Starting a new endeavor 

PhilosophyinArt .com

Starting a new blog which will focus on art (particularly film) and the philosophical contained therein. It’s more for fun, not an academic pursuit, but the purpose is finding meaning in the art itself. It’s about asking questions and enjoying entertainment at the same time. Look forward to seeing you all there. 

Advertisements

Luciferian ideal

The new age. The coming time of Aquarius. Cosmic consciousness. Enlightenment. Finding yourself. Doing me. 

The new age, or the new order, is quite old in spirit. It’s been around since the ancients but was recognized in a much different form than it is today. That spirits existed was commonplace belief not to long ago. Demons and malicious entities were blamed for all manner of disease, pestilence, injury and misfortune. In the new age of science, there is “definite” distinction between the spiritual and the physical,(if there is a spiritual at all) . This distinction allows all manner of immoral behavior to be conducted as necessity, irregardless of moral qualms. 

The luciferian religion is “DO WHAT THOU WILT”. There is no evil or good only what is. Namely, physical reality.   It follows the philosophical traditions to the point of freedom.  Here is where they diverge.  Freedom demands we DO NOT engage is behavior that diminishes freedom.  Contrast the law of Moses with luciferian doctrine.  “Thou shalt not..” versus…”do whatever you will”  Obviously the two are in opposition to one another.  

The coming new order is antithetical to the message of Christ.  Namely, that there is another way to heaven beyond self sacrifice ie. “You are born good,”instead of “you are naturally bad.” This message contradicts what every parent has experienced:  children are born selfish creatures. Saying”bad” might sound a touch cruel but let’s face the facts. Children are not adults and we see this in desire, attention, and understanding. 

The loving parent does not let their child rule the home and do whatever they please. Boundaries are necessary if a child is to understand the world they live in and become a member of it. Correction is necessary for the child.  

In this idea, we can see that if God is father, it is incumbent on the Spirit to correct actions that do not benefit.  It is not “do what thou wilt” but rather “do not do xyz”. The whole world is open, just don’t do these things. Understanding comes after knowledge.  Knowledge is learning from ones mistakes. Wisdom is learning from other mistakes.  There is no need to repeat mistakes but rather, move forward from them.

Luciferian belief makes one God. God’s do what they will.  Servants of God do what God wills, not what they want to manifest.  Jesus did not do what he wanted, but rather, he trusted in  righteousness that what he was doing was Gods will. It is sanctified by the fact that his actions changed the world.  

To that end; any religious or philosophical idea that does not place Jesus as messiah, as conquering king, is luciferian. Because: the measure of righteousness is manifested in action. A tree is judged by its fruits. Ergo, any structure that defends immoral activity is luciferian. The Catholic Church is condemned in this as much as Islam or Hinduism or any other ‘ism or ‘ocracy. 

The truth is that Christ allows “do what thou wilt” ideology, until it becomes destructive of the ends. We aren’t to judge lest we become subjects of that judgment. All is forgivable, so long as our search is for truth and beauty.  Maybe I’m wrong… that’s okay! I will corrected and can repent, turning towards the truth. In this way we raise the species up, and not just ourselves.  

 What isn’t okay is demanding, like children, that what we have willed is ok. Is moral or just. Just because we FEEL a certain way, does not indicate that that is righteousness, or correct inspiration.  

Luciferian religion is that all roads lead to life, because, this is life.  

Christ refutes that claim by saying there is only one truth and way and it is through the Son of God, the exemplar of righteousness (wholly subservient to the Father)  that one can be saved. 

Naturally we must accept and act in such a manner if we are to gain eternal life.  The eternally free person does not have anything else to lose.  Especially their own will. That that will reflects Gods will is choice of action.  That God wills we should not kill or commit adultery are only foreign to the person that doesn’t recognise such things as natural laws.  

God established natural laws.  Luciferians believe they’re is no natural law. 

 

The Christmas tree and Tammuz

So here is a fun  little place to delve in to the connection of all things. That CHRISTmas is a part of ancient traditions gives us a link to the past, hence a more cohesive picture of the present. The great chain of being, if you will, is unbroken; it is being made known more intimately as time passes. 

We will explore this later but for now…

Here are some different variations of the history.

Wikipedia

Christmas tree

Why Christmas

customs trees

Sabbath covenant 

Babylon tree tradition 

Two Babylons-

 (This is more an analysis of the Nimrod connection)

two babylons

*No endorsement of these ideas is implied* This is merely information. 

Israel and the settlements 

Israel has been sanctioned by the U.N., Settlements have been deemed illegal, yet in spite of this,it will ignore the declaration.  

Trump had castigated Obama for abstaining from the vote because Israel is “the only democracy” in the middle east.  

There are oodles of comments to be made about the state of this agreement but it is Christmas eve. We’ll pick this up in later posts. 

The world is Presentation of will

​Just good old fashioned advice. 

Working on Code

Starting to take seriously the learning of computer science. The trend seems to be that deep learning will become part and parcel to our daily lives. The trend is computers and computing. If we want to stay relevant we must move with the wind. Flexibly unyielding.  

Back at it. 

Had a hiatus there… back to it. 

The merchant

He had such a mournful look in his eye.
Others saw death, cold unforgiving. He was a merchant after all. I could see this but still… There was a twinkle beneath the black. A shimmer. So much death stood between that soul and I yet it was clearly there. Defiant sorrow. Unrelenting remorse. Powerful justification. Staunch belief. Yet one could tell, if they looked closely, that he say their faces still. Wether he wanted to or not they were there. And it was these faces, of those he’d never known, and determined to never discover, these faces that stood between I and he.
Yet, to be treated as an equal was all he wanted. No medals our commendations, just a brother, a citizen. As noble as a plumber… at least. But.
But.
He was a merchant. Skilled beyond question, Yes, but a merchant nonetheless. Dealing for his uncle, that cared not for soul. So they questioned wether he cared for his.
It was obvious he did but some things are more terrifying than death. Or dealing it.

A turn in focus

I’m a political junky. I enjoy bloviating as much as the next person. A few years ago-as evidenced by previous posts-I was ready to scream it. Scream my beliefs out, put them in your face, let’s argue. the debate sharpened my thinking. Continuous to. To be pruned is never pleasant but the practice yields positive results, ergo I continue.
Now, despite my joy for the philosophy of politics, I think this blog shall take a slight turn in concentration.
I do not know very much of anything. I do, however, think things to be a certain way. I would like to create a public space where these supposing can be aired and weighed. I would like to invite you to discourse and debate these thoughts and share yours so we may seek the truth.
Often I want to Facebook my ramblings but they generally become overbearing, I think. There is nothing but blank space here. You’re welcome to help me fill it.

(Original Work) The individual makes the collective.

The more I study politics and the dissemination of ideas, the less inclined I am to believe there is as much “grey” in the world as I used to believe. Now, depending on your worldview, your opinion of that statement may differ- I respect that. I believe that respect is the only legitimate form of governance, If there is such a thing.
All political philosophy seems to boil down to one of two foundational principles. One belief is that power resides in the people, the individual. The other is that power resides in the collective or the group. The former maximizes liberty and freedom for each individual but is essentially anarchy. The latter provides security at the cost of liberty to those that accept the rule by force. Simultaneously, collectivism removes liberties from certain individuals or groups to protect the others involved in the “social contract”.
It is upon these ideas (for that is all politics really is- the practicing of philosophy) that all manner of rules and laws exists. So before a truly critical mind can attempt to deal with the inherit contradictions of governance, they must first realize that all laws are creations. The state itself is nothing if not a creation of men.
With the realization that there is no group which is not comprised of individuals (certainly a group derives its power from the individuals comprising it) then it should stand to reason that the needs of the individual outweigh those of the group. This is not the general consensus of culture today, as the idea of collectivism is actively being taught throughout the public education system. However, when one looks at the mathematical concept of “democracy” or majority rule, we can see almost immediately that the system is inherently unjust.
A group of 10 split into groups of two, making five groups, provides the perfect example. Should three of the groups decide that the other two should be absorbed into the “collective” there is no recourse for the two. For if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and there was “justification” to conquer the smaller groups, what would be wrong? What would be immoral or unjust about the majority forcefully imposing their will on the minority? More succinct to say, the “rights” of the collective outweigh the rights of the individuals.Now that there are only three groups, what is to stop two from absorbing the one?
How can there be anything resembling freedom, or liberty, if one group is allowed to dictate to the individual. Surely that was the problem with slavery. The powerful group determined that other groups where not people, or “partial persons”. Scholars and presidents, intellectuals and priests all agreed that the “white” group was better than the “black group”. The same would hold true for women, gays, religious minorities, dissenting political figures. It is a common tactic to demonize the opposition and what better way than to declare someone “Sub Human”. Once demonized it is easy to discredit and shrug away all those that oppose your agenda, to justify aggression as an act of preservation of society.
If, however, the rights of the individual reign supreme, then infringing upon those natural rights becomes unacceptable. The choices of the individual are sovereign in so much that they do not infringe on the rights of others. No rights of force are given to any, only the right to defend. In no way do I wish to make light of the disagreements which will arise, but if the foundation of society is that the individual is sovereign- not the state or group- than it becomes the duty of the people to provide for their own needs. This may sound selfish or callous to some, but shouldn’t everyone be responsible for their world? Then there is no one to blame for ineffectiveness. There is no one else that is going to come along side those in need, except for me. Except for you.
The safety net of government has helped millions of people, but at what costs? Social Security is bankrupt, same with medicare, medicaid, and in point of fact so to are many municipalities and even the federal government itself. And while the reality may be that there is more than enough money to provide benefits, and social services, the bigger question is- should one group require another to support it? Is it just or moral that all of the services in the United States are paid for by around fifty percent of the population? I am all for charity and believe that being of service is the highest calling, but I loath to help those who have no desire to help themselves. I have met so many people that refuse to work simply because to return would mean a “pay cut”.
Surely there are those that need help, but have you ever been to the medic-cal office? It is so disorganized and unproductive that even the most patient people will throw up their hands in frustration. In trying to be “fair” the policies become more and more stringent, disenfranchising more and more people. New rules are implemented to discourage cheaters and leeches and the system becomes increasingly more complicated. The biggest irony of the whole system is that we must apply and wait for approval to claim the monies we have invested over years of service. Should anyone be denied federal benefits if they are a paying “customer”? Should those who succeed in life be denied the opportunity to utilize the money invested in the system?
I am not trying to write a novel here so I will close with this. There are only two beliefs in the political world and we all fall somewhere on the spectrum. The first belief is that because individuals are the basis of society, their sovereignty and protection is the basis for all justice. The other side believes that the state is sovereign,and the protection of the group supersedes that of the individual- making the state the arbiter of justice. One belief requires cooperation, voluntary service, and constantly critical and vigilante people. The other requires obedience, ignorance and frankly immorality.
You may think that is a strong choice of words but when should any group be allowed to take from another? Does good intention make up for bad actions? As the old saying goes “The road to hell is paved with good intention” and history certainly confirms that. In theory many things sounded good, but in practice they were devastating. Communism in Russia, Fascism in Germany, both where attempted to better the lives of the citizens, both were abject failures. People are unique and as such cannot be placed into “one size fits all” categories. There is no such thing as “Public Opinion” because each individual has a different opinion. Even if the end idea is the same there are numerous ways to achieve any idea. Your ideas are different and unique from my own and for this fact- the only limitation on ideas should be the extent to which they can forced onto others. Discuss, tease, antagonize, demonize, these things are inevitable in discussion, but one should never force acceptance. The only reason we perceive justice, is because we first experienced injustice. The test of any law is its universality and surely a group cannot have more liberty than the people that comprise it- for who in the group will exercise that power?

I welcome discussion of this topic and dissent from my opinions. We all grow together or fall apart and I never wish to become pompous or “out of touch” with reality. This is the opinion I have come to in my research and would cede that either philosophy is far reaching and both have negative and positive consequences. My contention is that individualism will produce much better results in the long run than collectivism will or can.

(If I missed any grammar or spelling please let me know… I have spent to much time here already)

« Older entries