Abusing animals and children is not the Setian way of thinking.
I did not say it would have to be, but not out of moral reasons. Setianism should bring you beyond good and evil of the mortals, or else it is not much worth.
My point was that I personally do not see much use in that, mainly because I lack a motive strong enough to undertake all the effort necessary to not only do such things, but also get away with them. The difference between us is that we both refrain from these things, but you do so be you are prisoner of your moral where I do so because it is my decision (which I could change - you could not).
And still, what a bigotry! You know well enough how the raw materials for our both PCs are extracted, don't you? Whole regions e.g. in Africa are mined, without any respect to the people who live there. Not to mention the working conditions for them. Or would you want to hear something about how the workers live in China which have assembled the stuff? All in all, we DO have blood on our hands whenever we type a posting here. So get real and face it instead of fleeing into vain moral fantasies of how "good" you would like to be. "Good", notabene, according to Xtian values.
As Nietzsche said, many are Xtians even though they let go the religion.
You didn't come up with the term Setian, we did.
You did not. There was already a different religion with that name, however this did not disturb Aquino, either. And Setianism revolves still around Set, not about Aquino. Ironically enough, even Aquino admitted that, just take a look at your copy of the BOCFBN.
You are just interpreting it wrong
You see? Exactly THAT kind of behaviour is one of the reasons why I have opted not to become a member of the TOS. If you want to deeper understand that, please read Nietzsche's "Antichrist" with respect to what he has to say about the priest.
Because until now, you have brought nothing but a really poor status argument to back up your point of view: "Because I am IV* priest!". Had I wanted to kneel before such fellows, then I could as well have become Catholic. Would have had the advantage that there would be fellows in every city, and the certainty that the show will go on when a pope dies. No, the "because I wear a blue pentagram"-argument is really the weakest you could bring on. I bring arguments, you bring authority. I am certain you CAN do better than this, because this is less than non-convincing, at least outside the TOS where your authority is not backed up by nice by-laws like e.g. 3.08 or 3.15.
"Because I say so" is most un-Setian. Not to SAY it, I mean, but to BELIEVE it.
But I admit that this way of thinking is all too common in the esoteric/magic/spiritual domain. That is the reason why there is no progress. Things like peer reviews which are just normal part of scientifical research are completely alien to most magicians, priests and the like. This flaw is a systematic one in the whole domain.
and to call the ToS RHP shows you don't know what you're talking about.
The TOS did not bring up the term LHP. And what the TOS understands by its LHP does not have anything to do with the original LHP. The whole "isolate intelligence" stuff is just a gross misunderstanding handed down since Blavatsky's era. The really intruiging LHP points are completely absent in the TOS' Setianism. Stay clean, be good children, blend perfectly into society, support the order whatever that may be. Oh yes, when I read the old Egyptian myths, such a behaviour reminds me of everything - but not Set.
Set is a disruptive, cold and amoral force; however, in a very special way, also constructive. But he fundamentally disagree with making a nice teddy bear of him with nonsense like "the prince of darkness is a gentleman". He isn't.
The ONA was a non-existant group
Maybe.. I am not certain about whether they really existed or just were a fake. Anyway, even if they were not, then they would just have more reasons not to run their organisation in a public way. That was the point of what I wrote. If one wants to run an organisation in public daylight, then it is just reasonable to keep the organisation AS organisation inside the legal perimeter.
of one under many names run by a ****** off brit who has now claimed to be a muslim because he feels it ****** off more people.
At least with you, he seems to have succeeded. But keep your temper; if you can put aside your moral disconcertment for a while, then think about how he reasoned exactly this behaviour. The point is, to cut it short, that engaging in some extremist movement is NOT with the goal of an alternative society in mind, but just for the experience. The ONA's criticism of the TOS went in a similar direction, and I did not find that stupid.
What really disturbs me with them is their inconsistent value system: They claimed to have "culled" people who, in a test scenario, did not help weak people unknown to them. OK, but they made the assumption that this lack of help was the result of cowardice, not indifference or even despise. Their assumption that one should help in such a situation sounds rather Xtian to me.
I'm not sure where you're coming from
From beyond - as always.
but your "logic" is rather illogical.
Well, reason is a copy where madness is the original. And yet, I have not even begun to resort to madness; for the moment, I am using just that little, mortal logic which you seem to cling so eagerly to. (-;
Would you like a purple cookie now?
Tea will suffice, thanks. May I in turn offer you some Nietzsche lecture? Might get you beyond good and evil. To think inside those limits is for mortals, not for aspiring gods.
@ Valor: There is a line between using and abusing. Using may become abusing, and that will rather not have beneficial effects, right. There lies danger. You know.. this is the very argument of the RHP schools. From an LHP point, I can answer that you are right as far as the masses are concerned. But the LHP is for the few, not for the many! Risk buys you speed (quickness, not the stuff!).
The myth that any substance is going to kill your wit is just propaganda. I cannot discuss this in detail here, cf. forum rule #6, but take a google search after "Stanislav Grof" and his research.
Even IF one should come to a point where something like addiction kicks in, this still can have interesting aspects. The addiction then starts to fight the magician, and the funny point is that the addiction uses the magician's very own consciousness. Imagine the addiction as a drug-dragon which has the same intelligence and wit as you. This then will be a very interesting fight because you cannot trust your own mind. OK, so far, so trivial - junky problems. The real point, however, is that you are in no better a position as normal person. You try to analyse your mind by using this mind, and you cannot trust it. The difference is that most normal people do not know this because they have never even been close to making such an experience.
What you call sane mind is, from my perspective, just a copy machine which copies the madness of other people which you have been drilled to perceive as reasonable. Common sense is the mass of prejudices you had acquired until you were adult..
Reason will never create something new. Stay rational, and you will not create worlds. You will stay creature, never to become creator. Madness is not the problem, it's the solution! (well, I admit that retaining some reason proves as quite useful in practice).
