I apologise in advance for the wad of text. I also would like to say that I will almost certainly have been unable to articulate what I mean and misrepresented myself. Unfortunately the only way I can learn is by wasting other peoples precious time after saying a bunch of shit I didn't mean.
Cramulus, not sure if this is my place or not, but a lot of what you are speaking about I have been grappling with for quite some time and in many respects you have been able to articulate some concepts far better than I. I just thought I would take the time to outline some of my personal theology here to interested or uninterested ears as it overlaps in some crucial aspects with yours, but at the same differs in some core areas.
Tl;dr An attempt to outline some poorly formulated, unoriginal ideas because I cannot make sense of them in my own god damned head and hope to make sense of them here.
Let me begin by saying that my beliefs are based on the irrational assumption that there is a God. If there is no God I would be a nihilist or at the very least an existentialist. So, the first question is clearly who is God? Well God is a limitless, infinite being, totally inconceivable. As God is limitless, God can of course become limited if He so wills or unwills. Now that we have this God guy figured out, the next question is who are we? Now unfortunately I haven't quite figured that out. If we have God's divine spark within us, we are essentially God and this proposition I think is far too arrogant. On the other hand, if we are separate or different to God, then there exists in existence at least two beings, one of whom is infinite and limitless, the others who are limited and finite, and then the question is why we should give a fuck about this God guy anyway? If we are separate to God, then there is no reason to suggest we give two shits about him other than the fact He is clearly a bad ass mother fucker. So I somehow suggest that we exist not as God, and not separate from God but somewhere in between. Two possibilities I like to think of are that either we are the potential creation of God which He has not actually acted upon yet (i.e. We do not actually exist in the true sense of the word but are rather a potential like an electron particle) or we are the product of God's unwilled creation (how this avoids my previous protests about God becoming irrelevant I have no idea).
For the sake of ease let's assume that the latter is what occurred, that is, we are the unwilled creation of God. Now this is what the Gnostics would call the demiurge. The demiurge, now separate from God, blindly convinces itself that it is in fact God. The demiurge is every aspect of the material and immaterial, the demiurge is everything that is not God.
Cramulus, we come to now the first point in which we disagree. I do not believe that we need worry about Archons, or that there is in fact a hierarchy of planes. The demiurge is monistic, it is the Shiva of the Aghora monks, it is the philosophy spoken of in the Principia. It does not matter whether or not we are fed on other peoples bullshit or eat our own, this is only a matter of personal preference. We are all already archons, we are all already Shiva.
Now as for the triple nature of humanity I 2/3rds completely agree. The desires of the material are no less disastrous than the desires of the ego as both of these are simply Shiva. The only aspect which I am uncertain about is whether or not we actually have a spirit. Perhaps we do, perhaps we are hollow.
To elaborate on the desires of the ego: they of course manifest themselves as morality. As Cramulus pointed out good and evil are irrelevant concepts. The way I like to think about is that both good and evil are idols which have diverted out minds from God. Being compassionate will not lead you closer to God because all you are doing is participating in idol worship, you are either worshipping compassion, worshipping the person you are being compassionate to, or secretly worshipping yourself. As such all forms of duality are diversions from God, as well as being in many respects illusions.
Now we come to the big point of disagreement. I do not believe we can lead ourselves to Theosis. I strongly believe that this requires divine grace. For to unite with God would require an ability to look outside of the demiurge, in a sense to somehow escape from ourselves. We cannot however see our own eye balls, we cannot outrun our legs, even if someone gave us a mirror to look at our own eyes with, we would be looking at them through lying eyes. We can however reach the conclusion that we have eyes, that we have legs, or in theological terms, we can realise the monistic nature of the blind idiot God Azathoth in which we live, for this is simply a recognition of what is. The ways of such enlightenment are numerous, Eris herself posits a method. At least with Eris' all you need to do is laugh instead of smear your naked body with cremated ashes. From this perspective? Who knows where to go, I haven't got there yet.
Also, I believe non-orthodox and sacrilege to be equally as distracting as orthodoxy and religiosity. I believe that this was the core component of Jesus' love thy enemy shit, as long as we do not love, or laugh at every single aspect of creation, we perpetuate duality and divert our attention from the Divine. The 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' message? Well I didn't think we were to love ourselves at all, in fact I could have sworn that bordered on pride...Don't love each other or thyself, love god, and laugh at everything else (lets forget 1 John for the moment...).
PS Siddhartha is dope. Herman's Hermits most certainly had a hole in his head.
Cramulus, not sure if this is my place or not, but a lot of what you are speaking about I have been grappling with for quite some time and in many respects you have been able to articulate some concepts far better than I. I just thought I would take the time to outline some of my personal theology here to interested or uninterested ears as it overlaps in some crucial aspects with yours, but at the same differs in some core areas.
Tl;dr An attempt to outline some poorly formulated, unoriginal ideas because I cannot make sense of them in my own god damned head and hope to make sense of them here.
Let me begin by saying that my beliefs are based on the irrational assumption that there is a God. If there is no God I would be a nihilist or at the very least an existentialist. So, the first question is clearly who is God? Well God is a limitless, infinite being, totally inconceivable. As God is limitless, God can of course become limited if He so wills or unwills. Now that we have this God guy figured out, the next question is who are we? Now unfortunately I haven't quite figured that out. If we have God's divine spark within us, we are essentially God and this proposition I think is far too arrogant. On the other hand, if we are separate or different to God, then there exists in existence at least two beings, one of whom is infinite and limitless, the others who are limited and finite, and then the question is why we should give a fuck about this God guy anyway? If we are separate to God, then there is no reason to suggest we give two shits about him other than the fact He is clearly a bad ass mother fucker. So I somehow suggest that we exist not as God, and not separate from God but somewhere in between. Two possibilities I like to think of are that either we are the potential creation of God which He has not actually acted upon yet (i.e. We do not actually exist in the true sense of the word but are rather a potential like an electron particle) or we are the product of God's unwilled creation (how this avoids my previous protests about God becoming irrelevant I have no idea).
For the sake of ease let's assume that the latter is what occurred, that is, we are the unwilled creation of God. Now this is what the Gnostics would call the demiurge. The demiurge, now separate from God, blindly convinces itself that it is in fact God. The demiurge is every aspect of the material and immaterial, the demiurge is everything that is not God.
Cramulus, we come to now the first point in which we disagree. I do not believe that we need worry about Archons, or that there is in fact a hierarchy of planes. The demiurge is monistic, it is the Shiva of the Aghora monks, it is the philosophy spoken of in the Principia. It does not matter whether or not we are fed on other peoples bullshit or eat our own, this is only a matter of personal preference. We are all already archons, we are all already Shiva.
Now as for the triple nature of humanity I 2/3rds completely agree. The desires of the material are no less disastrous than the desires of the ego as both of these are simply Shiva. The only aspect which I am uncertain about is whether or not we actually have a spirit. Perhaps we do, perhaps we are hollow.
To elaborate on the desires of the ego: they of course manifest themselves as morality. As Cramulus pointed out good and evil are irrelevant concepts. The way I like to think about is that both good and evil are idols which have diverted out minds from God. Being compassionate will not lead you closer to God because all you are doing is participating in idol worship, you are either worshipping compassion, worshipping the person you are being compassionate to, or secretly worshipping yourself. As such all forms of duality are diversions from God, as well as being in many respects illusions.
Now we come to the big point of disagreement. I do not believe we can lead ourselves to Theosis. I strongly believe that this requires divine grace. For to unite with God would require an ability to look outside of the demiurge, in a sense to somehow escape from ourselves. We cannot however see our own eye balls, we cannot outrun our legs, even if someone gave us a mirror to look at our own eyes with, we would be looking at them through lying eyes. We can however reach the conclusion that we have eyes, that we have legs, or in theological terms, we can realise the monistic nature of the blind idiot God Azathoth in which we live, for this is simply a recognition of what is. The ways of such enlightenment are numerous, Eris herself posits a method. At least with Eris' all you need to do is laugh instead of smear your naked body with cremated ashes. From this perspective? Who knows where to go, I haven't got there yet.
Also, I believe non-orthodox and sacrilege to be equally as distracting as orthodoxy and religiosity. I believe that this was the core component of Jesus' love thy enemy shit, as long as we do not love, or laugh at every single aspect of creation, we perpetuate duality and divert our attention from the Divine. The 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' message? Well I didn't think we were to love ourselves at all, in fact I could have sworn that bordered on pride...Don't love each other or thyself, love god, and laugh at everything else (lets forget 1 John for the moment...).
PS Siddhartha is dope. Herman's Hermits most certainly had a hole in his head.
