LHP Druidry?

[DaRC]

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

Does it come under the phrase "two lefts make a right?"

[Triath]

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).

There is no denying that we don't have an Objective Physical Nature about us. If this were to be denied there there is not much keeping Setian Philosophy from becoming Solipsistic. The Conscious Nature of human beings are quite different than our animal relatives, considering that we are the only animals that have Culture, Art, Math, Science , Ethics, and so on. This could just simply be a epiphenomenon of our complex brain formation, there is also no denying the possibility. The fact that we have felt we are different and even built civilizations, concrete zoos, according to Desmond Morris, and worked to consciously (or un-consciously) separate ourselves from the natural world, even ironically placing parks at the center of mass metropolitan areas, for our "entertainment." Natural religions sees this as man moving away from his origins or his inner connection with Nature, but man has been building masses of stone and metal during our earliest stages of evolution. What if this separation is not a "bad thing" so to speak and man acting on the inner belief that he is different. The fact that humanity can step outside and see the world the way a majority of animals cannot may presuppose he is something different, something else.

Isolation of Consciousness is a goal, it is characterized by the word Xeper (Kepher) which means: "I have come into Being."

An interesting manuscript on this topic is Black Magic by Dr. Micheal Aquino: https://xeper.org/maquino/nm/BlackMagicRL.pdf

Dr. Aqunio's Theory of Objective Universe or Subjective Universe and the History of the ToS: http://www.khprvod.org/audio/KHPR003.mp3
Doug Pridgen's Lecture Regarding One's Self and the Cosmos: http://www.khprvod.org/audio/KHPR010.mp3

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.

For some immature LHP groups yes it is all about anti-Christianity. LHP history is inherited from a Middle Eastern Tantric practice.

[Hennie]

No, from Indian Tantra.

Setiac was opposing Isiac, though in modern times Setian and Isian seem to be able to live together, foremost because most Isians don't bother to much about LHP or RHP, like all adult beliefs/philosophies should.

[treegod]

The fact that we have felt we are different and even built civilizations, concrete zoos, according to Desmond Morris, and worked to consciously (or un-consciously) separate ourselves from the natural world, even ironically placing parks at the center of mass metropolitan areas, for our "entertainment."

If we look closely we can see that cities still contain their own ecosystems, and also that they impact and are dependent upon the world's ecosystems. It certainly gives the impression that we are "separate" from the natural world "outside": we don't have to see where our food comes from, where our air comes from, where our energy comes from, and many other resources we use to sustain our lives. Then there's all the waste that flows out of them back to the ecosystems.

I think to prove our "separateness" from nature we'd create more "transcendent" symbols of it, which would decrease our impact and dependence on nature; cities instead concentrate this impact and dependence. Cities aren't transcendent so much as imposing, and as symbols of separateness from nature are merely cosmetic. In practical terms cities are everything but separate from nature. So why not self-contained city "bubbles" or giant space-stations? Wouldn't they be more appropriate expressions of "separateness"?

Personally I think it's important that people realise how much we do make an impact and depend on this planet. To lose perspective of our real situation is a dangerous hobby.

Natural religions sees this as man moving away from his origins or his inner connection with Nature, but man has been building masses of stone and metal during our earliest stages of evolution. What if this separation is not a "bad thing" so to speak and man acting on the inner belief that he is different. The fact that humanity can step outside and see the world the way a majority of animals cannot may presuppose he is something different, something else.

I live and work in a forest, and can say that we don't need to create a separation or distance from nature to be different. The way we manage our environment, whether through farming, through gardening or through nature conservation, even constructing our buildings, is not something common to other species (parallels can be made, but we've taken it to a different degree). We can be right in the midst of wild nature and already we express our "differentness".

On the other hand, I don't think cities have to represent our separateness, they can integrate ecological principles of interdependence and biodiversity, including all the concrete and electric, without losing the integrity of human "differentness".

Isolation of Consciousness is a goal, it is characterized by the word Xeper (Kepher) which means: "I have come into Being."

Yes, I recognise that word. Only a conscious being could make that assertion, lol.

Would you say it resembles in some way Descarte's "I think therefore I am"?

For me Individuation, not isolation, is the goal. I don't separate from the world around me, I work to become a whole unit within myself, distinct from the world around me, not to be confused or "merged" with it, and yet still connected to it in a holistic way.

"Evolution does not isolate us from the rest of the Kosmos, it unites us with the rest of the Kosmos: the same currents that produced birds from dust and poetry from rocks produce egos from ids and sages from egos." Ken Wilber, Integral Psychology

You might be interested in this article of mine: http://thegroveofquotes.wordpress.com/ecopsychology/
And thanks for your links.

[Triath]

No, from Indian Tantra.

My apologies I did mean Eastern and not Middle Eastern.

Yes, I recognise that word. Only a conscious being could make that assertion, lol.

Would you say it resembles in some way Descarte's "I think therefore I am"?

Indeed a Self-Conscious being could make this assertion. My Setian perspective is that we, at this moment in evolution, are the only ones who can make that assertion and grasp it and I don't accept that it is a merely accidental (or blind natural) process, or epiphenomenon, that we are much more Self-Conscious than many other animals. What its like to be a bat? If we can grasp it we could say that a bat may be conscious, but is that bat Self-Conscious? Working to trying and find its effective role in not just evolutionary existence but in spiritual as well.

Rather than the Descartes statement: "I think therefore I am." the Alternate form would be associated with the Egyptian understanding of Mind/Body/Spirit: " A thing that exists in the mind necessarily exists."

[Sciethe]

LHP Druidry. I had thought not, until I found that I had written this last year (a fragment from a big diatribe). This sounds remarkably close to what is being expressed in this thread. Am I right?

The Sacred Darkness
What we have lost and the Lucifer confusion.

In the darkness exists: “that which may not be apprehended”, and that which is consequently feared and fascinating because as yet it is not, it is null yet powerful. It is the function of Lucifer, the angel of light to bring meaning to the unknown, and so the angel of darkness is actually the angel of knowledge of that which resides in the darkness, the giver of comprehensible order to the universe through science, philosophy and exploration. The Christian church until quite recent historic times protected its mystery, which is central to faith. Lucifer the bringer of light and reason was its natural enemy because faith flourishes in relative ignorance. Religion worked well for westerners at that time as a satisfying focus for the urge towards the numinous.

In our modern world we are true followers of Lucifer, there is no deep cavern which may not be explored and floodlit, there is no grave which may not be unearthed, there is no secret of human reproduction which may not be analysed, altered and adjusted, and no idea which cannot be challenged. “Here be dragons” is anathema to our culture, we must know what dragons, how many, tag them to know their migration patterns, film their egg laying and their love making, only to find that, mysteriously, just before we can declare them endangered, there are no dragons any more. We destroy the dark mysterious essence of what we see, we fix it in our version of reality. This is a consequence of the way we look at things, rather than the actual looking...
Yes? No?
Sciethe

[treegod]

Indeed a Self-Conscious being could make this assertion. My Setian perspective is that we, at this moment in evolution, are the only ones who can make that assertion and grasp it and I don't accept that it is a merely accidental (or blind natural) process, or epiphenomenon, that we are much more Self-Conscious than many other animals.

I think that how consciousness arose: the evolutionary processes from organic matter through living organisms to thinking beings. is blind. But when consciousness arises it stops being a blind processes as our choices determine which direction we take.

Just a question in respect to you relationship with the "Setian perspective",is there any part of your own individual ("isolated") perspective that diverges from traditional LHP thinking and/or the Temple of Set's discourse?

[Triath]

ust a question in respect to you relationship with the "Setian perspective",is there any part of your own individual ("isolated") perspective that diverges from traditional LHP thinking and/or the Temple of Set's discourse?

The ToS has some basic laid out concepts that they accept, or have come into understanding of. However, the ToS has no pre-determined dogma other than the concept of working to achieve Xeper. This path to Xeper cannot be dictated to the individual, it is up to me to find my Xeper. That is why I am here, I am attempting to take a path through my family heritage. Keeping magic "in the DNA" so to speak. My family heritage is a majority of English and a little German.

[treegod]

This path to Xeper cannot be dictated to the individual, it is up to me to find my Xeper.

Don't think many round here would disagree with that.

I've recently been reading Ken Wilber's Los tres ojos de conocimiento (original version: Eye to Eye). The idea he describes is that we come from a prerational state, where "I" is not so well defined, and subject to impulses and outside influences, then the rational emerges and we are subjective beings able to reflect on our "otherness", to somehow restrict our immediate impulses and be less prone to "mob mind". The "tres ojos" (three eyes) are the eye of the body, the eye of the mind and the eye of the spirit, giving three different yet complementary manners of perception through body, mind and spirit.

Other parallels with other qualities may be made:

subconscious - rational - mystical
prepersonal - personal - transpersonal
prerational - rational - transrational
preverbal - verbal - transverbal

If we were to add Setian isolation with this it might look like this:

fusion - isolation - connection/integration

In a state of fusion there is no "relationship", since there are no individual points within the mass that can relate, they are too merged with one another. "Isolation" is necessary to liberate us to some extent from a state of fusion. But, as you mention, Triath, if we didn't acknowledge the "other" then there wouldn't be much to stop Setian philosophy becoming solipsistic. The next stage is to build a relationship between our individuality and the world, and integrate the (subconscious) parts of us from which we have become estranged, so that subconscious, rational and mystical become a complementary whole.

Isolation isn't so much a goal as a stage to pass through.