Objective Reality?

[bdsvictory]

Greetings,

This morning I have been rereading the text "Black Magic" by Michael Aquino, HIgh Priest of the ToS. On pg. 89 I found this:

"We cannot honestly say that we live in the objective universe, but rather in a crazy-quilt of subjective overlays on the objective universe. The first thing the magician must do is realize this; the second thing he must do is attempt to see and understand the actual objective universe through all the camouflage. The third thing he must do is attempt to change parts of it carefully and precisely through his own magical workings, both LBM and GBM."

Here is my question to the Cultists, and others, on this forum:
Do you think there is such a thing as an objective universe? Is there an underlying reality that exists outside of our perceptions of "it"?
If there is, then how do we cause change to occur on "it" if we are seperate from "it"?
If "it" does not exist then how is it that all humans seem to share a certain degree of concensus reality? For example, I can write the word table, and all of you will have a similar image in your minds about what a table "is". This would seem to imply that some objective reality exists.

Thoughts?

AWAKE!

[Apsara Kamalli]

Jun 8, 2010 9:42:21 GMT -6 bdsvictory said:

Here is my question to the Cultists, and others, on this forum:
Do you think there is such a thing as an objective universe? Is there an underlying reality that exists outside of our perceptions of "it"?
If there is, then how do we cause change to occur on "it" if we are seperate from "it"?
If "it" does not exist then how is it that all humans seem to share a certain degree of concensus reality? For example, I can write the word table, and all of you will have a similar image in your minds about what a table "is". This would seem to imply that some objective reality exists.

Objectivity vs. subjectivity is a long-debated topic of conversation. I've read much about it, but have yet to make a final determination on my set of beliefs. Here is a link to one of the most intriguing articles I've read about the subject. Take a look, and let me know what you think...

twm.co.nz/hologram.html

Awake!

AK

[I AM the Way]

This morning I have been rereading the text "Black Magic" by Michael Aquino, HIgh Priest of the ToS. On pg. 89 I found this:

"We cannot honestly say that we live in the objective universe, but rather in a crazy-quilt of subjective overlays on the objective universe. The first thing the magician must do is realize this; the second thing he must do is attempt to see and understand the actual objective universe through all the camouflage. The third thing he must do is attempt to change parts of it carefully and precisely through his own magical workings, both LBM and GBM."

I think Michael Aquino (last I knew he was going by the title of Ipsissimus) is right on the money.

Q'zbah beautifully illustrated the differences between subjective and objective reality, while I believe that either form of reality can be changed. The latter simply being more difficult to alter than the former.

You see and experience this website, its imagery, its letters. This is what Occidental philosophy would call "subjective" as it is Processed Information. When you ask if objective reality exists, it is like you asking of information on a hard drive or a web-host (that contains the digital information of this site) and the site's HTML coding exists. The 1's & 0's that is the digital coherent information of this site is what may be labeled "objective" by Western terminology.

So what you are consciously experiencing on screen is the secondary state of reality, whereas the thousands of bits of 1's and 0's of digital gibberish is the Primary or Ultimate State of Reality.

In Buddhism it is the second state of reality - processed information - that is the illusion or delusion. As real as the images, colors, and letters you see on your computer screen are, what you see on screen is an illusion because if you were to open your computer up and look on your hard drive's disk, you will not find a mirror image of this website as you consciously know of it.

That reminds me of The Matrix film when Neo could see the world as code, recognizing and interpreting the raw 1's and 0's of objective reality.

I disagree when he said that we can change or alter this Objective reality. Because how do you change something you can never consciously meet. What one can do is use Mind to change and alter the secondary state of reality, which Quantum Mechanics seems to suggest also.

Ah, but what if objective reality could be met on a conscious level? I believe that an Awakened individual can alter the objective reality, the primal code, the raw pattern from which subjective reality emerges. For me, that is the essence of Greater Black Magic, in ToS terminology, or Viridian sorcery, in ours.


A'ahjhan ot ahraev ashith... vib oola zuun rivdgian.

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[I AM the Way]

Well said, regarding the Schrodinger's Cat experiment. Hopefully, others have come across this before today. It's probably in What The Bleep Do We Know?! quantum physics documentary and I know it's talked about in Big Bang Theory and Prince of Darkness.

But when you say that there is a possibility that the very primal or primordial coding of Ultimate Reality can be altered or reprogrammed, this goes beyond the co-existing potentialities inside that box.

I suppose so. I never differentiated the two before. Perhaps there are several, occasionally integrating dimensions of objective reality or primal coding which must be taken into account... wherein developing an Awakened state of consciousness is the key.

It would be very hard. It would depend on realizing the causation of this primal coding... where it comes from, who or what programs it. I think the direction that Quantum Mechanics is going will one day reflect what Eastern metaphysics has been trying to state for ages: that there is Oneness or Unity to Ultimate Reality. That We each are the same Cosmic Mind in different expressions. Perhaps it is when we fully realize what we are ((as Neo fully realized what he was)): that same eternal and infinite, all-creative Universal Mind, that we will realize that it is we ourselves that programs the primal coding, and from there, it would be possible to change the coding.

Yes, indeed.


A'ahjhan ot ahraev ashith... vib oola zuun rivdgian.

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[bdsvictory]

Q'zbah writes:
It would be very hard. It would depend on realizing the causation of this primal coding... where it comes from, who or what programs it. I think the direction that Quantum Mechanics is going will one day reflect what Eastern metaphysics has been trying to state for ages: that there is Oneness or Unity to Ultimate Reality. That We each are the same Cosmic Mind in different expressions. Perhaps it is when we fully realize what we are ((as Neo fully realized what he was)): that same eternal and infinite, all-creative Universal Mind, that we will realize that it is we ourselves that programs the primal coding, and from there, it would be possible to change the coding.

I disagree that we are part of some universal mind, nor is it a state of realization that I would aspire to. As I have indicated in other posts, as a LHP practioner, I aspire towards divine individuality.

I think that the question of how do we cause change in the objective universe (OU) is answered in the above quote from Q'zbah and elements from the quote from Aquino.
Aquino suggests that the practioner must:

1. Realize that they do not really live in the OU but rather in this mesh of OU and subjective universe(SU).
2. Once she/he has realized this, they must strive to understand and see the actual nature of the OU.
From these two realizations the magician can move towars attempting to cause change in accordance with Will.

Q'zbah, in her writing, suggests that if the realization is made that it is we who do the programming of the "primal coding" of the OU then it is we who can begin to change it that coding (and hence the OU).

The underlying point seems to be that one must have a realization as to the true nature of the OU and SU and ffrom there one can begin to cause changes in both.

AWAKE!

[beastx]

I disagree that we are part of some universal mind, nor is it a state of realization that I would aspire to. As I have indicated in other posts, as a LHP practioner, I aspire towards divine individuality.

It seems to me you are splitting the same hair and there isn't a need to. Gurdjieff taught the idea of unity through diversity.

Although it is probably pointless to explain this concept to you. For the benefit of others not so familiar who might be following this thread, I will lay the idea out.

We can see the macrocosmic reality by examining a microcosmic event. From a molecular level through to formation of tissue and continuing all the way up to our bio-mechanical being, there is an echo sounding. Just as molecules attract (and/or repel) to others and begin to organize into a larger more complex organism, we too do the same thing.

I know what you are thinking "bullshit", but look closely at the world around you. Howard Bloom, a Paleopsychologist (I think that is his field of science) and the author of a book that I highly recommend "The Lucifer Principle", suggests that this is a Meme driven phenomenon. It is in this sense that we begin to see this event give us clues as to the nature of something that can only be described as a higher life form.

The "social" organism is the closest description I can give of it, but not because I am unsure of its existence. It is my belief that this form of being is still in the early stages of its evolution. Nature does a funny thing as it drudges forward in driving evolution. Let us think of the steps leading to the emergence Homo Sapien. There are at least 5 stages of development between Australopithecus Sediba and Homo Sapien that are scientifically accepted and in my mind are probably only peak shifts in an ever changing process. Keep in mind however that this process already had experienced hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of peak shifts prior to Australopithecus Sediba.

Where do we look though to see evidence of this in the real? Because really, if you cannot see it taking place, then you cannot reconcile it in your mind. What happened between A. Sediba and H. Sapien? Why did one push on and the other fall off? That funny thing I was talking about in the paragraph above, is the principal of Survival. More specifically survival of the fittest, unless a catastrophic event interacts (then again, isn't it still survival of the fittest). So as things struggle to organize and become more complex mistakes are made along the way. This creates a need for a natural decomposition process (a self-destruct code) so to speak.

What happens though to the things which have reached an optimal state of organization and yet are unable to continue to drive forward in strides? Take a colony of ants or a hive of bees for example. It would make sense that we could see evolution taking place on a smaller scale (since they exist on a smaller scale). However it does not seem to be presented within this context. The answer to me is simple, they become part of a larger system. What larger system? The eco-system.

Now this long and probably unnecessary lesson in the possible process of evolution, has not yet come to answering why I believe you are both talking about the same thing. See that colony of ants has reached a state of self-actualization (Maslow) and will only very slowly evolve beyond this state on the level of individuality because the next stage is trans-personal consciousness (Grof).

There are two things I must now define to begin making sense of this whole thing.

Maslow explicitly defines self-actualization to be "the desire for self-fulfillment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. Is this not what would be considered "divine individuality"?

Stanislav Grof defines trans-personal as "The common denominator of this otherwise rich and ramified group of phenomena is the feeling of the individual that his consciousness expanded beyond the usual ego boundaries and the limitations of time and space."

To say that you strive toward "divine individuality" means that by default you MUST reach a state of realization.

I would for the most part agree with you that there is no universal godmind. However that is where I get off, because there WILL be one.

Just as those ants become a part of the eco-system, we too are on course for becoming part of a larger entity. At this point however it is for the most part mindless and spinning out of control. That is however another post entirely.

Once you've achieved divine individuality or trans-personal consciousness, you become everything you are meant to become. It cannot truly be attained without realizing this means you've a function (which you perform naturally) within a larger organism.

Hopefully this clarifies somethings...

A'ahjhan ot ahraev ashith... vib oola zuun rivdgian!

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[beastx]

Jun 9, 2010 11:36:51 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

Well you worded it differently. You use the term "primal code" as in the primal coding of Ultimate reality can be altered. This I would agree with... Aquino didn't say this in the same way.

I still disagree with how Aquino states it. I base my disagreement on Schrodinger's Paradox: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

Aquino states that "objective reality" can be "changed." His words were: "The third thing he must do is attempt to change parts of it carefully and precisely..."

In Schrodinger's thought experiment you have a cat in a box with poison. You leave the cat in the box with poison for a day... come back and open the box. When you open it, you have a 50% causal chance that the cat will be dead from eating the poison, and 50% chance that the cat will still be alive.

In Schrodinger's Thought Experiment, when the box is closed for a day, BOTH Possibilities, or Potentialities co-exists simultaneously together.

In this context Aquino is saying that the reality inside that box can be changed... How and in what way when ALL possibilities and Potentialities ALREADY exists?

I'm sorry to say this, but your reasoning fails (not that I am disagreeing your point) on the basis of reductio ad absurdum by the strictest sense.

You see the Double-slit experiment reveals a couple of errors not only in Schrodinger's cat but also in Copenhagen interpretation as well. Both fail to account for Probability Function and transition from the possible to the actual.

Though we did learn from the Double-slit experiment that all things that are possible will happen. Probability Function is necessary in determining the likelihood of when, how, and how often it will.

To make a long point short I will say "The cat observed itself", this falls more inline with Relational interpretation and the observable manifestations which govern our objective experience.

One just needs to learn to somehow pick a possibility or pick a specific potentiality and materialize it you see.

But when you say that there is a possibility that the very primal or primordial coding of Ultimate Reality can be altered or reprogrammed, this goes beyond the co-existing potentialities inside that box.

It is saying that the "coding" that create the reality inside that box which exists in a state where all possibilities already exists can be altered. I would agree with this idea.

It would be very hard. It would depend on realizing the causation of this primal coding... where it comes from, who or what programs it. I think the direction that Quantum Mechanics is going will one day reflect what Eastern metaphysics has been trying to state for ages: that there is Oneness or Unity to Ultimate Reality. That We each are the same Cosmic Mind in different expressions. Perhaps it is when we fully realize what we are ((as Neo fully realized what he was)): that same eternal and infinite, all-creative Universal Mind, that we will realize that it is we ourselves that programs the primal coding, and from there, it would be possible to change the coding.

Again your overall observation is point-on however you may want to rethink your presentation.

Keep up the good work, I really am enjoying this thread.

When the Stars are Right!

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[I AM the Way]

It seems to me you are splitting the same hair and there isn't a need to. Gurdjieff taught the idea of unity through diversity.

Although it is probably pointless to explain this concept to you. For the benefit of others not so familiar who might be following this thread, I will lay the idea out.

We can see the macrocosmic reality by examining a microcosmic event. From a molecular level through to formation of tissue and continuing all the way up to our bio-mechanical being, there is an echo sounding. Just as molecules attract (and/or repel) to others and begin to organize into a larger more complex organism, we too do the same thing.

I know what you are thinking "bullshit", but look closely at the world around you. Howard Bloom, a Paleopsychologist (I think that is his field of science) and the author of a book that I highly recommend "The Lucifer Principle", suggests that this is a Meme driven phenomenon. It is in this sense that we begin to see this event give us clues as to the nature of something that can only be described as a higher life form.

The "social" organism is the closest description I can give of it, but not because I am unsure of its existence. It is my belief that this form of being is still in the early stages of its evolution. Nature does a funny thing as it drudges forward in driving evolution. Let us think of the steps leading to the emergence Homo Sapien. There are at least 5 stages of development between Australopithecus Sediba and Homo Sapien that are scientifically accepted and in my mind are probably only peak shifts in an ever changing process. Keep in mind however that this process already had experienced hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of peak shifts prior to Australopithecus Sediba.

Where do we look though to see evidence of this in the real? Because really, if you cannot see it taking place, then you cannot reconcile it in your mind. What happened between A. Sediba and H. Sapien? Why did one push on and the other fall off? That funny thing I was talking about in the paragraph above, is the principal of Survival. More specifically survival of the fittest, unless a catastrophic event interacts (then again, isn't it still survival of the fittest). So as things struggle to organize and become more complex mistakes are made along the way. This creates a need for a natural decomposition process (a self-destruct code) so to speak.

What happens though to the things which have reached an optimal state of organization and yet are unable to continue to drive forward in strides? Take a colony of ants or a hive of bees for example. It would make sense that we could see evolution taking place on a smaller scale (since they exist on a smaller scale). However it does not seem to be presented within this context. The answer to me is simple, they become part of a larger system. What larger system? The eco-system.

So, basically you're saying that since everything seems to be organized along the lines of a system that we may be part of a larger organism... everything from an ant, to a human being's consciousness, to the planets in our galaxy.

Now this long and probably unnecessary lesson in the possible process of evolution, has not yet come to answering why I believe you are both talking about the same thing. See that colony of ants has reached a state of self-actualization (Maslow) and will only very slowly evolve beyond this state on the level of individuality because the next stage is trans-personal consciousness (Grof).

There are two things I must now define to begin making sense of this whole thing.

Maslow explicitly defines self-actualization to be "the desire for self-fulfillment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. Is this not what would be considered "divine individuality"?

Stanislav Grof defines trans-personal as "The common denominator of this otherwise rich and ramified group of phenomena is the feeling of the individual that his consciousness expanded beyond the usual ego boundaries and the limitations of time and space."

To say that you strive toward "divine individuality" means that by default you MUST reach a state of realization.

I would for the most part agree with you that there is no universal godmind. However that is where I get off, because there WILL be one.

Just as those ants become a part of the eco-system, we too are on course for becoming part of a larger entity. At this point however it is for the most part mindless and spinning out of control. That is however another post entirely.

Once you've achieved divine individuality or trans-personal consciousness, you become everything you are meant to become. It cannot truly be attained without realizing this means you've a function (which you perform naturally) within a larger organism.

The first paragraph seems to wildly contradict the last paragraph of what I just quoted. How can an ant colony possibly reach a self-actualized state if they have no concept of self-hood in the first place? Perhaps, I just didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Again your overall observation is point-on however you may want to rethink your presentation.

Keep up the good work, I really am enjoying this thread.

Haha. Wow, that probably wasn't meant to sound as patronizing as it came across... to me anyways.

If we can, I'd like to steer this thread towards how our collective understanding of objective reality can be utilized by the Cult of Cthulhu.


A'ahjhan ot ahraev ashith... vib oola zuun rivdgian!

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[bdsvictory]

Greetings all,

A quick response to a portion of Beast Zeno's post.

Beast Zeno wrote:
Stanislav Grof defines trans-personal as "The common denominator of this otherwise rich and ramified group of phenomena is the feeling of the individual that his consciousness expanded beyond the usual ego boundaries and the limitations of time and space."

To say that you strive toward "divine individuality" means that by default you MUST reach a state of realization.

I would for the most part agree with you that there is no universal godmind. However that is where I get off, because there WILL be one.

Beast Zeno, thanks for this great definition from Grof. I am not familiar at all with his work but I have come across his name time and time again and have meant to investigate him. Would you suggest anything for a beginner?

I agree that one must reach a state, many different states, of realization on the way to any degree of divine individuality. What I am saying is that I am not interested in a realization of universal mind. You write that you agree that there is not a universal godmind but that there will be one. I would say that IF this were true, it would be necessary to rebel against it.

High Preist Satanis suggests we attempt to take this thread into an exploration of "our collective understanding of objective reality" and how it can be used by the Cult. As I am not a member of the Cult I do not know how qualified I am to contribute in that direction. Perhaps we first need to flesh out what the collective understanding actually is. I myself do not have a defintie opinion regarding the nature of the OU. It is something I am still trying to figure out.

Thoughts?

AWAKE

[I AM the Way]

High Priest Satanis suggests we attempt to take this thread into an exploration of "our collective understanding of objective reality" and how it can be used by the Cult. As I am not a member of the Cult I do not know how qualified I am to contribute in that direction. Perhaps we first need to flesh out what the collective understanding actually is. I myself do not have a definite opinion regarding the nature of the OU. It is something I am still trying to figure out.

Can we agree that theoretical understanding pales in comparison to the successful application of that understanding? While theory has its uses, I think the majority of us are interested in results above all else. If that is the case, then we have something with which to measure our understanding.

As to membership, assuming we have the same aim, whether you're an official Cultist or not is merely semantics. Especially if the only qualification of membership is the desire to achieve an end result, for most of us that would be some level of Godhood. If this religion consisted of only myself, then I would still seek comrades to aid me in my goals. Degrees mean nothing when held up to the emerald flame. All this is about our divine transformation!

I agree that one must reach a state, many different states, of realization on the way to any degree of divine individuality. What I am saying is that I am not interested in a realization of universal mind. You write that you agree that there is not a universal godmind but that there will be one. I would say that IF this were true, it would be necessary to rebel against it.

To not be ruled by, but to rule... that is the Left Hand Path. If we are part of some greater whole, then let us realize it so that we may exert control over this universal organism or mind or hologram. But if each piece of the universe, and other universes, can be taken separately, then I would be aligned with those forces and entities which allowed me the greatest freedom and power. Those beings which attempt to enslave me shall be eradicated.


A'ahjhan ot ahraev ashith... vib oola zuun rivdgian!

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[beastx]

Jun 10, 2010 20:03:21 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

For the record:

When I began posting in this thread I was coming from a Buddhist Weltanschauung, I thought I made that clear. All of my successive posts remain within context to that Buddhist Weltanschauung. I did utilize some Western science and QM in my posts. But when I did use those Western ideas, I used it to try and help explain my own Buddhist Weltanschauung to an Occidental audience. I was coming from a more Oriental Spiritual angle, and I used some Occidental terms and concepts to help explain my position. There is a big difference between materialist weltanschauung and Buddhist weltanschauung. It's my fault that I didn't clarify this.

Anyways, this topic of reality is so impersonal and abstract that I have a hard time seeing any practical and/or pragmatic value to it. But... if all possibilities exists... could that mean that Cthulhu actually exists in some form?

This was what I was wondering when I thought deeper about what Aquino said about how you can change objective reality. Say Lovecraft made up Cthulhu and the Ancient Ones originally as fictional characters. This would mean that Cthulhu is not "coded" on that primal or objective reality like we talked about. Is it possible to "code" or program Cthulhu into existence? According to Aquino's statement it seems to be possible?

To begin with I want to apologize if my prior comment came across as disrespectful in any aspect. I fully understood where you were coming from and believe there is science to back it.

To give my answer to your question, Yes! There isn't even a need for science to prove this. At one point the airplane was an imagined contraption dreamed up by man. Because it was imagined this gave it the possibility. From there it is a factor of chance (meaning a probability percentage) of materialization. There are things that can be done (Primal Coding) to increase that factor.

I want to thank you for everything you've put into this thread. It has made it a great discussion.

Awake!

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[beastx]

Jun 10, 2010 20:35:46 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

Jun 10, 2010 20:20:04 GMT -6 @beastx said:

To begin with I want to apologize if my prior comment came across as disrespectful in any aspect. I fully understood where you were coming from and believe there is science to back it.

To give my answer to your question, Yes! There isn't even a need for science to prove this. At one point the airplane was an imagined contraption dreamed up by man. Because it was imagined this gave it the possibility. From there it is a factor of chance (meaning a probability percentage) of materialization. There are things that can be done (Primal Coding) to increase that factor.

I want to thank you for everything you've put into this thread. It has made it a great discussion.

Awake!

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

You're welcome You didn't offend me in any way Beast. I don't know everything I'm very open to being corrected by anybody. I was thinking about your statement: "The cat observed itself." And I was thinking, "shoot, that's good... maybe Shrodinger's paradox wasn't a good back up example?" lol

I also want to learn all those logical fallacies from you. This is something I'm actually interested in. I only know a few. So when you do see a logical fallacy in any posts I make, it would be cool if you pointed it out like you did up there so I can study it.

But your bring up a great ample with your airplane!

I have a book here called Magic and Mystery In Tibet. Somewhere in there it talks about how in the old days Tibet didn't have a military to protect its boarders. So these old monks who had spend their lives taming and mastering their minds got together and materialize these creature from their Bon myths to help protect their boarders. One of these creatures came to be known as the "Yeti."

I also read that during world war 2 that a group of Jews used their traditional Kabalistic magic to materialize a "Golem" to keep them safe because they were in a concentration camp. After the war all of the Jews in this camp survived. These Jews swore that they saw and interacted with this Golem. Later when the state of Israel was founded, many of these Jews from this camp went to Israel and erected a statue of this Golem in its honor and to this day this statue is still there, and a plaque describes this creature as a war hero!

I can't remember the name of this golem, but it a well known story.

I suppose anything is possible... Liberation in Buddhism is that point in life when you realize inside that you do create your reality like you explained with the airplane analogy. Dukkha (suffering) happens when we are ignorant and believe that all that we see and experience is "real"... when we become slaves to our own fabrications.

Kudos... You are a smart cookie!

-BX

[I AM the Way]

Now we've decided to discuss the nature of objective reality on The Ooze, our Left Hand Path talk radio show:

www.blogtalkradio.com/

Tomorrow will be part 1 and next Saturday our exploration will conclude with part 2. Hopefully, many of you can join First Priest of R'lyeh Beast Xeno and I as we take calls, answer questions, and propose radical theories about the final wall of reality itself.


Awake!

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[egodiabolus]

This conversation has become really deep really fast. It seems that objective reality is where subjective reality starts. Say you have a sandbox and there is an impression in the center of the sand, plainly visible. When you throw a thin blanket over the sandbox, the blanket obscures the sand from view, but conforms to the sand below it. Throw another blanket on top of the first, and it obscures the view of the first while conforming to the first blanket and to a lesser degree the sand.

Our reality is like a thousand such blankets thrown on the sandbox of objective reality. The blankets are not opaque, but transparent to one degree or another. They are also not truly solid, but permeable to one degree or another. Some people cannot see or manipulate the material beyond the first layer. Others can see through several layers, but cannot manipulate all of them. Some, with effort, can learn to reach through and manipulate the deeper layers, influencing all the layers they have penetrated.

You may or may not realize where to stop, some will stop at a blanket or layer that tells them enough about the reality below it and gives them the influence they are content with. They may mistakenly assume they have reached the objective layer. Some will need to dig deeper. Those that dig all the way down to the sandbox... well, why wouldn't they be able to change the impression or build little hills for themselves. They would create shapes in the sand of the objective that would influence all the layers of subjective reality placed on top of it. For those who lacked the skill to see or manipulate the layers all the way to the objective, such changes would appear to be miraculous.

Sensory input would be the first layer over objective reality.

Just a thought.

Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhtagn!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[Sarak G'hash]

Jun 11, 2010 21:49:12 GMT -6 @egodiabolus said:

This conversation has become really deep really fast. It seems that objective reality is where subjective reality starts. Say you have a sandbox and there is an impression in the center of the sand, plainly visible. When you throw a thin blanket over the sandbox, the blanket obscures the sand from view, but conforms to the sand below it. Throw another blanket on top of the first, and it obscures the view of the first while conforming to the first blanket and to a lesser degree the sand.

Our reality is like a thousand such blankets thrown on the sandbox of objective reality. The blankets are not opaque, but transparent to one degree or another. They are also not truly solid, but permeable to one degree or another. Some people cannot see or manipulate the material beyond the first layer. Others can see through several layers, but cannot manipulate all of them. Some, with effort, can learn to reach through and manipulate the deeper layers, influencing all the layers they have penetrated.

You may or may not realize where to stop, some will stop at a blanket or layer that tells them enough about the reality below it and gives them the influence they are content with. They may mistakenly assume they have reached the objective layer. Some will need to dig deeper. Those that dig all the way down to the sandbox... well, why wouldn't they be able to change the impression or build little hills for themselves. They would create shapes in the sand of the objective that would influence all the layers of subjective reality placed on top of it. For those who lacked the skill to see or manipulate the layers all the way to the objective, such changes would appear to be miraculous.

Sensory input would be the first layer over objective reality.

Just a thought.

Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhtagn!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

Ok, now THIS is a description that I can understand! Thanks so very, very much.

Awake!

[I AM the Way]

That was a wondrously fine post, Priest or R'lyeh Ego Diabolus.

According to that analogy, what is the effective difference between manipulating the sand directly and throwing a specially prepared blanket of one's own design over top of all the others covering the sandbox? If the shapes, sizes, contours, colors, and textures are each according the magician's will, then why peel back the layers at all?

The only reason I can think of is to make one's vision more apparent to those who the mage is not in contact with; however, as you stated, the subjective layers of reality which ordinary people choose to see (mechanically, not consciously) won't resemble the sandbox anyways. This leads me to believe that the best course is to fashion our own subjective version of reality and live as if that's the only interpretation that matters. Kind of like what we already do here in the Cthulhu Cult.

Thoughts?


By His loathsome tentacles,

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[10kdays]

High Priest Satanis has a good point. It would be quite unwieldly to destroy any illusions of perception, akin to playing a complex game like Second Life through raw manipulation of code.

Personally, I think that cultists each need their own reality to make the effects of what they do more visible. Most, if not all of us, would have no idea how to work with the underlying "code" to everything.

[egodiabolus]

Jun 12, 2010 8:33:08 GMT -6 I AM the Way said:

That was a wondrously fine post, Priest or R'lyeh Ego Diabolus.

According to that analogy, what is the effective difference between manipulating the sand directly and throwing a specially prepared blanket of one's own design over top of all the others covering the sandbox? If the shapes, sizes, contours, colors, and textures are each according the magician's will, then why peel back the layers at all?

The only reason I can think of is to make one's vision more apparent to those who the mage is not in contact with; however, as you stated, the subjective layers of reality which ordinary people choose to see (mechanically, not consciously) won't resemble the sandbox anyways. This leads me to believe that the best course is to fashion our own subjective version of reality and live as if that's the only interpretation that matters. Kind of like what we already do here in the Cthulhu Cult.

Thoughts?


By His loathsome tentacles,

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

High Priest Venger Satanis,

Thank your for the kind words.

In response to your query, I would say that the first layer of subjectivity is our sensory input, and that we do greatly influence that layer internally. Perception dominates our reality on a personal level. I would ask the question "is manipulation and control of our own perception enough?" In many cases it is not doubt sufficient, otherwise more individuals would be closer to being Awake. If manipulation of my own perception is sufficient to my aim, then there is no need to try to manipulate the subjective reality. I might in fact benefit more from trying to manipulate the perceptions of others than the objective reality itself.

If my aim is not met by manipulation of my perspective or the perspective of others, then I have to manipulate subjective layers beyond those, with manipulation of the objective layer being the quintessential manipulation. The problem with manipulating the objective layer is that it might not be the most effective means of achieving my aim. Though every layer conforms to some degree to the layer "beneath" it, it is a new layer with its own qualities, thus it is only partially a true representation of the layer below it. In order to make a real impact on the outermost subjective layer, I would need to make a massive shift in the objective layer, otherwise it would be lost in the nuances of the many layers in between. I might achieve my aim simply by changing an existing layer in the strata between the most outer subjective layer and the objective.

I remember a story about wolf-apples. Wolf-apple is an antiquated name for a tomato... cool, huh? Wolf apples were considered poisonous, and one city, I think in New England during the colonial days, made the consumption of wolf-apples illegal. One man wanted to bring an end to this ridiculous ban, so he sat on the steps of the courthouse with a box of wolf-apples and proceeded to eat them in plain sight with no ill effect. People were confronted by the truth that tomatoes were not poisonous, and the ban was lifted.

The man did not change the objective reality; the tomatoes were never poisonous. Instead, he manipulated the subjective layer, the socially-enforced authoritarian law, and changed the people's perception to a degree closer to the objective reality.

The advantage of being Awake is awareness of the subjective layers and their flexibility. By not deluding ourselves, we can actively participate in their manipulation as opposed to being manipulated by them.

Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhtagn!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[bdsvictory]

Greetings,

Not too much to add at this point. I really just wanted to pop in and comment on just how good Saturday's episode of The Ooze turned out to be. I listened to it this morning and was really impressed.

I found EgoDiabolus comment (which he elaborates further in a contribution above) concerning the necessity/or non necessity of altering the OU to be quite interesting. As he points out, most of our goals appear to be achievable through alterations of the SU, either our SU or the SU of others. This seems to correspond with my understanding (at this point) of Black Magic as primarily being a technique to alter perception and the SU.

The show and this forum have provided great food for thought. Now it is time to unwrap this Rocky Patel Olde World Reserve, light it up, and sit back and contemplate the Mysteries.

AWAKE!

[egodiabolus]

Jun 13, 2010 19:21:06 GMT -6 bdsvictory said:

Greetings,

Not too much to add at this point. I really just wanted to pop in and comment on just how good Saturday's episode of The Ooze turned out to be. I listened to it this morning and was really impressed.

I found EgoDiabolus comment (which he elaborates further in a contribution above) concerning the necessity/or non necessity of altering the OU to be quite interesting. As he points out, most of our goals appear to be achievable through alterations of the SU, either our SU or the SU of others. This seems to correspond with my understanding (at this point) of Black Magic as primarily being a technique to alter perception and the SU.

The show and this forum have provided great food for thought. Now it is time to unwrap this Rocky Patel Olde World Reserve, light it up, and sit back and contemplate the Mysteries.

AWAKE!

Thank you for the kind words.

I believe it is the intent of High Priest Venger Satanis and First Priest of R'lyeh Beast Xeno to continue the discussion about objective and subjective reality next week on the Ooze. Though I am sometimes a "guest-host", last weekend I called in as a regular listener. The three of us do well at our dissection of topics, but it would be great if others would also call in and share their views. I'll be listening in this coming show as well, if my daughters permit, and will probably call in myself.

I fully agree that practical magic, or "Black" magic, is often no more than the alteration of the subjective reality, either of the self or of others. "Chicanery" is another word for it. Put quite simply, to achieve results it is not as necessary to alter reality as it is to convince enough people that reality has been altered. Fox news says the words "fair and balanced" enough, and enough people might believe it that it becomes the "reality", despite the actual bias of their news-casts.

Another interesting aspect of practical magic is just how simple and direct the techniques and processes tend to be. The difficulty is not in the magic itself, but in having the will to make use of it and the wisdom to know how and when it will be most effective. The brutal directness of practical magic is how its practitioners have acquired their cold, aloof, and diabolical reputations.

I am looking forward to the next Ooze, and hope to hear from others in the forum.

Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhatgn!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[lucofthelight]

First of all I'd like to say this has been a wonderfully enlightening thread to read with many useful and vivid analogies put forth.

Secondly, I was wondering what the Cult's position is on reality from an objectivists point of view and how Willed Change could possibly interact within that paradigm. It seems to me that Objectivism has it's uses but from the point of view of all things magic and esoteric one would have to temporarily suspend that worldview in order to shift into a magical belief system or personal paradigm of subjectivity to influence other people's subjective worldviews.

The value I can see in an Objectivist's point of view in the practice of magic is that once one's magic ceremony/ritual/spell has been performed the magician can then slip back into an Objectivists view and forget about what one has just done, allowing the Willed Change to take place in the universe/unconscious,etc.

Here is a quick overview of Objectivism from Wikipedia;

Metaphysics: objective reality

Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness.[6] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[7] As Leonard Peikoff noted, Rand's argument "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[8]

Objectivism states that "Existence exists" and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the axiom of identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[9]

Rand held that since one is able to perceive something that exists, one's consciousness must exist, "consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."[10] Objectivism maintains that what exists simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion. This idea is derived from Rand's theory which she called "the primacy of existence"[11], in opposition to the theory of "the primacy of consciousness."[12]

For Rand, consciousness is an inherently relational phenomenon. As she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," so that an objective reality independent of consciousness must exist for consciousness to be possible, and that there is no possibility of a consciousness conscious only of itself. Thus consciousness cannot be the only thing that exists. "It cannot be aware only of itself — there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."[13] Objectivism holds that the mind cannot create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[14]

Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation "the law of identity applied to action."[15] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.[16]

Objectivism rejects belief in "every 'spiritual' dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence."

Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhtagn!

[I AM the Way]

I believe it is the intent of High Priest Venger Satanis and First Priest of R'lyeh Beast Xeno to continue the discussion about objective and subjective reality next week on the Ooze.

First Priest of R'lyeh Beast Xeno has told me that Jason King also plans on calling into The Ooze this Saturday. So, yes, it should be a great discussion of objective reality.

Secondly, I was wondering what the Cult's position is on reality from an objectivists point of view and how Willed Change could possibly interact within that paradigm.

It is my opinion that while Ayn Rand's objectivism philosophy is interesting, it is more or less a dead-end. Objectivist thought is contained within a closed system where higher forces, conscious influences, and deeper impressions cannot reach.

Entertain it or make use of Rand's philosophy if you wish, but I cannot see that pure objectivism is sustainable within our paradigm.


Awake!

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[lucofthelight]

Thankyou Master Satanis,

I'd have to agree with you that it is a closed system. To be a pure objectivist would be to put a limit on what is possible. I can see how it wouldn't be sustainable within our paradigm but I also think it has it's uses. Perhaps if one was involved in scientific study it would be a more workable philosophy to achieve that end, but within the wider vistas of the Cult paradigm it would come to a point of being void at a certain point.

Hail Satanis!

[A'Zodul F'eid]

These conversations got me thinking about solipsism. I am aware of how much the COS looks down on it, but I honestly don't see that it contradicts much of Lord Satanis's work.

Awake.

[Sarak G'hash]

Jun 19, 2010 18:44:07 GMT -6 A'Zodul F'eid said:

These conversations got me thinking about solipsism. I am aware of how much the COS looks down on it, but I honestly don't see that it contradicts much of Lord Satanis's work.

Awake.

ok, I looked up solipsism so now I know what you are talking about....lol. I honestly did not know the meaning of that word. See, I learn so much from these posts.

I agree with you about it not contradicting the teachings of Master Satanis's work.


Awake!

[egodiabolus]

Jun 20, 2010 11:51:18 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

I was listening to the Ooze today where the topic was a continuation of this topic in this thread ((part 2)) but which ventured into a topic that I was also interested in. The topic was how one affects and influences reality ((subjective or objective)).

There is an way of utilizing Time ((based on a lot of eastern weltanschauung)), as a factor of affecting reality in line to how the four guys on the Ooze are speaking of that may interest some people here.

Non Campos Tempus: onanxs.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/non-campos-tempus/

This was an excellent article related to our discussion, once you get past the initial issues with grammar (my first impression was that the article had been translated from another language and I did not investigate further to see if this was the case). The article focuses on the practical application of manipulating the objective/subjective nature of reality, focusing on long-term efforts and lasting change.

My only point of contention was in regards to the suggestion of permanence. The author argues against Buddha's point that all things are either temporary or transitional; there is no permanence. The argument is that there are two realms; the manifest which exists outside the mind and the unmanifest which exists within the mind. In the manifest, things are temporary because time works to erode all things; from sand castles to empires. The unmanifest exists outside of time, it is the realm of ideas. An idea, such as the ideas of Buddha, last because they are carried forward in time in the minds of others.

While this is true enough, those ideas are in transition. Remember the kids' game "telephone"? One child makes a statement in the ear of his neighbor, then that child repeats the statement to the next, and so on, until the end of the line is reached. More often than not, the message has changed. Even when the message is transmitted in a more permanent manner (books, recordings, film), it becomes subject to interpretation and changes, degrading or evolving, with each subsequent interpreting. If an empirical interpretation is created, it will still be subject to personalization within the individual mind, and this transition is often hastened rather than stopped.

There is clear value to working in the realm of the mind if one's goal is to create lasting institutions and modes of thought, but permanence remains an unlikely part of the real. We work to create our own institutions outside of time, whether we seek to create a lasting impression on our chosen fields of study or simply to pass on our values to our children. We should be aware, however, that we can only accomplish a limited transmission of our ideas before we have to relinquish their stewardship to others. They will do what they will with them just as we have done what we can with the ideas that have been passed on to us in our time.

Awake!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[beastx]

Jun 20, 2010 11:51:18 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

I was listening to the Ooze today where the topic was a continuation of this topic in this thread ((part 2)) but which ventured into a topic that I was also interested in. The topic was how one affects and influences reality ((subjective or objective)).

There is an way of utilizing Time ((based on a lot of eastern weltanschauung)), as a factor of affecting reality in line to how the four guys on the Ooze are speaking of that may interest some people here.

Non Campos Tempus: onanxs.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/non-campos-tempus/

I would say though well thought out this article, for the most part falls into my own thinking...

However that wouldn't suprise you, now would it?

When the Stars are Right!

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[egodiabolus]

Jun 20, 2010 15:17:53 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

LOL...

I thought that article might be some "food-for-thought" for you guys, and maybe develop something kickass for the Cult of Cthulhu. I understand that VS wants longevity for this CoC. So I thought I'd import some insights.

As for the grammar the entire blog is an informal blog catering to a very informal group of readers who all know each other. So spelling errors aren't important. They have 4 months to edit the errors of all 90 chapters ((some of those "blogs" are the chapters)) since a publishing house will be turning it into a book around the end of this year.

But the grammar being used has a name it's called "Myattian Freestyle." David Myatt/Anton Long has a habit of writing with some disregard for grammar. Kayla and Chloe use a subtle form of influence ((like a form of literary NLP)) called "Rapport Via Familiarity." They camouflage their memes in a mimic writing style that looks exactly like Myatt's intentionally.

Anyhow, I'd love to see the CoC develop it's own "Aeonic" Dialectic so that it can secure for itself a place in the future. Not many Western LHP Traditions have this chronomorphic perspective. Which is a good thing. How much longer do we all know the CoS and ToS will last? Our two organizations need to learn from these two organizations and not make the same mistakes they are. Otherwise, we're doomed.

I agree that the grammar issues (I didn't necessarily mean spelling, just some confusing structural issues) are secondary to the intent of the message. Persons frequenting this forum are held to a higher standard regarding grammar and spelling as we strive to ensure that visitors to this forum focus on our message and not other easily corrected issues. My intention was to simply prepare persons familiar with our standards for a less strictly structured message when visiting the other blog.

As to the development of an "Aeonic Dialect", I see the workings of the Cult of Cthulhu and would surmise that we are already well underway in that respect. My focus in my last post was in disagreeing with the blog's statement about permanence; that even when structured in the mind (the "unmaterial") outside of time, ideas and institutions still are subject to evolution/degradation in line with Buddha's statement that all things are temporary or in transition.

The Cult of Cthulhu is establishing a mode of thought and behavior that I am confident will be carried forward by future generations. The meme we are creating is meant to meet the challenges of today and the foreseeable future, but also is personalized enough that each individual, present and future, can incorporate it into their own lives, bring to it their own interpretations, and make of it their own institution. Thus flexibility, the mandate to evolve, is the cornerstone of our link to the future. Permanence, being an impossibility, is replaced with longevity, viability, and adaptability of our ideas.

Awake!

Ego Diabolus
Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[beastx]

Jun 20, 2010 17:43:17 GMT -6 @qzbah said:

Which is the part I find most interesting. I am basically here to learn and to share, and to observe certain methods that interest me

Likewise... Oh and do me a favor... Tell Chloe and Kayla, I said hello.. Wonder if they remember me... Either way they should join us here on the forum...

Beast Xeno
First Priest of R'lyeh
Cult of Cthulhu

[I AM the Way]

If we understand esoterically that the Manifested world we see outside our eyes is illusion, then Mind is the “un-illusion.” If we understand esoterically that all things in Manifested Reality fades away in Time, then Mind is Timeless.

Just to clarify using my own beliefs, what we might call higher states of consciousness can exist timelessly outside our universe. Unfortunately, man is almost never conscious. That is where our entire dilemma originates.

As much blood and force Alexander the Great and his army exerted onto the Manifested world to forge himself an empire, that empire did not last and was annihilated by Time. Thus all that blood and force was futile. As futile as strenuously using all your effort and might to build yourself the biggest and tallest sand castle on the beach.

How is it that a human like Muhammad, someone like Jesus or Buddha, can manifest themselves civilizations, hundreds of kingdoms, influence billions of people across Time without much effort, but Alexander and Genghis Khan with much effort were never able to replicate these results?

I agree. This makes a strong case for interior work. Inner effort bearing three times the fruit than outer (ordinary) work.

Thus, Myatt himself – in my view – has his eyes set firmly on the future. So, he’s not the least bit concerned how he’s perceived, now. He’s not the least bit concerned about what mundanes think or believe about him. In fact, I’m guessing he’s quite pleased with all those Moacs out there, in cyberland, who keep writing about him, who have blogorrhea and cyberorrhea and mediaorrhea because of him.” – Richard Stirling, Aeonic Strategy – Understaning Myatt & The ONA

Kudos to Richard Stirling for using the word "blogorrhea". Nice.

So it can be seen that Myatt has learned – Dis-Covered – something insightful and crucial during the past 40 years. Where in the beginnings of his “career” he may have used force and inspired others to use force to bring about Causal change. But now we can see that his strategy has shifted from the impermanent to the permanent: From Matter to Mind. And this realization that building a foundation with memes in the Minds of people is more permanent and lasting only comes with direct experience, of trial and error, and mistakes made in the past, and Insights learned from such errors and mistakes.

This indeed makes Myatt all the more dangerous as a person. For although in Life a man deemed a threat to the status quo can be stopped, and Time can bring mortal death, Memes are phantoms that cannot be stopped, and once taken root in a Mind, will duplicate Myatt’s effort. In the same sense that although Muhammad is no longer a mortal being, and although war is being waged against his Islamic Civilization he has manifested: the Meme of Jihad is unstoppable. You can arrest and stop a person, who has been influenced, inspired, affected, infected by the Jihad Meme, but this Meme will keep on replicating itself and spreading, and from that spreading is causal effort duplicated.

Doesn't this prove that work on oneself must go hand in hand with outer, "real world" efforts... ordinary force? Can higher states of consciousness alone create change in objective reality?

And wouldn't jihad, the concept of conversion by way of violent destruction and suppression of foreign ideas/people, be carried out without a meme? Hate and prejudice and violence already existed before the word jihad existed.

It is from the memeplex the Buddha manufactured that gave birth to the civilizations of East and Southeast Asia, which inspires, influences, evolves over a billion humans and billions of humans in the past

Things and people change, but do not evolve because evolution is a conscious act. Billions of people would only degrade the process. There has only been one distinct evolutionary period in the life of man, at the beginning when he was elevated from Cro-Magnon. Everything since has been the building or erosion of one human sandcastle or another.

By extension, I again assert that the transmission of cultural ideas, symbols, and practices alone is not enough to create fundamental change in objective reality. Subjective realities, on a limited scale, can be influenced but in the greater scope that is a relatively small achievement.

For there will come a Time when the Human Race will become Mature enough to look back at this dark age of ours and know what needs to be known. And from that knowing – that realization and desire to evolve and grasp for greater states of existence – they will reach for the stars and some during this distant future will resonate with the ONA and with the Life and Vision that a man named Myatt once lived.

Well said, however, I believe the longevity of Myatt's name will be overshadowed by such figures as Nietzsche, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Lovecraft, Ligotti, LaVey, as well as, our various Left Hand Path contemporaries.

If we look at a Clan/Tribe in its most basic aspect we will begin to understand why Kulachara was said by Shiva to the most powerful of all magic and tantra. A tribe basically is just a group of males and females who live together to better their chance of survival. The males essentially have sperm, and the females essentially give birth to new people, and those new people are born into the tribe. Those new people come out of the womb as blank slates onto which the mother or father or clan impresses onto that blank slate the tribe’s language, culture, and tradition. So thus, with each birth of a new generation, the memeplex of the tribe jumps from older generation to newer generation. This way, when the older generation dies, the memeplex – the culture, tradition, language, beliefs, mythos, way of life – of the tribe still lives and survives in the minds of the new generation. This is very elementary.

What's your take on the practice of killing outsiders. Not sure how prevalent it is, but some of those primitive tribes keep new ideas from destroying the equilibrium of their lifestyle by getting rid of children with a certain look in their eyes, the glint of innovation and questioning of traditional values. This must be how those tribes have stayed rather stagnant and unchanged for thousands of years.

It's sad to think that individuals with the greatest capacity for Awakening are struck down so early and because of their propensity for change. However, is that any different than our society which invariably shuns and ridicules its outsiders?

According to current genetic findings, all 7 billion humans alive today came from a small group of Homo Sapiens of about 10,000 that once lived somewhere in the Horn of Africa. Something in our species’ past caused a near extinction in our species so that only about 10,000 survived circa 13,000 years ago. In the course of 13,000 years that small band of 10,000 humans became the7 billion humans alive today.

More likely, in my opinion, is that the Great Old Ones decided to experiment with 10,000 Homo Sapiens. Only their "human evolution" was influenced and from their deliberately altered stock has our species continued.


Awake!

Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest