When you start reading up on esoteric religion

>when you start reading up on esoteric religion
>when you find out about Christopher Langan
>when you realise how all the major religions are actually designed to suppress true religious experience
>when you don't sleep for three days and you uncover the secrets of the universe

Other urls found in this thread:

ctmu.org/
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus
main.megafoundation.org/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#Axioms
twitter.com/AnonBabble

When you don't sleep for 3 days you get really tired. Nothing more.

anyone that can give me a basic gestalt here

>when you start reading absolutely pointless thread

>smartest man in the world
>proved God exists
>mainstream academics won't acknowledge him because it would hurt their reputations

What was his basis on that. I would love to see the points he brought up. It would be very helpful in arguing with hobbyist atheists.

Actually you get a huge burst of energy after the first day or so. Last about another entire 24 hours if you stay busy enough, then you get REALLY tired and want to die. THEN you start to hallucinate horribly. A lot of auditory stuff and whats usually a lot of horses and dogs for me. Makes driving a nightmare because horses keep trying to get into the cab of your truck

t. A lifetime big rig driver.

Well shit. I hope I get that boost of energy when I ship off to Marine boot camp and have to do the Crucible. That's the part I really wasn't looking forward to.

You will, dont worry. 48 hours without sleep is fine. The third days starts to eat your brain and if youre actually sleepless four days in youre in for a real shit time. Everyone gets a second wind after the first day though, your body starts to assume survival mode.

ctmu.org/

Get some education plebes.

the biggest red-pill is that nothing exists. proof: focus on any thought enough and it disappears.

Crucible is 54 hours and 40 miles of marching. How fucked am I?

fuck off Chris

OP, I wan't to know more. I have had an intense draw to esoteric beliefs for some year now but only in theory; I am not yet consciously participatory. After reading the wiki on Chris, his views on evolution and creationism are EXACTLY what I have come to believe as well.

I want to know more. Point me in a direction.

I dont fucking know im not your marine grade health specialist im a fucking truck driver. Both my brothers are marines and said that you learn to sleep on your feet, like most people do with anything they do for long periods of time. Stay in really good shape and youll live. It isnt meant to be easy.

Alright. Thanks for the insight.

Thanks for the service

boot camp is easy.. I remember after graduation the drill instructor took as back to squad bay and gave us a speech. It was something to the effect of:

"Well, now you know. The secrets out. The marine corpse is full of shit bags and malingerers, who manage to squeak by because training has been made easier and easier. Welcome to the corps."

He was referencing all of the shitty recruits who should have been killed during training, but actually became marines. Crucible is easy, the whole thing is easy. Do what your told and do it fast. Don't give em any reason to single you out, unless it's for something good.

You sound like you know more about it than I do. What direction can you point me in?

What does he say about race and zionism?

the part about basically imposing your will onto the universe and your concioiusness being a driving force behind reality sounds a bit like Thelema. Helena Blavatsky may be of interest.

>when you don't sleep for three days and you uncover the secrets of the universe
Secrets being an empty wallet and a busted nose?

>when you realize the esoteric religions are designed to suppress true religious experience too

lmfao

Neat, we have the same thoughts about creation and evolution, just reading his CTMU paper now, but he is very obtuse. Anybody want to drop the redpill on syndiffeonesis? The CTMU wiki just says that
> saying that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same
Which I am having a hard time grasping. Is he talking about pattern recognition? Like saying that anger and love are different, but they are both emotions?
> tfw brainlet

that thought exercise proves that thought is transitory, not that "nothing exists". how does the transitory nature of thought imply that "nothing exists"?

what about the esoteric religions that boil down to "true religious experience at any cost"?
chaos magick gon give it to ya

>I dont fucking know im not your marine grade health specialist im a fucking truck driver.
kek
As somebody with a horrendous sleeping pattern can confirm the 2nd wave thing.

Create your own, personal religion through religious experience. Buying into anyone else's bullshit is just denying yourself power.

>when you realize that Sup Forums and the JQ is a gateway to questioning history and religion and becoming initiated into the inner mysteries

Reading his theory now which is why this thread will probably die, too absorbed to bump. We need a place to discuss.

Basically it appears that by stating that two objects are different, it expresses that they both hare a basic sadness. In his own language 'reductive' implies the most simplified state. Thus if both are different, they share a quality and thus, are one in the same.

*Share a basic sameness.

Apologies for the typos.

Anyone have an answer to this?

I'm still not grasping what he means. Is he talking about how things which appear to be opposites can actually be unified within a higher theoretical point of view?
eg: Love and Apathy are opposite from one another, but they are both emotions and therefore share a similar quality?

All you have in your 'existence' is subjective experience. I.e. subjective experience is the most 'real' existence you will ever know. How do you distinguish between transitory and non-existent thought? All you know is that when you increase the 'resolution' and try to zoom in on your subjectivity, its gone. Ergo you can't maintain the realness of qualia. Thus, in some sense nothing exists.

just read heraclitus or something. you're trying to logically realize non-dualism, it's a much easier place to come to from other directions.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus
lots of these, obviously, aren't relevant. but the ones that are, should give you a good frame for approaching this shit

have you read The Secret Doctrine? I've been thinking about checking it out.

No a better way of saiying it, going with your analogy is by comparing love (an emotion) with blue (a color). They are different. But they are BOTH different. They are share an identical quality in the absolute basic level of not being the same.

The gif is taken from page 7 of his paper and helps to set a framework for this. Self-exciting (self-participatory) universe. Read here: main.megafoundation.org/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Correct, but that's just the thing. Lanagan believes that faith is no longer useful and that the next step to realizing truth and growth is only through logic.

He mentions this in this video: youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw

Reading through the beginner's introduction at ://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Beginner%27s_introduction
And I am annoyed that he isn't addressing the issue of axioms, as it seems to me that any theory should state clearly its presuppositions
A....ha, I think I get what he is saying. Love and blue are different from one another, but they are 'joined together' in the fact that they share a relation, namely a relation of difference, in the same way that you could categorize mutually exclusive sets as being 'linked' by the fact that they mutually exclude one another?
Love is not blue
Blue is not love
But blue and love are both not each other?

>All you have in your 'existence' is subjective experience
all due respect, user, this is what spirituality is for. i don't think i have any privileged access to a higher reality, but i've at the very least satisfied myself that it exists.
>How do you distinguish between transitory and non-existent thought
the nice thing about thought is that it exists by merit of experiencing it; there's not any other benchmark for whether or not a thought could exist. you seem to solve this problem by saying that thought's not real. well, i say that all things in this subjective world are transitory, and for thought to be transitory just reaffirms its reality.

who said anything about faith? the faith/logic duality is one of the cringiest artifacts of the enlightenment... they work on different domains.

Yes exactly!

And honestly, from what I am seeing so far, his writing is convoluted and pretty shitty, but there are core principals that he is stating that are actually really eye opening.

This theory is actually on to something.

>logically realize

There are only two ways to realize something. Through faith and through logic. The latter arrives at truths through observations, the former arrives at truth through belief.

Geological records shows that the earth existed before us. Existence as a whole and matter do not require a consciousness to exist (as far as we can prove anyway, god could be rea,l who knows). Maybe our perception of that reality is different than what it really is, but I doubt it. If we had huge errors in our perception of reality we would not have lived long a species. Our senses are required to perceive what IS properly or the tiger gets us or we eat the wrong plant and die. I feel safe saying that existence exists and we evolved or were designed to live in it.

Lanagan would say you are wrong though. As I mentioned above, view this video: youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw

The universe is self-exciting (self-participatory) and can only exist through observing itself.

>when you realise how all the major religions are actually designed to suppress true religious experience
And that "realization", my friend, marks you out as mentally ill.

I deffer to geological record again, most of the existence of the universe has existed before there was a human to perceive it. I'll watch the video anyway though.

I remember what it was like to be young.
There's layers past that faggot keep digging. Now you've figured out that the best way to understand religion and magic is to figure it out on your own, it's time to go do that.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you.
When we're talking about physically observable phenomena, we can learn via empiricism. But we're not, we're talking about ontology and metaphysics. How the fuck do you make meaningful empirical observations about ontology? Kind of hard to push that particular challenge past "cogito ergo sum".
Where do the basic axioms of geometry come from? We can't logically prove them. Does that mean they're pure articles of faith?

Best I can put it: sometimes, things in our heads match up with the larger universe, but we can't prove it logically. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with belief, because we can still check for ourselves that the correspondence is there, not just relying on faith.

No, I agree that things have existed, but I disagree when you say that existence does not require consciousness. That geological record exists only once observed.

Look into:
(YouTube)
-The Double Slit Photon Experiment
-Star in a Jar Experiment
-Effect of Sound Waves on Matter
-The Philadelphia Experiment

(Books)
-An Ascension Handbook by tony stubbs
-The Ancient Secret of The Flower of Life by drunvalo melchizedek
-The Book of Knowledge: The Keys of Enoch by j.j.hurtak (the science behind spirituality, like literally some quantum physics shit)
-The Overself Awakening by j.j.hurtak (the female version of the keys of Enoch, very visually organized)

However once the thought is gone you can't know it has ever existed, since that would assume that your memory is correct, which you don't know from first principles.

Further even in the moment you experience a thought, it has after further introspection no content beyond a series of correlated subjective states (redness, sounds, a residue of a past thought, an impulse to focus on something, etc). When you zoom in on these they similarly splinter into simply co-occurring subjective states. You can't even know that these states are caused by the same causes, as following Hume you can't prove causation from correlation.

Any one of these subjective states can't be put into words (how would you for instance describe the subjective experience of the colour blue?).Therefore, since they are by nature not describable by propositional logic, no logical argument can constructed for their existence.

If something can't be proven to exist, there is no reason to believe it exists. Thus, nothing exists.

>Although this mind (God's mind) sits in knowledge of itself in an unchanging, eternal way, it contains within it all of the processes required for it to refine itself into existence out of nothingness. As such, consciousness is stratified: the bottom stratum is the all-knowing mind of God, and within this all-knowing mind of God is contained all of the more superficial strata of consciousness that are inherent in the creation process. In other words, God is aware of all the steps in its own creation. However, from the vantage point of these more superficial strata, the universe appears as a physical entity unfolding in physical space. Our human minds are pieces of these more superficial strata. To us, things look like they are still unfolding.

Basically, we are merely God's memories.

2+2=4 is a logical truth. All math is logical, user. Geometry is provable and logical.

So not sure what you're saying again. Also, I wasn't arguing. I'm stating that there are two ways to get to truth, through logic and faith.

You can't prove the external world exists though.

>what is sleep deprivation

>proves god exists
howcome, christcuck?

pt 1

>Any one of these subjective states can't be put into words (how would you for instance describe the subjective experience of the colour blue?)
subjectively, of course. like poetry and shit, user.

>Therefore, since they are by nature not describable by propositional logic, no logical argument can constructed for their existence.
user, literally the only thing you can prove PURELY within propositional logic is that "the only sound argument in propositional logic is that there are no sound arguments". no one actually uses propositional logic that way unless they are doing grad school for it, which is a thought so depressing and pathetic i will stop entertaining it now.

>If something can't be proven to exist, there is no reason to believe it exists. Thus, nothing exists.
Instrumentalism. It's much easier to accomplish my goals if things exist. Personally, that's a strong enough reason for me, but I recognize it has little rhetorical strength.

that is not a redpill but an ontological position called idealism. Wich is retarded BTW, and can't be proven wrong nor right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#Axioms
what does the phrase "let the following be postulated" mean to you, user?
c'mon, this could be a real eye opener for you if you let it.

Essentially, yes.
Though I have come to understand that our universe is more like a bunch of dendrites in a brain, or cells in a finger.
The larger being,of which we are a part, is still only a small fragment of God himself.

I wonder what Langan would have to say about solipsism. It's something that has been on my mind for over a year. Why wouldn't I be the only cognisant being? It would follow from Occam's Razor, wouldn't it?

btw you think you are edgybut idealism and relatvism are tought at all universities and are defended by mainstream modern """philosophers""

I disagree, something does not need to be observed to exist. it may not exist to us if we don't know it, but that does not mean that it does not exist at all.
The only thing we know of that has volitional consciousness is humans. We don't 100% no of anything else like us. And the universe has gotten a long for a very very longtime with out our consciousness. We created the idea of and the process by witch we can interpret the geological record but it is there regardless of whether we cared to look at it or not. Existence does not require us to chug along.

>when you realise how all the major religions are actually designed to suppress true religious experience

to guide*
Religion is a encoded message.
Anyone who takes religion *literally* is retarded

And I am just a programmed response from your subconscious or some external source that is here to make you question if this is the case or not.
>I understand the feel
>Get out of my head Charles

Basically what you are saying is believed by Lanagan to prove God exists. God being a consciousness.

Most I've gone is 6 days, and that was hell. I didn't feel like I was truly losing my mind until the 6th day.

Existence does not require that WE chug along, but it requires that CONSCIOUSNESS chugs along.

Why is it retarded if you can't disprove it? Btw using the principle of parsimony its more simple to assume that nothing exists rather than that something exists.

It is impossible, though to comfirm wich is the true about ontology. So none of you have evidence. I am completely esceptic about ontology. Although, what reality is, doesn't affect at all on how it behaves, so even if you are idealist, you willl not be able to change things with you thoughts. This is very easily prven by experiments and obvious.

pt 2

>However once the thought is gone you can't know it has ever existed, since that would assume that your memory is correct, which you don't know from first principles.
I'm curious, user. What type of information can you derive from first principles? Seems a very particular benchmark to have. In any case, we don't have to assume that my memory is correct, just that its contents have at least some relationship, however tenuous, distorted, or untrustworthy, to the outside world. the negation of that assumption is hard solipsism.

>Further even in the moment you experience a thought, it has after further introspection no content beyond a series of correlated subjective states
yes. indeed. what content did you expect thoughts to have aside from a series of relationships? this is like saying "that song wasn't really music, it was just organized noise".

>as following Hume you can't prove causation from correlation
but you can prove correlation from correlation, and that's all i need for this construct.

Random infinite chaos creates everything. End of story. Worship the frog.

you are a faggot and 'chaos magik' is for delusional faggots.

You can't aprove it neighther, it just sounds nonsensical, because conciousness doesn't affect reality behaviour, so probably neighther it will affect its existance
see

>you can't prove the external world exists though.
I am alive, I perceive something, that is a world, it matches what most everyone else perceives. I will act as if it exists, what else can you do. You can play games with ideas about what is existence and that's great it is the greatest question of all time. Until you have more than a hypothesis about it people should act as if this is very real. We have our senses and now technological sense that go beyond us and well stuff seems pretty real. I will give you this however, when you started getting to the very small, stuff gets weird and I think that will be the next frontier in finding out what is reality.

>I am completely esceptic [sic] about ontology.
is anyone else digging this guy? i'm tickled fuckin pink

There is not shred of proofs to show that existence requires consciousness to exist. The only thing we can show is that existence must exist before there is consciousness. We know of no consciousness that exists with out body or matter. You can say God and well yes but Gods existence we cannot measure or prove. We have to take that on faith.

>Instrumentalism. It's much easier to accomplish my goals if things exist.

If nothing exists then your goals don't exist either. Thus instrumentalism assumes existence.

>I'm curious, user. What type of information can you derive from first principles? Seems a very particular benchmark to have. In any case, we don't have to assume that my memory is correct, just that its contents have at least some relationship, however tenuous, distorted, or untrustworthy, to the outside world. the negation of that assumption is hard solipsism.

Nothing can be proven from first principles. Hence the simplest assumption, even compared to solipsism, is that nothing exists.

>yes. indeed. what content did you expect thoughts to have aside from a series of relationships? this is like saying "that song wasn't really music, it was just organized noise".

True, however many non-existent people have trouble thinking of their mind in this meta state because they have trouble dissociating their ego and reinforced behaviour from their internal stimulus representation.

English is my second language, mate.

it seems like occult knowledge packaged for people who are reluctant about words like faith and god.

>>when you don't sleep for three days and you uncover the secrets of the universe

That's called psychosis and it is really fun actually.

You are indirectly, and backwardly, in total agreement with Lanagan. You are confusing yourself user.

>existence must exist before there is consciousness

Existing and Consciousness are the same thing, user. That is the self-exciting (self-participatory) loop.

>Thus instrumentalism assumes existence.
instrumentalism isn't, and never will be, about winning arguments

>Hence the simplest assumption, even compared to solipsism, is that nothing exists
in what medium does that assumption exist? if nothing exists, how can we assume that nothing exists? do we assign a seperate type of existence to appearances and assumptions and experiences, where we say "they're real enough to be talked about and considered, but not real enough to actually exist as such"?

>Nothing can be proven from first principles.
this is a liar's paradox. don't trust it, user.

>big rig driver
>that flag
No wonder there have been so many wrecks lately.

Yup after close to 5 days of no sleep ended up in a psych ward. They gave me a sedative, slept for something like 16 hours then I was fine. Turns out, I was trying to quit smoking and was prescribed zyban (before the newer one) and it can induce maniac reactions in people. Acid and shrooms are still way better than sleep deprivation.

>instrumentalism isn't, and never will be, about winning arguments

Fair enough

>in what medium does that assumption exist? if nothing exists, how can we assume that nothing exists? do we assign a seperate type of existence to appearances and assumptions and experiences, where we say "they're real enough to be talked about and considered, but not real enough to actually exist as such"?

No we don't need to assume anything. In fact we aren't, because we in fact don't exist. This exchange has never taken place.

>this is a liar's paradox. don't trust it, user.

I concede you this.

>>Nothing can be proven from first principles.
>this is a liar's paradox. don't trust it, user.
let me clarify on this: there is ONE thing that can be proven from first principles and that is the limitations of logic. but this proof is extra-systemic unless you happen to be godel.

>Christopher Langan
>210 IQ
>Theist

Hahahahaha how mad does this make the fedora fags?

dont tell them about the secrets of sleep deprivation

Woops. Well, the cat's out of the bag now.

Anybody read The Holographic Universe? I really suggest reading that and then discuss religion. It's a fascinating read.

maybe it is for the best

if the secrets of the universe dont piss you off and make you turn into a raging barbarian bent on destruction, its not a true secret of the universe.

He's a psuedointellectual meme man spouting elitist propaganda.

i came to the conclusion that the adam and eve story is about how humanity adopted a dualistic worldview.
adam and eve were in paradise in a perfect world. once they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they started to split things into good and bad and that's also when they realized they were going to die, which is why they started to split things into good and bad in the first place.
we created problems when there were none.
the truth of reality is that everything is god, including me and you and that there is no good or bad.

is this what christopher langan teaches?

>In fact we aren't, because we in fact don't exist. This exchange has never taken place
no, just images of us, images of the exchange, fleeting, untrustworthy images that we can't understand or explain. and yet, for whatever reason, they won't go away and we can't control them.
ack, user, i'm much more sympathetic to your POV than you realize.

user, which exchange has never taken place? the one that we're currently having? you're talking about an exchange, which exchange are you referring to? the one that we're currently having? ah yes, that exchange. i know just the one to which you're talking about, the one that never took place.

This guy gets it. If you aren't dealing in axioms, you're pleb-tier.

um....I've pulled multi 4-5 day no sleepers. What you just said isn't what I've experienced. Now the sleep after those.