having a lot of great dialogue and witnessed some great debate lately concerning how Awareness can be justified as the ultimate content of reality, and I’ve decided that tomorrow I will be adding in a new section to chapter 3. If you haven’t read chapter 3 yet, I would advise you to wait. Otherwise, you can go back and read the new section when it’s added in.
My cracka ass stayed up playing fortnite tonight anyways. Now I must sleep
Gotta catch those dubs!
Kewl :P
It’s updated now btw
Ok, I’m away from home tonight so I’ll read it tomorrow night.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and provide me with feedback. If I make any edits based on your feedback, I will credit you for it in my notes.
Perhaps you make a decent point on panentheism being a redundant reiteration of pantheism. I just tend to view things like a vertical series where the principles of the universe precede its particulars, and the unconditioned precedes both. Creating the distinction between pan and panen may look like splitting hairs to you, but I think really you and I most likely have the same view but understand it a little differently.
I agree not all perennialists are honest and can be picky-choosy, but I try not to be that way. I’m willing to take into account the whole spectrum of well-developed natural religions.
Well, now that I’m done with school I guess I’ll actually le read this… *unzips pants*
Fuuuark bro 😂😂 i just spend 7 minutes tryign t or ead then objective paragraph im so fujcking retsrded 😂😂😂😂😂
78 minute read… jebus
Took me 2 weeks to pump this out. Expect more titans 💪📚📖