[LHP only] What is left hand path?

[Sutekh]

I disagree with Social Darwinism . . .
Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”.

By the laws of nature that we have observed over time, by all accounts another species should have developed at least a brain remotely close to ours. And none have, for the most part every single surviving creature has remained exactly the same except us.
So what has taken place?

We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause
And this implies an isolate intelligence working through our physical being (brain / body)

The thing is whether you may disagree with social Darwinism, in my own view I do believe that it still primarily exists to this day. Sure the courses of today are changing rapidly. But some schools for example have a social Darwinist system. I might be wrong on that, but this is true on my take of it "The strong survive but the weak do not." In my own view that can be true within that perspective of classes be it the people who succeed and do not succeed, after all the general population of today is useless. I am not implying that many of today's people are like that, we have some brilliant and intelligent people here as well.

 

[crossfire]

I disagree with Social Darwinism . . .
Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”.

By the laws of nature that we have observed over time, by all accounts another species should have developed at least a brain remotely close to ours. And none have, for the most part every single surviving creature has remained exactly the same except us.
So what has taken place?

We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause
And this implies an isolate intelligence working through our physical being (brain / body)

Humans are sentient beings.

 

[EtuMalku]

Humans are sentient beings.

And which definition of Sentience are you using?

 

[crossfire]

And which definition of Sentience are you using?

Having a subjective mind.

 

[1137]

Egalitarianism means "equal rights" as individuals. These rights are inherent to the individual. Everyone is in various stages of development, so they are not "equal" in that respect. However, individuals being in various stages of development by no means invalidates their rights as an individual.

Fair enough. I was addressing SSE's claim that all individuals are exactly equal, and that the individual doesn't really exist.

 

[EtuMalku]

Having a subjective mind.

And this you would say is beneficial towards and resulting in our evolution over other species?
One might argue that a subjective mind could be a hindrance . . .

 

[1137]

I disagree with Social Darwinism . . .
Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”.

By the laws of nature that we have observed over time, by all accounts another species should have developed at least a brain remotely close to ours. And none have, for the most part every single surviving creature has remained exactly the same except us.
So what has taken place?

We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause
And this implies an isolate intelligence working through our physical being (brain / body)

Don't forget the extremely important point that man was already anatomically modern before we were behaviorally modern. Our brains did not change, and yet our consciousness did, over 100,000 years after that brain evolved.

 

[crossfire]

And this you would say is beneficial towards and resulting in our evolution over other species?
One might argue that a subjective mind could be a hindrance . . .

Yes. Having a subjective mind allows one to consider the possibilities and run possible scenarios and plan a course of action before actually acting. (It can reduce a lot of fatal mishaps, which allows the being to continue their existence and contribute to the gene pool.)

 

[Sutekh]

Yes. Having a subjective mind allows one to consider the possibilities and run possible scenarios and plan a course of action before actually acting. (It can reduce a lot of fatal mishaps, which allows the being to continue their existence and contribute to the gene pool.)

The subjective mind and the subjective universe can also be dangerous or a hindrance to ones thinking. With me for example I always tend to imagine things subjectively all the time. I may occasionally get worried of what if I say something among the Objective world by accident.[emoji15]

 

[crossfire]

Yes. Having a subjective mind allows one to consider the possibilities and run possible scenarios and plan a course of action before actually acting. (It can reduce a lot of fatal mishaps, which allows the being to continue their existence and contribute to the gene pool.)

A subjective mind also acts as a sensory device--it senses ideas. This allows for the development of conceptual language and the communication of intangible, conceptual ideas between individuals, which further accelerates development.

 

[crossfire]

The subjective mind and the subjective universe can also be dangerous or a hindrance to ones thinking. With me for example I always tend to imagine things subjectively all the time. I may occasionally get worried of what if I say something among the Objective world by accident.[emoji15]

Ain't nothing like being subjectively present in the objective moment--aka "mindfulness."

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Fair enough. I was addressing SSE's claim that all individuals are exactly equal, and that the individual doesn't really exist.

Oh man. Here we go again with you not reading what you respond to. I didn't make either of those claims.

 

[1137]

Exactly. The likes of Aquino and company have something that is, unique, not really subject to the eastern classification of left vs right. it's something entirely different.

Wow, you finally get it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Applying Antinomian practices from the ELHP is only a part of the work of the WLHP, it does not define the WLHP nor does it make the WLHP complete.
Simply put . . . the ELHP's goal is still to Become One with Brahmin / the Absolute / Whatever You Wanna Call It
While the WLHP is to separate from this 'Absolute' a.k.a. Objective Universe and to realize one's Godself / Higher Self and to bring that into one's lower self

*Brahman, "Brahmin" is the Vedic priestly caste

How can you "separate" yourself from the Cosmos, which is all there is? And define "objective reality". The WLHP relies far too much on Western philosophical dualism for my tastes. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that Brahman or Ultimate Reality is some Borg-like concept, which it is not. Brahman is the substrate of all existence and all that exists is a manifestation of it. In Shaktism, it is the Great Mother deciding to veil Herself with the illusion (not "illusion", in a negative sense, but more like a play) of multiplicity and temporality (Maya). Everything is ultimately energy manifesting itself in various ways, right? Well, that's a way of looking at Brahman. Liberation or Enlightenment is realizing that we are the Absolute, we are Awareness and observing the cosmic dance of creation-preservation-destruction, but our identities, attachments, etc. are not our true Selves. They are vehicles for experience, but they are subject to dissolution and transformation. I mean, the lifeforms that exist on our planet (and other planets), the planets, the stars, the galaxies, etc. will not last forever. That's clear.

This does not mean that we don't really exist, however. The closest analogue to this sort of thinking that I know of in WLHP thinking is the idea of Realm of Chaos in Anti-Cosmic Satanism, which is an infinite, pan-dimensional state where all dualities are transcended, including existence/non-existence. It's just that in my religion, this would be the underlying reality of all things, without some dualism between Chaos and the ordered universe as in their extreme Gnostic beliefs. This is not easy to comprehend and it's not really something that you can put into words. After all, I am talking about the state of infinity realized.

So when you realize this "separation", this apotheosis, what would this be like? Will you somehow leave the Cosmos? What will become of you when this universe is dissolved (such as by the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze)?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Humans are sentient beings.

So are a plethora of other species. I'm not an anthropocentrist. Humans aren't special in the grand scheme of things, imo.

 

[1137]

"But those who were of the new mind now followed me, and I
turned to outermost chaos, which none of us had before
presumed to dare. We were beset with doubt, for we
feared that apart from God we would all perish in chaotic
oblivion. But as we were, we remained, and I called to my
fellowship, See! We exist and are essence in our own right.
In truth we are beings independent of God, empowered to
shape our own destinies as we may elect. Between the two
great poles of the Universe, order and chaos, we shall
stand to effect our several desires."

- The Diabolicon

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"But those who were of the new mind now followed me, and I
turned to outermost chaos, which none of us had before
presumed to dare. We were beset with doubt, for we
feared that apart from God we would all perish in chaotic
oblivion. But as we were, we remained, and I called to my
fellowship, See! We exist and are essence in our own right.
In truth we are beings independent of God, empowered to
shape our own destinies as we may elect. Between the two
great poles of the Universe, order and chaos, we shall
stand to effect our several desires."

- The Diabolicon

What is "God"?

 

[1137]

So are a plethora of other species. I'm not an anthropocentrist. Humans aren't special in the grand scheme of things, imo.

We don't have to see humans as "special", but all species are superior to others in certain ways.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We don't have to see humans as "special", but all species are superior to others in certain ways.

How do you define and quantify "superiority" and "inferiority"?

 

[1137]

What is "God"?

As far as that source is concerned,

"Know, then, that throughout the great Cosmos there exists
a sublime order, whose nature was determined in eons long
past by that singular consciousness of all order which Is
now called by name God. Consider well the measure of this
achievement, for all that is now behavioral law was then
absent, and it was the epoch of Universal chaos. Even time
itself was unknown, for this Universal inconsistency was
nowhere breached.
And after uncounted ages of this great ferment, a force
fused to focus that became God, and this force presumed to
effect not the creation of substance and energy - for these
transcended this God - but the conformation of all the
Universe to a single and supreme order. And not yet is this
order absolute, though oft it may have been supposed thus
by man in his innocence.

The Earth of man was infused with this divine order, and all
that was on Earth came under the force of the order. and
upon this Earth, born of cosmic incidence, was that which
was to become man, but man no different from the other
creatures whose world he shared. Thus was the force of
God known upon Earth, and thus was Earth intended to
remain for all time."