Gordon White, Pieces of Eight: Part 1, Christianity’s Shadow |332|

#42
That's an incredibly crass idea of a deity. How about the finest aspirations of man, with all the spite and fear removed, multiplied to perfection. That more closely reflects God NDErs claim to have contact with.
I wonder what your definition of "The finest aspirations of man" is? I wonder if it's really "man's" finest aspirations and not just yours. Moreover, just because someone tell's you they're a God in an NDE does that make it true? If you believe an entity you meet in an NDE or otherwise is a God does that make it true?

That doesn't sound like human perfection to me, but a remarkable lack of self awareness. I want a God much better than Stephen Fry.
Funny thing really, if God's are entities that exist independant of you, I.e. are real, then it really doesn't matter what you want them to be because they can make their own choices in the matter. And those choices may not neccessarily be ones you like. If you, on the other hand, are somehow creating these Gods via your conscious perceptions and making them how you want as a result then you're guilty the same way you claim Stephen Fry is.

This gets to the heart of the question about the very concept of a God. What is a God? What is it's purpose? Does it even have a purpose? What makes a God different from anyone else? And why should anyone even care about whether any exist or not?

My guess is it boils down to power. But go ahead and prove me wrong. I wonder if you can answer these questions in an objective way or if answering them alone would display any of your own crassness and lack of self awareness that you may have. I don't know but I'd love to find out.
 
#44
The picture presented was one of power and control, which tends to reflect mankind's own worst failings. How that picture of the worst which humanity has to offer could be presented as an ideal baffled me completely.
Are you talking about Stephen Fry or what I wrote?

If me, I presented zero ideal. At best my ideal is no God whatsoever. Because if a God is an entity that has some degree of authority it must neccesarily have the power to enforce that authority. If it has no power then I don't really care whether it exists or not because it can't act as as an authority which is the same as not having authority. If it's not there to act as an authority I don't care if it exists either, as it has no relevance. It becomes identical to every other person and thing in existence. Power is what makes things relevant to people. Power is what makes people take notice. Because without power there is no way for anything to affect your life, it would the same as the thing never having existed in the first place. Much like the "serpisio" sense in the "Evil Genius" philisophical problem. Reality is only what is relevant to you.

A person who desires an authority over them or for them to be an authority over someone else is just someone who wants to be a child their whole life. Desiring to be able to cry to mommy and daddy to come save them whenever they're not getting their way. Or desiring to force their will upon others regardless of whether the others like it or not. Desires that are both merely the desire for power and control. They're not people worth respecting as far as I'm concerned.

Which then would loop back into everything else I said in my first post. But go ahead and argue me on that. Argue that it wouldn't just come down to power relations. Because if I'm actually wrong about what I'm saying I'm sure it can be pointed out in a logical way.

If Stephen Fry, then nevermind.
 
#45
Are you talking about Stephen Fry or what I wrote?

If me, I presented zero ideal. At best my ideal is no God whatsoever. Because if a God is an entity that has some degree of authority it must neccesarily have the power to enforce that authority. If it has no power then I don't really care whether it exists or not because it can't act as as an authority which is the same as not having authority. If it's not there to act as an authority I don't care if it exists either, as it has no relevance. It becomes identical to every other person and thing in existence. Power is what makes things relevant to people. Power is what makes people take notice. Because without power there is no way for anything to affect your life, it would the same as the thing never having existed in the first place. Much like the "serpisio" sense in the "Evil Genius" philisophical problem. Reality is only what is relevant to you.

A person who desires an authority over them or for them to be an authority over someone else is just someone who wants to be a child their whole life. Desiring to be able to cry to mommy and daddy to come save them whenever they're not getting their way. Or desiring to force their will upon others regardless of whether the others like it or not. Desires that are both merely the desire for power and control. They're not people worth respecting as far as I'm concerned.

Which then would loop back into everything else I said in my first post. But go ahead and argue me on that. Argue that it wouldn't just come down to power relations. Because if I'm actually wrong about what I'm saying I'm sure it can be pointed out in a logical way.

If Stephen Fry, then nevermind.
Or maybe you just have a thing about power right now. No big deal. This too shall pass.
 
#46
Or maybe you just have a thing about power right now. No big deal. This too shall pass.
You say that as if I'm wrong and if that's the case what's your justification? Because this gets so much to the heart of the questions Alex was asking about. Or at least what I think he was asking about.
 
#47
I think the religion topic could be a lot more interesting if we moved off the religion bashing and moved rather to something like what can we get out of religion today that is still useful. Or, what is universally true through all religions, i.e. talk about comparative mythology. Like how have religions/myths transformed through time, because this also reflects how consciousness has transformed over the ages. And, of course, like Dean Radin did in his recent book, what does religion have to say about psi/ndes. We can leave our personal negative experiences with modern religion out of it, forget our oppressive upbringings, and just look at the bigger picture. Now, that could make for some cool podcasts, which I think we've had here and there. Bernardo's most recent Skeptiko podcast on his new book comes to mind. As well as Don DeGracia (if I'm remember the name correctly)
the current episode is more about "Magic bashing"... i.e. both Magic and Christianity are assuming a certain structure and order to these extended consciousness realms (so are atheists/scientists by pretending they don't exist). I just don't see how we move forward without clearing out some of this underbrush.
 
#48
Personally I think that a certain specific type of religious bashing is still helpful and potentially;y even necessary for progress. Specifically the very idea of a supreme being or a God. As it merely comes down to obeying someone because they're more powerful than you.
maybe, but what if the data suggests a hierarchy of conscoisness... the God thing is on the table.

My girlfriend likes to phrase the question like this: "If Hitler had superpowers, would you become a Nazi? And if your answer is no, then why not?"
I get yr point... on several levels. first off, read Peter Levenda (https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Sinister-Forces-Political-Witchcraft/dp/098418581X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) to understand just how deeply enmeshed the Nazis were in the occult. Peter went to the archives, dug up the documents, and put all speculation to rest -- the Nazis weren't dabbling; they were deeply committed ideologically. They did for the same reason US clandestine operations have done it -- because it works! We may not know how/why it works, but it doesn't do much good to pretend it doesn't. So clearly, for a lot of people the answer to the question is a resounding -- YES. Give me powers in this world now!


Does it matter whether or not Jesus or [insert religious figure here] existed? Does it matter if there really is a Christ consciousness or whatever? Does it matter if there's entities out there capable of affecting the physical world in one way or another? Does it matter if someone purposely created this universe? does it matter if someone or something else set up your life as a learning experience for a lesson they think you need to learn? Etcetera, etcetera.
fair point, but I think you have some context. I want to understand who I and why I'm here in order to make better decisions about how to live my life. so to me, these questions matter a lot.

I'm attempting to train myself to use "magic" by my own definition, it's my life, I don't know what Gordon's definition of "Chaos Magick" is but from the questions Alex seems to be keying up for him and the discussions in this thread I'm kinda doubting it compares to mine. I train magic partially because of the bad encounters I've had with some spirits. I would argue that at least 90% of my current capabilities and any future gains I make will be because of my attitude. My unwillingness to settle and "accept reality." My unwillingness to go "Oh well that guy says he's a God and he told me that attempting to gain magic went against the 'greater good' so I guess I gotta stop now." And my unwillingness to stop even when those same "benevolent" spirits repeatedly attempted to physically prevent us from achieving certain things.
I have not had similar experiences, but I totally get what yr saying. If I had similar experiences I'd be interested in practical solutions over philosophical explanations... then again, one always depends on the other. I mean, whatever you're doing with Magik is based on some assumptions yr making about how "the spirits" operate.


I personally believe that until people understand that they own themselves and they are reponsible for their own choices in life whether they like it or not, we're never going to get anywhere with this stuff. Everyone's just going to continue arguing about who's to blame or trying to prove or disprove the existence of one thing or another as if it really changes much of anything.
yeah, but we're all just trying to get thru this thing and sharing and learning from each other helps. Also, it seems that some people go looking for the paranormal (e.g. encounters with spirits) while other have it thrust upon them.
 
#49
Are you talking about Stephen Fry or what I wrote?

If me, I presented zero ideal. At best my ideal is no God whatsoever. Because if a God is an entity that has some degree of authority it must neccesarily have the power to enforce that authority. If it has no power then I don't really care whether it exists or not because it can't act as as an authority which is the same as not having authority. If it's not there to act as an authority I don't care if it exists either, as it has no relevance. It becomes identical to every other person and thing in existence. Power is what makes things relevant to people. Power is what makes people take notice. Because without power there is no way for anything to affect your life, it would the same as the thing never having existed in the first place. Much like the "serpisio" sense in the "Evil Genius" philisophical problem. Reality is only what is relevant to you.

A person who desires an authority over them or for them to be an authority over someone else is just someone who wants to be a child their whole life. Desiring to be able to cry to mommy and daddy to come save them whenever they're not getting their way. Or desiring to force their will upon others regardless of whether the others like it or not. Desires that are both merely the desire for power and control. They're not people worth respecting as far as I'm concerned.

Which then would loop back into everything else I said in my first post. But go ahead and argue me on that. Argue that it wouldn't just come down to power relations. Because if I'm actually wrong about what I'm saying I'm sure it can be pointed out in a logical way.

If Stephen Fry, then nevermind.
Your position seems to be - I want to do exactly as I please. I don't have to give any reasons for doing it, I just want to, so tell me why I can't. It might appear good, it might not, but it's entirely my business, and if I can use any psychic tricks to get what I want, I will. It sounds like Crowley's "do as they wilt". I have a number of issues with that, principally that Crowley's magic was a kind of normal human ability + 10%. So instead of moving a glass by hand, you claim to move it with your mind, but even making other people believe you've moved it is just as good. God fits the picture as a kind of superhero exactly like the one the atheists reject, think Thor from the Marvel comics. He gets human abilities + 20%. Big Deal. I find that god as ridiculous as anyone, and steadfastly refuse to believe in its existence.

If you can't see how absurd that position is, no argument from me can show you. The Nazi hierarchy were into all kinds of Nordic pseudo-pagan mumbo jumbo as befitted their ethnically based beliefs, but their main task was to transplant the dominant moral framework, Christianity with its Jewish underpinnings, with an alternative that justified what they wanted to do anyway. The trappings of this were facile in retrospect, replacing angels on a tree, sending winterval cards and transposing one set of cultural clichés with another. There was certainly no magic umbrella that protected its citizens from allied bombing once their scheme for world domination began to fall apart under thousands of tons of high explosive. They were a bunch of beerhall thugs and gangsters who ended choking to death on the end of rope.

How that equates with a God of absolute love, truth and justice, can only be through a monumental lack of imagination.
 
#50
I'm attempting to train myself to use "magic" by my own definition, it's my life, I don't know what Gordon's definition of "Chaos Magick" is but from the questions Alex seems to be keying up for him and the discussions in this thread I'm kinda doubting it compares to mine. I train magic partially because of the bad encounters I've had with some spirits. I would argue that at least 90% of my current capabilities and any future gains I make will be because of my attitude. My unwillingness to settle and "accept reality." My unwillingness to go "Oh well that guy says he's a God and he told me that attempting to gain magic went against the 'greater good' so I guess I gotta stop now." And my unwillingness to stop even when those same "benevolent" spirits repeatedly attempted to physically prevent us from achieving certain things.

I personally believe that until people understand that they own themselves and they are reponsible for their own choices in life whether they like it or not, we're never going to get anywhere with this stuff. Everyone's just going to continue arguing about who's to blame or trying to prove or disprove the existence of one thing or another as if it really changes much of anything.
My impression from conversing with you briefly in the past and from posts like that one quoted above is that it appears you have very little knowledge of the past 10,000 years or so of occulted knowledge, whether it pertains to spirituality in general or magic more specifically. I even pointed you to someone who takes a very practical, very methodological approach to magic and you responded that you skimmed his website and apparently all the work he had done was a waste of time. (Even though you clearly had no idea.)

I'm not in any way suggesting that anyone should take someone else's word on anything at all. We should of course be skeptical of any knowledge and judge for ourselves whether some bit of knowledge appears true or not. But you appear at first glance to be someone who considers themselves much "smarter" than anyone at all that has gone before. You appear to me to reject without discrimination and that attitude seems to me to be utterly foolish.

Scientists don't reject calculus and then try to do advanced work in the absence of higher math. It doesn't make any sense to do the same thing in the non-physical realm.
 
Last edited:
#52
A while ago, there was a series of two or three (consecutive) shows that were about bashing Christianity, and I was hoping that would help get that out of the system and allow the upcoming interviews to focus on the interesting stuff... Yet here we are again.
I agree. It can be a bit off-putting for Christians like myself since, except for David Bentley Hart, I don't recall any other highly respected theologians being interviewed. Even then, it wasn't like he was called upon to defend basic doctrines. It just sounds like a one-sided debate.
 
#53
I even pointed you to someone who takes a very practical, very methodological approach to magic and you responded that you skimmed his website and apparently all the work he had done was a waste of time. (Even though you clearly had no idea.)
And to the information you sent me I stated that:

If this stuff is as literal as the rest of the excerpts make it out to be then...
As well as:

But like I said, I still have to do my due dilligence and listen to the podcast before deciding what I think of their "Direct Magick" ideas
So no I did not skim his website and deem everything he said a waste of time as you accuse. I don't have the data to determine that yet.


I'm not in any way suggesting that anyone should take someone else's word on anything at all. We should of course be skeptical of any knowledge and judge for ourselves whether some bit of knowledge appears true or not. But you appear at first glance to be someone who considers themselves much "smarter" than anyone at all that has gone before. You appear to me to reject without discrimination and that attitude seems to me to be utterly foolish.
The reason I constantly reject all this stuff is because every single time I have gone looking for knowledge it always winds up being some religious nonsense. Usually involving making contracts with spirits or some other form of outsourcing your own responsibility. After awhile of dead end after dead end and religious cult after religious cult I stopped bothering and just did it myself. It's also the reason I am so passionate in teh way I tal here. I want german engineering standards of excellence, not feelings. Feelings are not valid arguments. Feelings don't matter in and of themselves. I expect my reasoning to be torn down at least as hard as I tear down the reasoning of others. I want to make sure that when I say something I'm actually right. Not that I just feel like I'm right. But that I can back up what I'm saying from a quadrillion angles in reality. And if someone else can't handle that same level of scrutiny in return for their own arguments, that's their own fault. If their only arguments to me are "You're so mean." then they're more worthy of being mocked than debated.

Skeptiko itself has proven to be the best decent source of information that I've managed to find so far. I've found a wealth of decent corroborative information from people like Dr. Jack Hunter. Some of the stuff on Forest Ackerman. The guy who talked about sick building syndrome. The studies on how goal oriented men seem to do better at the predicting pictures test and so on. Sure I can't name every nitty gritty detail of them right now but the fact that people with much more resources and accreditation than me were able to find the same results has definitely been valuable information to find.

The only other repeatedly reliable source of information and methodologies I've had are, ironically, a certain small group of people I talk to via projection. Their advice on methods to try has repeatedly proved itself true and accurate. Hell they've even helped me by setting up training sessions via shared dreams. Training sessions which then had real world effects on my ability. I've even managed to pull them down here, making them tangible poltergeists themselves, a few times and do joint work with them trying to help my girlfriend and I achieve what we're trying to do. This is a group effort as I've stated before. It is incredibly far from me thinking I'm smarter than everyone who came before me considering those are the people trying to directly help me as best as they can. Without the sheer amount of help I have gotten I doubt I'd be anywhere near the level of skill and ability I currently am let alone would like to be. Can I truly prove any of it right now? No, and that's just how it is.

I've started to go looking at Gordon Whites stuff on Runesoup as well but I'm really new to his stuff but I'm willing to give it a chance. But I will never, ever accept any form of outsourcing. No drugs, no "angels," no contracts, none of it. It is simply not what I'm trying to do. And given the sheer amount of success I have had I can't really blame myself for thinking the way I do. Because clearly my way just plain works even if it's not exactly 100% of what I want at the moment.

I also spend almost all of my time training, or at least as much as I can. So I don't exactly have a lot of time to go reading and listening up on the results of other peoples work all the time. I barely spend any time time writing my own stuff down because the time I'd be spending on that could’ve been spent training to get the knowledge that I would’ve wanted to write down in the first place. But I am at least making that attempt now bit by bit. But the results tehmselves will always take top priority. Words on a page will never be as good of proof as being able to hold a crackling ball of energy in your hand right in front of someone.
 
#55
I agree. It can be a bit off-putting for Christians like myself since, except for David Bentley Hart, I don't recall any other highly respected theologians being interviewed. Even then, it wasn't like he was called upon to defend basic doctrines. It just sounds like a one-sided debate.
I never knew about Yahweh's wife. I never knew Satan was invented and written into Old Testament stories to improve Yahweh's image. I thought this was new, important information about my tradition.
 
#56
And to the information you sent me I stated that:



As well as:



So no I did not skim his website and deem everything he said a waste of time as you accuse. I don't have the data to determine that yet.




The reason I constantly reject all this stuff is because every single time I have gone looking for knowledge it always winds up being some religious nonsense. Usually involving making contracts with spirits or some other form of outsourcing your own responsibility. After awhile of dead end after dead end and religious cult after religious cult I stopped bothering and just did it myself. It's also the reason I am so passionate in teh way I tal here. I want german engineering standards of excellence, not feelings. Feelings are not valid arguments. Feelings don't matter in and of themselves. I expect my reasoning to be torn down at least as hard as I tear down the reasoning of others. I want to make sure that when I say something I'm actually right. Not that I just feel like I'm right. But that I can back up what I'm saying from a quadrillion angles in reality. And if someone else can't handle that same level of scrutiny in return for their own arguments, that's their own fault. If their only arguments to me are "You're so mean." then they're more worthy of being mocked than debated.

Skeptiko itself has proven to be the best decent source of information that I've managed to find so far. I've found a wealth of decent corroborative information from people like Dr. Jack Hunter. Some of the stuff on Forest Ackerman. The guy who talked about sick building syndrome. The studies on how goal oriented men seem to do better at the predicting pictures test and so on. Sure I can't name every nitty gritty detail of them right now but the fact that people with much more resources and accreditation than me were able to find the same results has definitely been valuable information to find.

The only other repeatedly reliable source of information and methodologies I've had are, ironically, a certain small group of people I talk to via projection. Their advice on methods to try has repeatedly proved itself true and accurate. Hell they've even helped me by setting up training sessions via shared dreams. Training sessions which then had real world effects on my ability. I've even managed to pull them down here, making them tangible poltergeists themselves, a few times and do joint work with them trying to help my girlfriend and I achieve what we're trying to do. This is a group effort as I've stated before. It is incredibly far from me thinking I'm smarter than everyone who came before me considering those are the people trying to directly help me as best as they can. Without the sheer amount of help I have gotten I doubt I'd be anywhere near the level of skill and ability I currently am let alone would like to be. Can I truly prove any of it right now? No, and that's just how it is.

I've started to go looking at Gordon Whites stuff on Runesoup as well but I'm really new to his stuff but I'm willing to give it a chance. But I will never, ever accept any form of outsourcing. No drugs, no "angels," no contracts, none of it. It is simply not what I'm trying to do. And given the sheer amount of success I have had I can't really blame myself for thinking the way I do. Because clearly my way just plain works even if it's not exactly 100% of what I want at the moment.

I also spend almost all of my time training, or at least as much as I can. So I don't exactly have a lot of time to go reading and listening up on the results of other peoples work all the time. I barely spend any time time writing my own stuff down because the time I'd be spending on that could’ve been spent training to get the knowledge that I would’ve wanted to write down in the first place. But I am at least making that attempt now bit by bit. But the results tehmselves will always take top priority. Words on a page will never be as good of proof as being able to hold a crackling ball of energy in your hand right in front of someone.
Cool. I see more where you are coming from. Thanks for spending the time to elaborate.
 
#57
maybe, but what if the data suggests a hierarchy of conscoisness... the God thing is on the table.
Oh I totally agree that there's evidence for it. The difference is that I rejected the hierarchy. I asked questions, I asked why they thought they had any sort of authority. And they couldn't give any justification for it. So I called bullshit on them especially when I was outright told I was "not allowed" to train magic in the way that I am. It's why I have such a negative view of any concept of a hierarchy or a supreme being because I had to deal with people claiming to be exactly that. I can tell you quite a number of stories about encounters that I bet would sound outright crazy. I mean the best proof these people were willing to give me that I should care about their existence was to physically harm and attempt to kill me on numerous occasions. It's not representative of everyone, not by a long shot, It seems to be a diverse as down here. But that itself also kinda disproved the idea of total dominion by these people because there's this whole other group over there that doesn't even associate itself with the people claiming authority. But at the same time how do I know how representative the stuff I went through is of any potential group? I Just don't know. So I just default to pure logic. And pure logic has a major problem defining a God as actually being omnipotent. Because if you have two people on that level, then they're not omnipotent. If you only have one, it doesn’t in and of itself mean you could never have two. Or that they're omnipotent. It only means that they have more of something than anyone else. They could seem omnipotent without actually being omnipotent by just being the most powerful, skilled thing In the universe. I tend to default to the logic that if it can happen once then it can happen an infinite number of times. So if one being can create the universe so can any other provided they do the same things as the first. Maybe they need to spend a lot of time learning how to do that but there's no reason to consider it intrinsically impossible as far as I'm concerned.

I get yr point... on several levels. first off, read Peter Levenda (https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Sinister-Forces-Political-Witchcraft/dp/098418581X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) to understand just how deeply enmeshed the Nazis were in the occult. Peter went to the archives, dug up the documents, and put all speculation to rest -- the Nazis weren't dabbling; they were deeply committed ideologically. They did for the same reason US clandestine operations have done it -- because it works! We may not know how/why it works, but it doesn't do much good to pretend it doesn't. So clearly, for a lot of people the answer to the question is a resounding -- YES. Give me powers in this world now!
The big issue with the “give me powers” method is that if you're getting your powers from someone else, I.e. a spirit, that same spirit could just decide they don't like you one day and that's it. Or they could decide to work against you and then what are you going to do? You never had any of the power in the first place. You become dependant on them for everything.

Someone who I'll refer to as Ms. Gold who taught me a lot about magic had a good saying for this

“Anything that can be given can be taken away because it's owned by the giver not the receiver. So you give to yourself through your training, knowledge and experience.”

I have not had similar experiences, but I totally get what yr saying. If I had similar experiences I'd be interested in practical solutions over philosophical explanations... then again, one always depends on the other. I mean, whatever you're doing with Magik is based on some assumptions yr making about how "the spirits" operate.
I don't do anything with spirits other than get some advice although sometimes I've done joint training sessions and similar with them. But I never ask them to outright do things for me then claim it was me who had the power. That's not magic as far as I'm concerned. The simple explanation is that I train to use energy without any middlemen. Making it no different than controlling any other muscle in my body. The only real difference is that energy does not seem to be solid. It seems to be a permanent fluid that can get thicker and thinner the more you pack into an area but never actually changes state. It also seems that energy has a sort of frequency or textured pattern to it. Through manipulation of the texture and density of the energy you attempt to mimic that which already exists in nature. Such as transforming your energy into kinetic energy to achieve kinetic effects. Transforming it into thermal energy to achieve thermal effects. Through a combination of transformation and direction you can achieve any effect that exists in nature in the way that you want. Mixing and matching effects together to get new effects that didn't technically exist before but were still possible the whole time. That is at least the goal I'm trying to achieve.

I've spent way too much time today in the comments section.
 
#58
Your position seems to be - I want to do exactly as I please. I don't have to give any reasons for doing it, I just want to, so tell me why I can't. It might appear good, it might not, but it's entirely my business, and if I can use any psychic tricks to get what I want, I will.
Yep that's pretty much my position. it's also literally every animal on the planet's position too. Including you. Everyone and everything does what they want when they want to do it. The only thing that changes is the desire and the reasons they desire one thing in one moment and another in another moment. The reward in other words. The only differnce is that I'm just being honest about it. I'm not trying to dress it up as good or bad or neccessary or anything else. I'm just calling it what it is. Something I wanted to do. Because I know that morality doesn't exist. Its all just people's desires.

If you can't see how absurd that position is, no argument from me can show you.
Ok so... what's your argument? Is your argument that people shouldn't want to do what they want? Literally that people shouldn't be happy? If so that's totally hypocritical of you.

Take you for example, why'd you reply to my comment? Because you wanted to, Why'd you want to? I don't know, but you did. You could've done any number of things with the time it took for you to reply to me but for whatever reason replying seemed like the thing you most wanted to do. so you did it. It had the greatest reward for you, whatever that reward might have been. even a good feeling is a reward.

So.... if your position is that people shouldn't be happy...then... explain yourself. I mean are you really going to try arguing that you didn't want to reply to me? Or would you try dressing it up as obligaton or something else?
 
Last edited:
#59
Feelings don't matter in and of themselves.
I disagree. In fact, I think they could very well be the only things that matter in and of themselves. Hell, this whole ideology you have about not wanting to just be given power/knowledge is based on a feeling: The feeling you have that you'd rather do it yourself. You could argue that you consider this the most logical approach, but wanting to value logic is a feeling. You're arguing that everything people do is based on desires, and desires are pure feelings.

Because I know that morality doesn't exist.
Then from what do you derive this judgement:

As far as I'm concerned anyone who believes that it's possible for anything to be intrinsically superior to themselves is an abject coward who drags themselves down and by extension holds back those around them.
"Abject coward" is a pretty morally-charged accusation to make. Saying they "drag themselves down and hold back others", and implying that that's a bad thing, is also a moral judgement, as is the implication that there's something "higher" that people can be dragged down or held back from.
 
#60
. I mean are you really going to try arguing that you didn't want to reply to me? Or would you try dressing it up as obligaton or something else?
My reply was based on the strong suspicion you're trolling the board, are probably quite young and inexperienced, and have a number of issues you're trying to work through. That's fine with me, but if you get stuck on the knee jerk responses of an angry fourteen year old for too long, and you're clearly older than that, people are going to treat you like an adolescent for the rest of your life. That may reinforce your suspicion that people are all selfish shits, but sooner of later you'll have to look in the mirror.

This forum is a place where people who are interested in or convinced by the role of mind, can discuss that role in a mature way. We differ in various ways but that common interest keeps us posting. So to have someone come along who shows no awareness of the debates demanding to be convinced, like, now, is not going to encourage positive engagement. People may reply, but they'll probably do so on the basis you haven't thought very strongly about the issues, which will confirm your suspicion that the world is full of patronising idiots.
 
Top