Jesus Christ is the Devil !!!!!!!!!666!!

[Nom]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

no.
comma splice; run on.

is not

[Nom]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Actually according to gnostics we don't even know God because we are too many world's apart. however, the creator is 'Us'. That is what the story of the fall is, we were originally above this existance creating it, and like narcissus we fell in love with our "Reflection", our creations in this world, and fell into it.
The thing people call God is actually an archon, a collection of human egotistical energies.

Anyyywayyy… I’d actually (does this qualify as the most overused word ever, yet?) like to know where you’re getting your info, kahl, because it does not fit what I’ve read on Gnosticism so far. I have not yet seen the Demiurge (creator) described as a sort of conglomeration of anything human. Like I said, I’m still learning about it, and still, I might add, excited at the prospects, so if you want to point me to a reference for this, I would like to see it. BTW, no offense, but will everyone PLEASE stop misspelling "existence". You're driving me crazy... er.

Nom

[ziggytrix]

The most overused word is actually I.

You just used it seven times in the span of five sentences. Two of which were run-ons.

[Ant10708]

I love grammar!

[kahljorn]

Do you know the definition of "Demiurge"?
I've learned my knowledge from reading, and I also attend lectures at a gnostic temple. I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies. Read what i said. I said the creator of this material world was 'humans'. What humans consider as actually being God is a manifestation of human energies, and that the true "God" is something we can never know or realize because it is far away from this world.

Oh, and my reference was already made by Hermes story, on the first page. That is a reference to alot of what i said, I don't know about the whole God thing, I'm sure a little research into jung would satisfy that. or tulpas. Look up the Auric being i guess. That's a part of it, so to speak. I like to think of the bigger manifestation of energy god as the "Higher auric being" like how we have a "Higher self". Just makes sense when you compare their stories.

This was found through a simple search on "Gnosticism" and is a very basic page on it...

http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoteri...gnosticism.htm

"The Gnostics taught that the Demiurge was Yehovah from the Old Testament. Jesus, on the other hand, they believe came from God and the Holy Spirit, not from the Demiurge."

Easy...

[Helm]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

You think I'm angry just because I made you feel stupid? Don't be so pointless.

Err... what? You, I what where? Pointless? What are you saying here? What would the Demiurge say?

I like how you've turned this into a "Pissing war" against me while talking about honesty and sincerity, and finding a common ground. Where is our "Bare bones" discussion? Where are your philosophical leaps?

Obviously this is not it. This is me goading you into tamperamental fits. I'd seriously like to discuss things with you some other time but right now it's all about you being funny. This is not a pissing war. I don't care how long your penis is ( well I do, but for more practical reasons ) and I never claimed to be smarter than you, like you constantly do. I've very well prepared to admit you're smarter, brighter, IQer, intelligenter and occulter than me. Awesome. Seriously, rock on with your bad self. All I'm saying is that you are FUNNY because a person so intelligent like you gets irritated so easily over trivial personal attacks. Why can't you control yourself more? I know you're gonna say "I am in control. In absolute control. What you see isn't what's really realer than realistic reality. You think I'm funny, I DO THAT ON PURPOSE! FUNNY SUIT! DEMIURGE" and ok, maybe. I don't think so, but maybe.

Unintentionally funny... I wonder if you make your personality a vague assortment of bullshit to be hilarious?

Sometimes I try to be funny. But I'm not the brightest person on earth or well-read either so maybe a portion of the bullshit is really stuff I believe in. Thanks for asking. Wanna go to the movies?

I never thought it had anything to do with that anyway. The only reason I even mentioned unbiased nature is to show how much better I am than you, and that i really don't care how I appear. Cuz' I'm cool like that, cuz.

You go out of your way to show how better you are than me. Yet you don't care for appearances. Oh I know " I AM BEING CONTRADICTORY ON PURPOSE! IT'S A PERSONALITY THING! KISS THE TAILBONE OF THE GOD SERPENT! DEMIURGE!

I agree you're really cool. I bet you're a great guy to be around at parties and other such social gatherings. I bet you know beautiful girls and drug dealers. Can we hang out? I'll let you fuck me.

One does not necessarily have to have his personal beliefs staked in an argument in order to hold discourse on a given subject (re: Devil's advocate). It may indeed be the strongest court for objective discussion.

Objective discussion as in disparate, academic and completely useless to anyone trying to do anything sure.

Or maybe you think they are less important than they actually are.

Sure it might be the case. What you suggest is as powerful an argument as "hmm if you cross the street, it might be more dangerous than you think!". Thanks.

Faith does not equal belief in all people. I don't know how to make a more lucic argument at this time. I'll get back to you on this.

Might want to introduce the basic dichoctomy between Faith as absolute, and belief as finite and temporary and mutable. That I hold the belief that gravity will continue to function as it has so far does not constitute me having Faith in it. Faith in it would require my unrelenting convition that gravity will indeed forever function as it does, as it had, as it should. There are demands, in having Faith. There are none (or not so many?) in believing stuff.

Like I said, I’m still learning about it, and still, I might add, excited at the prospects, so if you want to point me to a reference for this, I would like to see it. BTW, no offense, but will everyone PLEASE stop misspelling "existence". You're driving me crazy... er.

I know what's wrong! You use too many commas. I used to do this a lot myself. This is how I fixed it: I went through my text after I was done and removed the commas that weren't strictly needed to properly convey what I happened to be talking about. Also, when there were a lot of secondary sentences involved I sometimes simplifed to the point of adding more periods. This made my text more robust. As well as more readable. And it suggests strong conviction in what. Was being. Said. Which is. Useful. Some. Times.

Good luck and the demiurge be with you!

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Helm

Objective discussion as in disparate, academic and completely useless to anyone trying to do anything sure.

In my opinion, you just described humanity's impression of philosophy in general. I somewhat share this opinion, as some of my favorite philosophical discourse involved moderate to extreme intoxication at parties with lots of humanities majors. Which, isn't to say that it's useless, rather just to say one can fuck for procreation OR for pleasure.

Might want to introduce the basic dichoctomy between Faith as absolute, and belief as finite and temporary and mutable. That I hold the belief that gravity will continue to function as it has so far does not constitute me having Faith in it. Faith in it would require my unrelenting convition that gravity will indeed forever function as it does, as it had, as it should. There are demands, in having Faith. There are none (or not so many?) in believing stuff.

I'd argue that it is within the realm of possibility that gravity, being understood only as an effect, and not causal (we don't know what makes mass attract mass) could have properties that we've never seen. It's not so much that I have Faith, rather that I have a sort of anti-faith. I'm willing at any moment to throw away cherished beliefs should new and compelling evidence present itself. If a scientist discovers a method of generating an "anti-gravity field" or some such other thing we now consider science fiction, it won't wreck my Faith in the science of Newton. Scientists like Einstien would be bothered by this though. Quantum physics pissed off a lot of classical physicists when it was first discovered because it clashed with their Faith in classical physics.

So in that sense, their unwillingness to accept new discoveries was a barrier to learning. So perhaps this disparate discourse is not completely without use, if it serves to unclench a closed mind. But I'll freely admit I have no such noble illusions when I engage in it. I do it all for Eris.

[Helm]

Which, isn't to say that it's useless, rather just to say one can fuck for procreation OR for pleasure.

Sure but as is the kahl case is how you approach philosophy for pleasure. With what attitude. I was making fun of the attitude. I've discussed the existence of god with women just to get in their pants. Now if I had the arrogance of the mighty noble savage discovering the hidden meanings of the universe painted over my face as I did that... well safe to say that someone mocking me would be doing me a favour.

it won't wreck my Faith in the science of Newton. Scientists like Einstien would be bothered by this though.

See we have to have a cohesive model of reality which rests upon some founding presuppositions to then concern ourselves with the various byproduct applications of the various sciences. That we do not know what makes mass attract mass is not the issue (and what kind of loaded question would it be to ask 'why' mass attracts mass anyway). The issue is that mass attracts mass. If we have identified this beyond reasonable (read: through rigorious testing) doubt that this is indeed so, we have a foundation to build on. These foundations are constantly refined, I agree, and at best still remain reasonable theories and now with QM stuff is in the air a lot. I don't have anywhere else to go with this so moving on.

So in that sense, their unwillingness to accept new discoveries was a barrier to learning. So perhaps this disparate discourse is not completely without use, if it serves to unclench a closed mind. But I'll freely admit I have no such noble illusions when I engage in it. I do it all for Eris.

This constantly happens in science. Almost all of the modern scientific breakthroughs, especially since they are modern have been about debunking old science in new and inventive ways. No discussion there. I agree that arguing from the point of view of the total sceptic is useful for more than intellectual wankery, it's just that most indulge in it just for that. They get so caught up on that "gosh, these are pretty complicated concepts and i'm managing them! I must be really smart! I must tell someone about all this to be validated!" which is such a waste, in my opinion. This is my general view of occultists of most types. They're just advanced crossword puzzle enthusiasts, for whom crosswords no longer are interesting enough, so they invent their own languages and own terminology, which by effect creates a whole new bunch of natural puzzles to solve. And what's more, they then teach other enthusiasts their new languages, and test each other to see who is geek alpha male in their little simulated field. They do this so much, after a while they start believing their invented language relates to deep human truths. They read crowley books about how to have a penetrating stare and they sometimes quietly look at the back of the head of the girl they like and go "YOU.. FEEL.. COMPELED TO WORSHIP.. ME". Nggrh. Heaven forbid when these people stumble upon something that works, for whichever reason. Then they're bona fide vampires, immortals, gods.

[kahljorn]

Here you go, little slugger.
I'm not the one who started talking about the demiurge.
I'm more hilarious than you will ever be.
i don't go to parties.

"All I'm saying is that you are FUNNY because a person so intelligent like you gets irritated so easily over trivial personal attacks."

What a strategy, "haha, you're not smart because I say you're angry, and if you say you're not angry I'll just say you're trying to back out of being angry when you so obviously are angry because you made fun of me and it hurt my ego".
Pointless bullshit, that nobody cares about. You can't gauge if a person is angry or not online, unless they say something like, "I'm literally fuming with anger! LITERALLY THERE IS SMOKE COMING OUT OF MY EARS" . So unless you are one of those retarded empathic psychic's like willow from buffy or some shit I would suggest getting off that train before people start asking you for reiki massages.
Also, I'm instigating an argument with you because if I can somehow win in a war of words obviously I've proven how much smarter I am to you, the message board and more importantly myself. God this will sure help my confidence problems, and next time I'm at a party I'll be like, "Yea, I totally outsmarted this guy online" and all the ladies will be all over you. Then you can share your philosophy of how you can make smart guys angry just by saying they're angry, like you can *will* it in to place. God damn Neo, bend that spoon.

One of the first things I said, to Emu, before our little "match" even begun is that I like acting like a jerk. Go read that, use it for reference that I don't really give a damn about your attacks.

[Helm]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Here you go, little slugger.

Thank you mister wanna play with us

I'm not the one who started talking about the demiurge.

I know but it's just softball

I'm more hilarious than you will ever be.

but can you hit a homerun?

i don't go to parties.

mister you're creepy

What a strategy, "haha, you're not smart because I say you're angry, and if you say you're not angry I'll just say you're trying to back out of being angry when you so obviously are angry because you made fun of me and it hurt my ego".

Jesus get over that! I KNOW you're smart! I'm not being sarcastic. You're smart! Intelligent-o! Lightbulb city! Get over it! Smart! Smarter! Smartest! I don't WANT to be smarter than you if it means I'll have to wear those horrible clothes PLEASE NO NO NOOO Don't show me your peepee I DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUR PEEPEE WHAT'S HAPPENING PEE PEEE

Seriously. You're smart. No joke. Pat yourself on the back, you're smart. Level up. Manage those skill points now. Good idea to invest in Speaking In Tongues for 3 points, Demiurge Summoning for 2 points and Penis Party Trick for 10 points. Slay some orcs for me.

POINTLESS BULL-SHIT, THAT NOBODY cares about.

WHOA WHOA there mister buddy I'm afraid I'm going to have to back down when I took you on I knew I'd have to expect some grade-a edginess you being the lord of darkness and all but that's just too much for me I've feen successfully intimidated.

You can't gauge if a person is angry or not online

You can't measure your penis online (que Achimp penis chart jpg) but that didn't stop you! And I never said you were angreeee I said you were upset! Sad! Crying orc! I bet you're chanting a hex curse spell on me or a summon monster IV or something whoa I've got rats in my house dude THE POWER OF THE DARK TALON

besides, are you angry? Are you shaking your little skinny fist on the computer screen SOMEDAY I'LL SHOW YOU GREEK PERSON ONLINE WHO DOESN'T BUY INTO MY BULLSHIT S-- SOMEDAY! I don't think so. You're too calm and collected to do any of that. You're... sitting there, contemplating, eating a burrito, maybe scratching your butt for buttlint which is an important spell component btw good thinking, and you're thinking thinking thinking and saying to yourself "-- I'm smart." I know it. You know it. Dead awesome smart. Smartasfuck. Congratulations.

, unless they say something like, "I'm literally fuming with anger! LITERALLY THERE IS SMOKE COMING OUT OF MY EARS" .

Please don't be so literal I'm expecting a high level of mysticality from an awesome smart occult transexual person like you. I've never met anyone like you and i'm honestly intrigued by you. Please love me with your awesome satan stick

So unless you are one of those retarded empathic psychic's like willow from buffy or some shit I would suggest getting off that train before people start asking you for reiki massages.

Dude I don't watch that Lord of the Rings faggot crap

Also, I'm instigating an argument with you because if I can somehow win in a war of words obviously I've proven how much smarter I am to you, the message board and more importantly myself.

Haha it's funny 'cause it's true! You're hilarious! I love this guy!

seriously, if somebody threw a rock and hit you right smack on the face, would you, bleeding mystical nose of power and all, pick up the rock, take it back to the guy and say " I KNOW you threw that rock at my face. You threw it because you thought it would HURT me and it DID. Now I'm going to TELL on you right on RIGHT ON TO YOUR MOM because what you did was BAD but YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY" I mean I've seen some reversed reverse reverse psychology in my time but come on

God this will sure help my confidence problems,

You don't have confidence problems. You're extremely well adjusted and this is just fun on the internet. People are reading this and are having a good time. We coordinate those posts over AIM before we post them, and laugh between the two of us also. We're in reality best buddies. You introduced me to trantric sex I introduced you to buttholing goats. We're a perfect match. The world is a wonderful place where DEMIURGE DEMIURGE DEMIURGE PSYCHE OUT

got you right come on, just a little?

and next time I'm at a party I'll be like, "Yea, I totally outsmarted this guy online"

haha yeah ok but you know I'm teaching you valuable lessons here, right? I mean -- ok you're teaching me, I'm teaching you it's a learning process that's what it is, I'm telling you you're gonna walk away from this a better man. The ways you'll be able to trivialize any important stuff other people might say and to turn insults into PURE GOLD OF FUNNYNESS we make a great team. I really like you. I think we look good together too we should take a picture.

Listen, I've been sidetracking every second thing I say to you into us being intimate and all that, will you get a fucking clue here I'm coming on to you. I mean I know you're the submissive type and all but COME ON how much do I have to work this? Don't just disregard anything that doesn't have to do with the demiurge here. You know besides the demiurge, there's other urges to keep in mind. Like my burning urge to be one with you. Plz baby don't turn me down I'll be good for you.

One of the first things I said, to Emu, before our little "match" even begun is that I like acting like a jerk. Go read that, use it for reference that I don't really give a damn about your attacks.

Ok so far we're doing good I think what do you guys think? I was kinda afraid you'd flake out on me by the second post but you seem to be doing fine I mean that willow thing was intentionally hilarious but baby steps baby steps I know I know what's coming next you're going to stake it out. You won't reply for a day or two, to make me desperate. But I'll be thinking about you, baby. All day, all night. Just me, Perndog and the demiurge. Kisses.

[Ant10708]

Least entertaining message board fight ever.

[kahljorn]

I'm glad you can admit that I'm a million times smarter than you helm, cause I'm THAT smart.

I'm sorry to have to share this with you but i have a girlfriend, and I'm not interested in making myself a new one. It's just too time consuming to break in an asshole to my gentle giganto of a penis. Thanks anyway, though, I really appreciate your stiffy mc comeupikins, I'll keep your pickup lines on file for one year in case the position frees up.

P.S. I'm not really interested in the occult, at all. The word occult actually kind of bothers me, and the idea of an "occult gathering" makes me want to never open my eyes again.

[Nom]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Do you know the definition of "Demiurge"?
I've learned my knowledge from reading, and I also attend lectures at a gnostic temple. I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies. Read what i said. I said the creator of this material world was 'humans'. What humans consider as actually being God is a manifestation of human energies, and that the true "God" is something we can never know or realize because it is far away from this world.

Here’s MWs definition of Demiurge, which you will note is accurate to my definition.

Main Entry: demi•urge
Pronunciation: 'de-mE-"&rj
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin demiurgus, from Greek dEmiourgos, literally, artisan, one with special skill, from dEmios of the people (from dEmos people) + -ourgos worker (from ergon work) -- more at DEMAGOGUE, WORK
1 capitalized a : a Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas b : a Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world
2 : one that is an autonomous creative force or decisive power
- demi•ur•gic /-jik/ also demi•ur•gi•cal /-ji-k&l/ adjective

You may be adding to the definition, and thereby enhancing it, but I think I’m safe in assuming that I have a correct enough version to discuss the Demiurge for the hypotheses which I intend to explore. Thanks, though, for the opportunity to confirm the veracity of my understanding of the term. You could have done that, you know.

Re your definition; unfortunately, I’m finding it hard to believe that it is humanly (or otherwise) possible to more starkly contradict yourself than (please notice it is not spelled “then” in this case – even LA Times is making this mistake these days - thank you) in these two sentences:

“I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies.”
“What humans consider [as] God is a manifestation of human energies…”

… but at some point maybe you will elaborate on the obviously subtle distinction here. A point worthy of noting:

1. What humans consider as “actually being God” IS the creator.

The rest of you’s: I could NOT care less about your grammatical excellence. I merely said the misspelling of “existence” bugs me. However, that is NOT to say that I will NOT be happy to indulge (OMG – double negative) in grammar wars, which is always fun. Language is best served malleable, as evidenced by the general consensus adoption of prepositions for the end of a sentence. I support this btw, not the least of which reason being the extreme difficulty of properly ending a sentence as compels such and end.

Commas are underused these days. Frequently, those who have adopted the newer, “more streamlined, less commas” usage of commas, neglect their usage altogether where they really, properly ought to be, if for no other reason than improving meter.

Now that we have all that behind us, let me ask (with tentative attention), what anyone (kahljorn, you too) might think we ought do, in light of the assumption that our very creator is an evil bastard, i.e. .. oh hell, wtf do we do with this knowledge; how do we respond? Maybe we should start a thread on it. I have lots more questions *rubbing hands together gleefully and grinning like a bastard*. I enjoy verbal fencing as much as the next rube, but finally, I really would like to get somewhere on this topic. Just start out as if you’re talking to a five year old, and slowly increase the difficulty; I’ll let you know when to stop…

Nom

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

Least entertaining message board fight ever.

Quoth one of the most tragically unfunny people here. I'm a VET, man, and I declare Helm FUNNY.

[kahljorn]

"creator of the material world"

dem·i·urge Audio pronunciation of "demiurge" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-ûrj)
n.

1. A powerful creative force or personality.
2. A public magistrate in some ancient Greek states.
3. Demiurge A deity in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and other religions who creates the material world and is often viewed as the originator of evil.
4. Demiurge A Platonic deity who orders or fashions the material world out of chaos.


demiurge

n : a subordinate deity, in some philosophies the creator of the universe


read this: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/str...ts/hermes.html

The Corpus Hermeticum is a good book.

http://www.granta.demon.co.uk/arsm/jg/corpus.html

I have most, if not all of the books on gnosticism available on my computer, and I also have a few Rosicrucian books if you want to read any of them...

the idea of the "Archon", the "God" that "Humans" believe in(go ahead and use semantics) and created, is that all our energies have manifested into a force, and this force is mostly egotistical and self-centered, and thus evil. I don't know, I read to much. Ask me some questions and I'll answer them, I'll give you references too if you really need them.. or you could just look up what I'm saying yourself.
The idea of us being the true creators of this world has to do with the fall, like when adam and eve bit into the apple, or the fall of atlantis. Either of those stories would really suffice, go read them. "The microcosm".

[kellychaos]

So then it's agreed. Refinement of theory, playing language games, shedding a new perspective on an old thing and an immense desire to impress your friends at parties does not change the "effect" in the least. Done and done.

Just out of curiousity, how should I be holding my wine glass and cigarette at parties when expounding on my new theories?

[kahljorn]

45 degree angles are to be maintained at all times, thank you.

[Chojin]

I like how kahljorn is being as stupid as the perceived thought process behind the thread's first post. ONLY! He knows he's being stupid and just playing along to get a reaction! ONLY! That goal is hypocritical! ONLY! He knows that too! ONLY! Hollycaust herself was being sarcastic! ONLY! Kahl, in his omnipotence, knows that too!

You're blowing my mind, man.

[kahljorn]

ONE EMOTICON TO UNITE THEM ALL, ONE EMOTICON TO SAVE THEM ALL, ONE EMOTICON TO EXPRESS IT ALL!

[Helm]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I'm glad you can admit that I'm a million times smarter than you helm, cause I'm THAT smart.

Listen, I have to confess something: every time I agreed with you saying you were smart/er/est and all that? I was being sarcastic. I'm not really sure you're very smart. Sorry man.

Okay, right there? What I just said? It wasn't true. I really do think you're smart but I'm trying to prolong the argument because it is funny.

No no, see what I'm doing? I'm just giving you comfort space so this doesn't degenerate to just silly namecalling or even stops. You being smart or not, or in fact being anything at all is of no importance to me. I'm not interested in you at all, really. I just was just up for mocking someone or something. I don't even do it because I feel strongly about it. I do it because of sorta the ghost of the memory from when I cared about these things. I still feel obliged to make fun of mediocrity and stupidity, that's why we're here.

See, that's just not true. It's very humane to tell people you don't care about them like that to their face. I guess I could care about you more if I knew you in real life and we got to hang out. Maybe I'd think about you more as a person rather than a shrewd mangled bunch of neurotic contradictions that is just so fun to poke at.

I'm sorry to have to share this with you but i have a girlfriend

Did she use your body as a sexual stimulus too? Gotta watch out for that stuff.

Thanks anyway, though, I really appreciate your stiffy mc comeupikins,

Thanks. Your last post is a bit disapointing and I don't know what to do. If I insult you more, you'll probably stop posting or something. This is not the end I envisioned for us.

P.S. I'm not really interested in the occult, at all. The word occult actually kind of bothers me, and the idea of an "occult gathering" makes me want to never open my eyes again.

Dude come on. I say 'haha gnostic!' and you go 'I'm no gnostic! I just attend gnostic temple meetings because the chicks are hott' I say 'demiurge lol' you go 'I didn't bring up the demiurge! HE did!' I say 'occult zomg!' and you go 'I'm no occultist! Actually the word makes me break out in hives that's why I didn't join the military to fight them damn towelheads!'

you're so mutable. I can practically alter any part of your personality through just peer pressure. It's fine though, I'll let off before I convince you that you're gay enough to leave your girlfriend for me or something so severe 'cause I'm a nice guy blah blah blah

Bottom line kahl: you're rediculous.

[kahljorn]

Bottom line i just dont really care about being gnostic, an occultist or whatever. I just care about learning various things. Besides, the gnostic teachings are part of other teachings, like hermeticism. Which is fun. Also, I'm now a mason. 16th degree. Thanks.

[Helm]

I agree learning things feels good. It all seems to lead somewhere, and getting pieces together - besides being a good intellectual puzzle - reenforces us and makes us feel better since understanding equals control, and control means safety. I know there's a lot more to it than that, but I do think this is a good place to start when dealing with the origins of intellectual curiosity.

Anyway, how are the masons? Did they make you shout to the four winds and everything? Do you wear the ring or is the ring business bulshit? Do spoil all their secrets ( well the secrets known to one of the 16th degree I guess ) since I think a person such as you should have no respect for the concept of secrecy, especially towards a boy's treehouse secret club thing.

[kahljorn]

I am unable to reveil any secrets at this juncture, please refer to albert pike. There's a masonic temple in town, and a rosicrucian temple. I think this city is on the golden spiral. There's so many crazy temples here...

Four winds is wiccan bullshit, cooze.

[kellychaos]

Hell hath no fury like a Kahl mocked. He hath broken the name-calling seal. Game on.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Professor Ralph Barton Perry

If we cannot justify philosophy by common sense, we can at least contrast it with common sense, and so approach it from that more familiar ground. Since we must admit that philosophy is at odds with common sense, let us make the most of it. What, then, is common sense? First of all it is evident that this is not a commonsense question. One of the things peculiar to common sense is that it must not be questioned, but taken for granted. It is made up of a mass of convictions that by common consent are to be allowed to stand; one does not ask questions about them, but appeals to them to determine what questions shall be asked. They are the conservative opinion, the solidified and uniform belief, on which men act and which is the unconscious premise of most human reasoning. As a man of common sense, I use common sense to live by or to think by; it is a practical and theoretical bias which I share with my fellows, but which I do not think about at all. 3
Now suppose that in some whimsical and senseless mood I do think about common sense. Something very startling happens. This once unchallenged authority is proved to be highly fallible. Its spell is gone. It at once appears, for example, that common sense has had a history, and that it has varied with times and places. The absurdities of yesterday are the common sense of to-day; the common sense of yesterday is now obsolete and quaint. The crank of the sixteenth century was the man who said that the earth moved; the crank of the twentieth century is the man who says that it does not. Moreover, once common sense is thus reflected upon, it is seen to be in part, at least, the result of wholly irrational forces, such as habit and imitation. What has been long believed, or repeatedly asserted, acquires a hardness and fixity from that fact; in the future it is always easier to believe, more difficult to disbelieve, than anything recent or novel. And what others about us believe, we tend unconsciously to reflect in our own belief, just as our speech catches the accent and idioms of our social circle. Furthermore, a belief once widely diffused takes on the authority of established usage. It is supported by public opinion, as anything normal or regular is supported; unbelievers are viewed with hostile suspicion as unreliable and incalculable. “You can never tell what they will do next.” Or they are forcibly persecuted as a menace to the public peace. I have called habit and imitation “irrational” forces. By that I mean that they have no special regard for truth. They operate in the same way to confirm and propagate a bad way of thinking as a good way of thinking. It does not follow that common sense is necessarily mistaken; indeed reasons can be adduced to show that common sense is a very good guide indeed. But if so, then common sense is justified on other grounds; it is not itself the last court of appeal. Common sense, despite its stability and vogue, perhaps on account of its stability and vogue, is open to criticism. We cannot be sure that it is true; and it may positively stand in the way of truth through giving an unwarranted authority to the old and familiar, and through shutting our minds so that no new light can get in. 4
The philosopher, then, is one who at the risk of being thought queer, challenges common sense; he sets himself against the majority in order that the majority may be brought to reflect upon what they have through inertia or blindness taken for granted. He is the reckless critic, the insuppressible asker of questions, who doesn’t know where to stop. He has a way of pinching the human intelligence, when he thinks it has gone to sleep. Every time there is a fresh revival of philosophical interest, and a new philosophical movement, as there is periodically, this is what happens. Some eccentric or highly reflective individual like Socrates, or Bacon, or Descartes, or Locke, or Kant, strays from the beaten track of thought, and then discovers that although it was easier to move in the old track, one is more likely to reach the goal if one beats out a new one. Such a thinker demands a re-examination of old premises, a revision of old methods; he stations himself at a new center, and adopts new axes of reference. 5
Philosophy is opposed to common sense, then, in so far as common sense is habitual and imitative. But there are other characteristics of common sense with which the true genius of philosophy is out of accord. We can discover these best by considering the terms of praise or blame which are employed in behalf of common sense. When ideas are condemned as contrary to common sense, what is ordinarily said of them? I find three favorite forms of condemnation: ideas are pronounced “unpractical,” “too general,” or “intangible.” Any man of common sense feels these to be terms of reproach. It is implied, of course, that to be agreeable to common sense, ideas must be “practical,” “particular,” and “tangible.” And it is the office of philosophy, as corrective of common sense, to show that such judgments, actual and implied, cannot be accepted as final.