Crowley vs Spare

Exploring the Philosophical side of the Occult.

Post Reply
User avatar
JohnTitor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:34 am

Crowley vs Spare

Post by JohnTitor »

While reading Crowley's "Magick Without Tears," I came across ideologies I found remarkably similar to some things Spare wrote in "The Book of Pleasure (Self-Love)." as well as in "Anathema of Zos." I am new to Spare's works and less so to Crowley's though I have yet to read all of his writings.

The passages are as follows, and I will try to communicate effectively here my curiosity:

"Man has used the idea of God to dictate his personal conduct, to obtain power over his fellows, to excuse his crimes, and for innumerable other purposes, including that of realizing himself as God." Crowley in "Magick Without Tears"

"O Self my God, foreign is thy name except in blasphemy, for I am thy
iconoclast." Spare in Anathema of Zos

I feel this implies that in realizing oneself as god, it simply destroys the concept to a degree. The 'self' being the interconnection between our conscious and subconscious and the ego (and their manifest), upon realizing full potential it self destructs in a manner of speaking because now you have cast aside belief and are experiencing "truth", the Law. This is something we are either incapable of doing completely due to our limited ability to comprehend because the combination of conscious and subconscious would be too much for the waking mind to handle, or something that must have a catalyst to achieve. Either way, the "world" or existence as we know it would be altered to such a degree that our realization of it would no longer matter since there is an entirely new construct to realize upon said change.

" To believe that they are Gods (or
anything else) would make them such-proving by all they do, to be full
of its non-belief........ 'The Kia which can be expressed by conceivable ideas, is
not the eternal Kia, which burns up all belief but is the archetype of
"self," the slavery of mortality'........ " Spare in "The Book of Pleasure (Self-Love) The Psychology of Ecstasy"

Similarly- Crowley wrote,

"21. There is no limit to the extent of the relations of any man with the Universe in essence; for as soon as man makes himself one with any idea, the means of measurement cease to exist." in 'Magick Without Tears: Chapter I- What is Magick?'

This only strengthens my thoughts on the matter. It seems that Spare viewed our existence as our perception (noted this is not a new concept to many of you, nor to myself.) and that to understand Kia would not be understanding Kia nor Zos. The self is now something new and altered. Therefor it becomes a redundant cycle. I have a short article on it I wrote before I posted here http://www.occultforum.org/forum/viewto ... 17&t=37334 prior to reading any of Spares works. Though the context is slightly different and I base it off of notion vs perception.

Spare also wrote,
"Others again, and those who have much knowledge, cannot tell you
exactly what "belief" is, or how to believe in what defies natural
laws and existing belief. Surely it is not by saying "I believe"; that
art has long been lost.
They are even more subject to bewilderment and
distraction directly they open their mouths full of argument; without
power and unhappy unless spreading their own confusion, to gain
cogency they must adopt dogma and mannerism that excludes possibility

. . . . . . By the illumination of their knowledge they
deteriorate in accomplishment.
" also in "TBoP."

It suggests that he himself is uncertain as to how to believe in the supernatural/metaphysical or Magick. He strongly implies in his works it is all cognitive through subconscious manipulation. An example is here, and it coincides with the statement that we cannot believe by simply stating that we do;

"Unless desire is subconscious, it is not
fulfilled, no, not in this life. Then verily sleep is better than
prayer." from TBoP- and expanded upon somewhat in AoZ

"On Earth my kingdom is Eternity of DESIRE. My wish
incarnates in the belief and becomes flesh, for, I AM THE LIVING TRUTH.
Heaven is ecstacy; my consciousness changing and acquiring association. May
I have courage to take from my own superabundance."

Awareness seems to be the less desirable outcome (contradictory to the surface message) in Spare's writings to me, for to become aware is to alter the state of reality and then one is no longer truly aware. The idea ties in with Crowley's idea of Mental Processes, though seemingly opposites. Acquiring not requiring- association. Stating that it or he is given relation to something more easily understood for the sole purpose of pleasure or ecstasy in life, and making it something capable of analysis and/or synthesis.

"There are two operations, and only two, possible to thought. However complex a statement may appear, it can always be reduced to a series of one or other of these. If not, it is a sham statement; nonsense masquerading as sense in the cloak of verbiage and verbosity.

Analysis, and Synthesis; or,

Subtraction, and Addition.

1. You can examine A, and find that it is composed of B and C. A = B + C.

2. You can find out what happens to B when you add C to it. B + C = A." ~~Crowley in 'Magick Without Tears; Chapter XXVI: Mental Processes- Two are only Possible'

Kia being the "self" and Zos- Spare's Ego perhaps- there are many a belief, but it states in AoZ here

"Hostile to self-torment, the vain excuses called devotion, Zos satisfied
the habit by speaking loudly unto his Self. And at one time, returning to
familiar consciousness, he was vexed to notice interested hearers-"

making me feel slightly confident that Zos is the Ego of Spare himself (for it is his writings that gained popularity, and many a folk flocked to be taught by the man and understand his writings so as to achieve enlightenment outside a traditional medium {e.g. religion), and can be interpreted equally as the Ego in general if applied to another individual. When reading his works the words "Self" and "Truth" or "Law"- are always given importance in being capitalized, showing a conscious remnant of himself in all his writings- automatic or not. The relation being that by OBSERVING and learning what composes (becoming aware), there is only the opposite remaining- to deconstruct or construct to understand that A is indeed B+C (using said awareness to understand- but if awareness is existence AND understanding it becomes an oxymoron and redundant at that). If this is true, then in realizing the self or Kia, the only logical thing to do next is to attempt to recreate it by taking it's elements and combining them. Since thought is perpetuated by notion and perception- the reconstruction is actually possible- though it will (sorry for redundancy) or may- create something entirely new -though still the same, as it remains existence. It's like adding salt to water and mixing it until homogenous, over time it becomes heterogeneous and in returning to B & C the components can be mixed and recreated over and over.
This becomes the deterioration in accomplishment Spare speaks of. We have reached our end goal, though it becomes repetitive and regression can only come from this elevated consciousness until reached once again. It is safe to assume then that we can never realize reality nor existence except for in a single fleeting moment of blissful epiphany before becoming equally ignorant as before.

Crowley seemed to focus equally on Conscious perception as well as Subconscious perception. Making his works very much coincide with- as well as- contradict Spare. I am one for finding relations (though Spare wrote that it is incorrect to do so here

"Some do much to show the similarity of different religions; certainly
by it I prove the possibility of a fundamental illusion, but that they
never realise-or this Ukase they are the mockery, for how much they
regret! They suffer more conflict than the unenlightened. With what
they can identify their own delusion of fear they call truth. They
never see this similarity and the quintessence of religions, their own
poverty of imagination and religion's palliation. Better is it to show
the essential difference of religions."

"The words God, religions, faith, morals, woman, etc. (they being forms
of belief), are used as expressing different "means" as controlling
and expressing desire:" TBoP)

So in analyzing these great writers and occultists, I borrow from them both- as they compliment each other nicely.

In conclusion, there is no Kia or true awareness simply because we change it as soon as we understand it in its entirety if at all possible. Both Spare and Crowley sought to explain and understand that which is inexplicable through similar and contrasting means both- and each is thought to be much more aware than most. I believe that they were equally unaware as backed by my evidence presented all throughout this thesis of sorts. They are certainly great at describing how to NOT be aware, but neither were they aware for more than fleeting moments in time, nor were they cognizant of the grand workings of the cosmos as they changed them as soon as they understood those facets.

"Some believe any and every thing is symbolic, and can be transcribed,
and explain the occult, but of what they do not know. (Great spiritual
truths?) So argument a metaphor, cautiously confusing the obvious
which developes the hidden virtue." TBoP


Thank you,
Titor

(am interested to hear back on this)
Creation is our gift, yet we seek only destruction. We have the ability to achieve greatness and mold our very existence into that which we desire- only to writhe in our perceived notions of existence and preconceived limitations set forth by our predecessors. Let us go forth together and create something wondrous and unique~
----------------------
"If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will fall into place."
Lao Tsu

User avatar
JohnTitor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:34 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by JohnTitor »

Love the views, sad that nobody has anything thoughts about it.
Creation is our gift, yet we seek only destruction. We have the ability to achieve greatness and mold our very existence into that which we desire- only to writhe in our perceived notions of existence and preconceived limitations set forth by our predecessors. Let us go forth together and create something wondrous and unique~
----------------------
"If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will fall into place."
Lao Tsu

User avatar
cyberdemon
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by cyberdemon »

Crowley established far more than Spare did, but both of them are historically very important to occultry in general. They've both elaborated methods previously unheard of and laid the foundations to modern occult practices. But comparing Spare with Crowley is silly, when it is LaVey who puts the "I am a God" idea into action.

However,
Spare's zos-kia duality vs LaVey's self-non-self singularity are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Let's be a little more modern though, shall we?

Assuming that you are a god is silly, for you are not. Belief in such a thing with One's current dimensional restrictions, perceptive restrictions, the human body itself, is a completely foolish thing to think of Oneself.

Now let's look at something better. In essence, LaVey's idea of One self-non-self singularity basically boils down to this - every person living, currently, to or past, all come from One. Take this idea in account with a pinch of reincarnation theory. A little bit of "parallel universes". If you think about it, another person's point of view of life itself is a parallel universe. Imagine, in a parallel universe, you are rich, privileged, dating Emma Watson. In reality, you are you - but there is someone who fits the exact aforementioned description of the you-in-a-parallel-universe. What's to say that it isn't you? By now, you should be seeing my point.

Bringing the duality theory into this is higher speculation. What is the physical form and structure of the Oneness? Is it a source, in which case it cannot be One? Then is it the same soul transversing through every possible live-able scenario (including humans, animals, extradimensional beings [eg. demons and/or aliens]), while being One and not at the same time? And since Time is relative, One knows what has past, what is now, and what is to come. One does, for One has lived them all.
In that case, LaVey and Crowley would be right about the self being a god - in the long run. Besides being a singular entity encompassing all, the criteria of a god includes the state of all knowing. Back to duality, it is the self asking the higher self for glimpses of this relatively already obtained knowledge.
on hiatus. contact via elsewhere.

User avatar
JohnTitor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:34 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by JohnTitor »

In that case, LaVey and Crowley would be right about the self being a god - in the long run. Besides being a singular entity encompassing all, the criteria of a god includes the state of all knowing. Back to duality, it is the self asking the higher self for glimpses of this relatively already obtained knowledge.
You also said that-
Crowley established far more than Spare did, but both of them are historically very important to occultry in general. They've both elaborated methods previously unheard of and laid the foundations to modern occult practices. But comparing Spare with Crowley is silly, when it is LaVey who puts the "I am a God" idea into action.

However,
Spare's zos-kia duality vs LaVey's self-non-self singularity are essentially two sides of the same coin.
My thoughts are as follows- and I do not feel that comparing the two is silly when both come from the same era and their lines of thinking while outlined differently- are marvelously similar to a major degree--

(I love that you connect the self to the higher self in such a manner- Cyberdemon. I also enjoy the fact that you did much the same as I did and used contrasting statements to emphasize their relations and how they compliment each other.The idea behind this post was based on such thinking. )
Now let's look at something better. In essence, LaVey's idea of One self-non-self singularity basically boils down to this - every person living, currently, to or past, all come from One. Take this idea in account with a pinch of reincarnation theory. A little bit of "parallel universes". If you think about it, another person's point of view of life itself is a parallel universe. Imagine, in a parallel universe, you are rich, privileged, dating Emma Watson. In reality, you are you - but there is someone who fits the exact aforementioned description of the you-in-a-parallel-universe. What's to say that it isn't you? By now, you should be seeing my point.


I feel that the implications are that we are all One. This is true to a degree no matter what spin we put on it, all being composed of high density energy. I would assume though that you mean we are all sharing a single consciousness and are aware of different aspect of it, giving us the impression that we are not each other? I am you, but I am not you sort of thing.

Spare would possibly agree to an extent with your statement here- as would Crowley and most definitely LaVey. He was all about self-empowerment and self-reverence. Spare not so much states self-reverence as he does self-awareness. Awareness of self being a key highlight and factor of my little thesis. I do not feel that LaVey fits the bill in that regard- because I do not recall much of any speculation on self-awareness mixing with spirituality. That is not to say that I know LaVey's works better, for I studied him only briefly a good 5 years ago or so. Time to brush up I would say.

This does not broach the idea that becoming aware and exposed to Spare's Truth or Crowley's ideation that (as well as LaVey's) that the self is GOD- will alter that truth.
In that case, LaVey and Crowley would be right about the self being a god - in the long run. Besides being a singular entity encompassing all, the criteria of a god includes the state of all knowing. Back to duality, it is the self asking the higher self for glimpses of this relatively already obtained knowledge.
These tie together so beautifully that I almost cried out in joy and woke the household. Don't ask me why, but I love speculation like this for it gets the creative juices flowing and makes one simply THINK :))) If indeed we are all technically GOD (Zos-Kia duality inherent in ALL beings, not just Spare himself) even if only in the long run- one person realizing the higher-self would ultimately affect everyone and how they in turn would realize the higher-self since we are all part of a cohesive whole just unrealized. To be all knowing would be accessing the inherent information ingrained into our DNA by millennia of evolution (physical, psychological and spiritual[working with the singular entity idea]), but how can we know future information? The realization of self certainly implies access to this knowledge, (granted I believe in precog, though I have only had the occasional instance where I felt that such a thing was at play in my life) and on a grand-scale at that. So, to truly realize self as god, would we in turn as a species need to do this? Spare seemed to imply such a thing, making him perfect for this.

So, even with the LaVey singularity or the self-higher-self track, how would the universal singular entity that is all encompassing react upon true realization by the entire species? Animals certainly seem to be more aware in that regard, knowing when people are dying, warning their pack, moving out of disaster areas before it hits etc... indicative of precog though explainable as keener senses (to the scientist). If it is indeed animal inclusive (yes insects arthropods etc...) how could we induce this state w/o catalyst? This is all speculation mind you- but it's certainly curious. How would our existence as a whole react and change upon true awareness/ becoming god (even with the singular entity idea)? How do you think it would manifest to show it even happened, if it didn't indeed change as I speculated in the thesis? Love this by the way :)
Creation is our gift, yet we seek only destruction. We have the ability to achieve greatness and mold our very existence into that which we desire- only to writhe in our perceived notions of existence and preconceived limitations set forth by our predecessors. Let us go forth together and create something wondrous and unique~
----------------------
"If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will fall into place."
Lao Tsu

User avatar
cyberdemon
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by cyberdemon »

JohnTitor wrote:I do not feel that comparing the two is silly when both come from the same era and their lines of thinking while outlined differently- are marvelously similar to a major degree--

(I love that you connect the self to the higher self in such a manner- Cyberdemon. I also enjoy the fact that you did much the same as I did and used contrasting statements to emphasize their relations and how they compliment each other.The idea behind this post was based on such thinking. )
This is true. Crowley established contact methodology by use of sigils, LaVey worked on the spiritual theory of the singularity we're calling One here, and Spare worked on practical-use methodology including trance and chaos magick.
JohnTitor wrote:
Now let's look at something better. In essence, LaVey's idea of One self-non-self singularity basically boils down to this - every person living, currently, to or past, all come from One. Take this idea in account with a pinch of reincarnation theory. A little bit of "parallel universes". If you think about it, another person's point of view of life itself is a parallel universe. Imagine, in a parallel universe, you are rich, privileged, dating Emma Watson. In reality, you are you - but there is someone who fits the exact aforementioned description of the you-in-a-parallel-universe. What's to say that it isn't you? By now, you should be seeing my point.


I feel that the implications are that we are all One. This is true to a degree no matter what spin we put on it, all being composed of high density energy. I would assume though that you mean we are all sharing a single consciousness and are aware of different aspect of it, giving us the impression that we are not each other? I am you, but I am not you sort of thing.

Spare would possibly agree to an extent with your statement here- as would Crowley and most definitely LaVey. He was all about self-empowerment and self-reverence. Spare not so much states self-reverence as he does self-awareness. Awareness of self being a key highlight and factor of my little thesis. I do not feel that LaVey fits the bill in that regard- because I do not recall much of any speculation on self-awareness mixing with spirituality. That is not to say that I know LaVey's works better, for I studied him only briefly a good 5 years ago or so. Time to brush up I would say.

This does not broach the idea that becoming aware and exposed to Spare's Truth or Crowley's ideation that (as well as LaVey's) that the self is GOD- will alter that truth.
[/quote]

Like I said, each of these occultists worked in a different field. The point still stands because of it's applicability. One consciousness cycling through so many lifespans - for it is the One we come from and to the One we will return. It's easy to believe in both an existing god (quite powerless) and the self being a god (fragmented, but capable of many actions on this plane/planet) using this theory.
JohnTitor wrote:
In that case, LaVey and Crowley would be right about the self being a god - in the long run. Besides being a singular entity encompassing all, the criteria of a god includes the state of all knowing. Back to duality, it is the self asking the higher self for glimpses of this relatively already obtained knowledge.
These tie together so beautifully that I almost cried out in joy and woke the household. Don't ask me why, but I love speculation like this for it gets the creative juices flowing and makes one simply THINK :))) If indeed we are all technically GOD (Zos-Kia duality inherent in ALL beings, not just Spare himself) even if only in the long run- one person realizing the higher-self would ultimately affect everyone and how they in turn would realize the higher-self since we are all part of a cohesive whole just unrealized. To be all knowing would be accessing the inherent information ingrained into our DNA by millennia of evolution (physical, psychological and spiritual[working with the singular entity idea]), but how can we know future information? The realization of self certainly implies access to this knowledge, (granted I believe in precog, though I have only had the occasional instance where I felt that such a thing was at play in my life) and on a grand-scale at that. So, to truly realize self as god, would we in turn as a species need to do this? Spare seemed to imply such a thing, making him perfect for this.
[/quote]

To go into DNA analysis means going through the steps of formation of "life". The perfect calculations that went behind creating the conditions needed for life, too.
Precog and such are nice, they're good lines of magick on their own. One of the Elite Four, during one of her rituals, came to correctly warn me about upcoming dangers. This is only one of my own experiences involving precog. The catch is that she had invoked a demon - a form of higher dimensional being, armed with knowledge across time. Place this scenario in a self-asking-self idea and you've got your basic idea of how occult practice works, in line with the self-non-self theory.
JohnTitor wrote:So, even with the LaVey singularity or the self-higher-self track, how would the universal singular entity that is all encompassing react upon true realization by the entire species? Animals certainly seem to be more aware in that regard, knowing when people are dying, warning their pack, moving out of disaster areas before it hits etc... indicative of precog though explainable as keener senses (to the scientist). If it is indeed animal inclusive (yes insects arthropods etc...) how could we induce this state w/o catalyst? This is all speculation mind you- but it's certainly curious. How would our existence as a whole react and change upon true awareness/ becoming god (even with the singular entity idea)? How do you think it would manifest to show it even happened, if it didn't indeed change as I speculated in the thesis? Love this by the way :)
Without catalyst? Quite impossible. Thankfully, there will always be catalysts in the future. The problem is that mainstream science completely refuses to apply even the basics of science to the study of occult, and propaganda buries it on the rare occasion it occurs. Therefore we are left, as a general public, to feed of the information available to us and speculate using the remainder of our common sense. The funny thing is that when you put quantum physics together with occult, more often than not they do follow the same principles.

There was a scientist refuting the existence of souls as "we would have detected them by now". Silly man, especially when even the LHC is still trying to figure out what gluons and gluinos are made of. (They are the superparticles that 'glue' together bigger ones systematically, possibly dark matter, etc.) As my knowledge of human anatomy stands, the spinal cord itself is a miniature particle accelerator, and the brain too. There are miniscule crystalline tubules that are most certainly linked with a stream of sub-superparticles, giving rise to our connections with the Outside. Of course, even the mighty LHC cannot detect such a thing. It will never even detect a gluino, only be able to see traces of its existence left behind.

As for a singular species-based growth.. there is of course the One World Order being propogated by The Illuminati, Zionists, the Federal Government of America, etc. Conspiracy theories of course, but one would be daft to suggest it isn't at work. One can see the server has been so heavily monopolized by a single guild into making a single region the strongest...

Oh yes. Spare was very selfish and eccentric, running after pleasure to pleasure. He'd fit in so nicely with contemporary hippies.
on hiatus. contact via elsewhere.

User avatar
JohnTitor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:34 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by JohnTitor »

So how do you think one becoming TRULY aware would affect everyone else and their awareness?

After that, how do you think that existence as we know it might possibly change upon the collective "whole" becoming aware? Would it change, and thus we are no longer aware? Or would we all become pure energy? I know it seems fruitless to ponder such a thing, but why not? If you were to connect truly, would you be left ignorant as before (given that a change would occur)? would nothing change at all upon cognition?

If we all became aware at once (including all species and subspecies on the planet), would we change our manifest of the universe? Would we become as the "moderators?" and have a specific role now in the cosmos and govern another area in the universe instead of self governing our existence?

I think that everything would change as we know it, but it's interesting to consider that we might become moderators ourselves.
Creation is our gift, yet we seek only destruction. We have the ability to achieve greatness and mold our very existence into that which we desire- only to writhe in our perceived notions of existence and preconceived limitations set forth by our predecessors. Let us go forth together and create something wondrous and unique~
----------------------
"If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will fall into place."
Lao Tsu

User avatar
cyberdemon
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by cyberdemon »

JohnTitor wrote:So how do you think one becoming TRULY aware would affect everyone else and their awareness?

After that, how do you think that existence as we know it might possibly change upon the collective "whole" becoming aware? Would it change, and thus we are no longer aware? Or would we all become pure energy? I know it seems fruitless to ponder such a thing, but why not? If you were to connect truly, would you be left ignorant as before (given that a change would occur)? would nothing change at all upon cognition?

If we all became aware at once (including all species and subspecies on the planet), would we change our manifest of the universe? Would we become as the "moderators?" and have a specific role now in the cosmos and govern another area in the universe instead of self governing our existence?

I think that everything would change as we know it, but it's interesting to consider that we might become moderators ourselves.
Enlightenment, of course. Understanding even the basic idea of the singularity-duality reincarnation wide-spectrum theory in need of a better name will either cause people to take Spare's path of "let me pursue ultimate pleasure for this lifetime" or LaVey's "let me pursue ultimate enlightenment". What does this remind you of? The basics of religion's good vs evil theory, it is in essence.

The whole becoming aware is fundamentally against the rules of the current playing server. Upon completion, however, One will re-achieve it. Relatively, it has already happened. Relatively, you are already a Moderator. What matters is where you are at this point - how many life cycles have you lived before? Will I eventually reincarnate into you, or you into me?
on hiatus. contact via elsewhere.

User avatar
JohnTitor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:34 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by JohnTitor »

I feel that this
The whole becoming aware is fundamentally against the rules of the current playing server. Upon completion, however, One will re-achieve it. Relatively, it has already happened. Relatively, you are already a Moderator. What matters is where you are at this point - how many life cycles have you lived before? Will I eventually reincarnate into you, or you into me?
Doesn't really answer. I may just be tired and misinterpreting it though.

While it seems as though you view it as an achievement, a quest to complete- the reward being enlightenment- How will our existence change from it? I have stated that we become enlightened, what next? Is it possible that the current server moderators and admins have become such through accomplishing the same thing in their own lifetime? Or to play off your theory of us being moderators sticks to a singular event in the server- rather than the server being a combination of the moderators and players. Are those very moderators actually us farther down the line in the cycle? but if it is truly a cycle, then that couldn't be because a cycle is self-perpetuating and will not cease unless change is made. The change being global enlightenment. Will we become amorphous, coalescent energy making sure the next server adheres to the code so to speak, or players to the rules we govern in their existence?

I would love to really get some more information on your theory because it may help me understand why you are making these statements. I am asking about these things within Spare's, Crowley's, and since it is immediately pertinent to the topic- LaVey's- similar self-god concept of self.
Creation is our gift, yet we seek only destruction. We have the ability to achieve greatness and mold our very existence into that which we desire- only to writhe in our perceived notions of existence and preconceived limitations set forth by our predecessors. Let us go forth together and create something wondrous and unique~
----------------------
"If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will fall into place."
Lao Tsu

User avatar
cyberdemon
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by cyberdemon »

JohnTitor wrote:I feel that this
The whole becoming aware is fundamentally against the rules of the current playing server. Upon completion, however, One will re-achieve it. Relatively, it has already happened. Relatively, you are already a Moderator. What matters is where you are at this point - how many life cycles have you lived before? Will I eventually reincarnate into you, or you into me?
Doesn't really answer. I may just be tired and misinterpreting it though.

While it seems as though you view it as an achievement, a quest to complete- the reward being enlightenment- How will our existence change from it? I have stated that we become enlightened, what next? Is it possible that the current server moderators and admins have become such through accomplishing the same thing in their own lifetime? Or to play off your theory of us being moderators sticks to a singular event in the server- rather than the server being a combination of the moderators and players. Are those very moderators actually us farther down the line in the cycle? but if it is truly a cycle, then that couldn't be because a cycle is self-perpetuating and will not cease unless change is made. The change being global enlightenment. Will we become amorphous, coalescent energy making sure the next server adheres to the code so to speak, or players to the rules we govern in their existence?

I would love to really get some more information on your theory because it may help me understand why you are making these statements. I am asking about these things within Spare's, Crowley's, and since it is immediately pertinent to the topic- LaVey's- similar self-god concept of self.
Each possible achievement is a quest to complete, yes. And as long as I am working with the Singularity theory, I must perpetuate it until it breaks down giving rise to a better theory on its own or a better theory comes along. When I say cycle, I mean it in a short-term time frame. A few lifetimes, for example - not the entire so called "wheel of life". As it should be obvious by now, the Singularity Reincarnation theory takes you progressively through all possible lifetimes - therefore yes .. and no. How far does this theory apply? Is it only to the players, or to both players, Moderators AND the Administrator of the Universe? A segment of the original MMORPG theory derives that each player is an individual, with the classic model of usual judgement-day based religions. Another segment of the MMORPG states that up until even now, the winning conditions of the game have not been revealed, the rewards are ambiguous (although I did refer to the 19th Announcements as mentioning a huge material gain of some sort on the Outside) and so on. Perhaps there are other Singularities on the outside - with the "there is only One" god/entity/etc rule being applicable here as we are IN this Universe and not Outside.. Or perhaps there are none.

Remember that self-accomplishment is a biological survival need all on its own. There must be something else.
on hiatus. contact via elsewhere.

User avatar
JohnTitor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:34 am

Re: Crowley vs Spare

Post by JohnTitor »

That cleared up a lot Cyber, thank you. :) I can see the reluctance to suggest end-rewards when it could be anything, and especially working within set parameters when we don't know the winning-conditions. I would very much like to hear from others as well, given all this new material to the post. See how they think the game might be won- if at all. Like you said, it could be something on the Outside and nothing we even have words for or even a possible cognizant thought reminiscent of. Very wonderful discussion Cyberdemon
Creation is our gift, yet we seek only destruction. We have the ability to achieve greatness and mold our very existence into that which we desire- only to writhe in our perceived notions of existence and preconceived limitations set forth by our predecessors. Let us go forth together and create something wondrous and unique~
----------------------
"If you correct your mind, the rest of your life will fall into place."
Lao Tsu

Post Reply

Return to “Reason and Unreason”