-
In disagreement, I find that occultism is not only blasphemous. It is philosophical. It is intellectual. It is of many academic pursuits. It is the nature of our magical here-and-now being.
-
Good post! Thank you for sharing.
Sign In
Satanism is occultist | Forum
Member Infernal Acumen
Oct 19 '21
I can see some some sense in the statement, 'occultism is blasphemy'. However, it is not just blasphemy. All religious individuals (Christian and otherwise) are blasphemous of every religion other than their own. In addition, most individuals who are occultists are also blasphemous due to the focused nature not being in favor with the particular religious perspective of the judge of such a blasphemous nature. This is how I do agree with the statement.
Dark Enlightenment
Oct 19 '21
Same old fucking paradox.
[Additional commentary removed for blog to prevent double posting]
The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Oct 19 '21
Cornelius Coburn
Oct 19 '21
RE : that which is "unnatural". A(or the) paradox is just something that's not reasonably hardcoded into our reality.
donot
Oct 27 '21
The "idea" is a paradox. The "idea" represents for something that exists, but the idea itself does not exist. It's merely a concept.
Cornelius Coburn
Oct 27 '21
Well the 'idea' is to formulate an "idea" derived of concrete parameters - as much as can be. Where the "idea" corresponds to an actual truth which completes the paradox from premise to conclusion, so a paradoxical truth begets a paradoxical idea. So it may be known, but never proven.
The greater paradoxes will put you in circles, and then you know you're onto something. I suppose there are also 'lesser' ideological paradoxes which may or may not be true, although I was hinting at the 'greater' of the two.
Cornelius Coburn
Oct 27 '21
I just say "it's not hardcoded into our reality" meaning it is prior, or beyond the scope of the known universe. Things that may be known(or true) but never proven.
donot
Oct 29 '21
The "idea" cannot be proven by definition. It is rather a common belief. So it could be stronger than proof and fact, on the grounds that it can become conscience.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 1 '21
The "idea" as in that which transcends conventional wisdom cannot be proven from a scientific standpoint, fortunately, there are other ways to arrive at esoteric truths, and if you are walking the correct path, everything that is anything should fall right into place.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 3 '21
Well not everything falls within the scope of the cosmos, and the sciences would only be applicable to that which does.
donot
Nov 3 '21
Even if we accept there are parallel universes, there is a science that can describe it.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 3 '21
These "parallel universes" you speak of. Where are they? And have they always existed, or did they have a beginning?
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 4 '21
Parallel universes. That's a whole different theory for those who aren't even lucky enough to make a correct choice when the odds are 50/50.
donot
Nov 6 '21
It is stupid to say there is A parallel universe, by definition there is a plenty of them, in fact they are infinite. So basically the odds are 1/infinite.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 7 '21
I don't even know what that means, and I thought by now there was enough evidence to support an expanding universe. These multi/parallel universe theorists seem to hanging on to the cosmological constant for dear life, and why? Because what the fuck else are they going to believe in? A primordial singularity? Apparently not.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 9 '21
The problem I see is that when a cosmological theorist is faced with two paradoxes. They usually opt for the one that most closely resembles their current reality, and may even quite well be oblivious to the other.
Whereas the simpler alternative not only adheres the law of parsimony, but also realizes that there is absolutely no reason why anything should exist, period; as well as alignment with prominent other theories and models as a plus.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 10 '21
I probably should have clarified post 54 with a follow-up to post 55, but ended up doing this indirectly in post 57 anyway.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 10 '21
In a multiverse theory it is true that the number of universes would be infinite, since the medium in which they reside is, but I don't think they talk about that much, i.e. the info on that doesn't seem as readily available, but it would be the 11th dimension of M-theory which is synonymous with a cosmological constant that encapsulates the multiverse.
So they already include our(finite) 4D spacetime pertinent to a single universe, and then repeat this again infinitely as the all-encompassing 'bulk' of the multiverse.
Cornelius Coburn
Nov 10 '21
So it may appear as though they are prioritizing a cosmological constant and then trying to make everything else fit with that because the alternative is pretty much unimaginable for most, and of course this would contradict an expanding universe which I happen to be in agreement with.
