An occult philosophy rant inspired by beginner's impressions on Deleuze
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:30 am
I've been reading a primer on Gilles Deleuze,
and this reintroduced many popular modern ideas to me: that morals and ethics are irrational (in the eyes of at least one of my favorite writers, the source of most of the suffering of humanity), that every decision is a 50/50 gamble, and that instead of proving things, if I read the text correctly, instead of utilizing even probability, it is worthwhile to engage in spontaneity living and inventing new perspectives in philosophy that are seen not leaned on.
I'm at the very beginning of the primer, so could be misreading things. If I am correct, this way of processing reality could work for some occultists, disorient others, dehumanize others. I'm not yet sold.
I will say that spontaneous, unfiltered living may be an effective method of transcending fear, achieving heightened states of meditation, and tapping boundless creativity. Yet I myself can be spontaneous and, despite an infinity of data left unexplored, emotional bias, and countless examples of philosophers "getting it wrong," lean on things, assess probability of truth.
My method of assessing probability is to simultaneously perceive available relevant data, and extract first the probability the data promotes that the unavailable relevant data will change apparent truth. This helps me to insert a probability for apparent truth's accuracy.
I am not an amoralist. I can accept most organized religion is superstition. I suspect morals and ethics evolved from an instinctive vague love of society and social niche inducing a history of recorded ponderings into the right way to behave because of said attachment. This attachment, by the way, lasts even if one decides to be spontaneous and surrender (all?) the belief systems that constitute morals. Yet it is ethic to use logic to find out what to do about the attachment.
My best guess is fairness. From a pragmatic selfish standpoint, all sentient life could potentially be unified to defend each individual selfish and sometimes selfless being. From a selfless standpoint, there is a common proximity to the concept of fairness (a vision of fairness distorted to the side with delusion) in popular religion and philosophy of ethics. I suspect love apart from conditioning alternative emotions is simply unconditional, and wants fairness subconsciously. Also, societies and social niches gain as much from fairness, in most instances, as individual selfish beings.
The implications thus far for the occult mainly concern its suitable aims: maybe fairness should be one of them.
and this reintroduced many popular modern ideas to me: that morals and ethics are irrational (in the eyes of at least one of my favorite writers, the source of most of the suffering of humanity), that every decision is a 50/50 gamble, and that instead of proving things, if I read the text correctly, instead of utilizing even probability, it is worthwhile to engage in spontaneity living and inventing new perspectives in philosophy that are seen not leaned on.
I'm at the very beginning of the primer, so could be misreading things. If I am correct, this way of processing reality could work for some occultists, disorient others, dehumanize others. I'm not yet sold.
I will say that spontaneous, unfiltered living may be an effective method of transcending fear, achieving heightened states of meditation, and tapping boundless creativity. Yet I myself can be spontaneous and, despite an infinity of data left unexplored, emotional bias, and countless examples of philosophers "getting it wrong," lean on things, assess probability of truth.
My method of assessing probability is to simultaneously perceive available relevant data, and extract first the probability the data promotes that the unavailable relevant data will change apparent truth. This helps me to insert a probability for apparent truth's accuracy.
I am not an amoralist. I can accept most organized religion is superstition. I suspect morals and ethics evolved from an instinctive vague love of society and social niche inducing a history of recorded ponderings into the right way to behave because of said attachment. This attachment, by the way, lasts even if one decides to be spontaneous and surrender (all?) the belief systems that constitute morals. Yet it is ethic to use logic to find out what to do about the attachment.
My best guess is fairness. From a pragmatic selfish standpoint, all sentient life could potentially be unified to defend each individual selfish and sometimes selfless being. From a selfless standpoint, there is a common proximity to the concept of fairness (a vision of fairness distorted to the side with delusion) in popular religion and philosophy of ethics. I suspect love apart from conditioning alternative emotions is simply unconditional, and wants fairness subconsciously. Also, societies and social niches gain as much from fairness, in most instances, as individual selfish beings.
The implications thus far for the occult mainly concern its suitable aims: maybe fairness should be one of them.