Is occultism anti-intellectual?

[apologist1]

Here is a methodology I often detect in internet occultism. I wonder if you have observed it and I wonder if you consider it anti-intellectual.

Let “X” stand for the sum knowledge of human mental endeavour in the fields of science and philosophy. Occultists often have no or very limited knowledge of X. Yet they propose that “X” is delusional and narrow-minded and is less valid than their own thinking. Occultists do not engage with X except where X can be ripped from its context and used as the basis of wild abstractions about the nature of reality(e.g. quantum physics). Occultists believe that X is incorrect and naïve. The supreme truth rests instead with the individual occultist. Those who have studied X are to be ridiculed as arrogant and untrustworthy. No matter the diversity of opinions and ideas in X, they can nevertheless be subsumed under that letter and dismissed out of hand as “mere opinion.”

I submit that this attitude is incredibly anti-intellectual. Because there is no standard in occultism any assertion can go unchallenged. The internet has removed even the need for charisma in occult leaders, and vanity publishing houses like Lulu have ensured that a plethora of mediocre books can be published which no reputable publishing house – even occult publishing houses – would touch. I think this is the reason that, in occultism, our highest institutions of learning are dismissed as “brainwashing agencies,” and rather than academic qualifications or earned social respect through comportment and character, occultists give themselves ridiculous and self-aggrandising titles and screen names. Internet occultism is manufactured authority.

My second question is: if you wish intellectuals to join you, how will they take your writings about reality seriously if you do not engage with the most important works on this topic? To write about reality with no knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume etc is absurd. If you are writing a treatise on reality it is inexcusable not to engage with these philosophers. If you have not yet read them and still wish to write such works, you should give a specific reason why you cannot spend the six months of hard evening study it would take to acquaint yourself with them.

[amble]

Mar 23, 2009 1:49:04 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

Let “X” stand for the sum knowledge of human mental endeavour in the fields of science and philosophy. Occultists often have no or very limited knowledge of X. Yet they propose that “X” is delusional and narrow-minded and is less valid than their own thinking. Occultists do not engage with X except where X can be ripped from its context and used as the basis of wild abstractions about the nature of reality(e.g. quantum physics). Occultists believe that X is incorrect and naïve. The supreme truth rests instead with the individual occultist. Those who have studied X are to be ridiculed as arrogant and untrustworthy. No matter the diversity of opinions and ideas in X, they can nevertheless be subsumed under that letter and dismissed out of hand as “mere opinion.”

I'm guessing this is a personal tirade against people who argue with you speicifically about things you see as indisputable. The trouble with this argument is that we can debate it until we are both blue in the face. You will not change your mind, i will not change mine. The main basis for my argument is that you assume that you are being told the truth. You have not, and cannot possibly, go out and verify everything you are told, or that you have read about. It would be physically impossible to verify every scientific experiment from the beginning of science. You assume things are true and therefore don't have to try them out to make sure. We, as Satanically minded individuals (at least ideologically if not spiritually), prefer to assume that everything is false until we verify it for ourselves, which obviously limits the amount of interest we can have in proving or disproving things and the amount of time we can dedicate to our chosen fields. So we may seem less "knowledgable" about as many things as you, but there is a reason for that.

If you subscribe to the theories of Freud then there are certain things that you cannot accept in Jung's theories. Does this make either of them less true? No, it simply means that you can only choose one version. For me to choose Jung and you to choose Freud and each of us to argue that the other is completely wrong, about a subject and an object so ephemeral and indefinable as the human mind would be the height of foolishness for us both. We have to merely accept that truth is based on where you stand on the issue. No-one ever believes in something that they know is wrong.

Anyway, to actually address your points...

What you have described in the above section is not solely the domain of the internet occultist. There are a great many people and groups who use this same way of thinking. What about Intelligent Design supporters and lobbyists? White power groups? I find it slightly worrying that you imply that occultists, specifically internet occultists, and thereby specifically implying us as a group, disagree with what science and philosophy have to say. You make it sound as though these groups you are talking about behave like spoilt children who cannot get their own way and so dismiss the universe and everything in it as a communist plot, because it doesn't agree with their version of existence. Furthermore i would argue, in a similar vein to many of the debates you have sparked on here, that reality is what you make it. There are facts and laws, and then there are fictions clothed as truths. Groups that attack and tear down all and any preconcieved "knowledge" and understanding, if done correctly, are doing a greater service to humanity by questioning and discovering for themselves the nature of their own reality, than those who blindly accept something because they were told to by a man who is "in charge". The same with politics, the same with race issues, the same with sex and sexuality, the same with religion, the same with everything. There probably are some internet occult groups that dismiss everything you see as true as "mere opinion". But by assuming that one idiot represents occultism as a whole, you are no better than the man who judges all muslims as terrorists because a small, minute, barely-even-noticeable-on-the-scale percentage of the muslim population committed acts of terrorism.

I submit that this attitude is incredibly anti-intellectual. Because there is no standard in occultism any assertion can go unchallenged. The internet has removed even the need for charisma in occult leaders, and vanity publishing houses like Lulu have ensured that a plethora of mediocre books can be published which no reputable publishing house – even occult publishing houses – would touch. I think this is the reason that, in occultism, our highest institutions of learning are dismissed as “brainwashing agencies,” and rather than academic qualifications or earned social respect through comportment and character, occultists give themselves ridiculous and self-aggrandising titles and screen names. Internet occultism is manufactured authority.

Again, the same can be said of any minority group. Any white power group will tell you that the governement is run by jews, that schools are putting the future of the nation at risk by mixing ethnicity in the classrom, that their twisted version of history is giving white children self loathing complexes and ruining their minds. In fact, there are a lot of things taught in school, mainly historical and political, that are either misrepresented or avoided as a whole to further the agenda of whatever the governing body is. Again, you are taking a small minority and using them to represent the whole culture of occultism.



By saying that within the sphere of occultism, "our highest institutions of learning are dismissed as brainwashing agencies" you have missed a more important point in favour of throwing in some sensationlist rhetoric. Anyone on the outside of the mainstream is there because of differences in ideology or belief. So what about the thousands of christian families who homeschool their children, because they don't want them to learn about the evils of the world, like literature, world culture, and science. What about the Hippies of the 60's who now teach philosophy, psychology, sociology, computer science in universities and colleges? These people would have been the people calling institutions "brainwashing factories" in the 60's and 70's. It is not simply occultism that throws around this term. You have narrowed your focus to level a criticism at us, very thinly disguised as a more general point. In your haste to pick holes in our beliefs, you have missed a greater number of "normal" people who believe exactly the same thing.


"If you can be told what you can read or hear or see then it follows that you can be told what to say, think or believe..."
-One very important message, Squarepusher

For myself at least it does follow that, depending on agenda and reasoning, schools and colleges are necessarily required to teach societal norms and cultural expression. TO say that a child starts off as a blank slate and grows into what they will become, the school, college, homeschool tutor, night school, home learning course, private tutor, mentor, etc is a brainwasher. For some reason people see some brainwashing as acceptable and some as unacceptable, without realising that all successful teaching is brain washing.

My second question is: if you wish intellectuals to join you, how will they take your writings about reality seriously if you do not engage with the most important works on this topic? To write about reality with no knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume etc is absurd. If you are writing a treatise on reality it is inexcusable not to engage with these philosophers. If you have not yet read them and still wish to write such works, you should give a specific reason why you cannot spend the six months of hard evening study it would take to acquaint yourself with them.

You assume an awful lot about this group. In fact you assume that we are all the sort of imbeciles you have clearly taken to be a standard sample of internet occultists. I will admit, there are some spectacularly moronic individuals out there. But then there are idiots in every category. You can't seem to accept that perhaps you might be wrong about, if not our systems and techniques, then our agenda and ideologies. Also, to say that we have no idea what we are talking about, and cannot possibly hope to engage "intellectuals" in conversation unless we have read these certain books that will get us onto your intellectual VIP list is not only absurd, but insulting. To say that these writers are important in the field of philosophy is a major understatement to be sure. But what if we have no interest in discussing aristotelian logic, or the writings of Kant? What if these writers have no real bearing on what we are discussing, save for the basics that we have picked up from others (if they are basic texts to read, then they will bleed through into others works, and so we will have read them without even realising)What if we are not armchair philosophers who HAVE to know more words than anyone else so we can blind them with book smarts. What shall we do if we find the idea of engaging in conversation with people who claim intellectual superiority based on who has read the most obscure books about philosophy completely and utterly beneath us? We are not here for a circle jerk. We are here to discuss topics that interest us. Perhaps your version of intellect is not the same as ours. Perhaps we have bigger and more important fish to fry, than to engage in a cock measuring contest with someone who cannot get past the idea that maybe other people think differently to him, and maybe that's fine, it doesn't make either person or their ideas less valid.

[Narlool L'Pah]

Mar 23, 2009 1:49:04 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

To write about reality with no knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume etc is absurd. If you are writing a treatise on reality it is inexcusable not to engage with these philosophers.

But of course, that is your opinion.... even though it is still well reasoned out.

[Shaz'rahjeem]

This apologist1 is so much fun. If you have a problem with internet cultists then whys it ona forum, bult by and for them. I will agree with one point right up though. LuLu lets anybody publish anything and its got so much bullshit that quality books are just drowned out.

[sin]

Apologist 1, I feel your pain; however:

1. By stating that in order to be intellectual, one must have extensive knowledge of specific philosophers - is disheartening. While I understand it from an academic stand-point, from an occult stand-point it's just muddying the waters. If one wants to design their own treatise on 'reality' perhaps the idea is to start from pure thought, and not be influenced by the philosophies of others. If you consider, that 'philosophy' is not based in fact, but exploration of thought.

2. I don't think you have thought this all through, and the realities of what you are proposing to accomplish intellectualism.

3. Sure, any assertion can co unchallenged; however that can be the case in any philosophy or ideology. I believe you are attempting to apply the rules of scholarship to this group, which is really absurd. I mean, yes - there will be critical thinkers but there will also be voyeurs. Some people learn by observing, achieving understanding by watching others question or not question. Whose to say what is the 'proper' way to explore metaphysical ideas, and philosophical values?

4. Even your own ideas could be considered 'brain-washing' in that you are attempting to influence the founder, as well as cultists to conform to your own ideas. It seems you believe that your way, is the proper way - and if it's not followed, we lack intelligence.

[jmsn72]

Mar 23, 2009 1:49:04 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

Here is a methodology I often detect in internet occultism. I wonder if you have observed it and I wonder if you consider it anti-intellectual.

Let “X” stand for the sum knowledge of human mental endeavour in the fields of science and philosophy. Occultists often have no or very limited knowledge of X. Yet they propose that “X” is delusional and narrow-minded and is less valid than their own thinking. Occultists do not engage with X except where X can be ripped from its context and used as the basis of wild abstractions about the nature of reality(e.g. quantum physics). Occultists believe that X is incorrect and naïve. The supreme truth rests instead with the individual occultist. Those who have studied X are to be ridiculed as arrogant and untrustworthy. No matter the diversity of opinions and ideas in X, they can nevertheless be subsumed under that letter and dismissed out of hand as “mere opinion.”

I submit that this attitude is incredibly anti-intellectual. Because there is no standard in occultism any assertion can go unchallenged. The internet has removed even the need for charisma in occult leaders, and vanity publishing houses like Lulu have ensured that a plethora of mediocre books can be published which no reputable publishing house – even occult publishing houses – would touch. I think this is the reason that, in occultism, our highest institutions of learning are dismissed as “brainwashing agencies,” and rather than academic qualifications or earned social respect through comportment and character, occultists give themselves ridiculous and self-aggrandising titles and screen names. Internet occultism is manufactured authority.

My second question is: if you wish intellectuals to join you, how will they take your writings about reality seriously if you do not engage with the most important works on this topic? To write about reality with no knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume etc is absurd. If you are writing a treatise on reality it is inexcusable not to engage with these philosophers. If you have not yet read them and still wish to write such works, you should give a specific reason why you cannot spend the six months of hard evening study it would take to acquaint yourself with them.

I disagree.One can still question the nature of reality and form a thesis without the readings of the aforementioned philosophers.It would help them to take a look at those philosophers to see what another person thought but ultimately a dead philosopher will not determine what reality is for the individual,the individual is to determine the nature of his/her reality.I take it you're a philosopher which is cool by me but may I profess to not giving a shit how long you spent reading some random books.

To answer your question about intellectuals joining.If they join they join,if they don't they don't ,it's as simple as that.As long as whoever joins is productive and dedicated,whether or not they read Aristotle or Kant is irrelevant.

You tend to rant on how much you hold a the truth and how we are nothing more than ignorant simpletons thinking we give a fuck.Well I got news for you buddy ,we don't.Most of what you say won't dissuade anyone or change their minds to the paths they have chosen.Your inability to see this makes you seem ignorant. Wanna mentally masturbate over how great you are,do it to people who care,not us!Unless you have something meaningful to post,disappear.You could probably use some sunlight anyway!I mean seriously,just quit already!

[Xor'Nefthrahm]

Mar 23, 2009 1:49:04 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

Here is a methodology I often detect in internet occultism. I wonder if you have observed it and I wonder if you consider it anti-intellectual.

Let “X” stand for the sum knowledge of human mental endeavour in the fields of science and philosophy. Occultists often have no or very limited knowledge of X. Yet they propose that “X” is delusional and narrow-minded and is less valid than their own thinking. Occultists do not engage with X except where X can be ripped from its context and used as the basis of wild abstractions about the nature of reality(e.g. quantum physics). Occultists believe that X is incorrect and naïve. The supreme truth rests instead with the individual occultist. Those who have studied X are to be ridiculed as arrogant and untrustworthy. No matter the diversity of opinions and ideas in X, they can nevertheless be subsumed under that letter and dismissed out of hand as “mere opinion.”

I submit that this attitude is incredibly anti-intellectual. Because there is no standard in occultism any assertion can go unchallenged. The internet has removed even the need for charisma in occult leaders, and vanity publishing houses like Lulu have ensured that a plethora of mediocre books can be published which no reputable publishing house – even occult publishing houses – would touch. I think this is the reason that, in occultism, our highest institutions of learning are dismissed as “brainwashing agencies,” and rather than academic qualifications or earned social respect through comportment and character, occultists give themselves ridiculous and self-aggrandising titles and screen names. Internet occultism is manufactured authority.

My second question is: if you wish intellectuals to join you, how will they take your writings about reality seriously if you do not engage with the most important works on this topic? To write about reality with no knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume etc is absurd. If you are writing a treatise on reality it is inexcusable not to engage with these philosophers. If you have not yet read them and still wish to write such works, you should give a specific reason why you cannot spend the six months of hard evening study it would take to acquaint yourself with them.

What about occultists that have been so BEFORE they had the internet? Occultism can and DOES exist without the internet.

You speak of occultism as if you are a great Magus, as if you KNOW everything about it, what are your occult acomplishments? I have been a practicing occultist since 12-13 years old. Maybe earlier, since my dad got me interested in spirits at a REALLY early age. I am now 27, going on 28 in November. How long have you been an occultist? Are you an occultist? If not, then what the F*CK do you know? You speak as if you have some authority in the matter.

Occult groups, such as Cult of Cthulhu, tend to attract occultists, just like how a Neo-Nazi group will attract racist bigots (my opinion on the matter, of course). It's just how it works. Common sense would tell you that..

What you state is that to know about ones OWN reality, they MUST know about another's POV on reality, OTHERWISE they know nothing.. hmm.. I dont know, that sounds pretty ignorant to me. I am not saying that I find classic philosophers dull or a waiste of time, in fact, I find it QUITE interesting. I'm just saying what do THEY know about MY reality? All of it is just someone elses opinion, although I do agree that it is an interesting read.

While some of us are READING about what reality is about, written by someone else's POV, others are FINDING OUT first hand for themselves WHAT reality is. What would that be called, an armchair philosopher? A TRUE philosopher finds out and explores reality for themselves.

So, what have you discovered about reality, apologist1? I'm serious, I wanna know.. without any referances to OTHER philosophers, I wanna know your OWN discoveries. Your OWN achivements.

Even though I seem to be kind of a prick, I DO acctually enjoy your posts!

[Xor'Nefthrahm]

Mar 24, 2009 9:03:50 GMT -6 @sin said:

Apologist 1, I feel your pain; however:

1. By stating that in order to be intellectual, one must have extensive knowledge of specific philosophers - is disheartening. While I understand it from an academic stand-point, from an occult stand-point it's just muddying the waters. If one wants to design their own treatise on 'reality' perhaps the idea is to start from pure thought, and not be influenced by the philosophies of others. If you consider, that 'philosophy' is not based in fact, but exploration of thought.

2. I don't think you have thought this all through, and the realities of what you are proposing to accomplish intellectualism.

3. Sure, any assertion can co unchallenged; however that can be the case in any philosophy or ideology. I believe you are attempting to apply the rules of scholarship to this group, which is really absurd. I mean, yes - there will be critical thinkers but there will also be voyeurs. Some people learn by observing, achieving understanding by watching others question or not question. Whose to say what is the 'proper' way to explore metaphysical ideas, and philosophical values?

4. Even your own ideas could be considered 'brain-washing' in that you are attempting to influence the founder, as well as cultists to conform to your own ideas. It seems you believe that your way, is the proper way - and if it's not followed, we lack intelligence.

Well said, Cora'Sahn.. he seems a bit like a biggot to me. A facist.
"Either be like me, or you are against me" kind of attitude. He posts long-winded rants, yet I dont see a single sign of ANY knowlege of the occult or how it works. WHAT IS HE DOING ON AN OCCULT FORUM?

[Shaz'rahjeem]

Mar 24, 2009 17:37:58 GMT -6 Xor'Nefthrahm said:

WHAT IS HE DOING ON AN OCCULT FORUM?

hahaha, what indeed.

Every one of his rants always get torn into.

[jmsn72]

Strange thing is how that person judges occultists.When have they ever made a post demonstrating knowledge of the occult or added something to the magic section as evidence of this occult knowledge?They are knowledgeable about the material world and philosophy but they have made no connection to the occult at all.

[amble]

Most of his posts seem to be written specifically with the hope that we will all go "Fuck! Occultism? Is that what i've been doing? shit, i guess i was wrong all allong. Thank God apologist was here to show me the error of my ways"
And if thats not his intent, then he's doing really well at making it seem that way.

[jmsn72]

They can preach all they want then.For most of us magickal operations have presented results and has worked.A mechanic would not give up a screwdriver to use a stick so why would we give up on occultism?What they cease to see is that occultism is a results oriented science.That's right a science.

The hypothesis is usually metaphysical in nature but it plays out the same way.What failed is discarded and what works is kept if not further built on.Much like an overview on science.The difference is it demands a self awareness and the user to define what they want with reality which he/she has a hard time grasping.

While they may slave to one or a plentiful of philosophical views,we determine our own from our work and the results to build a larger picture about reality,self and the relation between the two.Sadly,a person like that won't realize this.

[sin]

Mar 24, 2009 17:37:58 GMT -6 Xor'Nefthrahm said:

Well said, Cora'Sahn.. he seems a bit like a biggot to me. A facist.
"Either be like me, or you are against me" kind of attitude. He posts long-winded rants, yet I dont see a single sign of ANY knowlege of the occult or how it works. WHAT IS HE DOING ON AN OCCULT FORUM?

Perhaps he's trying to understand occultism, and the allure of it. [shrugs] It's not for everyone.

[jmsn72]

There no longer any point making an excuse for their actions.If they have a purpose they have not stated it.From as I ,they are little more than a distraction,although it is kinda fun firing back at them lol/

[apologist1]

I think that this thread proves my thesis. The important works of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality are marginalised and not considered necessary reading in order to discuss the philosophy of reality. Instead, we have strawman arguments and startling accusations of arrogance. Somehow it is I that am arrogant by suggesting that one should take account of the fact that the greatest minds in human history have addressed the issues this group purports to address? Very telling.

RAISE YOUR STANDARDS!

[jmsn72]

Apr 2, 2009 17:24:25 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

I think that this thread proves my thesis. The important works of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality are marginalised and not considered necessary reading in order to discuss the philosophy of reality. Instead, we have strawman arguments and startling accusations of arrogance. Somehow it is I that am arrogant by suggesting that one should take account of the fact that the greatest minds in human history have addressed the issues this group purports to address? Very telling.

RAISE YOUR STANDARDS!

You misunderstand!Theories on reality,philosophy,the occult, its all nothing more than a pipe dream for people who can't accept the fact that we are going to end up worm food engaging in petty escapism.

This is why the standard is not that high anyway.No one can accept the fact that it's all useless (you included).I mean seriously,what the fuck does any of this shit matter? It doesn't! We all gotta eat, sleep , work and pay taxes anyway.Whether your at the pinnacle of intelligence or dumb trailer shit is irrelevant!When we die,thats it,there's nothing.

It amuses me how people can spend all their lives chasing symbols and deeming reality their enemies.Yet the same people are trying fuck as much as project idiots who can't imagine anything more than the physical world.Regardless of the rhetoric or philosophy...everyone is the same.A bunch of crabs climbing over each other to reach the top where there isn't a top.So sad!

My question for you is why you care?Haven't you realized humanity is hopeless?Everything is going to hit an inevitable collapse anyway and none of this is going to mean anything.Why invest so much hope in a species that does nothing but replicate and disappoint? Why expect more for the most miserable and sad species to roam the planet?What can you possibly gain from this?What the fuck can anyone gain from trying anyway?Its all useless!

The only advantage of intelligence is devising better arguments by which to justify one's actions.Trying to justify one's actions in the long run is a waste as this nightmare is will terminate in the same way regardless of how convincing an argument one concocted for playing dress up in a black robe and standing in a circle like an rpg character lol.

[apologist1]

Apr 2, 2009 17:36:26 GMT -6 @jmsn72 said:

Apr 2, 2009 17:24:25 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

I think that this thread proves my thesis. The important works of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality are marginalised and not considered necessary reading in order to discuss the philosophy of reality. Instead, we have strawman arguments and startling accusations of arrogance. Somehow it is I that am arrogant by suggesting that one should take account of the fact that the greatest minds in human history have addressed the issues this group purports to address? Very telling.

RAISE YOUR STANDARDS!

You misunderstand!Theories on reality,philosophy,the occult, its all nothing more than a pipe dream for people who can't accept the fact that we are going to end up worm food engaging in petty escapism.

This is why the standard is not that high anyway.No one can accept the fact that it's all useless (you included).I mean seriously,what the fuck does any of this shit matter? It doesn't! We all gotta eat, sleep , work and pay taxes anyway.Whether your at the pinnacle of intelligence or dumb trailer shit is irrelevant!When we die,thats it,there's nothing.

It amuses me how people can spend all their lives chasing symbols and deeming reality their enemies.Yet the same people are trying fuck as much as project idiots who can't imagine anything more than the physical world.Regardless of the rhetoric or philosophy...everyone is the same.A bunch of crabs climbing over each other to reach the top where there isn't a top.So sad!

My question for you is why you care?Haven't you realized humanity is hopeless?Everything is going to hit an inevitable collapse anyway and none of this is going to mean anything.Why invest so much hope in a species that does nothing but replicate and disappoint? Why expect more for the most miserable and sad species to roam the planet?What can you possibly gain from this?What the fuck can anyone gain from trying anyway?Its all useless!

This kind of cowardly fatalism is actually tyrannical because it artificially levels everything into homogenous nothingness rather than letting things be the things that they are. As a theoretical projection it alienates man from his own hope of a meaningful existence. Thankfully it is an incorrect and superficial view. It is perfectly possible to dwell in the roles of life (father, son, friend, debater, occultist) without constant theoretical reflection on their meaninglessness. If we face nihilism resolutely, we can let things be what they are, and dwell in our life for what it is, rather than erroneously projecting the violence of nihilistic levelling upon being itself.

The writings of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kant, Plato and Heidegger address these important questions with more depth than space here allows.

[apologist1]

Mar 25, 2009 10:22:41 GMT -6 @sin said:

Perhaps he's trying to understand occultism, and the allure of it. [shrugs] It's not for everyone.

I am interested in the writings of Blake, Bataille, Benjamin, Yeats, the decadents etc.

I don't believe occultism is a technology. A ritual is no longer sacred if it is exclusively a means to an end. Occultism cannot be a religion, by definition, because religion is exoteric while occultism is esoteric. The occult is the hidden.

I believe modern occultism arises after WW1 when societal narratives about morality, scientific certainty, religion and politics were called into question. Occult works developed which purported to reveal the hidden narrative meaning of human existence. Occultism is revealed truth because it delves into and illuminates what is already known, revealing it in a different light. The truth of modern philosophy from Heidegger onwards can, in this sense, be regarded as occult.

[jmsn72]

And you propose life has meaning by who's observations?Yours or some dead guys?You can do little more than regurgitate ideas of others..how laughable.I suppose you have no real ideas of your own!Your intellectual rants are without meaning.

[apologist1]

Apr 2, 2009 18:24:01 GMT -6 @jmsn72 said:

And you propose life has meaning by who's observations?Yours or some dead guys?You can do little more than regurgitate ideas of others..how laughable.I suppose you have no real ideas of your own!Your intellectual rants are without meaning.

I'm uncertain whether to respond to this post or the original post you made here, which seemed to say the exact opposite.

[jmsn72]

The only thing consistent in my mind is inconsistency. I can admit this much is true.

[Xor'Nefthrahm]

Apr 2, 2009 17:59:32 GMT -6 apologist1 said:

Mar 25, 2009 10:22:41 GMT -6 @sin said:

Perhaps he's trying to understand occultism, and the allure of it. [shrugs] It's not for everyone.

I am interested in the writings of Blake, Bataille, Benjamin, Yeats, the decadents etc.

I don't believe occultism is a technology. A ritual is no longer sacred if it is exclusively a means to an end. Occultism cannot be a religion, by definition, because religion is exoteric while occultism is esoteric. The occult is the hidden.

I believe modern occultism arises after WW1 when societal narratives about morality, scientific certainty, religion and politics were called into question. Occult works developed which purported to reveal the hidden narrative meaning of human existence. Occultism is revealed truth because it delves into and illuminates what is already known, revealing it in a different light. The truth of modern philosophy from Heidegger onwards can, in this sense, be regarded as occult.

I believe that Occultism and Philosophy should go hand in hand. Althought I believe we should get our OWN ideas on existance through experimentation, it is useful to see PAST experiments and beliefs on it.. it gives you a chance to try what they said and see if a part of it can be integrated into your own belief system.

My belief system is constantly evolving as I learn more and more, and I believe that NOBODY should settle down with one set of beliefs.. that leads to stagnation.

[monitor613]

studying other thinkers throughout time can be helpful but it should not be a prerequisite for being taken seriously . if someone is smart they will say smart things no matter how little they know. conversely, a stupid person will say stupid things no matter if they can recite the entire encyclopedia. i suppose the OP wishes our profile had certificates as a means of authenticating our opinion.

[Madguten]

studying other thinkers throughout time can be helpful but it should not be a prerequisite for being taken seriously . if someone is smart they will say smart things no matter how little they know. conversely, a stupid person will say stupid things no matter if they can recite the entire encyclopedia. i suppose the OP wishes our profile had certificates as a means of authenticating our opinion.

WORD!

I agree, wholeheartedly.

IA! IA!

[lisbent]

I for one believe that one should, if one aspires to be a Magus, try to understand as many POV's as possible, not just occult writings, but sociological, philosophical, anthropological, whatever, its all tools for gnosis. Sadly not many people are up for the (huge) task the appropriation of this amount of knowledge is. We should man up, not be so lazy, and read more diverse material! Now im not stating my I's are fused, nor that i am a master of all fields. I am but a mere fool, and fear i will never be more than that, but we should surely strive for more in all our being, in all fields of science, in all fields of the supernatural, in all fields period!

What we all want surely is to manifest our Will in our Work, and this will be so much easier if we have more tools at our disposition, no?

[carcosannoble]

I assure you Apologist, my crew and I are not only well learned, but also charismatic. As are many persons here. What might be more productive, instead of hand slapping everyone, would be to specifically tutor those you find in need of education. Just try not to force it down their throat, they might bite off your hand.