some questions about set?

[nathanielfirst]

considering that this temple believes that Gods are real, what is the structure of the universe/Cosmology in this religion? what is the afterlife like? is there an offical view, or as an individual are you free to believe anything you like?

 

[EtuMalku]

What Temple are you speaking of and what religion?
If it is the Temple of Set, than no, we don't believe gods are real.

Though I don't speak for the Temple (that is the job of our priests and priestesses) I will say that the cosmological and structural view that you inquire about, is that there is the known, objective universe, physical aspect. Then there is the not-known, subjective universe also referred to as our psyche.

My understanding of the 'after-life' is one of incarnations and spiritual evolution.
My statements are not 'official' Setian philosophy, again the Priesthood is our advocate.
And finally, 'are we free to believe anything'?' . . . that is a complex question, we are and we should not (that is my stance).

Perhaps one of the Priests/ Magisters will pipe in and answer your questions authoritatively.


EM

 

[nathanielfirst]

do you believe in more than one supernatural entity than Set? could I hold a seance whatever like in the Golden Dawn, and contact other spirits, than him, according to you ?

and check me if I am wrong but it much sounds from what I have read, that MOST people do not reincarnate, only if one has some Magical capability and prepares, can they reincarnate?

 

[fnord]

An excellent resource for the basics of Setian philosophy (as well as the definitive historical tome) is available on Michael Aquino's public document space on the Temple of Set website (I'd link you but I can't yet do so).

The questions you ask are very broad and are best answered by studying for yourself.

I'm not trying to be glib in my response but those questions are best framed by the way YOU understand things for yourself.

I'm not a Setian and have no authority to answer for them. I've done quite a bit of investigation and have engaged Dr. Aquino in some brief exchanges and can tell you from that experience that simple answers don't exist (unless you choose to discard all of it and not engage it at all).

 

[KHPR]

An excellent resource for the basics of Setian philosophy (as well as the definitive historical tome) is available on Michael Aquino's public document space on the Temple of Set website (I'd link you but I can't yet do so).

Allow me then...Index

Xeper,
Magister Robert Adams
Host, KHPR: The Voice of Darkness

 

[fnord]

Thank you sir! Eleven more posts and I'll be qualified to post a link.

 

[Daelach]

considering that this temple believes that Gods are real, what is the structure of the universe/Cosmology in this religion? what is the afterlife like? is there an offical view, or as an individual are you free to believe anything you like?

First: I am a Setian, but I am not with the Temple of Set, meaning that I neither can nor want to speak for their specific way to see things (just for avoiding the word "believe", which is generally frowned upon by all Setians). However, I can speak for a much more important thing (at least, this is my personal assessment), myself.

IMO, your very first question does not make sense because it stems from the philosophic basis of "naive realism" while I am into radical constructivism. I have written an arcticle to explain that in detail: Radical Constructivism because I do not want to write it again and again, so I just compiled it.

When you have read it, my following answers will maybe make more sense to you. I can and do use the perspective of gods (and especially Set) as conscious beings. However, I use this perspective only when it serves my current purpose. In other cases, I also can see gods as currents of force, and/or as symbols, and/or as parts of my psyche, and/or as parts of the collective unconscious (cf. C.G. Jung).

So I can say all of the following:
- Set is a god out there, and we have contact because we are akin.
- Set is a current which I can and do participate because this current is what my force has come alive from.
- Set is a symbol which has most meaning to me.
- Set is a complex mathematical wave function which I am a subset of.
- Set is a part of memory shared by all humans, and some feel attracted to it.
- I am Set - to an extent.
- Set is all the madness this universe has called up, and I am crazy enough to have answered the call, too.

My cosmology is that I cannot know what anything beside myself is like, I explained the reasons in the article mentioned above. I only can assume certain explanations of the universe and see whether they work. A more important question with the choice of answers than whether they are "true" (which does not make sense to me, see the article) is where they will lead me.

The same goes for the afterlife. Time, IMHO, is nothing more but a category which our consciousness likes to sort things by. So the question of what comes after life can only have meaningful answers in a reality tunnel based upon time (and space). However, I am not limited to this reality tunnel; there are many ones, each leading to an answer which, in the corresponding reality tunnel, makes some sense. However, differing form many, many people in this world, I DO believe in a life BEFORE death.

And I am free to believe (if you want to call the temporary engagement into a specific reality runnel "belief") what I want; in fact, I am unable to refrain from the choice, even if I tried. So the question of specific beliefs is, for me, a case where the inalienable right and the inescapable constraint coincide.

To speak with Sartre: Man is condemned to freedom.

simple answers don't exist (unless you choose to discard all of it and not engage it at all).

Well, as the predominance of the jewochristian religion proves, simple answers do exist for the majority of mankind. However, and here I dare speak for all[/] Setians, where they stop asking is barely where we begin. And it is not that simple answers did not exist - but we are not content asking not more than the questions they fit to..

 

[aa_nerut]

Daelach,
If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to probe into this one statement you made for some clarification.

You wrote...
"I can and do use the perspective of gods (and especially Set) as conscious beings. However, I use this perspective only when it serves my current purpose."

When would it serve your purpose to use this perspective? I guess I am trying to see when would the need arise to have these things, "gods", be conscious beings?

Much like you, I tend to jive with the idea that I can only experience the Universe thru myself, and the best guess I can come up with on the purpose of conscious beings, or gods, would be either for entertainment or failure to see the answer to a question that is within your self or your own grasp so you externalize your consciousness to some other being or god, to have a dialog to find the answer.

Again I can only assume things thru my own understanding so these are the best Ideas I can come up with and would like to see if there are maybe other reasons why you would find this kind of perspective necessary?

 

[Daelach]

Daelach,
If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to probe into this one statement you made for some clarification.

Be welcome.

When would it serve your purpose to use this perspective? I guess I am trying to see when would the need arise to have these things, "gods", be conscious beings?

Yes, escpecially when I want to communicate in some form. Communication can only happen within the Inbetween, and the Inbetween is created by at least two different Somethings. I am one, but that is not enough when I need at least two.

There is some truth even in the bible, though they have a little syntactical error.. "Man creates the Gods to his image". And since I am not content with little, neither can a God be wearing the shape I myself gave him.. and which he, in turn (attention: reality tunnel change) has chosen to accept as he liked the offer. Seems confusing, but once you manage not only to switch between reality tunnels, but to think in several reality tunnels simoultaneously, it will make perfectly sense. And in turn, I am heading towards becoming something like this God (Set). You see the circular structure here? It reflects the way consciousness works, simply because consciousness is what had created it, and the creature always resembles the creator in a way.

 

[EtuMalku]

Daelach: I am a Setian (in the Temple) and I have yet to come across your 'understanding' of "believe" -

their specific way to see things (just for avoiding the word "believe", which is generally frowned upon by all Setians).

Could you please extrapolate on this for me so I might avoid undue stress with my Temple studies?

Ir Shti Shta-tu
Etu Malku

 

[aa_nerut]

Daelach,
I'd like to take this a little further and ask about your idea of communication. You said that when you want to communicate in some form, it will serve your purpose to perceive these gods (be it Set or anything else) as a conscious being. I am curious if there isn't an easier step here, like either talking with another already conscious being, i.e. another human, or freely admitting that you are actually talking to yourself, which there is nothing wrong with that and would be more self empowering and to me cause more self reliance rather than fragmenting your consciousness as two or more beings to meet the ends of communication?

It just seems there are easier, more beneficial, and more importantly more refined means than creating another being, which in essence is only you anyway.

As far as the word believe goes, I am sure that there are many Setians who would easily use this word when referring to not only Set but many other concepts and ideas out there. It is my understanding to that you can believe in something because you have experienced it and have taken it as a part of your view of the world or as some say your subjective universe. I am under the impression that the entire subjective experience is all about belief.

 

[blackout]

Some of us are very free form.

We author our lives as playwrites/play'rights/play rites.

People realize/REALize
things...
themSelves...
life...
in a multitude of ways.

There is no one right... or "best" way.
Believe it or not.

 

[Daelach]

Daelach: I am a Setian (in the Temple) and I have yet to come across your 'understanding' of "believe" - Could you please extrapolate on this for me so I might avoid undue stress with my Temple studies?

It is long since that I read some TOS stuff; but IIRC, the TOS defines, referring to Plato in this case, several stages of knowledge, with belief being the lowest one. The next level is reason, and the difference to belief is that you start to ask "why" instead of "who said/wrote it".

So believing means that you accept something because some authority said it. In rhetorics, this is known as the "ad autoritatem" pseudo-argument, it is a logical fallacy. Of course, on a belief level, logic does not play a role, so a believer will not understand this.

If you want to know more about how the TOS approaches this topic, re-read the ruby tablet.


@ aa_nerut:

I am curious if there isn't an easier step here, like either talking with another already conscious being, i.e. another human,

I can do this on top, obviously. However, if you think it through, another human has the very same problems as a god, look at my article. It is just not as obvious.

or freely admitting that you are actually talking to yourself,

This is just another model, nothing more. The basic problem here is that you keep attaching assessments like "wrong/true" to models which makes only sense in (naive) realism while I assess them by "works/does not work" which makes sense from a constructivism basis. A (naive) realist will not understand the difference nor the point, as long as he stays realist. That is why I linked the article.

rather than fragmenting your consciousness as two or more beings to meet the ends of communication?

The fragmentation only occurs when I assume that I am talking with myself. It is this assumption that causes the fragmentation, you see. However, there may be good reasons also for this approach; why staying one if you can become many?

 

[KHPR]

"Man creates the Gods to his image".

I can see this as being true. I was having a conversation with our HP the other day and this came up in a way. If you look back at yourself 10 years would that self know what you would be like today? Probably not. What will you be like 10 years from now?

Man creates Gods in his images because we don't have enough to draw upon. This of course still doesn't explain the animal heads of Egyptian gods.

Xeper,
Magister Robert Adams
Host, KHPR: The Voice of Darkness

 

[Daelach]

If you look back at yourself 10 years would that self know what you would be like today? Probably not.

Hell, no.. and I guess I would have done anything to avoid it (-:

What will you be like 10 years from now?

This touches an interesting point of xeper; I divide xeper into a quantitative part (you become better at something you already can) and a qualitative one (you do/think things you have never done/thought before). The latter kind of xeper brings thoughts never to be had before, and along, also wishes unknown before.

You know the old story of two people who have not seen each other fr a long time, and normal people use to deem the sentence "you have not changed at all" as a compliment. Well, Setians would not.

Man creates Gods in his images because we don't have enough to draw upon.

Well, the main problem is that we cannot think the unthinkable (per definitionem), so we use to shroud it in mystery.

This of course still doesn't explain the animal heads of Egyptian gods.

Maybe they are something similar to the berserks and the ulfhednar of the north? Were-creatures are known all over the world. And btw, my mom used a nice metaphor when warning me the going by bicycle last wednesday was a bit dangerous because the car drivers "had a football on their neck instead of a head". The naturality of the sentence lets me think that replacing the head with the image of most important thought is not that far-fetched after all.