Newfag 2016-11-20 05:12:49 No.10131
Spoonfeed me on hermeticism pls
It is the nicest most objective system. Shilling it is justified as you would make a favor to the persons unaware of this fact.
There is a lot of great work regarding hermeticism, the most well known is probably IIH from Franz Bardon.
From Rawn Clark? Yes totally. Sometimes the translation of Bardon books can be quite ambiguous or even the original material.
Why the hell are you reccomending bardon to a beginner? Are you also a noob? Start with the Kybalion.
Kyballion by William Walker Atkinson is a complete meme in comparison to Bardon Initiation book.
Bardon's book isn't called "Initiation" for nothing as it is far better & complete than Kyballion which is barely touching the subject and it is written by a legit guy and not a guru role player like WWA.
Anyway stop playing the big guy by with your question like "are you a noob XDD" and ordering around what is good or bad without backing it up with arguments.
By the way OP never said he was a "noob" in occultism too so stop assuming shit.
I rate your comment 1/10. Go back giving advices when you'll have grown the fuck up.
If you disrespect the Kybalion yet praise bardon, it is clear that you understand neither. Please read again from the beginning, without attempting to understand until you had completed it again.
Of course I can praise Bardon.
Experience & practice > theory
Kybalion isn't bad but neither it is very good as it is mostly intellectual masturbation while Bardon make you learn things through experienc which is the superior way.
I will reread Kybalion for your sake though.
Be sure to read from the original version, as the the one floating around the internet is a false copy.
Find copy of it below:
https://issuu.com/11faustia11_the_first_five_pages/docs/the_kybalion1
Seeker 2016-11-23 23:33:59 No.10223
Interesting to know. I indeed did not read this version.
If you have any other hermetic recommendations, feel free to share it, as I believe many will enjoy it.
Anyway thank you for your support!
Hey guys. another neophyte here with a
Few questions regarding Bardon's "initiation into hermetics".
just finished reading the theory and I feel there's something that i've not yet been able to grasp regarding the relation between the tetrapolar magnet and the human anatomy. Especially the part where he explains which parts of the body are electrical, magnetical or neutral (what does he mean by this)
Can someone give me some insights on the subject?
Here's what i'm talking about
Seeker 2016-11-24 07:37:01 No.10233
It's about the electric fluid & magnetic fluid which respectively represent the embodiment of the fire & water attributes (electric for fire, magnetic for water).
It's not the physical phenomenon but the philosophical principle just like the elements.
Bardon is stating what fluid is dominant on each body parts (if it is not neutral).
I advise you to read the whole book first because Bardon explains things in the practical part that may help you better grasp the whole.
exploring other people's insights are helpful. My favorite thing to do right now is reading amazon reviews and finding all the drawbacks on books. this is helping me trace everything back to the sources of the sources of the sources and so on. I'm learning the basics of formal scholarship, which is pretty important if you're going to engage in occult practice, which is full of traps.
Wouldn't know what I know without the insight of smarter more experienced people.
Seeker 2016-11-24 23:59:37 No.10253
You didn't understand what he meant, he wasn't talking about data gathering but spoon-feeding op
From /library/:
An audiobook of "Kyballion" by The Three Initiates.
https://librivox.org/the-kybalion-by-the-three-initiates/
You don't even have to read anything.
If anything just listen to Chapter 2: "The Seven Hermetic Principles"
or read it: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb04.htm
Let me elaborate on this post:
Chapter 22: "The Seven Hermetic Principles" is basically a condensed version of the rest of the book. So, this is the easiest explanation you'll get about the hermetic philosophies.
The other thing you'll need to know is that Hermes "The Greatest of the Great" came up with the philosophy, and it's said that he gave birth to the greatest intellectual movement in ancient egypt. Ancient Egyptians had a really great grasp of science (see: the pyramids). The Kyballion posits that the ancient egyptians had both a physical and spiritual conception of the sciences (physics = astronomy, chemistry = alchemy, etc.). It is said that Hermes' philosophy gave birth to the majority of modern religions. It's also said that Hermes predicted a lot of modern scientific discoveries, such as the physical principle of vibrations. Hermes predicted in his "Principle of Vibration": "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."–The
Kybalion.
So if you want the basic knowledge about hermetic philosophy, read CH2.
>Hermes "The Greatest of the Great" came up with the philosophy, and it's said that he gave birth to the greatest intellectual movement in ancient egypt.
Doesn't Hermes date from Ptolemaic Egypt?
You're probably not wrong. To be honest, all I've read about Hermeticism is this book. I'm very new to this esoteric stuff.
Sorry to disappoint.
Seeker 2016-11-26 08:14:37 No.10309
>nice
I can be nice, but this person does not earn my nicety yet.
The base premise of this thread, using the word spoonfeed, sounds to me like a big baby that desires easy to digest knowledge in a form that (s)he understands. I say no to that. Perhaps the seeker is used to people giving him stuff, if (s)he uses spoonfeed. But I'm not going to give in.
I have NO idea what the seeker already knows. I have NO idea on the character and whether or not (s)he deserves the knowledge. Therefore, the seeker has to find the knowledge him or herself, and come back at a later time, armed with some knowledge and an inquisitive mind.
There is a vast library which is in the sticky + a special section for newborns. There also is a specific thread for questions. I suggest that OP starts his search there. If OP can't formulate a question and find the appropiate place to put it, the knowledge is in my opinion vastly undeserved.
Seeker 2016-11-26 19:44:38 No.10318
Definitely understandable.
We can argue though that answering him would help other readers stumbling upon this thread (& who may deserve/need it) in a good way.
Anyway it true that OP shouldn't expect "spoon-feeding", and that he should ask valuable questions instead.
Have you fags heard of this? Any ORanon out there wanna go check it out and report back?
disinfo.com/2015/05/temple-oculus-anubis-arch-weirdness-oregon/
Any knowledge that is passed on to a newb is equal. To fully understand a certain area or topic, a newb has to walk over all of it, every single square inch. However true or false the knowledge you pass on to this newb, he will still have to walk over every single square inch to fully understand the truthfulness or falseness of the knowledge you gave him. Thus, it doesn't matter what material of what quality a newb starts with: the ones far off from truth will quickly break and be proven wrong; the ones close to truth, but in some ways mistaken will take way too long to break, because they'll seem to be the right thing almost all of the time.
A man who grows up on commercials, video games and memes will need the same time and effort to learn something as one who always studies the greatest truths from the greatest masters and the best books.
So that's knowledge. What can differ though, is advice. Advice is always personal, is neither true or false, just effective or ineffective. Sending a student to examine the areas he hasn't discovered yet is effective. Making him repeat areas he already knows slows him down. You can hinder or completely block a student's studies of every single square inch with bad advice - students usually give themselves pretty bad advice - or you can be effective and give them advice that doesn't slow them down. But you cannot speed them up. No shortcuts, no books that are better than the rest. No truest truths that magnet in all the other truths.
Know that if you see an old, teethless alcoholic good-for-nothing mess of a human, no matter what you achieved in life, you'll never be as wise as him until you get to his exact age - by which time he'll probably be older and wiser.
>>Know that if you see an old, teethless alcoholic good-for-nothing mess of a human, no matter what you achieved in life, you'll never be as wise as him until you get to his exact age - by which time he'll probably be older and wiser.
Absolute bullshit
Respect has to be deserved no matter the time.
Having lived more years isn't a free pass for respect as it won't make your idiotic or assholish behavior any more acceptable.
On the contrary, you would expect more of an old person to have a correct behavior than of a young person that didn't have all the years to learn from his foolishness.
You're the one being arrogant by wanting to enforce on others your tribal mentality of giving respect based on superficial values such as the time elapsed from A to B instead of the virtues that displays the individual at the very moment you interact with him.
Time to wake up anon.
Just be a good fucking goyshit and worship your ancestors you good for nothing golem. They're better than you, you must respect them look at the thriving world boomers created how could you hope to compete you worthless goy-animal?
For a moment, think of a person as a video tape. The longer the person lived, the more he saw. If he keeps looking at the same things every day, he'll have seen it better. If not, he'll have seen more things. Either way, he saw more.
Arrogance has tools to explain this away, and there are some ignorant assumptions like "those who did the right thing are the wisest, have seen the most". Choices are not made, they just happen, influenced by circumstance, luck, fancy, others, whatever. Arrogant people carve and lust for shortcuts. They want to be that superhero who has never been to Rome, but knows Rome better than any. They want to be the godsend that is born talking, and does in a year what humanity failed in a thousand.
>That's childish thinking "he bery old, must be bery wise", totally retarded logic sorry.
That's childish thinking, sorry.
Nice irony, I like it. Please do some more, the board could use it!
When I was three years old, I expected that if I look behind the TV I'll see people. Turns out young folks have all sorts of weird expectations.
Don't you seem to fall for the superficial displays of virtue that are quite often pure luck, or simply bending to some fresh hype and hitting the jackpot, or having some other person tell you what to do? What is arrogance if not "knowing what other people are and what they think better than they do"?
Perhaps elder people are a form of challenge. Everyone can be Hermes 3mage, know the ultimate truths, believe the only right thing, that's no biggie. What is a biggie is knowing, believing and spreading all this without leaving a trail of fire and dead bodies. If you cannot spread the word and change the world for the better in a way that your elders approve, it might be that you're just another arrogant Napoleon or Nero, and the coming of Jesus you think you are.
you have much to learn from >>10379
>The longer the person lived, the more he saw. If he keeps looking at the same things every day, he'll have seen it better. If not, he'll have seen more things. Either way, he saw more.
>Arrogance has tools to explain this away
Nah, that's nonsense. It's not arrogant for me to think I'm wiser and more experienced that some worthless old drunk who does the same stupid thing over and over.
>A man who grows up on commercials, video games and memes will need the same time and effort to learn something as one who always studies the greatest truths from the greatest masters and the best books.
That is just silly.
>Know that if you see an old, teethless alcoholic good-for-nothing mess of a human, no matter what you achieved in life, you'll never be as wise as him until you get to his exact age
Your whole post is.
Average /fringer/ will be able to AP, manipulate reality and control their mind before an average mundane even stops being a stupid mundane. Unless you have a different definition of knowledge then me - I don't really see your point. People older than me have lived longer, yes, but during my shorter life I could've seen more, read more, experienced more.
That's my point, really.
An old drunk in the pub can manipulate reality and control their mind, not to mention project themselves astronomically far away, without the need to do all the silly "studies" and preparations you guys do here. The only magic circle he ever needs is another round.
I'll meet you at the pub when you finally "ascend", friend.
Seeker 2016-11-28 17:42:46 No.10402
PS. try not to mock what I just said. That's where your practices originate from, really, unless you want to become an evil STS who doesn't pay for his drinks and gets thrown out from Valhalla's mead halls.
>An old drunk in the pub
Sorry but I've known a number of alcoholics and this is just stupid. They're still stuck in their late teens, they didn't learn anything, drinking has stopped them from ever growing up or learning something. Then they're likely to die being just a little over 50.
Your lack of maturity is glaring.
Did you ever interact with people? Most normies barely change during their time. They don't learn much by lack of analysis & don't intent to change much either by lack of devotion to improve themselves in general.
Time doesn't earn you wisdom, efforts do.
You're the kind of guy that assimilates quantity > quality "lol he've seen it 5000x times more than you so he must understood it 5000x times better".
Are you sure you haven't lost yourself and ended up on /fringe/ by mistake? Because your posts is exactly what I would expect from some new ager blog or Facebook page.
I'm obviously just poking at you to see how deep the core attitude of this board goes. While it is common everywhere, it seems to me that it runs deeper here on fringechan.
It's quite simple. Everyone here has a big image, which has a rough shape and little details. Your "study" and "progress" here is basically a ritual that changes the little details. Names, facts, ideas, data, your own sensory perception, everything is allowed to be changed in any way as long as the rough shape of the image remains.
You are right.
Even if you are wrong, you are right to want to improve.
Even if you are wrong and wrong to want to improve (because you should, say, start from scratch), you were right in wanting to improve based on your circumstances.
The rought shape of the image is this "right". In some form, the image is right, you're right. You're in some center. Things that are far away from the center, strongly differ from the image both in detail and in overall shape, must be bullshit, disinfo, trolls, shills, illusions, elaborate trickery, malice. Question the scale. Question weight. Question your eyes. Question the mind. Question every single person other than you. Question reality. But never, ever question "right".
Funny note: fringe is by defintion away from the center.
Disney is not shit, people who don't grow out of it are
Oh, and I know that I'm in the right place by the replies I get.
*tip fedora*
Are you finished with your idiotic "test" & pseudo intellectual ranting?
If yes, go away already as you're fucking destroying this thread that was about hermeticism until you came blating your non sense.
Btw I rarely goes on Fringechan, I just am curious about hermeticism so I kept a tab open for this thread, thus judging Fringechan with me isn't representative at all.
the only pseudointellectual thing around here is that fringe girl drawing in the sticky, everything else is shit. you're shit, i'm shit. who shat us, you ask? the demiurge!
honestly though, the sole reason i'm posting like is because this is what i see here, and i instinctively, unconsciously, deep down in my soulfrom, i like to fit the landscape.
thanks for tipping your fedora.
We aren't all native English speakers, also there is a fucking tons of abbreviations nowadays.
That is not very nice of you to act like an asshole tbh
Seeker 2016-11-29 15:41:19 No.10470
It stands for Strength, he's telling you to grind for stats so you can kill the dungeon boss.
Funny how what you are describing most likely is just a mirror image of your own thinking - the liberal leftie ideology in practice. What you're saying is exactly the same
>it's ok to be a sexist as long as you confess to being one and call yourself a feminist
>it's ok to evade taxes as long as you support legislation meant to stop tax evasion
>it's ok to make lots of money as long as you take a stance against economical inequality
>etc
Noone here thinks this way or follows this.
There is some kind of hippie intellectualism manifesting as "armchair occultism" and not all of it is properly addressed as such, but that is a problem in progress, nothing gets left to escape fire here for very long.
You initial post about the quality of information making no difference is in your own logic contradicted by your statement
>Disney is not shit, people who don't grow out of it are
because disney makes stories of life just the same, and studying them is then the same as any other studies.
SO PLEASE TELL ME, wich is it?
1) All information is equal and worth the same amount of study
or
2) some information is of higher value?
If you stand by your first post
> it doesn't matter what material of what quality a newb starts with
>A man who grows up on commercials, video games and memes will need the same time and effort to learn something as one who always studies the greatest truths from the greatest masters and the best books.
Then you consequently have to accept that someone who didn't "grow out of disney" is just as knowledgable as someone who did, because as you said yourself
>it doesn't matter what material of what quality
Don't post again until your thinking is consistent, please.
>Responding to this pseud
>Putting a space after every sentence so your post is twice as long as it needs to be
you don't need to be native english to understand abbreviations, you just have to take your "progress" a little but more seriously.
I appreciate your rigor, good stuff. I almost feel bad that you wasted it on taking a cheap out-of-turn insult like ">Disney is not shit, people who don't grow out of it are."
The point of that statement was simply to show that people who take the first interpretation of the statement that pops in their mind are often lying to themselves by doing so.
Your mistake, I think, was the assumption that I will put in extra effort to form the statements in a way that they sound consistent to anyone. That isn't the case; those who can pick up what I'm doing are well off, those who can't are out of luck, it is their problem. The Disney line is totally consistent with the original post: since the original post holds true, and the Disney line serves its purpose as an insult that point out the consequences of misinterpretation (and perhaps upset some readers). It is in no way representative of the original idea or me, it's just a tool.
You seem to make the assumption that everything I say is representative of an idea I presented, or that I cannot "exit the role" of the idea; that would be a huge underestimation of a human - capable of acting, lying, "what if", and all sorts of stuff. To make sure I'm clear, yes, you can give the same importance to Disney as others would give to <fringe book of total truth>, keep adopting the theories you see in Disney tales, and then have them broken by your experience until you are enlightened. It wouldn't even take longer, really.
Now that this is clear, let me say an additional thing: Not growing out of Disney means you're a gay dumbfuck. I hope you can, in the light of the previous paragraph, understand what this last sentence is.
It's all gone ogre, man.
Your posts are awful, please stop already or let go of this thread in order of it to regain its original subject which is hermeticism.
Sincerely,
Fringechan
If hermeticism was half as good as my posts, it would be taken seriously. I don't blame people who care about it for their unlucky choice of interest, but yeah.
Why do you keep asking me to stay, if you want me gone? Did you actually follow some advice on fringe and fried your own brain or what?
>Your mistake, I think, was the assumption that I will put in extra effort to form the statements in a way that they sound consistent to anyone
In other words, you are sloppy and your ideas not thought thru.
> the original post holds true
No it doesn't. I understand you're just trying to push the idea that only experience by age will change your perspective and for this reason what you study is unimportant. This is too dumb to comment on, so I just went on to point out how flawed your thinking is. It seems this went over your head.
>You seem to make the assumption that everything I say is representative of an idea I presented, or that I cannot "exit the role"
That's just another way of saying you are not staying in line with your original argument. It's not a valid excuse. When you start losing the argument you start sliding to maintain your own perception that you still are holding ground. By this point it's obvious to everyone but you yourself that you already lost and switched to damage control.
>Not growing out of Disney means you're a gay dumbfuck
You don't "grow out of" anything, that's just some schoolyard argument when you're trying to sound mature, noone who's really grown up cares about your hobbies.
Also
>using "gay" as an insult on a chan board
Seeker 2016-11-30 03:47:20 No.10506
>You're being arrogant. Respect your elders.
I'll respect those who deserve it, and often it is not my elders but my peers. The majority of those of the previous generations are so steeped in mundanity and so enslaved by the system that they literally live in fear of the smallest things. They think it wisdom and they think it foolishness to try anything but silent servitude. These are not folk I look up to.
Most of the time it is those who are younger that are actually wiser as they where not born and programmed so much by the Picean age.
Of course outliers exist, and even despite supreme ignorance on critical topics that does not invalidate all knowledge, it simply must be placed in perspective and not taken as absolute.
Additionally, past lives are a factor as well.
>An old drunk in the pub can manipulate reality and control their mind, not to mention project themselves astronomically far away, without the need to do all the silly "studies" and preparations you guys do here.
And now your just shilling for alcohol.
On occasion it *may* help with magic, but in large it obfucates the subtle senses, rends holes in your aura, and generally makes you less aware of your own being.
1/10 for making me respond.
You clearly don't belong here, you don't understand where we come from, our culture, nor even our ideal.
You can flabber that mouth all day but only the newest newfags, like yourself, will take anything you say seriously.
In time you may learn, or in time you may stagnate. If you actually lurk moar you may yet learn… or you may become that old fool who never knew anything but the world.
Also, reddit spacing.
Indeed. May the liberation of perspective come to them.
Seeker 2016-11-30 23:20:33 No.10522
^This guy here.
I've been reading the comments below mine since I have a day off, and I want to say something.
To give respect to people who "deserve respect" is a bad idea. It's ignorant to think that you are the sole arbiter of who is worthy and who is not. Your judgement is not absolute, and until it is absolute, you are an imperfect being.
Your elders have been on the Earth for longer than you have, and therefore, they know more and have experienced more than you have. They've just had more time to think, to adapt, to have more successes, and to have more failures.
Your elders seem to be dumb because they've been put in positions of high risk and positions of authority, and therefore their decisions carry more weight. Every decision made by them is put under more scrutiny. Their decisions frame them as either a success or a failure in your eyes, but since they have survived to this point, there is always something important that they know.
>Your elders have been on the Earth for longer than you have, and therefore, they know more and have experienced more than you have
We've been through this already. Being around for longer does not mean someone knows more or has done more. Someone who pushes themself to learn and gain new experiences will quickly outpace their less worthy elders.
>They've just had more time to think, to adapt
They're just as likely to have spent that time not thinking and not adapting, in which case they'll have gained nothing.
>Your elders seem to be dumb because they've been put in positions of high risk and positions of authority, and therefore their decisions carry more weight
If someone has risen to authority, I'll respect them based on that. But many old people have failed to advance. The example earlier of an old drunk shows why people can't be respected purely on account of their age.
>they have survived to this point, there is always something important that they know.
So true!
Provided that one lives in prehistorical times where death lurks around every corner and getting old is actually an accomplishment as it means you have been at death's door several times and you indeed survived because of your wit and skill. That doesn't seem to apply in our current day and age though.
Here, let me spell it out for you
>where death lurks around every corner and getting old is actually an accomplishment as it means you have been at death's door several times and you indeed survived because of your wit and skill
Here death doesn't lurk around every corner and getting old isn't actually an accomplishment as it doesn't mean you have been at death's door several times and you indeed survived because of your wit and skill.
Survival is easier now. You can live to be an old person and never be in a life threatening situation.
>Your interpretations of "not thinking" or "not adapting", and your interpretation of authority are meaningless.
So I should respect my elders even if their greater supposed merit is not manifested in any noticeable way?
You're implying that just because people these days don't have to deal with life-threatening situations regularly, and because of that, one doesn't have to use wit and skill to survive.
That's just not true. If anything, one needs to use more wit and skill to navigate this world and put food on the table. Just because one doesn't have their lives threatened as easily doesn't mean that they don't need to learn to interact with people, learn about government programs, learn how to defend themselves, etc. Even if someone does everything wrong, they know what not to do. To relate it to this thread, people's life experiences aren't just laziness and activity, merit and non-merit, they are just differing in degree. like differences in temperature. Like how Hot is no different than cold, Differences in experience are no different from each other.
Yes. Just because their merit is not manifested to you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
We were created with limited senses in order to optimize our brains for survival. There's so much that we can't see.
>Even if someone does everything wrong
Even if someone does everything wrong he or she still survives and gets old.
>they know what not to do
Like… They know not to drink bleach?
>people's life experiences aren't just laziness and activity, merit and non-merit, they are just differing in degree. like differences in temperature. Like how Hot is no different than cold, Differences in experience are no different from each other.
Oh man, I totally remember reading Kybalion too! Also, not really seeing why and how is this relevant to this topic, other than you wanting so show off your mad New Thought skillz.
>There's so much that we can't see.
But you can still see that elder people automatically deserve respect for their, presupposed, knowledge?
>Yes. Just because their merit is not manifested to you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
But as I see it, giving someone greater respect involves taking someone's opinions more seriously. If someone does not manifest greater wisdom then why should I take them more seriously? If I have a decision to make, I'm not going to take someone's advice just because they're old, because as we've established, being old does not necessarily make someone better in any manifested way.
You probably just read the Kyballion for "New Thought skillz", if that's your only rebuttal to my argument.
In fact, everything about how you're arguing tells me that you only seek knowledge for the ability to say that you're better than others. You should really sort out your priorities when it comes to why you want to learn things.
The principle of polarity states that things that seem to be opposites (such as good and bad, meritous and selfish/lazy) are no different from each other, only varying in some degree. There's no difference in inherent value between these opposites, just a difference like a difference in temperature. One can say "cold is better than hot" or "hot is better than cold", but there's no real substantive difference between the two that makes one better than the other.
I already said why elders deserve more respect in >>10572
They simply have more time to adapt to their surroundings, and that's why you should respect their opinions, because there's much to learn from them in that regard.
What if the opinions that you give greater respect to are the worst possible opinions for you?
Furthermore, how can YOU tell whose manifested greater wisdom or who hasn't? Just based on your own senses? That's a terrible idea.
adding to my response to >>10580
This principle relates to our topic because your argument is that people who live more meritous lives are somehow inherently better, even if that person is older.
This is simply not true. Your ideas of merit are totally subjective. Time is not subjective.
Old people have more time.
Meritous people have more merit.
One concept is subjective, man made, it has poles. Time, for all we know, goes in one direction. Even if you manage to turn back time, it still moves forward from the pont where you turned it back.
>What if the opinions that you give greater respect to are the worst possible opinions for you?
This doesn't advance your argument at all.
>Furthermore, how can YOU tell whose manifested greater wisdom or who hasn't?
You've already admitted that old people do not necessarily manifest wisdom. Age is therefore not a reliable indicator that someone's opinion is worthwhile, It's as simple as that.
Seeker 2016-12-02 21:15:32 No.10585
The concept that is subjective, that has poles, is merit.
Therefore, increases in merit cannot make up for lost time. Merit is polar. Time is not. You cannot compare someone with merit to someone with time and experience.
Time is absolute, and objective.
Merit is not.
Nobody necessarily mainifests wisdom.
Wisdom is a concept that you thought up in order to judge people's value.
Your concept of wisdom is fiction.
I cannot just imagine how much time someone has been on this Earth. I cannot assign my own value for how much time someone has been on Earth. It is already assigned objectively. More time on this Earth literally means more experience with adapting to the Earth.
More wisdom just means that you think a person is more wise than another. Basically, more wisdom doesn't mean anything.
>Your concept of wisdom is fiction.
Then respect is based on fiction, and your thesis that we should respect our elders is based on fiction.
Seeker 2016-12-02 21:29:10 No.10588
More time means that one has had more time to adapt to their living conditions. Time is not a subjective concept. You can't decide who has more time than someone else.
Time and wisdom aren't comparable.
Time is an absolute concept. We can't apply qualifiers like "hot" or "cold" to time.
You can put "hot and "cold" (or rather "wise or unwise") qualifiers on the concept of wisdom. That comes from the eye of the beholder.
Time and Wisdom are different concepts completely. You can't use Wisdom to overcome the effects of time.
I'm saying that you should respect your elders based on the fact that they've had more time to adapt. Time is not fiction.
So although I'm saying that you should alter your subjective ideas (respect) on someone, I'm saying that you should do it based on something that's objective (time).
You cannot say that an older person has not had more time on the earth. You cannot say that an older person has not adapted to the conditions of the earth for more time than you have.
Regardless of the perceived level of wisdom of your elders, they will always have more experience than you do.
That deserves to be respected, as it shows that they have been able to adapt to living on Earth for longer.
>if that's your only rebuttal to my argument.
My rebuttal had 3 more points you know?
>In fact, everything about how you're arguing tells me that you only seek knowledge for the ability to say that you're better than others. You should really sort out your priorities when it comes to why you want to learn things.
You know nothing about me bitch nigga :^)
>They simply have more time to adapt to their surroundings, and that's why you should respect their opinions, because there's much to learn from them in that regard.
Okay, so a 60-year old, disease-ridden alcoholic had more time to adapt to his surroundings that come with an alcoholic lifestyle, provided that I don't want to tread the path of a disease-ridden alcoholic, he doesn't have much to teach me.
On the other hand, a 40 year old Tantrik Guru could teach me a lot of things in regards to my practice.
One of them I respect, the other - I don't. And my criteria don't have much to do with age.
>What if the opinions that you give greater respect to are the worst possible opinions for you?
Ohmygosh a "what if" argument! Now, riddle me this - what if the opinions of the elders, that you give greater respect to, are the worst possible opinions for you?
>your argument is that people who live more meritous
>ctrl+f
>merit
Nope. My only argument is that someone being old isn't a reason enough to respect them.
>Time, for all we know, goes in one direction.
Yes, no one is arguing against elders being older than someone younger than them.
>they've had more time to adapt
That doesn't mean they have adapted.
>they will always have more experience than you do
Not all experience is equal. Experience of staring into space and masturbating is less valuable than experience of reading important books.
We're going in circles here so I'm going to stop.
The fact that they're surviving means that they adapted to their conditions.
>not all experience is equal
Experience is proportional to time. Any opinions you have on the merits of one's experience are subjective, like "hot and cold". Your opinions on someone's experiences are subjective (and therefore meaningless).
Ok, this'll be my last one as well.
>60 year old disease-ridden alcoholic vs tantrik guru
I don't see why you can't just respect them both. Perhaps the 60 year old doesn't have what you want, but he may have something that you didn't know you wanted.
If you interact with them based on the level of respect you have for them, then you'll be missing out. Your paradigm of what is worthy of respect is keeping you down in this regard.
>what if the opinions of your elders are the worst possible options for you?
Respect isn't the same thing as "doing everything you say". I would certiainly give more weight to the opinions of my elders, who have survived for longer, than those who have survived for less time,
Seeker 2016-12-02 21:54:10 No.10596
>I don't see why you can't just respect them both
If by respect you just mean being courteous, then of course you should respect everybody. But my definition of respecting someone involves spending resources on them. If the alcoholic wants me to spend time listening to his advice, I'm going to pass, because I have reason to think that time will not be well-spent.
>Experience is proportional to time.
That doesn't mean that everyone acquires experience at the same rate.
Like… someone's experience is linearly proportional to time, someone else's is exponentially (not really, but just an example).
Also, you reduce it to just one component - experience and that's just ridiculous. Someone who has studied chemistry their whole life has a lot of experience in say, academic lifestyle, being able to synthesize drugs maybe :^), being able to express themselves at conferences, writing scientific articles etc. In general - he indeed adapted to his current environment and has a lot to teach when it comes to his particular lifestyle. Someone who has been surfing his whole life has a lot of experience too - how to catch a sick wave!, what music is best for surfing, what kind of girls will be up for a quicky with a surfer etc. Now, they both have a lot of experience in their respective career paths, but maybe not much outside of it. An aspiring beach-bum wouldn't be really impressed by a chemist I guess.
>I don't see why you can't just respect them both.
In short - everyone deserves respect, as everyone is adapted to their current situation because they are alive and as such the term respect is meaningless.
>Perhaps the 60 year old doesn't have what you want, but he may have something that you didn't know you wanted.
Perhaps a 2 year old doesn't have what you want, but he may have something that you didn't know you wanted. The fact that you can learn anything from anyone in right conditions is a truism.
Seeker 2016-12-02 22:10:50 No.10601
I spent 45 minutes composing this post. This board has a depth of ignorance that is best untouched unless one wants the challenge of his life to be the education of fringe wizards and trolls over the internet.
> Any opinions you have on the merits of one's experience are subjective, like "hot and cold". Your opinions on someone's experiences are subjective (and therefore meaningless)
So if you were to undergo a medical operation you wouldn't care if the surgeon was qualified or not. If you went to court you wouldn't care whether your lawyer was qualified or not. It wouldn't matter to you whether they had spent their time watching porn or reading about how to do their job,.It would only matter how old they were.
I said:
"Any *opinions you have* on the merits of one's experience are subjective, like "hot and cold"."
If you're going to snub a drunk old guy who's who says he's a great lawyer without actually asking him to prove himself, then you've lost out.
If someone has *proven* themselves to be a professional at something, then it is proven that they are an expert in that field. It has nothing to do with their life experience, or with respect. In this situation, you're getting the right person for the job. You're picking the right tool for the job, essentially. You don't choose tools based on your respect for them, you choose them because a screwdriver is best for screwing.
If you think that experience of learning how to be useful (you do at least seem to recognise that usefulness is a meaningful concept) is no better than experience of drinking yourself to death, then there's no point arguing with you.
That's an unfair assumption you've made.
It's like me saying this:
You're the one who think's it's a good idea to snub someone because you think that they wouldn't be good at something because they're old and drunk.
See, these hypothetical people that you've created only have one facet to their personality. One person is an old drunk, and the other is a doctor/lawyer/scientist/guru.
These examples of people are not people. We're not talking about reality here.
In reality, there would be much more to the story than "this guy's a drunk, and this guy's a doctor".
What if the doctor was an old drunk? What if the old drunk was a doctor? We'll never know, because these people are just fake images we constructed in our heads.
Your're not even arguing with me over something that is real.
>In reality, there would be much more to the story than "this guy's a drunk, and this guy's a doctor".
These people only exist so that I can make your belief look absurd. We can flesh these examples out as much as you want - we can make the older man as ignorant and worthless as you like, and we can make the younger man as wonderful as you like, and you still have to say that the former is more respectable than the latter, because your position is that older people are 'without exception', more respectable.
>You're the one who think's it's a good idea to snub someone because you think that they wouldn't be good at something because they're old and drunk.
So you'd be just as interested in hearing the ideas of an old drunk as those of a brilliant young philosopher? You have to go by what you know, and if all I know about someone is that they're a drunk, I'm not going to bother with them
>These people only exist so that I can make your belief look absurd.
You just made my point for me. These people you made aren't real. Your arguments are not real.
People who think that they're "brilliant young philosophers" are pasty, obese kids on reddit that need an excuse for being pathetic. There is no such thing as a "brilliant young philosopher".
>you have to go by what you know
No you don't. Nobody just goes by what they know. Then they wouldn't learn anything.
>these people you made aren't real. Your arguments are not real.
Don't be autistic. Imaginary examples are a valid and common rhetorical device.
>There is no such thing as a "brilliant young philosopher".
He's only young in relation to the other guy. Let's say he's 40 and the drunk is 60.
>Nobody just goes by what they know. Then they wouldn't learn anything
Lol what? 'Going by what you know' just means using the limited knowledge you have, out of necessity. If I tell you you have to make a choice between talking to a drunk and talking to someone who's famous in a field you care about, what are you going to do? Spending years getting to know both of them before you make your mind up is not an option.
So your point is - not judge people by their appearances? I can totally agree! There are even plenty of kid's shows about this matter. You know, some grumpy and scary character becoming protagonist's friend and all of that c:
>Imaginary examples are a valid and common rhetorical device.
There is nobody in the world who is "just a doctor" or "just an old drunk". Your examples are unrealistic and therefore invalid.
>BYP's 40, the other guy is 60
The drunk guy probably knows all kinds of stuff. He has to get all that booze somehow. He's probably made connections, learned about how people work, maybe he has a stable job.
What has the "brilliant young philosopher" done except for masturbating in academia?
>the third thing
I'd talk to the guy who's famous in my field, of course. And I'm willing to bet that that guy is much older than I am.
they deserve respect because scrubs like you are so bad at estimating others' knowledge. your own estimations have a lower hit chance than if you just assume everyone else is better than you. guess where that puts you on the scale.
now get back to your reading.
your autism is showing, you bring up an arbitrary example that favors your side of the argument.
>your 40 years old alcoholic is clearly not as wise as my 60 years old tantrik guru therefore old people are wiser end of argument :^)
>There is nobody in the world who is "just a doctor" or "just an old drunk". Your examples are unrealistic and therefore invalid.
They aren't 'just a doctor' and 'just a drunk'. They are a worthy man and a worthless man. Fill in the details yourself.
>The drunk guy probably knows all kinds of stuff. He has to get all that booze somehow. He's probably made connections, learned about how people work, maybe he has a stable job.
>What has the "brilliant young philosopher" done except for masturbating in academia?
No, you don't get to twist it so the old man is better. There are countless bad old men and countless good young men in the real world, it's not unrealistic for me to ask you to choose between an example of each. So, which do you respect more?
>I'd talk to the guy who's famous in my field, of course
So you respect his input more even though he's younger than the other guy.
Alright:
The doctor is Dr. Kike Sellyoupills and the drunk is a war veteran who sacrificed for our country.
The war vet is the worthy man and Dr. Kike Sellyoupills is a worthless man.
I certainly respect the war vet more than Dr. Kike Sellyoupills.
It's hard for me to discern whether you are trolling or if you are really that proud to admit that you are wrong.
>they deserve respect because scrubs like you are so bad at estimating others' knowledge. your own…
You know nothing about me bitch nigga :^)
Also, I am older than you, show me some respect goddamn it.
>now get back to your reading.
What reading sweetie?
>your autism is showing, you bring up an arbitrary example that favors your side of the argument.
Examples are always arbitrary you silly.
Can we talk about Hermetics instead of feeding this troll p-please?
What do you think of the 7 Hermetic Letters from Georg Loomer?
>Can we talk about-
"no"
neo-/fringe/ is a place to circlejerk and shitpost, pseudo namefags (flagfags) mutually masturbating with low effort retards from faceberg and literal retards all circlejerking each other.
>old
>homeless
>gay
>spends his free time shitposting on an esoteric imageboard
Your life is a meme, a big fat fucking meme. Were you also molested by a family member as a child?
that's not my argument
It's:
Human Years = Experience in adapting to the Earth's conditions
Therefore, elders must be respected, as they possess more experience in this, just by being alive for longer.
Your argument lost all legitimacy when you started making up fake people to try and make points about real people.
I hope you're not being genuine in your arguments. The levels of ignorance and lack of introspection that you display make me highly doubt that you believe what you're saying. If you do genuinely believe that you're talking like a well adjusted human being, then you're deluded.
TL;DR: You're either disingenuous or you've achieved a state of utter madness.
Seeker 2016-12-03 21:45:27 No.10690
lmao mate I said I know where you live, your bridge-dwelling wifi-stealing sob!
respect for the years though. I've bet you've seen shit in your time, old man. i dedicate my next drink to you!
You're didn't question the legitimacy of 'fake people' before, when you tried wriggling out of my hypothetical question. Let me put it as bluntly as I can, without using any abstract concepts that might upset you: do you respect Josef Fritzl (age 81), the infamous monster, more than Kyle Carpenter (age 27), the youngest living Medal of Honor holder? You said earlier that you respect war veterans so don't give me any shit.
>The levels of ignorance and lack of introspection that you display
Butthurt really isn't the mark of someone who's winning an argument.
What a loaded question.
Josef Fritzl is an insane person, lacking in fundamental human qualities. One could even label him inhuman.
He had not adapted to regular society, either. He went to prison, and is shunned from society.
Obviously I'd respect the war vet more. He's an actual human being.
If you have to take your examples to these extremes in order to prove your point, then you might as well have admitted you're wrong. There are basically no people like Josef Fritzl in existence, and if they do exist outside of prison, then they're 1/7billion.
If the only way you can try and prove your point is by making blatant logical fallacies and hyperbolic claims, then you're just telling me that I'm right.
Seeker 2016-12-03 22:23:35 No.10693
If it was between Kyle Carpenter and a regular old guy, then I'd respect the regular old guy more.
Carpenter probably respects his elders as well.
>thinking that I'm actually old and homeless
kek
Wanted to just make a point that if elders have to be respected, then I can be his elder for all he knows. But yeah, it's been a pure shitpost for the most part of this thread.
>they possess more experience in this, just by being alive for longer.
You haven't even read previous responds or something.
>someone's experience is linearly proportional to time, someone else's is exponentially
>you reduce it to just one component
>etc.
>but what if I'm your elder?
That's a shitty argument anyway. What does it matter if you're my elder in this scenario?
We have generations of elders who didn't respect their elders. That's why baby boomers, post modernism, and cucks exist.
Though I don't like what these people have done in the past, I'll still give their opinions more weight than a younger person. They have survived for longer, and that takes something special.
Also, respect =/= doing all of what people say, or thinking how someone wants you to think. I don't know why you're making this assumption.
>Also, respect =/= doing all of what people say, or thinking how someone wants you to think. I don't know why you're making this assumption.
I'm not.
Define respect then. IMHO respect must be earned, it doesn't come free of charge because someone is older than me. I know plenty of people who are older whom I don't respect because they don't deserve my respect as they are pretty shitty and stupid beings.
Miriam Webster dictionary says:
Respect is "high or special regard : esteem"
Esteem is "worth; value"
I am arguing that the opinions of our elders hold more value than those of younger people.
I have a problem with your statement:
>IMHO respect must be earned, it doesn't come free of charge because someone is older than me. I know plenty of people who are older whom I don't respect because they don't deserve my respect as they are pretty shitty and stupid beings.
I believe that your statement is arrogant. It assumes that you have the innate ability to decide who is worthy or not. You cannot, with only your given senses, possibly evaluate the merits of a person properly. We were created to forrage berries, hunt meats, and protect ourselves from the environment. We're optimized for that sort of stuff. Leave the evaluations of the soul to God. You are not designed to make them. You were not given the sense to make them. Regardless of how powerful you become, in your human vessel, you're only given a limited amount of sense.
The difference between you and your elder is that your elder has been given more time to make sense of it all. Regardless of what kind of experience they hold, they have more experience in surviving than you. Therefore, their opinions are held in higher regard than those who are younger.
>It assumes that you have the innate ability to decide who is worthy or not.
I decide who is worthy for me personally. I do not claim to objectively judge the worth of every person I come across.
>Leave the evaluations of the soul to God
I have a problem with this statement. By "God" do you mean the All (seeing how we are shitposting in Hermeticism thread) - Brahman? Or maybe some favorite Godform of yours?
Also, you meant, leave the evaluations of the soul to God and to you, right? After all you are the one who deems elders more worthy of respect, thus evaluating them.
>Therefore, their opinions are held in higher regard than those who are younger.
Not by me.
>You cannot, with only your given senses, possibly evaluate the merits of a person properly.
You cannot either. Everything you wrote regarding me holds true for you as well.
>The difference between you and your elder is that your elder has been given more time to make sense of it all.
That doesn't mean that they succeeded in this task, neither does it mean that someone younger isn't able to do this better.
>semantics
Obviously I meant the All. I was referring to the being that is infinite in scope. Use whatever word you want.
>Leave judgement to God and you, right?
I do not judge how old someone is. They are as old as they are. It is objective. Choosing personality traits is subjective. Time is not subjective. I've already said this.
I can't evaluate people properly, but it is an objective fact that older people have had more time to adapt to Earth. That automatically entails more experience, regardless of what they've been doing. That is not an evaluation, that is an objective fact. You can't argue that someone who is older than you is not older than you.
This argument we're having has a lot to do with the Hermetic principles (mainly their application).
If you don't like the direction of the thread, start posting what you want to see.
its just a meme anon, though I wouldn't be surprised if certain parties are shitting up the thread because they don't like modern hermeticism
Seeker 2016-12-04 07:26:43 No.10720
>adapting
Come on, you're being ridiculous. Living in society is easy, being a good person isn't, it takes efforts!
That's why common sense respect people regardless of their age according to their merit of being a good person.
"b-but judging who is a good person is arrogant & an illusion, only God can judge"
Shut the fuck already, Humans have the ability to recognize goodness and you know it as you said:
>Josef Fritzl is an insane person, lacking in fundamental human qualities
Good people are people who work with their environment with Love (harmony) while bad people work only in an egoistical fashion that goes against others and themselves (chaotic).
Age is just a proof that you were able to feed yourself and avoid mortal accidents during X years.
Animals do that too but you don't worship centenary tortoises right?
>time is objective
Even this is debatable.
>I believe that your statement is arrogant
>Leave the evaluations of the soul to God.
Much contradictions! There is more but I'll stop here to not feed the troll.
Now go away you retarded troll, you derailed this thread far enough. Have some respect for OP and the ones who just wanted to talk about Hermertics.
p.s: don't come back
What should I master in order to lead the best life I possibly can, and to be all I can and wish to be? In the most effective, practical way and without getting into too much conflict.
Can anyone answer this for me?
>What should I master in order to lead the best life I possibly can, and to be all I can and wish to be?
Yourself
Seeker 2016-12-04 13:40:31 No.10735
As said >>10724, it is yourself.
Turn your vices into qualities & your passions into virtues.
Absolute [Will, Wisdom, Love & Consciousness] are the attributes you should fully master (and so do I).
I highly recommend you IIH from Franz Bardon.
His system roots itself in the ennoblement of your character, which permits you to achieve wonders if you succeed through self-improvement perseverance.
Seeker 2016-12-04 13:42:29 No.10736
>the All
/fringe/speak for "I have no argument"
> it is an objective fact that older people have had more time to adapt to Earth
But it does not imply that they did in fact adapt
>That automatically entails more experience
Which says nothing of the value of those experiences
Seeker 2016-12-04 17:05:16 No.10743
>What a loaded question
It's almost like I'm leading you to a certain conclusion,
>If you have to take your examples to these extremes in order to prove your point, then you might as well have admitted you're wrong.
You made an absolute statement (elders must be respected without exception, any other consideration is meaningless), so if I can find a single elder who is not worthy of respect, I have proved you wrong. I could have used a less extreme example but it would have had less rhetorical force. I don't know why I have to explain these basic concepts to you, but then again you are apparently too dumb to understand hypotheticals. Now shut the fuck up and stop repeating your disproven ideas.
Seeker 2016-12-04 20:07:22 No.10756
What about people who think /fringe/ in general is just a joke taken seriously and, out of pure good will, try to build and further its legacy by further joking it up?
I think this person is trolling. He wants to upset other posters by pretending to post seriously and then suddenly changing into name-calling. You should probably just bow to that posters superior wisdom and post about hermeticism yourself, so he can also show your wrongness in that area.
The question seems a tiny bit loaded. It sort of assumes that there is such a thing. Perhaps there is no such thing and you will need to employ various things to reach that result, as focusing on any single thing will hinder you in the long term. Even abstractions of this idea, like "adaptability" are sort of wrong, as the abstraction limiting the way you see things.
Perhaps you cannot bring about such a life by effort, because such effort is just a plaything of your luck and any attitude may have very different results based on innumerable, small details.
Seeker 2016-12-04 21:30:10 No.10759
I use what I learn here to aid in my discipline in my studies, and I've been getting results. If you have something like that, try it.
Meditation works really well. One can simply forget about mental stress. Not only that, but reaching alpha state helps with memorization because in beta state, the mind is full of clutter. If the only thing you're focusing on is your studying, things are much clearer in your memory.
The principal of rhythm states that everything has its tides, but one can minimize the negative tides by simply blocking negative things out of the mind.
It is analogous to the rhythm of stress when studying. When you're stressed, just stop thinking about stress for a while, and you'll be raring to go.
It's pretty amazing.
Seeker 2016-12-05 05:52:36 No.10768
To the best of my current understanding,
The basis of Hermetic philosophy is that all reality is merely an emanation of thought.
It is divided into three basic categories, astrology, alchemy, and theurgy.
>astrology
Not to say that planets and stars have a hard and fast rule over precise events, but that there is a rhythmic component to life that a magickian can study.
>alchemy
If reality is all made of thoughts, then thoughts can be made to undergo reactions just as chemicals can, to achieve new forms.
>theurgy
Gods, egregores, and the like are active in society if they are actually divine forces or mere ideas.