LHP Druidry?

[Triath]

Hello I am Triath and I practice Setian Philsosophy, Setianism emphasizes Sovereignty rather than submission. I have a predominately British/Irish history and I am looking to work with some magic and mythology of my genealogical history. I am looking to emphasize some of the Left Hand concepts of Drudiry and use them in my Setian practice. Setianism is an evolution of Satanic thought, but has evolved to remove the Judeo Christian concept of Satan, Hell, and Demons. Satanic thought is not associated with hate, death, destruction, or harm of innocent people. This presumption is the concept of many religions who appear intimidated by the Path of Apotheosis.

The Prince of Darkness, or the Principle of Isolate Intelligence, has given man the gift of Consciousness, Reason, and Self Awareness. In a Platonic format Set is the Form of forms. This Self Awareness is cultivated to become independent and Isolate itself thus the individual seeks Divine Consciousness. Theoretically there are 2 universes, Subjective which is assimilated by the individual and Objective the Cosmos in a mathematical and evolutionary sense. The individual receives phenomenon from the Objective Universe and assimilates it into a Subjective Universe. Once the Self or Soul (Psyche) recognizes this they can alter the Subjective and Objective to become a Creator rather than Creation. This requires a foundation of ethics and logic. Subsequently the magic practiced by Setians is labeled as "Black Magic" but this has to do with elevating the Self rather than the original belief that it was only used to create harm and destruction. I have other reasons for why I refer to mine as "Black Magic" one is the avoidance of moral polarity of magic, what I mean is associating White Magic as good and Black as bad. This is often an attempt to set forth a nomenclature that results in whitewashing practices at the behest of some other person or group. Magic is either used to help or harm, for good reason.

I am not a practitioner of "witchcraft" or "wicca" I would refer to Razor for a Goat by Elliot Rose, this can be found on Amazon.com.

Information on Setianism can be found at: www.xeper.org

I am looking for some effective books on Druidic Lore and Magic. I do have the Drudiry Handbook, which I have read. I appreciate it's Third Side approach to logical argumentation. This is seeing other opportunities in a debate or argument rather than establishing false dichotomies.

Xeper,
Triath

[Explorer]

Hello I am Triath and I practice Setian Philsosophy, Setianism emphasizes Sovereignty rather than submission. I have a predominately British/Irish history and I am looking to work with some magic and mythology of my genealogical history. I am looking to emphasize some of the Left Hand concepts of Drudiry and use them in my Setian practice. Setianism is an evolution of Satanic thought, but has evolved to remove the Judeo Christian concept of Satan, Hell, and Demons. Satanic thought is not associated with hate, death, destruction, or harm of innocent people. This presumption is the concept of many religions who appear intimidated by the Path of Apotheosis.

The Prince of Darkness, or the Principle of Isolate Intelligence, has given man the gift of Consciousness, Reason, and Self Awareness. In a Platonic format Set is the Form of forms. This Self Awareness is cultivated to become independent and Isolate itself thus the individual seeks Divine Consciousness. Theoretically there are 2 universes, Subjective which is assimilated by the individual and Objective the Cosmos in a mathematical and evolutionary sense. The individual receives phenomenon from the Objective Universe and assimilates it into a Subjective Universe. Once the Self or Soul (Psyche) recognizes this they can alter the Subjective and Objective to become a Creator rather than Creation. This requires a foundation of ethics and logic. Subsequently the magic practiced by Setians is labeled as "Black Magic" but this has to do with elevating the Self rather than the original belief that it was only used to create harm and destruction. I have other reasons for why I refer to mine as "Black Magic" one is the avoidance of moral polarity of magic, what I mean is associating White Magic as good and Black as bad. This is often an attempt to set forth a nomenclature that results in whitewashing practices at the behest of some other person or group. Magic is either used to help or harm, for good reason.

I am not a practitioner of "witchcraft" or "wicca" I would refer to Razor for a Goat by Elliot Rose, this can be found on Amazon.com.

Information on Setianism can be found at: http://www.xeper.org

I am looking for some effective books on Druidic Lore and Magic. I do have the Drudiry Handbook, which I have read. I appreciate it's Third Side approach to logical argumentation. This is seeing other opportunities in a debate or argument rather than establishing false dichotomies.

Xeper,
Triath

Hi Traith,
I have studied a little bit of the LHP, and I understand what you are saying. Generally, the way that we do druidry is a bit too RHP for my taste. I like to combine some of the idea's behind LHP with druidry. On the other hand, just LHP is to harsh for me. I miss the sensuality.

But I dislike supernatural stuff, or too much religion. To me that usually seems an extra layer of fluff hiding the real thing. And although some wiser people can look through that layer, and even work with it, many people cannot and become fanatics and 'followers'. So just as I dislike gods, angels and 'white magic', I also dislike demons, your 'prince of darkness' and 'black magic'. All that comes from the christian world view of 'good and evil', and because I have never been a christian, that kind of stuff tends get in my way like an annoying fly. I don't think neo-druids need that lingo.

The best practical book about druid style magic that I have read is from John Michael Greer, the Handbook of Druid Magic.
I have read it after completing the OBOD course, and it gave me a bit of extra overview and insight in idea's and practises that I learned during my druid training.
Having said that, I don't think that you can learn 'magic' from a book. It has a lot to do with perception, awareness and emotion. And that takes practise and experiencing. And not behind your computer either, in my opinion it takes many, many, many hours in nature, observing, contemplating, acting, experiencing and learning. A book only provides a skeleton, not the flesh.

All just in my opinion ofcourse, others have different opionions.

[Triath]

Explorer,

I will look into this book, thank you for the reply.

"There is no god but Man." Liber Oz

To me that usually seems an extra layer of fluff hiding the real thing

I very much agree.

Proper LHP thinking is one's path to Sovereignty rather than Submission to any sacred cows of religion or society, and not being the most "Evil Kid on the Block." I have stated before that RHP religions seem to be measured in degrees of Holiness and Goodness, whereas LHP religions are assessed from a degree of maturity and rationality. There are alot of nut jobs in the LHP, people who seek it out merely for their own self-destructive habits and sadly they take a great many impressionable people down with them.

The Prince of Darkness is not necessarily Evil, in the pop cultural sense, Most certainly not Christian. Set is the god against the gods in Egypt, rather than man being given a will to be Submissive and Controllable by the Neteru (gods in Egyptian) Set gives man the Gift of Self Awareness to be like it, an Isolate Intelligence. What has subsequently made us Evil by other standards is:

1. Magic is evil according to many religions, regardless of what "polarity you attach to it." In Christianity all Magic is associated with Satan, even the white magic stuff.
2. We use magic to create great and beautiful works of art by initiating change in accordance with the Will, and if we do it right and ethically we can become as gods ourselves. We become Creators rather than Creation. This is why Ethical bases is important, and Maturity.

A good book to get a proper understand of LHP is Lords of the Left Hand Path by Dr. Stephen Flowers PhD.

[Explorer]

Proper LHP thinking is one's path to Sovereignty rather than Submission to any sacred cows of religion or society, and not being the most "Evil Kid on the Block." I have stated before that RHP religions seem to be measured in degrees of Holiness and Goodness, whereas LHP religions are assessed from a degree of maturity and rationality. There are alot of nut jobs in the LHP, people who seek it out merely for their own self-destructive habits and sadly they take a great many impressionable people down with them.

I agree so far.

The Prince of Darkness is not necessarily Evil, in the pop cultural sense, Most certainly not Christian. Set is the god against the gods in Egypt, rather than man being given a will to be Submissive and Controllable by the Neteru (gods in Egyptian) Set gives man the Gift of Self Awareness to be like it, an Isolate Intelligence. What has subsequently made us Evil by other standards is:

1. Magic is evil according to many religions, regardless of what "polarity you attach to it." In Christianity all Magic is associated with Satan, even the white magic stuff.

And that is where you lose me.
Why do you need a 'prince of darkness' and egyptian gods to press the points of awareness and intelligence? That seems counter productive to me, because you add an extra confusing layer between yourself and reality/life/nature.
Isn't it more effective and realisitic to simply look around you, directly at life and nature, for awareness. And to think about your experiences and about what really happens, for intelligence. (this is also the basis of science by the way).

And the 'evil' part is simply irrelevant to me. I have no opinion about white or dark, because I am not christian.

What I do miss in that more LHP approach are the (druidic?) idea's of creativity, imagination and fantasy. They may seem fluffy bunny elements at first sight, and the hardcore RHP folks (hahaha) do make a horrible mess of reality with it, but they are also important elements for new idea's, new insights and last but certainly not least... fun, joy, pleasure.
Just like I sometimes miss the honest awareness, common sense and intelligence in a purely DHP approach.

[Hennie]

In fact the term 'right'and 'left' derive from Hindu Tantra magic.

[Mountainheart]

Interesting discussion...thanks.

One of the things I like about druidry is the idea of balance: that there is no need for a 'good' vs 'evil' dichotomy.

[Explorer]

Just like I sometimes miss the honest awareness, common sense and intelligence in a purely DHP approach.

Ehm, I meant ofcourse RHP (Right Hand Path) not DHP (Druids Head Pub)

[Triath]

And that is where you lose me.
Why do you need a 'prince of darkness' and egyptian gods to press the points of awareness and intelligence? That seems counter productive to me, because you add an extra confusing layer between yourself and reality/life/nature.
Isn't it more effective and realisitic to simply look around you, directly at life and nature, for awareness. And to think about your experiences and about what really happens, for intelligence. (this is also the basis of science by the way).

"The basis of the LHP is that humans are but machines, which can potentially become gods.- Don Webb"

I don't "need" anything, this seems to be a common argument for atheists that feel all religionists need gods or beings. The Temple of Set believes that human beings have a Consciousness that is a micro-Set, a micro Principle of Self-Awareness (far more aware than a majority of other animals). Life and Nature are not experienced similarly or meaning is attached to if differently by other people.This is approached from an aspect of Logic. Essentially I am my own God, but the goal is apotheosis, Set is not a need, he is not required to be accepted as a Principle of Isolate Intelligence, but I do accept this as a major probability. The goal of Set is to make others like it, Principles of Isolate Intelligence, Creators not Creation. I am not seeking oneness with Creation, this inhibits my ability to be a Creator. You can't be both the pot and the potter. Nonetheless, creation becomes the springboard which I become a Creator.

1. There is an Objective Universe that a majority of religions and science considers to be "reality."
2. There are individual Subjective universes which people take in the phenomena of the Objective World and assimilate them, attach meaning to them, and act. These beliefs are reinforced by religions, science, and peers/parents/friends. This SU is process by the Mind/Soul/Ba. The moment we can look at this from a Subjective Standpoint, like Archimedes Lever, we can move it and innate change.

Neurolinguistic Programing goes more into this as well.

Plato defined three types of knowing. The lowest is pistis (faith). This means believing something because someone in authority tells you so. The Pope tells you that birth control is wrong, so you know it's wrong. Society is controlled by this level. The next higher way of knowing is dianoia (reasoning). This is the test of reason and logic referred to above. The elites work in this level. The highest knowing is noesis -- direct knowledge. This is the knowing that comes from the divine Self. -Don Webb

Also concepts of Good and Evil exists beyond the superficial dogma of Christianity, there are plenty of other cultures that have concepts of "good" and "evil."

[ShadowCat]

I like this discussion.

LHP-work to me has to do with coming in to your own power (as opposed to begging/requesting power/help from a deity or being outside yourself) and being strong enough to claim what's rightfully (!) yours. Although parts of it are the most amusing ramblings of a disbalanced person, the first chapters of LaVeys Satanic Bible are quite valuable in that respect. They are not that different than a load of selfhelpbooks really. Then he goes on with enochian keys and I disconnect, it's just another way of begging power from something outside yourself and to me, that's missing the point.

Although I only just get started I can't say that I consider Druidry RHP or LHP. When taking on the image of paths, I more often like to use the inner image of a wide landscape with loads of broad walkways and almost invisible tracks. They bend, curve, cross and it's up to the traveler to choose a path. If he looks up from his path, he's see some people to his right and some to his left, but that's just a temporary perpective, not taking in to account the startingpoint and endpoint and crossroads. The thing that appeals me on druidry is that instead of being shown a path and being told to follow it without wandering, your given a map and a compass, thought how to use it, told that's okay to discover your own route and encouraged to meander, track back, and generally look around while walking.

A deity, wether a "white" or a "dark", can be a powerful archetype to learn about your own qualities. Working with deity is almost a kind of energetic dressup, where you experiment with energies outside your normal comfortable zone and seek to learn from it. I myself love the tales and images of Lilith for that matter.

That men are mere machines or to claim "homo homini lupus" (men are wolves to their peers) is an antiquated way of looking at things imho and it may be a dangerous excuse for malignant behaviour. People do have a consiousness (as do wolves, I'm sure) and although cultural values may differ, in essence all living beings value life, love, safety and beauty.

[Explorer]

Although I only get started I can't say that I consider Druidry RHP or LHP. When taking on the image of paths, I more often like to use the inner image of a wide landscape with loads of broad walkways and almost invisible tracks. They bend, curve, cross and it's up to the traveler to choose a path. If he looks up from his path, he's see some people to his right and some to his left, but that's just a temporary perpective, not taking in to account the startingpoint and endpoint and crossroads. The thing that appeals me on druidry is that instead of being shown a path and being told to follow it without wandering, your given a map and a compass, thought how to use it, told that's okay to discover your own route and encouraged to meander, track back, and generally look around while walking.

Exactly, a very good description!

[elementalheart]

I have to admit to a fairly simplistic view - right hand and left hand are part of a whole, spiritually as much as physically, neither is good nor bad but sometimes cultures "prefer" one over the other by inclination, habit, education, traumatic separation from the norms of the other..

The spiritual path (for me) seeks to reunite and re-accept the persecuted part(s) as equally valid, necessary and reclaim it from the "not ok" teachings/beliefs we hold, whatever those be. Druidry attracts me because it doesn't judge and label in the way of mainstream religions which mostly claim there is "the" truth which is the way that religion's founders or subsequent members/organisers have developed it. If there is no "the" truth then we aren't forced to explore "the lie" in order to become whole and it is way more possible for us to take that step if the labels of evil, satanism etc (all the negatives of christian dogma) aren't stuck on where we have to go internally, in our psyche, soul, nature, to embrace and integrate those aspects of ourselves which aren't nice and fluffy "lightworkers". And those who are stuck in the fluffiness wouldn't be so scared to go to their depth capacity and would perhaps not be so irritating and unhelpful to those that have admitted to having a shadow, a well, a deep dark nightmare self to get used to and acknowledge and are trying to work out how to keep at that task without raging at the fluffy bunnies or drowning alone in the dark.

At one time left handedness in the physical sense was seen as evil just as the left hand path spiritually often is - and children were forced to act right handed in order to conform. But those born right handed are no more evil than those born left handed. To become ambidextrous to some degree is surely to be blessed with the greatest capacity? Which means wherever we start, at some point we have to work with the other side and not lose what we already had. For me that is the challenge, to integrate and include the left hand path without losing all respect or sense of connection to the right, or vice versa. And having embraced the opposite, we then have to find a way to reintegrate the side where we started and from which we ran screaming our outrage and rejection perhaps. That one is actually harder I think, because having rejected one for denying the other existed or its acceptability, we have to find a way to bring both together into balance rather than just switch sides and fight for the opposition. Where we come from is the most difficult to bring back once we've left and proved it was so wrong to call itself the only - for me that's an ongoing issue and one which druidry fortunately won't judge me for or make harder by negative labelling of either side.

[treegod]

It's a very interesting subject, and one I've read up on a while ago. Very interesting stuff, though lacks a necessary ecological dimension. For instance the comparison between "Creator and Creation" and "Sovereignty and submission" is not quite right, probably more to do with a psychoanalytic interpretation of parent-child (or society-individual) relationship than the relationship between the Gods and Nature (but I won't go into that just now, lol).

I believe that each individual should be free from "submission", and be able to think for themselves, though I don't believe it is necessarily isolated from the rest of nature. Just as life differentiates itself from "dead" matter, so conscious life differentiates itself from "unconscious" life. They behave according to different principles. And yet life is still very much part of matter, and consciousness, biologically "rooted" in this world.

Life operates in a way that it does not "submit" entirely to the matter from which it is made. And so with consciousness, it does not "submit" fully to its biological roots. We have impulses, instincts and reactions, but with consciousness we can reflect on things and make decisions, which means we do not need to blindly follow the impulses if we choose not to.

But, ecopsychologically speaking, I don't believe this quality makes us separate or isolated from nature/Creation; we are still very much a part of it. To regard it so estranges us more from out ecological roots. Oneness does not imply submission, but rather collaboration with the world of which we are a part. Through us Nature becomes conscious, Creation itself develops qualities of a Creator (albeit partially and through individuals).

Going back to "psychoanalytic intepretations": I believe individuals have more work becoming independent from the parental/societal forces that surrounds us than Nature. But this doesn't mean rebellion or becoming the "opposite", but simply to become what we are deep down within us, which is something that is still part of Nature.

[DaRC]

An interesting discussion
- I've never quite grokked what RHP and LHP is to be honest but then they always seemed predicated upon Abrahamic religious monotheistic (i.e. Jewish, Christian or Muslim) concepts.

Certainly we can trace the concept of witchcraft as evil back to the Romans although much of the heathen lore treats magic with suspicion - this could be taken as a warrior viewpoint though; most of the Norse literature has come via the warrior elite so we cannot be certain how the heathen world viewed magic.

Within the Druidic work I think it uses both paths via the three strands of Knowledge, Experience and Inquiry. So that all dogma and behaviour needs to be examined within the here-and-now; this is perhaps the thinking behind keeping the training verbal - book-lore is open to misinterpration and becoming dogma. An oral tradition enables experience to be applied and inquiry (via inner work) or enquiry via a Socratic method.

[treegod]

An oral tradition enables experience to be applied and inquiry (via inner work) or enquiry via a Socratic method.

Strangely, I've read that the Socratic method was a way of breaking the oral traditions of his time:

"Erik Havelock has suggested that the famed "Socratic dialectic" - which, in its simplest, consisted in asking a speaker speaker to explain what he has said - was primarily a method for disrupting the mimetic thought patterns of oral culture. The speaker's original statement, if it concerned important matters of morality and social custom, would necessarily have been a memorized formula, a poetic or proverbial phrase, which presented a vivid example of the matter being discussed. By asking the speaker to explain himself or to repeat his statement in different terms, Socrates forced his interlocutors to separate themselves, that is, from the phrases and formulas that had become habitual through the constant repetition of traditional teaching stories."
David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous

[Hennie]

Plato, the only source on Socrates' thinking lets him, Socrates, inquire his own thoughts by putting forward a statement and then via questioning his own thoughts to come up with sometimes diametrical conclusions. How Socrates himself worked in his school we really do not know.

[treegod]

Plato, the only source on Socrates' thinking lets him, Socrates, inquire his own thoughts by putting forward a statement and then via questioning his own thoughts to come up with sometimes diametrical conclusions. How Socrates himself worked in his school we really do not know.

True, we don't know. The point being that Socratic dialectic and oral traditions are (or could be considered) different things. The Socratic dialectic (whether used by Socrates or not) makes us question our thoughts, whereas oral tradition learn things by rote so it has a more conservative rather than inquiring/critical nature.

Oral traditions could be more "right hand" and Socratic method "left hand". Both are "oral" since they don't need books.

[Hennie]

Ok. I can live with that. If your thoughts are questioned you could feel like some evil spirit searches you.

[treegod]

Ok. I can live with that. If your thoughts are questioned you could feel like some evil spirit searches you.

Yes, if Oral traditions represent stability (and therefore "goodness") of a culture, then questioning, or criticising it, would be anathema to preserving the status quo, and therefore "evil", and something to be stamped out.

A relevant passage from Wikipedia:

One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.

[Hennie]

So there you have it : Druidry, by its practise, must be coined a LHP by the masses. A Druid trying to practise LHP Druidry therefore would be very conforming and pleasing the masses.
We of course know, we all try to serve our community, but best not talk about OBOD

[treegod]

So there you have it : Druidry, by its practise, must be coined a LHP by the masses. A Druid trying to practise LHP Druidry therefore would be very conforming and pleasing the masses.

LOL, yes, they'd actually be living up to the standards and expectations of the mainstream. Rebels and reactionaries fail because they are conforming to the anti-image of what they want to reject.