posted on May, 4 2018 @ 08:31 PM
Everyone has some internal theory developed over their life as to how they think "things" work. Many people here see Kabbalah, Pythagoreanism,
Tarot, and Eastern mysticism, as constituting "how things work". Now, of course, each of these traditions represents the world in different ways,
and so, to come towards some sort of clarity about the issues they deal with, you have to 'reassemble' parts within each system that seem to operate
in the same way within each system.
The 'perennial philosophy', and schools of thought like theosophy, modern occultism, Satanism, etc, are all attempts at integrating common elements
within many different systems, and, since human beings are the ones carrying out this discourse, place an emphasis on whatever value system - and way
of identifying - they happen to subscribe to. You can get a sense of this emphasis by the name itself: theosophy has a Greco origin, particularly with
a strong orphic philosophy feel; Satanism is interested in placing its thinking within Judeo-Christian doctrines; Satan means 'adversary' in Hebrew;
and so, advertises its antinomianism in its name.
These 'ways of knowing' are what some scholars (Burton & Grandy) have called the "third strand" in western intellectual systems of thinking; the
other two being Judeochristian religion (largely in the form of Roman Catholicism) passed down as the official mainstream orientation; and the other
being the humanist, scientific orientation that demonstrates greater psychological flexibility in thought, and more importantly, tolerance in social
relations with others.
Each of these strands probably correspond to a socialization history which emphasized different sorts of affects; the judeochristian orientation seems
overly fearful; the occult orientation seems overly angry; whereas the humanistic-scientific orientation, at its best, expresses a deeply regulated
personality: a mind with a calm, friendly and loving nature, because of these emotions, develops the means to tolerate the lifeworlds of other humans
who value the world in a different way from them.
In addition to this, something more needs to be said about humanism. These emotions do not 'come' from the humanist, but were the fortunate effect
of being born into a loving social network. The historical line one is born into is more or less a 'luck of the draw'. It seems you act, not for
yourself, but for the species - or if you identify with a larger object, for the universe itself.
I take this tangent because people are too willing to ignore how they are able to do things. This is ignorance - and so, can only be corrected by
recognizing what you've been taking for granted. What up until now has been playing no role within the web-of-meanings that makes up your brain-mind.
In any case, the occultist, in being angry, is only to say that his early identity states were biased by environmental affordances of other people who
expressed a certain bravado - a certain arrogant confidence in themselves. Genetically, there's an element that inclines the mind in this direction.
The idea of 'reward dependence' is a common construst used by personality theorists who use data from genetics to figure out different phenotypes in
human personality. Sociopaths, for instance, have high 'novelty seeking' urges and very low reward dependence needs. Neurologically, this translates
into a low dopamine production in the mesolimbic system (hence the need for self-stimulation, or a desperate need for 'something different') whereas
lower 'reward dependence' translates into an underactive noradrenaline system, which uses affective states (or signs) to regulate humans in social
"How" this state of affairs comes about is always related to trauma - primarily interpersonal. Whether it happened ten generations ago or happened
to you 'personally', the genetic potential of a body is always related to the 'environment of evolutionary adaptedness', which means, in effect,
to the things that have really happened, and to which your biology gives expression in reality.
The Judeochristian tradition, conversely, seems overly infatuated with the Judeochristian tradition. They - not all of them (those with a
scientific-humanistic outlook, but also a personal history with either Christianity or Judaism, wish to maintain ties with their religion, while
consciously knowing that they are adapting the latter to their knowledge derived from the former) - are stuck in this wishful fantasy that a man named
Jesus, or Moses (or if we widen our scope, Mohhomad) "came to earth" from a some 'divine realm', and, not being humans like everyone else, were
able by superhuman effort to change the entire course of history.
As a student of anthropology and paleontology, I know humans are at least 200,000, perhaps even 300,000 years old. This means mainstream Abrahamic
religions are preoccupied with an epoch in human history that is a mere 3% of our species wonderful existence. This is an abnormal infatuation - and
even more so, it is profoundly uninterested in real physics, or how physics, as studied in the form of biology, affective neuroscience, and
psychology, allows us to construct a coherent metaphysics that gives us a truer picture of what is real, and therefore, of how reality really works.
Ignorance is bliss may be relativistically true; but its profoundly solipsistic: other people can see you and the ignorance you prefer, and realize
how much of a self-defense mechanism it is: the animal wants to stay ignorant because the animal still doesn't realize its profound potential for
My issue with todays thinking is basically epistemological: what we emphasize and why we emphasize something is completely lost in the act of
ontological inquiry. Psychodynamics, history, trauma - all this logical stuff which helps us to think in logical ways, is not made contact with.
Intuitionally, I believe people here are spiritually developed enough to realize the truth of this premise: that "utopia" and todays world are
separated by unresolved psychological trauma. It's only from the perspective of a traumatized mind, for instance, that a loving world can be
conceived as a "not real world" i.e. 'utopia'.
Everything needs to be reassessed; all of western culture will need to be analyzed in light of traumatology, for the simple reason that so much
thinking has been motivated by a psyche that failed to take seriously the impact of social interactions on functioning. It's preoccupation with
idealization felt too good - its relation to reality became so desensitized, that the myth felt truer than the underlying, ever existing reality. Even
now, some people scheme desperately because they can't imagine or conceive a mode of existing that doesn't feel like the one they presently live.
The notion that, perhaps, an "individual soul" that survives death was a drummed up construction of civilization, a 'wish' that was needed to make
sense of the trauma and mayhem - the INJUSTICE. Can such a spiritual being - a being that is aware of its existence, tolerate the truth: that you
constitute a single soul - a single self? That what you give is what you get? That there is literally no point pretending that you are some special
soul that 'descended' into reality to 'edify' everyone else?
Pretentiousness has plagued human beings for too long. Socrates was a man who seemed to be aware of the pretentiousness of the world around him.