The Importance of Facts

[Xner]

I became involved in an exchange with another fellow on the Occult Forums who insisted that I am a kook (a-la Joy of Satan) because I've formulated my own belief system based on beliefs from varied sources, all of which I've studied carefully and extracted only what was useful to me.

So this situation has led me to my fellow Luciferians: how important is rigid adherence to die-hard, provable facts when it comes to the evolution of your belief system?

For instance, I equate Lucifer with the Serpent of Eden, and know him as the physical incarnation of Sophia. But the only mention of Lucifer (by that exact name) in the Holy Bible is a result of a mistranslation, and refers to Nebuchadnezzar, not a Satanic figure. However, the way that I see it, Lucifer (Bearer of Light) is an entity that is present throughout Judaic mythology (and indeed even prior to the advent of early Judaism), on through Christianity, and is still a strong and valid entity today. The name is unimportant...Lucifer, aside from the importance of the etymology and inherent meaning itself, is just a word used for reference.

I used to be very bound to the idea that a belief system must be historically accurate, authentic and undeniably rock-solid in order to be valid. But that was many years ago. I've been studying religion and the Occult for roughly eleven years now, and I've found that it's incredible just how satisfying it can be to allow yourself to evolve spiritually, with no regard for rhyme or reason. I think that the drive to discount anything that isn't empirically provable is the trap of Maya. Reality can be appropriately likened to an iceberg; above the surface is the sensory world, but the enormous bulk, the majority, of the iceberg stretches well beneath the surface and contains countless mysteries. It is beneath the surface that the bulk of reality lies, and by our material design we are blocked from experiencing this reality without proper discipline.

Perhaps it was a bit immature of me to be so bothered by this situation, but until this occurrence, I've never encountered anybody who was so unwilling to understand the Path. Even moderately educated people are aware that the evolution of religion in general is dependent on the comingling of cultures and the sharing of ideas.

So this thread presents two questions:

1. Where do you stand on the issue presented above?

2. Why is it that I'm so bothered by some teenager who refuses to look beyond the mundane?

[Tristram Shandy]

I'm also formulating my own belief system, so I have pondered similar questions. I think you have to recognize, which ideas you have borrowed and which are of your own. And where you have borrowed them from. This makes easier to explain your system to others. Knowing why you borrowed or invented/derived something is even more important.

Some people believe that the older the idea the truer it is. Thinking so makes sense only if you believe in the Golden Age, Iron Age, etc. According to that worldview everything degrades over time. I disagree with it.

Another question is, can you now again have the same, good, olde belief systems of people in culture X? I say no. The modern adherents of Asatru are bound to have a different idea of Tor because they know the scientific explanation of lightning. Or you can compare your religion to newer religions and philosophies, and get a new perspective. Religion is never a monolith. Its members have their own combinations of what they are interested in, and what they emphasize. And they are creative.

[Xner]

Indeed, people do tend to think that if something is pulled from antiquity, then it's somehow more valid. I can't say there's anything wrong with that, though...everybody looks to times long dead with a sense of awe and wonder, and romantic feelings even, as though the people of the past were privy to a secret of perfection that was lost with the ages. But the danger in that is that it closes one off to new possibilities. A god invented today is just as valid as a god invented thousands of years ago...maybe even moreso since the god would be created with current standards, to cater to current needs.

The modern adherents of Asatru are bound to have a different idea of Tor because they know the scientific explanation of lightning.
Good point! With the level of education the world now has in general, the historic need for nature gods simply is no more. We now need gods that are a remedy to the jaded nature of an educated world...gods who will peel back the veil of our increasinly mundane reality and give us a reason to live again.
I myself have quite the updated system to explain divinity and creation, utilizing modern theoretical physics...which is basically the new alchemy.

[Ðanisty]

Honestly, as hard as it is, don't waste your time with people like that. I know that's a lot easier said than done because I've spent hours defending my beliefs before too, but you're not going to get anywhere with him. Some people just can't think outside the box.

[TLF]

I think Luciferianism is all about formulating individual belief-systems. We all believe "something", but that something can only be formulated in very loose, and very superficial terms. The creed of the Neo-Luciferian Church (http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org/creed-en.htm) is one such example. I don't think it is especially necessary to formulate beliefsystems which goes into deeper details. The individual magician will formulate links with the spiritworld and what he perceive may be somewhat different from what another will perceive. After all, having a number of people conform with your own thoughts often just shows that those who conform are really not individual beings, but rather subjects to groupbehavior ... or? And are such persons really luciferians?

I think the aim must be to formulate Luciferianism in simple and general terms, which include a metaphysical/magical reality, but which avoids myths as a statement of fact. Myths are a way to view different aspects of the world in a lyrical and comprehensible manner, but they are not factual and should not be promoted as factual.

[TLF]

The modern adherents of Asatru are bound to have a different idea of Tor because they know the scientific explanation of lightning.

Which is true only in so far that they actually believed in Thor as an individual, rather than a "concentration of special forces". Personally I believe that the Nordic people were well-aware that the gods were forces rather than beings, their cult being quite magical and dictated by magical acts.

[SAINT]

Xner, there was no light at the end of that questioning tunnel that was presented. I felt that it was intended to bring to the surface those that presented the best fuel for the magnifying glass of the threads originator. Why get so engaged with that person? I believe it is because we atleast try to open eyes, we see an opening in someones comment and share a view of possibility, for a moment shared is a moment magnified, and even though we are within ourselves and seperate in our motion to understanding, enabling another to become aware is helping us. Like another log on the fire.

As for strict observation of tenets. Why?

Im not a fan of that either.

Like recipes, they are only a guide, and may not suit your tastes nor mine. Hybrids are sometimes stronger than pure breeds at the end of the day. Time moves on and old ways reflect that era, that moment. Continually reconstructing your view is the ultimate in ability that should be nurtured, experienced and revealed for its insights. A man or women from long ago cannot know me, that is for me alone.

Self creation is an art in itself and leads to the best pleasures, because we are it, not just following it.

At the reality of it, there are people who help, or hinder. The OF'er was just a barrier because they being a non believer in the point discussed, hindered not only you at that moment, but themselves from viewing a new possibility.

We learn, adapt, and move on. Evolution or plateau of direction, whether through adding experience or denying it, or totally reconstructing it, is up to the owner of the shoes.

I vote for the hybrid, and the continuation of possibility..

[DocHolliday]

All I am going to say is that Xner is correct in his belief that "Lucifer" was a figure present in Judaic lore, from the emergence of the religion through the modern day. While "Lucifer" as a name results from an intentional mistranslation from the Latin Vulgate into the KJV, the light-bearer does exist in the figure of Azazel/Sammael.

[fr.novumorganum]

I think the important things with any belief system are:

1. the system is consistent with its own inner logic (in a dialectical sense)
2. the system works
3. based on the logickal workings of the system, operations can be performed
in which either a) a perdiction can be made or b) a result can be repeated.


as far as historical validity, in a way we're all pulling the wool over our own eyes....

[m1thr0s]

So this thread presents two questions:

1. Where do you stand on the issue presented above?

2. Why is it that I'm so bothered by some teenager who refuses to look beyond the mundane?1. I am still learning the ropes of Luciferianism so will have to pass on this...except to say I would tend to trust much of what Doc has to say...but tie up my camel...

2. People who know the least seem to always scream the loudest and typically rely heavily on as insulting a vocabulary as their little minds can muster. Take a deep beath...pull back one and a half whole steps...then take aim and fire...but only if it's important to the principle at issue...which it very often is. So I do not advocate avoiding these conflicts necessarily...trust to your skills and your higher genius and you will get better at navigating these nuisances...

m1thr0s

[Sibylle]

Formulating your own belief system is what it's all about. I think that rigid adherence to die-hard, provable facts is not possible or desirable. This is because each of us can say, truth is what I say it is, in most cases. There are few facts, and most things are subject to interpretation. What works for you and what you know and have experienced to be true are the "facts" you should be concerned with, in my opinion.

[Ðanisty]

Formulating your own belief system is what it's all about. I think that rigid adherence to die-hard, provable facts is not possible or desirable. This is because each of us can say, truth is what I say it is, in most cases. There are few facts, and most things are subject to interpretation. What works for you and what you know and have experienced to be true are the "facts" you should be concerned with, in my opinion.I have to say that I completely agree with you on this and that's probably why I haven't said much on the subject. Most people are very wrapped up in facts and honestly, I don't really care that much. I'm very academic and I believe knowledge is power, etc. but I also feel that belief is exactly what it is...not necessarily based in facts but more on experiences.

[m1thr0s]

that's all very true and still beliefs and knowledge tend to share a certain co-dependancy at junctions, so that people will challenge your beliefs on the basis of faulty knowledge...or else knowledge they themselves believe to be faulty...

and that's where it gets tricky...it is difficult sometimes to separate your beliefs from your actual knowledge and it is human nature to want our beliefs to be true...to conform with "right thinking" on all levels...even when this may sometimes be impossible.

perhaps experience is our only real guide here...knowing when to back out of a pointless debate owing to the lack of any certifiable proof one way ot the other.

m1thr0s

[Rin Daemoko]

perhaps experience is our only real guide here...knowing when to back out of a pointless debate owing to the lack of any certifiable proof one way ot the other.
It's strange that I would have a problem with certain beliefs (while having no problem with facts whatsoever) when both beliefs and facts are based on experience. This dichotomy within my mind is so incredibly strong, and now that I see it, I have a desire to deconstruct it. What a massive undertaking this will be ...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/Rin_Daemoko/Animated%20Gifs/Blue-Ray-1d.gif (http://rin-daemoko.livejournal.com/)

[m1thr0s]

What a massive undertaking this will be ...yeah...no doubt. might be useful to reflect on how much more work it would be not to do so in the end...

m1thr0s

[Ci Celli Ddu]

The Lucifer of the Anglo-Saxon world probably has as many Nordic roots as Judaic, namely as Loki. William II ("Rufus") of England often swore oaths "by the face of Lucca". Some claim Lucca to be a goddess but I suspect it is a latinisation of the name Loki (mainly because I've never heard of a Goddess called Lucca before). Whatever gaps there would have been in folklore concerning Lucifer could have been filled in by Loki as the two characters became one in the Christian Anglo-Saxon mind.

[motsie]

I know this is an old thread, but I think it is important to consider the advantage of ensuring that your terminology/map is comparable in a functional way to standard arcane terminology. If you use a system you are likely to encounter in other incarnations it is easier to reload that data quickly, lessening your downtime.

I had a friend who was into Castenada (sp?) and it irritated me to no end that NONE of Carlos' terminology related directly enough to any established system to be comparable in discussion. Every statement and term had to be defined at the time of use. It made communication extremely difficult and in order for him to integrate any other system into his paradigm, he will have to do alot of refiling..

[Alarum]

I am also building a belief system of my own, and while I do think that historical accuracy is important in other peoples beliefs one must always remember that these things are just that, beleifs. A belief falls into the catagory of faith, a certain archetype may work amazingly well with an individual, but I do think that if it is something totally out there (like the JOS stuff) then it would be wrong to hold those beliefs. But this is just my opinion, at the end of the day if you beleive in it then thats up to you. Millions of people worship a dude called Jesus and there are sooo many parts of the bible that were modified and changed or just plain removed. You can't say that modern Christianity is based on any historical accuracy, but people believe in it.
Tell this kid to get off your back, your beliefs and your interests have squat to do with him and he has no right telling you what you can and cannot believe.

[m1thr0s]

Well...Castaneda's stuff is mainly metaphor. Why that point gets missed I'll never know. He's a story-teller for cripe's sake. There is no Ixtlan, for instance, or rather, what there is, is hardly worth visiting. I know...I've been there...and the indigenous people living there think the hippy gringo's that journey there looking for Don Juan are really very amusing. They'll be happy to sell you a "no-promises" tour though, it's an extremely depressed economy...

Any really powerful system of any kind will be able to link past, present & future together in one grand unified dialectic but that doesn't mean that the resulting language will be easy to follow. I run into this problem all the time and what you have to do is develop a regular habit of validating your terms...of qualifying why such-and-such a term is needed or how such-and-such an idea works out in the numbers etc...

It has been said that what is controversial will generally be discussed while what is truly revolutionary will generally be ignored...at least until it cannot be ignored any longer and this might be several hundred years after its author has come and gone in some cases. That's an unfortunate fact of life but you can just about take that little truism to the bank.

Nevertheless, I am a hold-out in believing that even the most radical of ideas can meet with at least some acceptance in one's own time if one is very careful to qualify every little stitch in route. The hard thing really, is getting people to challenge such ideas openly. They would generally prefer not to say anything at all, either for fear of looking stupid or else for fear of looking smart...both things a major social taboo the world over it would seem...

m1thr0s

[motsie]

One problem with developing a personal belief system with independent symbology is that in other incarnations, you may not be able to access the information and techniques as easily as reloading work completed in a traditional system with traditional techniques. Because your new incarnation will have a different paradigm and circumstantial particulars, there may not be sufficient overlap between your past self and your current self to easily remember the efforts and results learned in the past. Using traditional structure allows previous effort developed under the same or a similar structure to be accessed quite easily when you reincarnate. This pitfall can be lessened by ensuring that the structure you develop corresponds to traditional structures sufficiently to allow the knowledge and techniques you gain to be transferable to other magical systems. For example, your personal conception of energy centers in the body should correspond in some way to the chakra system, or the elemental makeup you use should be comparable to earth, water, fire, air, and spirit.

Also, so much time is spent establishing perimeters, definitions and structure while formulating a independent system, that moving to new ground takes longer. This can be a factor if you are trying to accomplish a goal within one lifetime. If mankind had to reinvent the wheel with each lifetime, there would be no combustible engines now. Acceptance of some basic data, relationships and techniques in a standard format will allow you to move to new areas more quickly with less downtime. Also, accepting a unit of basic building magical building blocks will lessen the effect of building a structure that is hampered by imcomplete understanding or paradigmatic blindspots which can later become apparent and require restructuring your basic model.

A final point for consideration, if you map your system in relation to traditional structures, it makes communication with other craftspeople easier. For instance if your conception of the astral blends portions of the lower and upper astral realms, being able to specify that in a linguistic sense allows discussion of concepts, not just clarification of terms. Magick is a language, don't make yours esparanto.

If your system works, some overlap with viable traditional systems is unavoidable since they are both describing the dynamics of energy transfer and mapping the same area. The points I have mentioned are merely practical considerations which might be helpful.

[motsie]

Have you seen the Tensegrity stuff that the Castenada people are doing now? They are worldwide with lots of participants, videotapes and very expensive conferences. They claim to be guided by the reincarnated Tolteks and Toltek spirits in their version of the astral, which does not correspond to any known traditions definition of the astral. Their chakra system uses the back of the left shoulder as a primary focus. Nothing in the system relates well to any other system. I gave up trying to discuss craft with this fellow because all we did was compare terminology.

I feel the same way about Scientology. You could learn a useful system with macrocosmic application in the same time it takes to be a functional scientologist.

Hope no scientologists are offended. Or Tensegritists.

[m1thr0s]

Here's a quick link for those who have not yet heard of this stuff:

What is Tensegrity? (http://www.castaneda.com/english/tensegrity/index.cfm)

Looks like the same old watered down plagiarism to me...any first year Qaballah student could tell you that their so-called "assemblage point" correspond exactly to Binah & Chokmah on the Tree of Life etc...

People love fantasy games...which is fine until your ass is really on the line. Then all of a sudden the fantasies aren't so much fun...Sometimes these things are useful anyway, sort of a light-weight introduction to things that might seem too overwhelming otherwise. So long as no one is really being damaged by any of it I suppose it's no big deal...

m1thr0s

[Αzωת]

I feel the same way about Scientology. You could learn a useful system with macrocosmic application in the same time it takes to be a functional scientologist.
And probably do it less expensively.

Anyone can read about Hubbard's (and other Scientologists') wackiness, but, I can save you thousands of dollars if you read on.

The longer a person stays in Scientology, the more layers of Hubbard's revelations he learns. The forbidden central core of Hubbard's philosophy is disclosed only to those who have been prepared by extensive auditing. Regular folks aren't ready for these shockers, according to the leadership, and such knowledge could actually be harmful to the unintitiated

The organization charges $12,000 for a course on the secret teachings (this does not include the cost of prerequisite auditing). Scientology splinter groups have offered no-frills versions of the same course for as little as $1500, but this was ruled a violation of Scientology's rights in 1985 by U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer. "It's the first time you've ever seen a decision that religious scriptures constitute trade secrets," a Scientologist attorney claimed.

According to the documents former Scientologist Larry Wollersheim placed in evidence--the documents that fifteen hundred loyal Scientologists tried hard to conceal--here is what Hubbard and his inner circle believe:

Seventy-five million years ago, the Earth was called Teegeeach. It was one of a federation of about ninety planets. A bad guy named Xemu ruled the planets. The federation was overpopulated, so Xemu rounded up the surplus population and beamed them down to ten volcanoes on Earth/Teegeeach. Then Xemu dropped H-bombs on the volcanoes and they all died.

No, really. Then the spirits of the dead guys, the thetans, all stuck together in clusters. Xemu imprisoned the clusters of thetans in a frozen mixture of alcohol and glycol for thirty-six days. (Note: Glycol, sythesized by Charles-Adolphe Wurtz in 1856, is the main ingredient of Prestone antifreeze.) During the thirty-six days, Xemu put bad personality traits in the thetan clusters. When the thetans got out of the antifreeze, they attached themselves to humans and infested them with bad personality traits. All emotional illness and antisocial behavior come from the thetans. When a person dies, the thetans move on to another person. The upshot is, when you do something bad it isn't you, it's the thetans and Xemu. The practical side of the course tells you how to identify thetans and how to exorcise them.

Wollersheim didn't think that this was worth $12,100.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Confused%20and%20Stoopid/3ad145ec.gif

[HobGobliRob]

So this thread presents two questions:

1. Where do you stand on the issue presented above?

2. Why is it that I'm so bothered by some teenager who refuses to look beyond the mundane?

These issues always pop-up from the thing, that people who have or form there own beliefs suffer from. Collectivism.

Individual systems are just that...Individual.

A good analogy is, draw a circle , inside is all the Known.
outside is the Unknown. You take the unknown identify it abstractly (archetypally, e.g.). You maintain consistancy in the identification. Which is why mythologies are universal.
What most people want is for others to say their idea is great; As if that really matters.
Most people don't want scrutiny about there systems.
"I don't want followers, but co-creators, self propelled wheels." - Nietzche

Second point: If Teens are throwing you it's time to check that confidence in your belief.

[m1thr0s]

Most people don't want scrutiny about there systems.This is true to such an extreme extent that when someone comes along who actually DOES want such scrutiny, it can be nearly impossible to encourage it...

A real nemesis for those of us dealing in advanced theoretics, who are not interested at all in asserting an "individual" systems so much as universal ones, understanding the term "universal" to mean "applying to all people" and not necessarily absolute in all cases. This is the same thing as anyone attempting to propose a prospective cure for a given disease, for instance. Such proposals are not interested in individual solutions as they are in universal ones, based upon what is common (not unique) among all (or most) people.

Such cases ultimately boil down to proofs, since these are the natural backbone of scientific research anyway, but proofs of a metaphysical kind are more difficult to demonstrate than proofs of a mechanical kind, despite the fact that either appertains to the mechanical in much the same kinds of ways.

If you are just looking to consolidate your personal beliefs without any other issues attached, the whole idea is to get straight with yourself...not to achieve some sort of popular concensus.

m1thr0s

[Alisa]

I really enjoyed the thoughts in these last two posts. But I am wondering, m1thr0s, how can anything be "proven" when there are only degrees of certainty about anything?

[m1thr0s]

I really enjoyed the thoughts in these last two posts. But I am wondering, m1thr0s, how can anything be "proven" when there are only degrees of certainty about anything?That's a perfectly reasonable question Alisa and the answer is that it all depends on what you are attempting to prove as well as how a "proof" cab be qualified as such to begin with.

In general, the more closely a given metaphysical assertion parallels physics itself in any way, the more capable it will be of demonstrating certain *proofs* of its assertions. Some of these proofs will be purely mathematical in nature while others may be more harmonic, meaning that they can be demonstrated to coordinate well with other known systems...sometimes rooted in anatomy, or genetics, or molecular chemistry, or other *known* principles/properties of nature in some way...

So...in the case of Abrahadabra, which is what most of my stuff has focused on, there are a great many of these *proofs* which I am able to demonstrate. I can make certain assertions about Abrahadabra itself and then proceed to show my proofs. I can say, for instance, that Abrahadabra is a magickal formula that contains the Tree of Life internally...that the Tree of Life is a mathematical subset of its property and thus provides us with an unexpected navigational tool for balancing the Tree of Life itself. This may seem like a little detail but it's not...it's actually a HUGE assertion that would ordinarily demand some kind of proof...proof which it happens I am able to provide.

Now this won't mean that everybody should suddenly stop whatever they are doing and start doing whatever I might happen to recommend...that's not what it's about and that isn't how it works. But what it does do is to establish new dimensions to Abrahadabra itself that raises certain questions that really should be raised, since there may be evidence within these proofs pointing to more efficient ways of doing things eventually. As our understanding of these various maps expands, so too do the possibilities of mastering their hidden principles expand.

So a cosmological theorist WANTS public scrutiny at the level of his/her technical observations/assertions since this is ultimately the only way they can be validated as legitimate in any universal sort of way. On a purely personal level this is not important...it doesn't matter whether people do or do not agree on anything really. But when you start making assertions that involve other people, you are suddenly playing by a different set of rules and it is more expected that you should be able to defend those kinds of assertions against any reasonable objections. That's the difference between art & science really, of which magick is forever an evolving blend of both.

m1thr0s